text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'In this work we investigate the effect of local dissipation on the presence of density-wave ordering in spinful fermions with both local and nearest-neighbor interactions as described by the extended Hubbard model. We find density-wave order to be robust against decoherence effects up to a critical point where the system becomes homogeneous with no spatial ordering. Our results will be relevant for future cold-atom experiments using fermions with non-local interactions arising from the dressing by highly-excited Rydberg states, which have finite lifetimes due to spontaneous emission processes.'
author:
- Jaromir Panas
- Michael Pasek
- Arya Dhar
- Tao Qin
- 'Andreas Gei[ß]{}ler'
- 'Mohsen Hafez-Torbati'
- 'Max E. Sorantin'
- Irakli Titvinidze
- Walter Hofstetter
bibliography:
- 'main\_text\_file.bib'
title: 'Density-wave steady-state phase of dissipative ultracold fermions with nearest-neighbor interactions'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Coupling to the environment is expected to change the properties of a quantum system. In experiments it usually leads to linewidth broadening [@goldschmidt2016; @aman2016], decoherence and finite lifetime of states [@zeiher2015; @zeiher2016]. These dissipative effects are usually limiting experiments. However, coupling between a system and the environment can also lead to exciting new phenomena, such as the quantum Zeno effect [@vidanovic2014; @bernier2014; @sarkar2014]. Dissipation might also be seen as a tool, allowing to drive the system towards a desired state. Recent proposals include engineering dissipative dynamics to create entangled states [@kraus2008] or to drive the system to Bose-Einstein condensation [@diehl2008]. The study of open quantum systems is also useful for investigating transport properties of quantum dots [@dzhioev2011; @dorda2014; @schwarz2016; @fugger2018] or correlated structures [@ajisaka2012; @knap2013; @titvinidze2015; @titvinidze2016].
An approach often followed in investigations of open quantum systems involves using well-established methods in quantum optics, e.g., the master equation [@breuer2002][@carmichael2002], to describe dissipation in lattice models, e.g., the Hubbard model [@hubbard1963; @gutzwiller1963; @konamori1963], or the Bose-Hubbard model [@gersch1963]. These can be experimentally realized with optical lattices [@jaksch1998; @greiner2002; @joerdens2008; @schneider2008], which allow for a close comparison between theory and experiment.
The fermionic Hubbard model was originally proposed to study magnetic properties of materials with strong electronic correlations [@varney2009]. Its extended version, including non-local interactions, has been extensively studied due to its relevance for understanding strongly-correlated electronic materials [@micnas1988; @dagotto1994; @chattopadhyay1997; @aichhorn2004; @kapcia2017; @terletska2017; @terletska2018; @mckenzie2001; @merino2001; @kobayashi2004; @calandra2002]. In these theoretical investigations phases such as spin density-wave (SDW), charge density-wave (CDW) and charge ordered metals (COM) were observed. Some evidence suggests also that a “half-metallic” phase could be found [@garg2014].
In experiment, long-range interactions between ultracold atoms can be realized in several ways by using dipolar quantum gases [@baranov2012]. Recently, the extended Hubbard model has been realized in experiments with polar molecules [@yan2013] and magnetic atoms [@baier2016]. Another promising approach is one, in which Rydberg excitations [@gallagher1988] are used. Due to the extreme properties of atoms excited to Rydberg state the van der Waals interaction between them can become the dominant energy scale in the system. Loading Rydberg atoms into deep optical lattices has been achieved recently [@schauss2012; @schauss2015; @zeiher2016; @zeiher2017; @schauss2018], allowing the realization of spin-lattice models and observation of spatial ordering due to long-range interaction. Corresponding theoretical investigations for Rydberg atoms in optical lattices have been recently performed predicting crystallization in the frozen limit [@pohl2010; @schachenmayer2010; @weimer2010; @vermersch2015]. Beyond the frozen limit, melting of crystalline structure and formation of supersolid due to kinetic energy has been observed [@lauer2012; @geissler2017; @li2018]. Effects of dissipation have also been investigated in the frozen limit with a variational principle [@weimer2015].
However, to our knowledge there has been so far no thorough investigation of the competition between all of the relevant energy scales set by (i) local interaction between atoms, (ii) kinetic energy due to their itinerant nature, (iii) non-local interaction, and (iv) dissipation. The last process is particularly relevant both for experimental realizations of the extended Hubbard model with Rydberg atoms, which are inherently dissipative, and for a better understanding of the possible ordered phases which can appear in open quantum many-body systems.
To investigate this problem we employ the recently developed Lindblad dynamical mean-field theory (L-DMFT) [@knap2013; @titvinidze2015; @titvinidze2016]. Although DMFT has some limitations due to its local self-energy – without non-local extensions it cannot describe, e.g., *d*-wave superconductivity [@lichtenstein2000] – it has proven highly successful in the study of correlated lattice problems [@georges1996]. Several approaches have been previously proposed to extend the method to the non-equilibrium regime [@aron2013; @aoki2014; @li2015]. However, none of these allowed to introduce dissipation on the level of the master equation. The L-DMFT method, on the other hand, treats out-of-equilibrium lattice problems by using an appropriately chosen type of impurity solver for the corresponding Anderson impurity model, called the auxiliary master equation approach (AMEA) [@knap2013; @dorda2014]. In contrast to the previous works using this method, which considered a closed quantum system of infinite size, we study a model of an open quantum system. We use the L-DMFT method to investigate the effect of physical dissipation processes on strongly-correlated many-body phases.
The outline of the article is as follows. In Sec. \[sec:ham\] we describe in more details the problem which we investigate. In Sec. \[sec:model\] we introduce our model Hamiltonian, the extended Hubbard model. Possible experimental realization of this model is then discussed in Sec. \[sec:rydberg\]. The experimentally-relevant dissipative processes that are included in our calculations are introduced in Sec. \[sec:dis\]. A short overview of the L-DMFT technique and its adaptation to dissipative systems is given in Sec. \[sec:ldmft\]. We present our results in Sec. \[sec:results\] on the competition between density-wave ordering and decoherence. Finally, in Sec. \[sec:end\], results are summarized.
Description of the system {#sec:ham}
=========================
Model Hamiltonian {#sec:model}
-----------------
We describe the coherent part of the dynamics by the 2-dimensional (2D) spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ extended Hubbard model (EHM), as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:model\], with the following Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:ehm}
\begin{split}
\hat{H} & = - J\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle, \sigma} \hat{c}^\dag_{i,\sigma} \hat{c}^{\phantom\dag}_{j,\sigma}
+ \epsilon\sum_{i,\sigma} \hat{c}^\dag_{i,\sigma} \hat{c}^{\phantom\dag}_{i,\sigma} \\
& + U\sum_{i} \hat{n}_{i,\downarrow} \hat{n}_{i,\uparrow}
+ \frac{V}{2}\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle,\sigma,\sigma'} \hat{n}_{i,\sigma} \hat{n}_{j,\sigma'}
\end{split}$$ where index $i$ runs over all lattice sites, $\langle i, j\rangle$ indicates a sum over nearest-neighbor (NN) sites independently, $\hat{c}^{\phantom\dag}_{i,\sigma}$ ($\hat{c}^\dag_{i,\sigma}$) is the fermionic annihilation (creation) operator for a particle on site $i$ with spin $\sigma\in\{\uparrow,\downarrow\}$, $\epsilon$ is the on-site energy, $U$ is the local interaction strength, $V$ is the NN interaction strength, $J$ is the hopping amplitude between NN and $\hat{n}_{i,\sigma}=\hat{c}^\dag_{i,\sigma}\hat{c}^{\phantom\dag}_{i,\sigma}$. In the following we set $\hbar=1$ and $J=1$ as the unit of energy, unless stated otherwise. At zero temperature and with a Fermi energy $\epsilon_F=0$, the on-site energy $\epsilon$ determines the filling of the system. For example, if it is equal to $\epsilon=-U / 2 - 4 V$ then the system is at half-filling, i.e., at total density $\sum_i \langle \hat{n}_i \rangle= \sum_i ( \langle \hat{n}_{i,\uparrow}\rangle + \langle \hat{n}_{i,\downarrow}\rangle) = N$, with $N$ being the number of sites in the lattice.
The 2D EHM for spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ fermions has been extensively studied in condensed-matter physics, due to its relevance for understanding $d$-wave pairing and the spatial charge ordering in a wealth of materials. On the square lattice at half-filling, seminal mean-field calculations [@micnas1988; @dagotto1994; @chattopadhyay1997] showed that there exist only two stable equilibrium phases for the EHM with repulsive interactions, namely the spin density wave (SDW) and charge density wave (CDW) phases, separated by a phase boundary at $V_c = U/4$. More recent beyond-mean-field calculations were also performed with the variational cluster approach [@aichhorn2004], single-site DMFT [@kapcia2017], cluster DMFT [@terletska2017], and GW+EDMFT [@ayral2017]. These studies found metallic, Mott-insulating, and charge-ordered phases at half-filling, but long-range antiferromagnetic order was suppressed at the outset. At quarter-filling $\sum_i \langle \hat{n}_i \rangle=0.5N$, for both non-zero local and nearest-neighbor repulsion, previous studies have shown that a checkerboard CDW phase appears at large $V$ [@mckenzie2001] and a $d_{xy}$-wave superconducting phase at intermediate values of $V$ [@merino2001; @kobayashi2004]. In the limit $U,V\gg t$, the ground state was found to be insulating with checkerboard CDW ordering and long-range antiferromagnetism [@mckenzie2001; @calandra2002], based on slave boson calculations and exact diagonalization. The extended Hubbard model has also been recently investigated beyond half- and quarter-fillings [@kapcia2017; @terletska2018]. These works reported the observation of charge-ordered insulator (COI), charge-ordered metal (COM) and Fermi liquid (FL) phases. It was shown that the phase transition from FL phase to quarter-filled COI is discontinuous while the transitions from quarter-filled COI to COM phase and from COM to FL phase are continuous. However, in these studies only non-magnetically ordered phases were considered. In the following we work mainly away from half-filling, and focus our study on the above-mentioned charge-ordered phase and its robustness with respect to dephasing processes.
Relevance to experiments with Rydberg-dressed fermions in optical lattices {#sec:rydberg}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fermionic Hubbard model with only local interactions can be experimentally simulated by ultracold alkali atoms, e.g., $^{40}$K potassium atoms, loaded into optical lattices [@joerdens2008; @schneider2008]. Such an experimental set-up is indeed very flexible, and allows for the fine-tuning of physical parameters and realization of lattices with different geometries. This allows to explore different parts of the phase diagram of the Hubbard model, including the observation of the Mott insulator and metallic phases [@joerdens2008; @schneider2008].
A non-local interaction of the type present in the EHM can be achieved by coupling fermionic atoms in their ground state to highly-excited Rydberg states [@gallagher1988]. These Rydberg states have a large principal quantum number $n$ which results in exaggerated properties, such as a large radius of the valence electron orbital [@gallagher1988] which scales as $n^2$ and can reach distances on the order of $\sim \mu m$. The large spatial extension of the Rydberg atom, in extreme cases comparable to the typical spacing between lattice sites in an optical lattice, results in significant non-local inter-atom interactions with the van der Waals profile [@singer2005; @saffman2010] $$\label{eq:VvdW}
V_{vdW;ij} = \frac{C_6}{a^6|\textbf{i}-\textbf{j}|^6}$$ where $a$ is the lattice spacing, $|\textbf{i}-\textbf{j}|$ the distance between lattice sites $i$ and $j$, and $C_6$ determines the strength of the interaction. This coupling to a Rydberg state can be realized through interaction of atoms with coherent light of appropriately-chosen frequency and intensity. With each atom represented as a two-level system, the coupling is described in the rotating wave approximation [@cohen1998] by an effective Rabi frequency $\Omega_\mathrm{eff}$ and detuning $\delta_\mathrm{eff}$. In order to simulate experimentally the EHM for spin-$\frac{1}{2}$, one could focus on the so-called dressing regime, where the effective detuning is much larger than the Rabi frequency $\delta_\mathrm{eff}\gg \Omega_\mathrm{eff}$ [@balewski2014]. In this regime a new eigenstate emerges, with properties arising dominantly from the ground state of the atom with a small admixture of properties from the excited Rydberg state. The strength and shape of the interaction potential can then be tuned through the amount of admixture between the two states. The effective potential in this Rydberg-dressing regime is then [@henkel2010] $$\label{eq:VvdWef}
V_{\mathrm{eff};ij} = \frac{\tilde{C}_6}{a^6|\textbf{i}-\textbf{j}|^6+R_c^6},$$ with effective strength $\tilde{C}_6$ and soft-core radius $R_c$. With appropriate choice of experimental parameters, one can reach a regime in which only nearest-neighbor and local interaction processes are relevant for the dynamics. More detailed discussion of the dressed regime can be found in Appendix \[appsec:dress\]. In particular, the EHM can be realized with $^{40}$K potassium atoms in the dressing regime, with spin obtained by using two different hyperfine states which in turn are coupled with large detuning to the excited Rydberg states (see Fig. \[fig:model\]) to realize non-local interaction.
Recently, several experiments with bosonic Rydberg atoms loaded into optical lattice have been performed [@viteau2011; @zeiher2016; @schauss2012; @schauss2015; @zeiher2017; @schauss2018]. In order to reach longer time scales in the experiments the regime of vanishingly small hopping between lattice sites has been used [@zeiher2016; @schauss2012; @schauss2015; @zeiher2017; @schauss2018]. This allowed observation of an emerging ordering in the lattice due to the long-range interaction [@schauss2012; @schauss2015; @schauss2018]. However, even in the frozen limit, where the Hamiltonian of Rydberg-dressed atoms can be rewritten as an Ising quantum spin model [@schauss2018], dissipation was already seen as a major obstacle causing, e.g., avalanche loss of particles from the system [@zeiher2016]. In the following, we will go beyond the frozen limit and investigate possible steady-state phases of itinerant atoms which emerge from the full competition between kinetic processes and both short- and long-range interaction.
Dissipative processes {#sec:dis}
---------------------
### Model
In the above discussion we have focused on *coherent* processes that are present in experiments. However, Rydberg excited states have a relatively short lifetime due to spontaneous emission and black-body radiation [@loew2012; @desalvo2016; @goldschmidt2016]. To take these into account one must include the coupling of the system to its environment, and treat it as a many-body open quantum system. In this paper, we aim in particular at studying the effects of dephasing that occur due to the Rydberg-dressing.
As is often the case in the theory of open quantum systems, we will use the Born-Markov approximation to describe the evolution of the system. As a result, we can use the Lindblad master equation [@breuer2002; @carmichael2002] $$\label{eq:liouvillian}
\frac{d \hat{\rho}}{d t} = -i\left[\hat{H}, \hat{\rho} \right] + { \settoheight{\dhatheight}{\ensuremath{\hat{\mathcal{L}}}} \addtolength{\dhatheight}{-0.35ex} \hat{\vphantom{\rule{1pt}{\dhatheight}} \smash{\hat{\mathcal{L}}}}}[\hat{\rho}]$$ where $\hat{\rho}$ is the density matrix operator, and ${ \settoheight{\dhatheight}{\ensuremath{\hat{\mathcal{L}}}} \addtolength{\dhatheight}{-0.35ex} \hat{\vphantom{\rule{1pt}{\dhatheight}} \smash{\hat{\mathcal{L}}}}}$ is the superoperator which describes dissipation. In the Lindblad equation it is defined according to $$\label{eq:liouvillian2}
{ \settoheight{\dhatheight}{\ensuremath{\hat{\mathcal{L}}}} \addtolength{\dhatheight}{-0.35ex} \hat{\vphantom{\rule{1pt}{\dhatheight}} \smash{\hat{\mathcal{L}}}}}[\hat{\rho}] = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\mu\nu} \Gamma_{\mu,\nu} \left( 2 \hat{L}_\nu \hat{\rho} \hat{L}^\dagger_\mu - \left\{ \hat{L}^\dagger_\mu \hat{L}_\nu, \hat{\rho} \right\} \right),$$ where $\hat{L}_\mu$ are jump operators, $\Gamma_{\mu\nu}$ are dissipation coefficients and $\mu$, $\nu$ iterate over relevant quantum numbers. Regarding the relevant jump operators to include in our description, we assume here that the dominant dissipative effects for Rydberg atoms are spontaneous emission processes with rate $\Gamma_\mathrm{se}$ (see Fig. \[fig:model\]). This can be mapped within the dressing regime to a dephasing process and described by the effective dephasing rate $\Gamma_\mathrm{dp}$ and the following jump operator (see App. \[appsec:dress\]) $$\label{eq:Ldp}
\hat{L}_{{dp},i,\sigma} = \hat{c}_{i,\sigma}^\dag\hat{c}^{\phantom\dag}_{i,\sigma}.$$ Note that with this type of jump operator the time evolution given by Eq. is effectively quartic in terms of creation and annihilation operators. Therefore, effects of dissipation are incorporated into the self-energy, together with the effects of interaction.
Such dephasing terms conserve the local particle number and hence cannot change the local occupation. One of the effects of this type of dissipation on the many-body state is, however, to cause the decay of the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix and drive the system towards the infinite-temperature state in the absence of an external thermal bath (cf. Appendix \[appsec:disheat\] and [@sarkar2014; @bernier2014]).
Dephasing terms of the form in Eq. correspond, in the theory of open quantum systems, to a continuous measurement process of the site occupation variable (see [@breuer2002], Ch. 3.5). Such terms are also useful to describe the coupling of the local fermion density to the environment through non-local interactions [@sarkar2014; @bernier2014].
Non-Equilibrium DMFT: auxiliary master equation approach {#sec:ldmft}
========================================================
The auxiliary master equation approach (AMEA) to non-equilibrium DMFT, here referred to as L-DMFT, has been proposed and developed to study transport properties of a correlated electronic layer coupled to non-interacting leads [@knap2013; @titvinidze2015; @titvinidze2016]. However, we show here that the method has potential for applications to other types of out-of-equilibrium problems, e.g., a lattice system with local dissipation. We describe how to adapt the method to such a problem and apply it to the extended Hubbard model with local dephasing. As described in the preceding section, this model can be simulated with Rydberg atoms loaded into optical lattices, where the dissipative processes are naturally present.
The L-DMFT method allows to find the steady-state of a system far-from-equilibrium in a self-consistent way and then to calculate static and dynamic local quantities. Due to the self-consistent approach it is better to have a unique steady-state. If we were to consider a closed system described by the Hamiltonian of Eq. , we would face the problem of non-unique steady-states. Indeed, for a closed system there are as many steady-states as there are eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. As we are interested in an open quantum system, where the lattice is subject to dephasing, this issue should not occur. While the dissipation indeed renders the steady-state unique, it also generically heats the system and drives it towards an uninteresting, infinite-temperature steady-state [@bernier2014] (App. \[appsec:disheat\]).
In order to have a non-trivial steady-state we assume that each site of the extended Hubbard model is coupled to a separate heat and particle reservoir that is always in thermal equilibrium, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:model\]. The local reservoirs act as a heat drain and allow us to study the limit of vanishing dissipation strength by lifting the degeneracy of the steady-states. We will use an exactly solvable model for the bath known as Davies’ model of heat conduction [@davies1978] or Büttiker’s heat-bath model [@buttiker1985; @buttiker1986]. This heat-bath model was recently employed to study the effect of dissipation on interacting many-body systems, using a variant of non-equilibrium DMFT [@tsuji2010; @aron2013; @aoki2014; @li2015; @qin2018] and quantum Monte Carlo path integrals [@yan2018]. To put the additional thermal baths into context we note that they are commonly used in context of the Floquet-DMFT to achieve *inhomogeneous* equations with a unique, non-trivial solution of the equations for the steady-state [@aoki2014; @qin2018]. Without heat-baths a periodically driven system approaches an infinite temperature state in the long timescale, but in the intermediate timescale it can be found in a quasistationary, Floquet prethermalized state [@peronaci2018]. Overall, heat-bath can be treated there as a theoretical “trick” for numerical methods, which allows to study the intermediate timescale state as a steady-state. We also note that recently an experiment was performed, in which an optical lattice was coupled to a thermal reservoir of atoms captured in a magneto-optical trap [@chong2018].
The local thermal baths are assumed to be one-dimensional semi-infinite chains of non-interacting fermions with hopping $J_b$ between neighboring sites and a retarded Green function given by $$\label{eq:leadGf}
g_b^R(\omega) = \frac{\omega}{2 J_b^2}-\rmi\frac{\sqrt{4J_b^2-\omega^2}}{2J_b^2}.$$ As the bath is assumed to be always in thermal equilibrium, its Keldysh Green function is given by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem $$\label{eq:fl_dis_rel}
g_b^K(\omega) = 2\rmi\left[ 1 -2f_b(\omega) \right]\mathrm{Im}\{g_b^R(\omega)\},$$ where $f_b(\omega)$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution. We set the Fermi energy (chemical potential) $\epsilon_F=0$ and the temperature $T=0$. The value of hopping in the thermal baths is set to $J_b=7.5$ which gives a half-bandwidth ($2J_b$) on the order of magnitude of the maximal considered value of $U$. This allows for thermalization in a broad energy spectrum even in the presence of the Hubbard band splitting due to the local interaction. The coupling of the local thermal baths to the system is realized via exchange of particles with hopping amplitude $\nu$. The particular form of this coupling will be introduced in the next section.
DMFT self-consistency {#subsec:dmftsc}
---------------------
In DMFT a single approximation is made that the self-energy is a purely local quantity [@georges1996], such that $$\Sigma_{ij,\sigma}(\omega) = \delta_{ij} \Sigma_{i,\sigma}(\omega),$$ where $i$ and $j$ are lattice indices. As a consequence one is able to map a full lattice problem onto a set of local effective quantum impurity models, which significantly reduces the size of the many-body problem while fully preserving the nature of local quantum correlations. These impurity problems are coupled in the self-consistent approach via a Dyson equation given further in text.
Due to the local character of DMFT, we must however treat the non-local nearest-neighbor interaction term in Eq. within a Hartree mean-field approximation, where the interaction operator is mapped onto $$\frac{V}{2}\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle,\sigma} \hat{n}_{i,\sigma} \hat{n}_{j,\sigma} \to
V\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle,\sigma} \hat{n}_{i,\sigma} \langle \hat{n}_{j,\sigma} \rangle$$ with $\langle \hat{n}_{j,\sigma}\rangle$ determined self-consistently.
The model which we consider is translationally invariant, which allows to find a symmetry between lattice sites and reduce the size to a small number of inequivalent impurity problems. However, the symmetry of the ground state on the lattice can be spontaneously reduced in certain ordered phases such as the CDW phase, which we want to investigate. We assume throughout this work that the system has two translationally invariant sublattices, $A$ and $B$, which results in two different impurity problems to solve. The sublattices are defined such that each site from sublattice $A$ is neighboring only with sites belonging to sublattice $B$ and vice versa, see Fig. \[fig:model\].
The derivation of the DMFT equations in the non-equilibrium Keldysh formalism is well established in the literature [@knap2013; @aoki2014; @titvinidze2015]. We refer the reader in particular to Ref. , while here we present the differences with respect to this reference, which arise from the two-sublattice structure and geometry of the system that we consider here. We use a notation for the Green function in which $$\mathbf{G} = \begin{pmatrix} G_{AA} & G_{AB} \\ G_{BA} & G_{BB}\end{pmatrix},$$ where the $A$ and $B$ indices mark each sublattice. On top of that, to introduce retarded ($R$), advanced ($A$) and Keldysh ($K$) components of the Green functions, we use the notation $${ \underline{\mathbf{G}}} = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{G}^R & \mathbf{G}^K \\ \mathbf{0} & \mathbf{G}^A \end{pmatrix}.$$ Due to the translational invariance of the sublattices $A$ and $B$ one can perform a Fourier transform with a reduced Brillouin zone ($BZ'$). In analogy to Ref. [@titvinidze2015] we express the Green functions in momentum space. The Green functions of the non-interacting model decoupled from the thermal bath is given by $$\mathbf{g}_0^R(\vec{k},\omega) = \begin{pmatrix} \omega + \rmi 0^+ -\epsilon & -E_c(\vec{k}) \\ -E_c(\vec{k}) & \omega + \rmi 0^+ - \epsilon
\end{pmatrix}^{-1},$$ where $E_c(\vec{k})=-2J(\cos(k_x)+\cos(k_y))$, and with wave-vectors $\vec{k}$ from the reduced Brillouin zone. Correspondingly, as the local baths are decoupled from one another, their Green functions after Fourier transform have the form $$\label{eq:ABnot}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{g}_b^{R/K/A} (\vec{k},\omega) & = \mathbf{g}_b^{R/K/A} (\omega)\\
& = \begin{pmatrix}
g_b^{R/K/A}(\omega) & 0 \\ 0 & g_b^{R/K/A}(\omega)
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{split}$$ We note that the Keldysh part $\mathbf{g}^K_0(\vec{k},\omega)$ is state dependent and not uniquely defined because it corresponds to a system decoupled from any thermal bath. Nevertheless, we will only need to use the inverse of this Green function, for which the Keldysh part $\left[\mathbf{g}^{-1}_0(\vec{k},
\omega)\right]^K$ is infinitesimally small [@knap2013][^1].
Based on the above Green functions, we can determine the Green functions of a two-dimensional non-interacting system coupled to the thermal bath. We get $$\label{eq:cpl2res}
{ \underline{\mathbf{G}}}_0^{-1} (\vec{k},\omega) = { \underline{\mathbf{g}}}_0^{-1}(\vec{k},\omega) - \nu^2 { \underline{\mathbf{g}}}_b (\omega).$$ This equation determines the form of the coupling between the lattice sites and the thermal reservoir with $\nu^2$ defining the coupling strength. The Green function of the interacting model coupled to thermal baths is then given by the Dyson equation [@georges1996; @knap2013; @titvinidze2015] $${ \underline{\mathbf{G}}}^{-1} (\vec{k},\omega) = { \underline{\mathbf{G}}}_0^{-1}(\vec{k},\omega) - { \underline{\mathbf{\Sigma}}} (\omega).$$ Here ${ \underline{\mathbf{G}}}^{-1} (\vec{k},\omega)$ is the Green function of the full system in momentum space. The self-energy ${ \underline{\mathbf{\Sigma}}} (\omega)$ here describes effects of local and non-local interaction (the latter on the mean-field level) as well as the effects of dephasing. As it is assumed to be local, it is also momentum independent in the reduced Brillouin zone, but it might be different for sublattices $A$ and $B$ $$\mathbf{\Sigma}^{R/K/A}(\omega) = \begin{pmatrix} \Sigma^{R/K/A}_A(\omega) & 0 \\ 0 & \Sigma^{R/K/A}_B(\omega).
\end{pmatrix}$$ To close the self-consistency equations we extract the local part of the lattice Green function, i.e., for the sublattice $A$ ($B$) we have $$\label{eq:loc_Green_f}
{ \underline{G}}_{A(B)}(\omega) = \int_{BZ'} \frac{\d \vec{k}}{(2\pi)^2}{ \underline{G}}_{A(B)}(\vec{k},\omega).$$ Note that while here we perform the operation for sublattice $A$ and $B$ separately, we still have a matrix equation with retarded, advanced and Keldysh parts. We use the above result in the local Dyson equation, which reads $$\label{eq:locDyson}
{ \underline{\Delta}}_{A(B)}(\omega) = { \underline{G}}_{0,A(B)}^{-1}(\omega) - { \underline{\Sigma}}_{A(B)}(\omega) - { \underline{G}}^{-1}_{A(B)}(\omega),$$ with ${ \underline{\Delta}}_{A(B)}$ being the hybridization function which describes the effect of coupling the non-interacting impurity to both the thermal bath and the interacting lattice that surrounds it, and with $$G^R_{0,A}(\omega) = G^R_{0,B}(\omega) = \left(\omega + \rmi 0^+ - \epsilon\right)^{-1} .$$ representing the local Green function of the single, non-interacting lattice site decoupled from both the thermal bath and the surrounding lattice. The Keldysh part of the inverse Green function is again negligible.
The remaining problem is to solve the two emerging impurity problems for sublattice $A$ and $B$, given the hybridization functions ${ \underline{\Delta}}_{A(B)}$. Once one can do this, one can solve the full problem self-consistently.
Impurity solver: auxiliary master equation approach {#subsec:amea}
---------------------------------------------------
Solving the impurity problems is usually the bottleneck of the DMFT method. Here we deal with two independent problems, one for each of the sublattices. In the following the sublattice index $\alpha\in\{A,B\}$ denotes which impurity problem we consider. What significantly adds to the complexity of the task is the fact that the system is not in thermal equilibrium (at least in the general case) but rather in a steady-state of some non-trivial dissipative dynamics.
A method well-suited to solve such an impurity problem is the auxiliary master equation approach (AMEA) [@knap2013; @dorda2014; @titvinidze2015]. In our implementation of non-equilibrium DMFT, we adapt it to a problem with physical local dissipation. Below we briefly list the main points of this method, focusing on what is most relevant to our problem.
The foundation of this method is laid by the exact diagonalization approach to the impurity problem [@georges1996], in which it is mapped onto an effective finite size problem. A single impurity is coupled to a finite number $N_b$ of non-interacting bath sites, which imitate the surrounding of the impurity as closely as possible. These bath sites are completely auxiliary and should not be confused with the thermal bath introduced at the beginning of this section. The effective impurity Hamiltonian reads $$\label{eq:aux_ham}
H_{\alpha,aux} = \sum_{i,j=0;\sigma}^{N_b} E_{\alpha,ij} \hat{d}^\dag_{i,\sigma} \hat{d}_{j,\sigma} + U\hat{d}^\dag_{0,\downarrow} \hat{d}^\dag_{0,\uparrow}\hat{d}_{0,\uparrow} \hat{d}_{0,\downarrow},$$ where $\hat{d}_{i,\sigma}$ is the annihilation operator on site $i$ with spin $\sigma$, the $i$ and $j$ indices run over all possible sites in auxiliary impurity problem with $i=0$ referring to the impurity. $E_{\alpha,ij}$ are arbitrary parameters subject to the constraint that they should form a hermitian matrix and with the value of $E_{\alpha,00}$ fixed by the original lattice problem [^2]. We also choose to work with a star geometry of the bath, without loss of generality, cf. Fig. \[fig:amea\]. However, this Hamiltonian is by itself not sufficient to describe the time evolution of an open quantum system.
To circumvent this issue, in the AMEA approach the bath sites are coupled to a Markovian auxiliary reservoir, see Fig. \[fig:amea\]. This allows to describe the time evolution with the Lindblad master equation Eq. in which the Hamiltonian is given by Eq. . The dissipative part of the master equation is determined by two terms. The first term is the local, physical dissipation given in Eq. which acts only on the impurity state with index 0. The second term is determined by $$\label{eq:aux_dis}
\begin{split}
{ \settoheight{\dhatheight}{\ensuremath{\hat{\L}}} \addtolength{\dhatheight}{-0.35ex} \hat{\vphantom{\rule{1pt}{\dhatheight}} \smash{\hat{\L}}}}_{\alpha,aux}\left[\hat{\rho}\right] & = \sum_{\sigma;i,j=1}^{N_b} 2 \\
& \times\left[ \Gamma^{(1)}_{\alpha,ij}\left( \hat{d}_{i,\sigma}^{\phantom\dag} \hat{\rho} \hat{d}_{j,\sigma}^\dag - \frac{1}{2}\{\hat{\rho},\hat{d}^\dag_{j,\sigma} \hat{d}_{i,\sigma}^{\phantom\dag} \} \right)\right.\\
& +\left.\Gamma^{(2)}_{\alpha,ij}\left( \hat{d}^\dag_{j,\sigma} \hat{\rho} \hat{d}_{i,\sigma}^{\phantom\dag} - \frac{1}{2}\{\hat{\rho},\hat{d}_{i,\sigma}^{\phantom\dag} \hat{d}_{j,\sigma}^\dag \} \right) \right]
\end{split}$$ and describes the coupling of the bath sites to the Markovian reservoir. Here $\Gamma_{\alpha,ij}^{(1)}$ and $\Gamma_{\alpha,ij}^{(2)}$ are arbitrary parameters subject to the constraint that they should form a hermitian, positive-definite matrix.
This type of non-equilibrium impurity model has been extensively studied in the literature [@dzhioev2011; @ajisaka2012; @dorda2014; @schwarz2016]. Using exact diagonalization of the Liouvillian in the super-fermionic representation (which doubles the Hilbert space limiting achievable $N_b$) one can solve this impurity problem [@knap2013; @dzhioev2011super]. Note also that if we switch off the local interaction and dissipation on the impurity, the model becomes quadratic and therefore analytically solvable. Consequently, one can calculate the effective hybridization function ${ \underline{\Delta}}_{aux}$ with little computational effort [@knap2013].
The free parameters $E_{\alpha,ij}$ and $\Gamma_{\alpha,ij}^{(1/2)}$ of the impurity model form a set of variables $\{x_\alpha\} = \bigcup_{ij}\{E_{\alpha,ij}, \Gamma^{(1)}_{\alpha,ij}, \Gamma^{(2)}_{\alpha,ij}\}$. This set can be further reduced, cf. Ref [@knap2013], using symmetries of $\Gamma$ matrix and an appropriate geometry of the impurity model, e.g., the star geometry from Fig. \[fig:amea\]. The values of the variables are chosen in such a way that the cost function $$\label{eq:cost_fun}
\begin{split}
& \chi_\alpha\left(\{x_\alpha\} \right) \\
& = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \d \omega \left[ \chi_\alpha^R(\omega,\{x_\alpha\}) + \chi_\alpha^K(\omega,\{x_\alpha\})+ \chi_\alpha^f(\omega,\{x_\alpha\}) \right]
\end{split}$$ is minimized. Different contributions to $\chi$ are defined as $$\label{eq:cost_fun_el}
\begin{split}
\chi_\alpha^R\left(\omega,\{x_\alpha\} \right) & = \mathrm{Im}\left[\Delta_\alpha^R(\omega) - \Delta^R_{\alpha,aux}\left(\omega,\{x_\alpha\}\right)\right]^2, \\
\chi_\alpha^K\left(\omega,\{x_\alpha\} \right) & = \mathrm{Im}\left[\Delta_\alpha^K(\omega) - \Delta^K_{\alpha,aux}\left(\omega,\{x_\alpha\}\right)\right]^2, \\
\chi_\alpha^f\left(\omega,\{x_\alpha\} \right) & = \left|f_\alpha(\omega) - f_{\alpha,aux}\left(\omega,\{x_\alpha\}\right)\right|^2 |\mathrm{Im}[\Delta^R_{\bar{\alpha}}(\omega)]|.
\end{split}$$ The bar in $\bar{\alpha}$ denotes the complement of $\alpha$ in the set $\{A,B\}$, $\Delta_\alpha(\omega)$ is the physical hybridization function for sublattice $\alpha$ obtained from the Dyson equation , $\Delta_{\alpha,aux}(\omega,\{x_\alpha\})$ is the auxiliary hybridization function for sublattice $\alpha$ in the impurity model [@knap2013; @titvinidze2015], $f_\alpha(\omega)$ is the distribution function calculated using the fluctuation-dissipation relation and reads $$\label{eq:delta2distr}
f_\alpha(\omega) = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{4}\frac{\mathrm{Im}[\Delta^K_\alpha(\omega)]}{\mathrm{Im}[\Delta^R_\alpha(\omega)]}.$$ An analogous formula is used for $f_{\alpha,aux}(\omega)$.
The terms $\chi_\alpha^R$ and $\chi_\alpha^K$ are responsible for obtaining the best fit of the retarded and Keldysh parts of the hybridization function, respectively. However, in the case of a small number of bath sites, the accuracy of the fit for these terms might come at the cost of a less accurate reproduction of the distribution function. This is compensated by our inclusion of the last term, $\chi^f_\alpha$. Obtaining an accurate fit of the distribution function is necessary only in the region of significant spectral weight, hence the factor $|\mathrm{Im}[\Delta_{\bar{\alpha}}(\omega)]|$.
Limitations {#subsec:limit}
-----------
It is clear that the approximation made in the course of the AMEA gets better with increasing number of bath sites $N_b$. However, due to the exponential scaling of the size of the problem with the number of bath sites and doubling of the Hilbert space one cannot reach large values of $N_b$ when using an exact diagonalization based solver. Within our implementation we are able to set this parameter up to $N_b=5$. In other works a number of bath sites up to $N_b=6$ has been reported [@dorda2014; @titvinidze2015; @titvinidze2016]. However, higher number of baths sites in the L-DMFT has not been reached yet. An alternative to the exact diagonalization based solver in the AMEA impurity problem is to use the matrix product states approach [@dorda2014; @schwarz2016; @fugger2018]. With this method values of up to $N_b=20$ have been reached [@fugger2018]. However, currently combining this method and the DMFT self-consistency is not practical, as the computational effort to solve a single impurity problem is too large to be used in a self-consistent approach.
With a limited number of bath sites some physical quantities might not be recovered accurately. For example, upon investigation of the occupation of different energy states, the Fermi distribution in thermal equilibrium might not be reproduced precisely. This leads to deviations between the results obtained with a standard, equilibrium DMFT solver, which can reach higher accuracy, and the L-DMFT solver used here.
One of the features that are difficult to capture using a small number of bath sites is the magnetic response of the system. E.g., with $N_b=5$ we could not reproduce the anti-ferromagnetic phase of the standard Hubbard model at zero temperature. Nevertheless, using the AMEA within stochastic wave function approach [@sorantin2018] we checked that the discrepancy between the results of the equilibrium and AMEA impurity solvers is decreasing with increasing number of bath sites. Also for other types of impurity magnetic response the value of $N_b>10$, which might be reached with the matrix product states method, was enough to get accurate results [@fugger2018].
Another relevant effect occurs if one of the impurity energy levels lies outside of the band specified by the heat-bath. In such case a localized state appears, whose evolution is not captured within the Markov approximation of the auxiliary reservoir [@zhang2012]. This issue is here amended by the choice of the local thermal baths with a broad energy spectrum.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Equilibrium {#sec:eq}
-----------
We begin with the investigation of a system in thermal equilibrium, i.e., without dephasing process. As in this regime one can employ alternative methods to study the model described by Eq. , this serves both as a reference for the calculation with dephasing and as a benchmark of the L-DMFT method. We will compare it to the equilibrium DMFT and Hartree-Fock methods. Note that we allow only for two phases: charge density wave and normal phase with homogeneous particle density and neglect any magnetic ordering possibly emerging in the system, such that $\langle\hat{n}_{i,\uparrow}\rangle = \langle \hat{n}_{i,\downarrow}\rangle$.
In our equilibrium DMFT and Hartree-Fock calculations we set the chemical potential to $\mu=0$, temperature to $T=0$ and switch off the coupling to external thermal baths. For the L-DMFT calculations the chemical potential and the temperature are set to the same values indirectly, through coupling to the thermal reservoir, see Eq. and . We set the strength of this coupling to $\nu^2=0.5$. To obtain both CDW and normal phases we set the NN-interaction strength to $V=2$. We perform calculations with local-interaction strength ranging from $U=1$ to $U=16$. On-site energy is set to $\epsilon=-\frac{U}{2}$. This would correspond to half-filling in the absence of non-local interaction. However, with $V=2$ the filling is lower and thus results are away from half-filling.
In Fig. \[fig:occ\_eq\] we present the comparison of local occupations for a single spin species, $\langle\hat{n}_{A(B)}\rangle=\langle\hat{n}_{A(B),\downarrow}+\hat{n}_{A(B),\uparrow}\rangle$, obtained within equilibrium DMFT and Hartree-Fock mean-field. The equilibrium DMFT results were obtained with the exact diagonalization impurity solver [@hafez-torbati2018]. We observe that for intermediate values of the interaction strength a checkerboard CDW phase emerges, resulting in spontaneous symmetry breaking with non-zero value of the checkerboard order parameter $\Delta n=|\langle \hat{n}_A-\hat{n}_B\rangle|$.
The phase transition at high $U$ (and as a result high $|\epsilon|$) occurs due to the competition between the on-site energy $\epsilon$ and NN interaction $V$. Approximately, the energy cost of adding a particle at (almost empty) sublattice $B$ is given by $4V=8J$ (due to four singly occupied neighbors) and the energy gain is given by $\epsilon=-U/2$. Therefore, in the atomic limit one can expect a phase transition around $U=16J$. The hopping processes lead to hybridization of the two sublattices. This results in decreasing value of the checkerboard order parameter $\Delta n$ as we approach the phase transition point, and a shift of the critical interaction strength $U_c$ to lower values of around $U_c=14.5\pm0.5$. At low values of $U$ the phase transition occurs around $U_c=2.5\pm0.5$ with a jump in the total filling. As all four energy scales, namely $U$, $J$, $V$ and $\epsilon$, are comparable and we have not been able to find a simple explanation for the nature of this phase transition.
To benchmark the L-DMFT technique we performed a series of tests for an arbitrarily chosen value of on-site interaction $U=8$. Firstly we investigated how the accuracy of the method depends on the number of bath sites $N_b$ used in the impurity solver. We checked how the spectral function and the filling of sublattices changes for $1\leqslant N_b \leqslant 5$ (results not shown in here). While we observe significant deviations for $N_b\leqslant 2$, the values $N_b=3,\ 4$ and $5$ give comparable results.
Next we focused on the performance of the method with $N_b=4$. In Fig. \[fig:hyb\] we present the comparison of the hybridization functions at $U=8$ for sublattice $B$ obtained from the Dyson equation and after mapping onto the impurity AMEA model. We observe that while some finer details are lost in the mapping procedure, the main features are properly reproduced. Upon closer investigation of the distribution functions $f_{B,aux}(\omega)$ describing the environment of a site from sublattice $B$ (displayed in Fig. \[fig:hyb\]), we notice that: (i) the auxiliary hybridization function does not reproduce perfectly the Fermi-Dirac distribution function, (ii) there are small discrepancies between the physical and auxiliary distribution functions in the region where the spectral weight $\mathrm{Im}[\Delta^R(\omega)]$ is large. Discrepancies in the remaining regions do not lead to significant issues – as the spectral weight is small in these regions it does not contribute strongly to the dynamics or the total occupation of the system.
The discrepancies in the reproduced distribution function might lead to different values of occupation and double occupancy between the equilibrium and non-equilibrium solvers. This issue is indeed observed when comparing the DMFT and L-DMFT results (cf. Fig. \[fig:occ\_eq\]). Nevertheless, it is minimized by an appropriate choice of the cost function, which minimizes the error in the relevant regions through $\chi^f_\alpha$.
The discrepancies in the hybridization functions in the AMEA have yet another consequence. As not all features are perfectly reproduced, there might be local minima of the cost function , in which features which are captured more accurately appear in different parts of the spectrum. As a result, one might expect more than one self-consistently converged solution of the full L-DMFT approach. We checked that this leads to at most small quantitative differences in the converged solution. Qualitative features of the results remain unchanged.
Having established that the method gives a good qualitative description of the system we compared the results of equilibrium DMFT with those of L-DMFT for a wide range of values of $U$, Fig. \[fig:occ\_eq\]. The non-smoothness of the L-DMFT results originates from the emergence of multiple self-consistent solutions discussed above and from discrepancies in the effective distribution function $f(\omega)$. We observe that the methods yield similar results, but one can observe some quantitative differences. In all cases the system does not exhibit a CDW phase for weak local interaction. As $U$ is increased the system undergoes a phase transition, which occurs at a critical value around $U_c\approx 2.5\pm 0.5$ with a sharp change of the order parameter $\Delta n$. Investigating the type of this phase transition goes beyond the scope of this paper. As the value of $U$ is further increased the order parameter decreases until it vanishes completely at around $U_c\approx 14.5\pm0.5$. Overall, the comparison of DMFT and L-DMFT shows that the latter agrees qualitatively with an equilibrium method which is well established in the literature and which captures effects of strong local correlations. Quantitative differences can serve as a measure of the accuracy for our method.
To check the effect of exchange (Fock) terms due to the nearest-neighbor interaction, which are absent in DMFT, we additionally perform a mean-field study of the ground state long-range order of the Hamiltonian in Eq. , by following the self-consistent mean-field method that includes both Hartree- and Fock-decoupling of local and non-local interaction terms [@blaizot1986] . This self-consistent mean-field method was used previously for two-dimensional dipolar fermions [@bhongale2012; @bhongale2013]. Although anomalous mean-field terms that allow for a description of pairing with arbitrary spatial symmetry can in principle be included in the self-consistent method, we set them to zero in this work. As can be seen in Fig. \[fig:occ\_eq\], both L-DMFT and DMFT give qualitatively similar results to the self-consistent mean-field method, which shows that terms beyond Hartree approximation in the nearest-neighbor interaction do not modify qualitatively the density-wave ordering in this system. The discrepancies at larger values of $U$ are expected to be an effect of mean-field treatment of local interactions rather than neglecting exchange terms in DMFT or L-DMFT.
Non-equilibrium results {#sec:noneq}
-----------------------
We now turn to the non-equilibrium case. In Fig. \[fig:gm0\_vs\_gm05\] we compare the occupations of sublattices $A$ and $B$ for different interaction strengths with and without the dephasing $\Gamma_\mathrm{dp}=0.05$. We observe that the dephasing has the effect of reducing the differences between the occupation of sublattice $A$ ($\langle\hat{n}_A\rangle$) and sublattice $B$ ($\langle\hat{n}_B\rangle$). We also observe a change of the critical value of the local interaction, at which the system undergoes a phase transition between the homogeneous and CDW phases. The range of values of $U$ for which the CDW phase is present thus becomes smaller due to dephasing.
In order to further estimate the destructive effect of dephasing we investigate the $U-\Gamma_\mathrm{dp}$ phase diagram of our system, Fig. \[fig:phase\_diag\]. It is evident that with increasing strength of dephasing the range in $U$ for which one obtains a CDW phase shrinks, until it vanishes completely at around $\Gamma_\mathrm{dp}\approx 0.085\pm0.005$. Note that this value is at least one order of magnitude smaller than the other energy scales of the system, $\epsilon$, $U$, $V$ and $J$. We also note that the $U$-dependence of the critical value of $\Gamma_\mathrm{dp}$ is approximately symmetric with respect to the maximum at around $U=8$.
Next, we investigate how the coupling strength to the local thermal baths $\nu^2$ affects the results. In the inset of Fig. \[fig:phase\_diag\] we present the dependence of the critical dephasing strength $\Gamma^c_\mathrm{dp}$ on this quantity for $U=8$. We observe that for $\nu^2\lessapprox0.5$ the two quantities are proportional to each other $\Gamma^c_\mathrm{dp}\sim\nu^2$, whereas at large $\nu^2$ the critical value of $\Gamma^c_\mathrm{dp}$ seems to be shifted away from proportionality to lower values. One possible mechanism to explain the proportionality for small $\nu^2$ is the presence of heat exchange between the lattice and the baths, as we expect the heat current in lattice systems to be proportional to $\nu^2$ [@titvinidze2017]. In this regime the critical value of the dephasing would then be determined by the rate at which the heat generated by the dephasing is taken out of the system.
At high $\nu^2$ we expect this behavior to change because of the increasing hybridization between the system and the local thermal baths. In this regime, the baths have a stronger effect on the system. Although the rate of cooling is faster, at the same time they do not favor CDW ordering since they are identical for both sublattices. However, whether this is the only mechanism affecting the behavior at high $\nu^2$ cannot be concluded.
In the cold-atom experiments the cooling rate is not easy to control (though not impossible [@chong2018]). In the absence of controllable coupling to a thermal bath, however, one could still observe experimentally the CDW phase if the time scale at which the system is heated by dissipation is much longer than the time scale at which the CDW ordering emerges.
To check whether we work with experimentally realistic physical parameters, we consider now a possible experimental realization with fermionic $^{40}$K atoms loaded into an optical lattice [@joerdens2008; @schneider2008]. As discussed in Sec. \[sec:ham\] such a system can be well described by the Hubbard model and in order to introduce non-local interactions one can couple the two spin states to highly excited Rydberg states in the weak dressing regime, see also App. \[appsec:dress\]. For sufficiently large detuning compared to the Rabi frequency $\delta\gg\Omega$ one obtains effectively dressed ground states with Eq. describing effective interaction potential of two atoms [@henkel2010]. Here the effective coefficient is given by $\tilde{C}_6=(\Omega/2\delta)^4 C_6$, with $C_6$ determining the strength of the van der Waals interactions between two Rydberg states. The soft-core radius is given by $R_c=(C_6/2|\delta|)^{1/6}$. Finally, the dephasing strength is determined via the spontaneous emission rate $\Gamma_\mathrm{se}$ of the excited state via $\Gamma_\mathrm{dp} = (\Omega/2\delta)^2\Gamma_\mathrm{se}$, see App. \[appsec:dress\].
Let us now consider a particular choice of the Rydberg state for the $^{40}$K atoms, namely the $|26S\rangle$ state. For this choice we obtain $C_6\approx 27\ \hbar\ \mathrm{MHz}\ \mu\mathrm{m}^6$ [@singer2005], and $\Gamma_\mathrm{se}\approx 60\ \hbar\ $kHz [@beterov2009]. A typical value of the hopping amplitude in optical lattice is on the order of $J\approx 0.5\ \hbar\ $kHz and the lattice spacing is on the order of $a\approx 0.5\mu$m.
We aim at realizing a model in which only nearest-neighbor interaction is relevant. Therefore, we set the parameters to $R_c=0.5\mu$m and $\tilde{C}_6= 31\ \hbar\ \mathrm{Hz}\ \mu\mathrm{m}^6$. In this case we would obtain a nearest-neighbor interaction strength $V\approx 2J$, the same as in our calculations, and a next-nearest-neighbor interaction which is at least one order of magnitude weaker. To obtain the required value of $R_c$ one needs to set the detuning on the order of $\delta\approx860\ \hbar\ $MHz. With this value of the detuning and in order to get the appropriate value of $\tilde{C}_6$, we need to set the Rabi frequency to $\Omega=56\ \hbar\ $MHz (suggesting the need for further development of current experimental capabilities). Finally, we use the values of $\Omega$ and $\delta$ to estimate the effective dephasing strength, which is approximately given by $\Gamma_\mathrm{dp}\approx 64 \ \hbar\ $Hz $=0.128J$ – on the order of magnitude of the maximal $\Gamma_\mathrm{dp}$ considered here. The time scale at which dephasing heats the system is approximately given by $\hbar/\Gamma_\mathrm{dp}\approx 16 ms$.
We note that there are several ways in which one can decrease the dephasing strength in experiment, e.g., (i) with higher values of the Rabi frequency one can target higher excited states, which have a longer lifetime, (ii) one can use a lattice with a larger lattice constant, which also allows to use higher excited states without increasing the Rabi frequency. Note, however, that in our analysis we have neglected effects of black body radiation, which are present in a typical experiment and can lead to both stronger dephasing and avalanche loss of particles from the system [@goldschmidt2016; @zeiher2016].
Conclusions {#sec:end}
===========
In this work we have studied the effect of dissipation on charge ordered density-wave phases in a strongly-correlated many-body quantum system with local and non-local interaction, as encompassed by the fermionic extended Hubbard model, with dissipation effects treated at the level of the quantum master equation. This model was solved using a recent variant of non-equilibrium dynamical mean-field theory, the Lindblad-DMFT, that allows to include local dissipation effects non-perturbatively.
By studying the behavior of the checkerboard CDW order parameter, we have demonstrated that a CDW phase, similar to the one present in the zero-temperature equilibrium model, survives the introduction of a dephasing process up to a critical strength, where the density ordering is destroyed and the system becomes homogeneous. We studied the steady-state phase diagram of the model as a function of the local interaction $U$ and dissipation strength $\Gamma_\mathrm{dp}$ and found that a broad region of density-ordered steady-states exists at relatively weak and moderate dephasing strengths. We observed that the critical value of local interaction $U$, where the phase transition between the homogeneous and CDW phases occurs, depends on the dephasing strength, with the CDW phase shrinking as the dephasing strength is increased. Importantly, we observed that to a certain extent the effect of dephasing on the CDW order seems to be due dominantly to heating, as we have observed that the critical value of $\Gamma^c_\mathrm{dp}$ is proportional to the coupling strength $\nu^2$ to the bath.
We expect that using cold atomic fermionic gases dressed with a Rydberg state – thus acquiring long-range interactions – and loaded into optical lattices could present an experimental realization of the extended Hubbard model. We showed that the parameters considered in our work are experimentally realistic. The remaining issue is to estimate the effect of other types of dissipation, and estimate the time scale at which CDW order emerges in such a system and make sure that it is much shorter then the time scale at which the system is heated by dephasing.
Support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft via DFG SPP 1929 GiRyd, SFB/TR 49 and the high-performance computing center LOEWE-CSC is gratefully acknowledged. I.T. and M. S. acknowledge funding from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) within Projects P26508 and F41 (SFB ViCoM). The authors also acknowledge useful discussions with K. Byczuk, C. Groß, H. Weimer, S. Whitlock and J. Zeiher.
Dressed regime {#appsec:dress}
==============
In order to simulate a spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ fermionic Hubbard model one can use two hyperfine states of $^{40}$K potassium atoms [@joerdens2008; @schneider2008]. To introduce the long range interaction we need to couple these states to high lying Rydberg excited states. Because we want the non-local interaction to be isotropic we either need to use $|nS\rangle$ Rydberg states with a three level excitation scheme [@goldschmidt2016; @aman2016] or $|nP\rangle$ Rydberg states with a two level excitation scheme [@zeiher2016], but then one needs to appropriately arrange the orientation of Rydberg states with respect to the 2D lattice. In both cases it is enough to work with a single effective Rabi frequency $\Omega_{eff}$ and detuning $\delta_{eff}$.
Because we need to couple two hyperfine states to excited Rydberg states one can choose either to couple both hyperfine states to the same Rydberg state, or to couple each hyperfine state to a different Rydberg state, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:model\]. The first approach gives the same inter- and intra-species non-local interaction, but introduces small coherent and incoherent spin flip processes. The second approach does not introduce spin-flip terms, but results in small differences in the non-local interaction strength of different species. In the following we assume that these differences are negligible.
The full model for the corresponding experimental set-up, in the rotating wave approximation, has the following Hamiltonian [@saha2014] $$\label{apeq:mod}
\begin{split}
\hat{H}_1=&\sum_{\sigma\in\{\uparrow,\downarrow\}} \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} \left(-J\hat{f}^\dagger_{i,\sigma}\hat{f}^{\phantom\dag}_{j,\sigma} -\tilde{J}\hat{f}^\dagger_{i,R_\sigma}\hat{f}^{\phantom\dag}_{j,R_\sigma}\right) \\
& +\frac{\Omega_{eff}}{2} \sum_{i,\sigma\in\{\uparrow,\downarrow\}} \left(\hat{f}^\dagger_{i,\sigma}\hat{f}^{\phantom\dag}_{i,R_\sigma}+\mathrm{h.c.}\right) \\
&-\delta_{eff} \sum_{i,\sigma} \hat{n}_{i,R_\sigma} + U \sum_i \hat{n}_{i, \uparrow}\hat{n}_{i, \downarrow} \\
& + \sum_{i, j, \sigma, \sigma'}\frac{V_{RR}(\textbf{r}_i,\textbf{r}_j)}{2} \hat{n}_{i,R_\sigma} \hat{n}_{j,R_{\sigma'}} \\
& + \sum_{i, j,\sigma,\sigma'}V_{gR}(\textbf{r}_i,\textbf{r}_j) \hat{n}_{i,\sigma} \hat{n}_{j,R_{\sigma'}}.
\end{split}$$ Here, apart from terms appearing in the Eq. , we have the hopping amplitude $\tilde{J}$ of the excited states, the effective Rabi frequency $\Omega_{eff}$ and detuning $\delta_{eff}$, and non-local interaction strengths $V_{RR}(\textbf{r}_i,\textbf{r}_j)$, $V_{gR}(\textbf{r}_i,\textbf{r}_j)$. $\hat{f}_{i,\sigma}$ annihilates a ground state atom in a hyperfine state $\sigma$ on site $i$. We use the notation $\sigma\in\{\uparrow,\downarrow\}$ for the two hyperfine states as they are later interpreted as two spin states of the Hubbard model. $\hat{f}_{i,R_\sigma}$ annihilates on site $i$ an atom in an excited Rydberg state $R_\sigma$, to which the hyperfine state $\sigma$ is coupled, see Fig. \[fig:model\].
As the system is subject to dissipative processes, it is not enough to determine the Hamiltonian, but we also need to determine the Lindblad operators. Here we will consider only spontaneous emission. The Lindblad operator for the spontaneous emission is $$\label{apeq:spem}
\hat{L}^{se}_{i,\sigma} = \hat{f}^{\dag}_{i,\sigma}\hat{f}^{\phantom\dag}_{i,R_\sigma}$$ with the strength of dissipation given by the constant $\Gamma_\mathrm{se}$ independent of spin and position. When coupling to the $|nS\rangle$ state via a 3-level scheme [@goldschmidt2016; @aman2016], this form of the Lindblad operator is approximate, assuming that the decay of the atom to any intermediate state is immediately followed by decay to the ground state.
For the moment we consider a single atom without dephasing. Due to the Rabi driving its ground and excited states are no longer eigenstates of the full Hamiltonian. E.g., the lowest energy eigenstate has the form $|\tilde{\sigma}\rangle = \alpha|\sigma\rangle + \beta |R_{\sigma}\rangle$. Assuming that we are in the regime where $\delta_{eff}\gg\Omega_{eff}$, we have that $\alpha\approx1$ and $\beta\approx \Omega_{eff}/(2\delta_{eff})\ll 1$ [@zeiher2016]. The admixture of the excited state to the new eigenstate is small. The state $|\tilde{\sigma}\rangle$ is called the dressed ground state. Similarly, the dressed high energy eigenstate $|\tilde{R}_\sigma\rangle$ will be predominantly a Rydberg state, with a small admixture of the ground state. It is safe to assume that due to its high energy, the $|\tilde{R}_\sigma\rangle$ is empty, and only the dressed ground state is occupied.
Next we consider two atoms without dephasing. Due to the small admixture of Rydberg excitation to the dressed ground state, and due to the very strong non-local interaction between two Rydberg states, the dressed ground state will effectively be subject to non-local interaction. The strength of this interaction will be approximately proportional to $V_{eff}\approx\beta^4 V_{RR}$ [@zeiher2016]. This interaction shifts the atom even further from resonance and as a results the value of $\beta$ will depend on the distance separating two atoms, therefore the effective interaction will also have a renormalized shape, with a soft core cut-off for small atom-atom separations. In this way we get to the Eq. for the effective potential [@henkel2010].
Note that through appropriate choice of $\Omega_{eff}$ and $\delta_{eff}$ we can control the strength and shape of the interaction potential. Thanks to this flexibility we can set the parameters such that only nearest-neighbor interaction is relevant in our model. Using the notation in which $\hat{c}_{i,\sigma}$ and $\hat{c}_{i,R_\sigma}$ annihilate the dressed ground and excited states, respectively, corresponding to spin $\sigma$ on site $i$, we obtain the Hamiltonian .
Finally, we consider the effect of dissipation in the dressed regime. The operators corresponding to the dressed states can be written as $\hat{f}_{i,\sigma} = \alpha^\ast \hat{c}_{i,\sigma} - \beta \hat{c}_{i,R_\sigma}$ and $\hat{f}_{i,R_\sigma} = \beta^{\ast} \hat{c}_{i,\sigma} + \alpha \hat{c}_{i,R_\sigma}$ with $|\alpha|^2+|\beta|^2=1$. In this representation the Lindblad operator becomes $$\hat{L}^{se}_{i,\sigma} = \left(\alpha^\ast \hat{c}^\dag_{i,\sigma} - \beta \hat{c}^\dag_{i,R_\sigma}\right) \left(\beta^\ast \hat{c}^{\phantom\dag}_{i,\sigma} + \alpha \hat{c}^{\phantom\dag}_{i,R_\sigma}\right).$$ Under conditions in which $\alpha\approx 1$ and $\beta\ll1$ the term with pre-factor $\beta^2$ will vanish. As we also mentioned the dressed excited state is empty, as it is a high-energy eigenstate. Therefore terms with $\hat{c}^{\phantom\dag}_{i,R_\sigma}$ can also be neglected. One finally obtains $$\hat{L}^{se}_{i,\sigma} \approx \beta^\ast \hat{c}^\dag_{i,\sigma} \hat{c}^{\phantom\dag}_{i,\sigma}.$$ We obtain effectively a new type of dissipation, namely dephasing, with Lindblad operator given by and dissipation strength given by $\Gamma_\mathrm{dp}=|\beta|^2\Gamma_\mathrm{se}$. In this picture the dressed excited states corresponding to $\hat{c}_{i,R_\sigma}$ drop out completely.
Dissipative heating {#appsec:disheat}
===================
To show that the dephasing considered in section \[sec:ham\] indeed heats the system, we consider a case in which our model is decoupled from thermal baths and the dissipation strength is finite. We notice that the Liouvillian with Lindblad operator conserves the number of particles in the system for both spin species. Therefore, we will consider states with fixed number of particles at half-filling. In other cases the Fock space of the system can be split into subspaces with different occupations and analyzed separately.
The maximally mixed state of a system corresponds to an infinite temperature. We will show that such a state is indeed a steady-state of the system. The uniqueness of the steady-state [@kraus2008; @spohn1976; @spohn1977] has been studied for certain specific classes of Liouvillians, but we have not found a proof applicable in our case. Nevertheless, we will assume that within the subspace of fixed particle number the steady-state is unique. With this one can conclude that dephasing heats up the system.
The maximally mixed state within the Fock space of dimension $M$ is proportional to the identity operator $$\hat{\rho}_{MM}=\frac{1}{M} \hat{\mathbb{1}}.$$ The condition for it to be a steady-state reads $$\frac{d \hat{\rho}_{MM}}{d t} = -i\left[\hat{H}, \hat{\rho}_{MM} \right] + { \settoheight{\dhatheight}{\ensuremath{\hat{\mathcal{L}}}} \addtolength{\dhatheight}{-0.35ex} \hat{\vphantom{\rule{1pt}{\dhatheight}} \smash{\hat{\mathcal{L}}}}}[\hat{\rho}_{MM}] = 0$$ As any operator commutes with the identity operator, the first term on the right-hand side vanishes. Now we consider the dissipative part given by with the Lindblad jump operator and $\Gamma_{\mu,\nu}=\delta_{\mu,\nu} \Gamma_\mathrm{dp}$, where $\mu$ iterates over lattice $i$ and spin $\sigma$ indices. Notice that as the jump operator is hermitian we get $$2 \hat{L}^{\phantom\dag}_{dp,i,\sigma} \hat{\mathbb{1}} \hat{L}^\dag_{dp,i,\sigma} - \left\{\hat{L}^\dag_{dp,i,\sigma}\hat{L}^{\phantom\dag}_{dp,i,\sigma},\hat{\mathbb{1}} \right\} =0.$$ As a result, the time derivative of $\hat{\rho}_{MM}$ vanishes, which means that it is indeed a steady-state.
[^1]: If we neglect the Keldysh part in the decoupled system it is essential that the full system can thermalize either through interaction or through coupling to thermal bath.
[^2]: It includes effects of non-local interaction treated on the mean-field level
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper we consider the eigenvalue problem consisting of the equation $$-u'' = {\lambda}r u , \quad \text{on $(-1,1)$},$$ where $r \in C^1[-1,1], \ r>0$ and ${\lambda}\in {\mathbb{R}}$, together with the multi-point boundary conditions $$u(\pm 1) = \sum^{m^\pm}_{i=1} {\alpha}^\pm_i u(\eta^\pm_i) ,$$ where $m^\pm \ge 1$ are integers, and, for $i = 1,\dots,m^\pm$, ${\alpha}_i^\pm \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $\eta_i^\pm \in [-1,1]$, with $\eta_i^+ \ne 1$, $\eta_i^- \ne -1$. We show that if the coefficients ${\alpha}_i^\pm \in {\mathbb{R}}$ are sufficiently small (depending on $r$) then the spectral properties of this problem are similar to those of the usual separated problem, but if the coefficients ${\alpha}_i^\pm$ are not sufficiently small then these standard spectral properties need not hold. The spectral properties of such multi-point problems have been obtained before for the constant coefficient case ($r \equiv 1$), but the variable coefficient case has not been considered previously (apart from the existence of ‘principal’ eigenvalues).
Some nonlinear multi-point problems are also considered. We obtain a (partial) Rabinowitz-type result on global bifurcation from the eigenvalues, and various nonresonance conditions for existence of general solutions and also of nodal solutions — these results rely on the spectral properties of the linear problem.
address: 'Department of Mathematics and the Maxwell Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, Scotland.'
author:
- François Genoud
- 'Bryan P. Rynne'
date: |
6 June 2011\
This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council \[EP/H030514/1\].
title: 'Second order, multi-point problems with variable coefficients'
---
Introduction {#intro.sec}
============
In this paper we consider the eigenvalue problem consisting of the equation $$\label{eval_de.eq}
-u'' = {\lambda}r u , \quad \text{on $(-1,1)$},$$ where $r \in C^1[-1,1], \ r>0$ and ${\lambda}\in {\mathbb{R}}$, together with the multi-point boundary conditions $$\label{dbc.eq}
u(\pm 1) = \sum^{m^\pm}_{i=1} {\alpha}^\pm_i u(\eta^\pm_i) ,$$ where $m^\pm \ge 1$ are integers, and, for $i = 1,\dots,m^\pm$, ${\alpha}_i^\pm \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $\eta_i^\pm \in [-1,1]$, with $\eta_i^+ \ne 1$, $\eta_i^- \ne -1$. An [*eigenvalue*]{} is a number ${\lambda}$ for which , has a non-trivial solution $u$ (an [*eigenfunction*]{}). The [*spectrum*]{}, ${\sigma}$, is the set of eigenvalues. An eigenvalue is termed [*simple*]{} if its algebraic multiplicity (defined in Section \[alg\_mult.sec\]) is equal to $1$.
For any integer $m \ge 1$ and any ${\alpha}= ({\alpha}_1,\dots,{\alpha}_m) \in {\mathbb{R}}^m$, the notation ${\alpha}= 0$, ${\alpha}> 0$, will mean ${\alpha}_i = 0$, ${\alpha}_i > 0$, $i = 1,\dots,m$, respectively, and we define the norm $$\begin{aligned}
\label{norms.eq}
|{\alpha}| &:=\sum_{i=1}^m |{\alpha}_i| , \quad {\alpha}\in {\mathbb{R}}^m .\end{aligned}$$ For the coefficients in we will use the notation ${\alpha}^\pm := ({\alpha}_1^\pm,\dots,{\alpha}_{m^\pm}^\pm) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m^\pm}$, ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}:= ({\alpha}^-,{\alpha}^+) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m^-} {\times}{\mathbb{R}}^{m^+}$, and similarly for $\eta^\pm$, ${\boldsymbol{\eta}}$; we also let ${{\boldsymbol{0}}}:= (0,0) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m^-} {\times}{\mathbb{R}}^{m^+}$. For any ${\gamma}> 0$ we define the set $${{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma}:= \{ {\boldsymbol{\alpha}}: |{\alpha}^\pm| < {\gamma}\} .$$ When ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}= {{\boldsymbol{0}}}$ the boundary conditions reduce to the standard, separated Dirichlet boundary conditions at $x=\pm 1$, so when ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\ne {{\boldsymbol{0}}}$ we call the conditions boundary conditions. For the separated conditions the spectral properties of the problem are well known, and this case will play a central role in our analysis, with the results for general ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma}$ being obtained by continuation from ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}= {{\boldsymbol{0}}}$.
We will obtain various properties of the spectrum of the problem , , including the existence of eigenvalues, their algebraic multiplicity, continuity properties, and the positivity of the principal eigenfunction. As in the classical Sturm-Liouville theory for separated boundary conditions, the eigenfunctions will be shown to have certain ‘oscillation’ properties. However, in the multi-point case these cannot be characterised simply by counting nodal zeros of the eigenfunctions, and instead will be described in terms of certain sets of functions $T_k^\pm$, $k = 1,2,\dots$ (first introduced in [@RYN3]), which will be defined in Section \[nodal\_sets.sec\]. In particular, we will prove the following theorem in Section \[evals.sec\].
\[spec.thm\] For any $r \in C^1[-1,1], \ r>0$, there exists ${\gamma}={\gamma}(r) \in (0,1]$ such that if ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma}$ then the spectrum ${\sigma}$ of , consists of a strictly increasing sequence of simple eigenvalues ${\lambda}_k = {\lambda}_k(r) > 0$, $k = 1,2,\dots.$ Each eigenvalue ${\lambda}_k$ has an eigenfunction $u_k \in T_k^+$. In addition, $\lim_{k \to \infty} {\lambda}_k = \infty.$
In the constant coefficient case, with $r \equiv 1$, it was shown in [@RYN5 Theorem 5.1] that Theorem \[spec.thm\] is valid with ${\gamma}= 1$, but can fail if ${\gamma}> 1$. Here, in the variable coefficient case, it will be shown that Theorem \[spec.thm\] is valid for ‘sufficiently small’ ${\gamma}(r)$, but may fail for values of ${\gamma}< 1$. The spectral properties described in Theorem \[spec.thm\] have not previously been obtained for the variable coefficient problem. Principal eigenvalues (with positive eigenfunctions) have been discussed for the variable coefficient case in [@RYN7] and [@WL].
We also consider nonlinear problems of the form $$\label{nonlin.eq}
- u'' =f(\cdot,u), \quad \text{on $(-1,1)$},$$ together with the boundary conditions , where $f \in C^0( [-1,1] {\times}{\mathbb{R}}, {\mathbb{R}})$. Under a suitable ‘nonresonance’ condition on $f$ we show that , has a solution. In addition, we consider the special case where equation has the form $$\label{nodal_intro.eq}
- u'' = g(\cdot,u)u,$$ with $g \in C^1( [-1,1] {\times}{\mathbb{R}}, {\mathbb{R}})$ (the differentiability condition on $g$ is technical and could be removed under suitable hypotheses, see Remark \[technical.rem\] below). Since $u \equiv 0$ is a [*trivial*]{} solution of , , and the nonresonance result only yields existence of at least one solution, additional arguments are required to obtain non-trivial solutions of this problem. In fact, we will prove the existence of [*nodal*]{} solutions, that is, solutions belonging to specific sets $T_k^\pm$. We do this by studying the bifurcation problem $$\label{bif.eq}
- u'' = {\lambda}g(\cdot,u)u.$$ Under certain hypotheses on $g$ we prove a (partial) Rabinowitz-type global bifurcation theorem for the problem , , showing that global (unbounded) continua of non-trivial solutions bifurcate from the eigenvalues of the linearisation of the bifurcation problem at $u=0$. Nodal solutions for , will then be obtained as solutions of , with ${\lambda}=1$. This programme will be carried out using the spectral properties of the linear problems corresponding to the asymptotes of $g$ as $u \to 0$ and $|u| \to \infty$.
In the special case where $g$ has the form $$\label{product_form.eq}
g(x,u) = r(x) {\widetilde g}(u),$$ with $r \in C^1[-1,1], \ r > 0$, and ${\widetilde g}\in C^1({\mathbb{R}})$, we obtain nodal solutions $u \in T_k^\pm$ when ${\widetilde g}$ ‘crosses’ an eigenvalue ${\lambda}_k={\lambda}_k(r)$. Such results are well known in other settings, and similar results for autonomous multi-point problems (with $g$ independent of $x$) were obtained in [@DR; @RYN5]. Nonautonomous multi-point problems similar to , (with a separated boundary condition at one end-point) have been discussed recently and nodal solutions were obtained in, for example, [@CKK; @KKW2] (see also the references therein for other results in the same spirit). These papers do not have the eigenvalues of the full, variable coefficient, multi-point problem available, and they obtain nodal solutions when ${\widetilde g}$ crosses intervals between consecutive eigenvalues of a related problem with separated boundary conditions at both end-points. We will describe these results further in Section \[nodal.sec\] below, and compare them with our results.
Multi-point problems have received much attention recently. For instance, in the constant coefficient case some partial results regarding spectral properties were obtained in [@MOR] for a problem with a separated boundary condition at one end-point and a multi-point condition at the other end. Improved results for more general problems were then obtained in [@DR; @RYN3; @RYN5; @RYN6]. Once the spectral properties are known they can be used to obtain nonresonance conditions and nodal solutions in a standard manner. The variable coefficient case has not been considered to the same extent. Principal eigenvalues, with positive principal eigenfunctions, have been obtained in [@RYN7; @WI; @WL], and these have been used to obtain positive solutions of nonlinear multi-point problems. As mentioned above, the papers [@CKK; @KKW2] obtain nodal solutions for multi-point problems, but they do so using the eigenvalues of a related, separated problem, instead of those of the multi-point problem. For brevity, we will not discuss the background material any further here, but simply refer the reader to the review paper [@GR] for more discussion and references.
Neumann-type boundary conditions
--------------------------------
If the values of $u$ are replaced with the values of the derivative $u'$ in the conditions we obtain so called [*Neumann-type*]{} boundary conditions. Most of our results can be extended to deal with such conditions (or a mixture of Dirichlet and Neumann-type conditions). The only difficulty is that the multi-point operator introduced in Section \[func\_spaces.sec\] below is not invertible, since constant functions lie in its null space. This can be dealt with using the methods in [@RYN6], which deals with such boundary conditions in the constant coefficient case, so we will say no more about this here. The paper [@KKW1] deals with a variable coefficient problem with a separated boundary condition at one end and a Neumann-type multi-point condition at the other end, using a similar approach to that in the papers [@CKK; @KKW2] (which deal with a Dirichlet-type condition).
More general, nonlocal boundary conditions
------------------------------------------
Non-local boundary conditions more general than the above multi-point conditions have also been considered recently by several authors in various contexts, see for example [@CKK; @WI] and the references therein. For instance, the Dirichlet-type conditions can be replaced by integral conditions of the form $$\label{nonlocal}
u(\pm 1)=\int_{-1}^{1}u(y)\,d\mu_{A^{\pm}}(y),$$ where $A^{\pm}$ are functions of bounded variations and the corresponding measures $\mu_{A^{\pm}}$ satisfy suitable restrictions of the form $$\label{nonlocalcond}
\int_{-1}^{1}d|\mu_{A^{\pm}}|<{\gamma}.$$ Here, the right-hand side in is a Lebesgue-Stieltjes integral with respect to the signed measure $\mu_{A^{\pm}}$ generated by $A^{\pm}$, and in the term $|\mu_{A^{\pm}}|$ denotes the total variation of $\mu_{A^{\pm}}$ (we refer the reader to [@HS Section 19] and [@KF Section 36] for the required measure and integration theory).
By choosing $A^{\pm}$ to be suitable step functions we see that the Dirichlet-type boundary conditions can be regarded as a special case of the condition . Also, it is clear that generalizes the condition ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}}$ of Theorem \[spec.thm\].
It is explained in [@GR Section 6] (for equations involving the $p$-Laplacian, with constant coefficients) how to generalize the multi-point setting to boundary conditions of the form . The results of the present paper can be readily extended to such boundary conditions in a similar manner. The restriction on the coefficient ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$ in Theorem \[spec.thm\] must be replaced by the condition , with a suitable ${\gamma}={\gamma}(r)\in(0,1]$. Our other results can then be obtained, with the corresponding obvious modifications of the hypotheses. We will not discuss this further.
Preliminary results {#prelim.sec}
===================
In this section we will describe various preliminary results that will be used in the following sections.
Function spaces {#func_spaces.sec}
---------------
For any integer $n \ge 0$, let $C^n[-1,1]$ denote the usual Banach space of $n$-times continuously differentiable functions on $[-1,1]$, with the usual sup-type norm, denoted by $|\cdot|_n$. A suitable space in which to search for solutions of , and which incorporates the boundary conditions , is the space $$\begin{aligned}
X &:= \{u \in C^2[-1,1] :
\text{$u$ satisfies \eqref{dbc.eq}} \},
\\
\|u\|_X &:= |u|_2, \quad u \in X.\end{aligned}$$ We also let $Y:=C^0[-1,1]$, with the norm $\|\cdot \|_Y := |\cdot |_0$.
We define ${\Delta}: X \to Y$ by $${\Delta}u := u'', \quad u \in X.$$ By the definition of the spaces $X$, $Y$, the operator ${\Delta}$ is well-defined and continuous. The following result is proved in [@RYN5 Theorem 3.1].
\[De\_inverse.thm\] If $|{\alpha}^\pm| < 1$ then the operator ${\Delta}: X \rightarrow Y$ is bijective, and the inverse operator ${\Delta}^{-1} : Y \rightarrow X$ is continuous. In addition, ${\Delta}^{-1}:Y\rightarrow C^1[-1,1]$ is compact.
For $h \in C^0( [-1,1] {\times}{\mathbb{R}}, {\mathbb{R}})$, we also define the Nemitskii operator $h : Y \to Y$ by $h(u)(x) := f(x,u(x)), \ u \in Y$ (we will use the same notation for a function and its associated Nemitskii operator — this should cause no confusion). The operator $h : Y \to Y$ is bounded and continuous.
Nodal properties {#nodal_sets.sec}
----------------
For any $C^1$ function $u$, if $u(x_0)=0$ then $x_0$ is a [*simple*]{} zero of $u$ if $u'(x_0) \ne 0$. Now, for any integer $k \ge 1$ and any $\nu \in \{\pm\}$, we define $T_k^\nu \subset X$ to be the set of functions $u \in X$ satisfying the following conditions:\
(a) $u'(\pm 1) \ne 0$ and $\nu u'(-1) > 0$;\
(b) $u'$ has only simple zeros in $(-1,1)$, and has exactly $k$ such zeros;\
(c) $u$ has a zero strictly between each consecutive zero of $u'$.
We also define $T_k:=T_k^+\cup T_k^-$.
\[nodal\_sets.rem\] The sets $T_k^\pm$ were first introduced in [@RYN3] to characterise the oscillation properties of the eigenfunctions of multi-point Dirichlet-type problems with constant coefficients. It was also shown in [@RYN3] that the usual method of characterising the oscillations by counting the nodes of the eigenfunctions may fail for multi-point problems. There is a longer discussion of various methods of characterising the oscillation properties of multi-point problems in [@RYN6 Section 9.4].
Solution estimates {#soln_ests.sec}
------------------
We will now obtain various estimates on solutions of . Letting $r'_\pm \ge 0$ denote the positive and negative parts of $r'$, we define $$r_{\min/\max}:=(\min/\max) \, r, \quad
(r'_\pm)_{\min/\max}:=(\min/\max) \, r'_\pm$$ and $$c_{\min} :=
\min \Big\{ \exp\Big(-2\frac{(r'_\pm)_{\max}}{r_{\min}}\Big) \Big\},
\quad
c_{\max} := \frac{1}{c_{\min}} .$$
For any ${\lambda}> 0$ and ${\theta}\in {\mathbb{R}}$ we let $w({\lambda},{\theta}) \in C^2({\mathbb{R}})$ denote the solution of satisfying the initial conditions $$\label{w_soln_form.eq}
w({\lambda},{\theta})(0) = \sin {\theta},
\quad
w({\lambda},{\theta})'(0) = ({\lambda}r(0))^{1/2} \cos {\theta}.$$ Clearly, any solution of has the form $u = C w({\lambda},{\theta})$, for suitable $C,\,{\theta}\in {\mathbb{R}}$. Also, for any solution $u$ of we define the Lyapunov function $$\label{lyap}
E({\lambda},u)(x):=u'(x)^2+{\lambda}r(x)u(x)^2, \quad x \in [-1,1],$$ and when no confusion is possible we will simply write $E(x)$. By , $$\label{E0.eq}
E({\lambda},w({\lambda},{\theta}))(0) = {\lambda}r(0) , \quad {\theta}\in [0,2\pi] .$$
\[en\_est.lem\] For ${\lambda}> 0$, if $u$ is a non-trivial solution of then $$\label{E_bnd.eq}
c_{\min} \le \frac{E(x)}{E(0)} \le c_{\max} \quad \text{for all} \ x
\in [-1,1] .$$ Hence, for ${\theta}\in [0,2\pi]$ and $x \in[-1,1]$, $$\label{u_ud_bounds.eq}
{\lambda}r_{\min} c_{\min} \le w({\lambda},{\theta})'(x)^2+{\lambda}r (x)w({\lambda},{\theta})(x)^2
\le {\lambda}r_{\max} c_{\max}.$$
From we obtain $$-\frac{r'_-(x)}{r(x)}E(x) \le E'(x)={\lambda}r'(x)u(x)^2 \le
\frac{r'_+(x)}{r(x)}E(x) ,
\label{en_deriv.eq}$$ and the result follows by integration.
For ${\lambda}> 0$ and ${\theta}\in [0,2\pi]$, $$\label{est_u_ud.eq}
\begin{aligned}
|w({\lambda},{\theta})|_0 &\le (r_{\max} c_{\max}/r_{\min})^{1/2} ,
\\
|w({\lambda},{\theta})'|_0 &\le (r_{\max} c_{\max})^{1/2} {\lambda}^{1/2} .
\end{aligned}$$
\[int\_est.lem\] For ${\lambda}\ge {\Lambda}_1:= (4r_{\max}c_{\max})^2/r_{\min}^3c_{\min}^2$ and ${\theta}\in [0,2\pi]$, $$\label{estuu}
\pm\int_0^{\pm1} w({\lambda},{\theta})^2 r \ge
c_1:=\frac14 r_{\min}c_{\min} > 0.$$
We write $w := w({\lambda},{\theta})$ and prove the ‘$+$’ case, the other one being similar. Multiplying by $w$ and integrating by parts yields $$-w(1)w'(1)+w(0)w'(0)+ \int_0^1 (w')^2 = {\lambda}\int_0^1 w^2 r ,$$ and by we have $$\int_0^1 (w')^2 \ge {\lambda}r_{\min} c_{\min} - {\lambda}\int_0^1 w^2 r .$$ Combining these inequalities and using yield $$\begin{aligned}
2{\lambda}\int_0^1 w^2 r & \ge -w(1)w'(1)+w(0)w'(0) + {\lambda}r_{\min}
c_{\min}\\
& \ge -2|w|_0|w'|_0 + {\lambda}r_{\min} c_{\min}\\
& \ge -2r_{\max}c_{\max}r_{\min}^{-1/2}{\lambda}^{1/2} + {\lambda}r_{\min} c_{\min}
,\end{aligned}$$ and the claim follows by a straightforward calculation.
For reference, we now state a simple Lagrange identity that will be used several times below.
\[lag.lem\] Suppose that $u,v,z \in C^2[-1,1]$, $u$ satisfies and $z$ satisfies $$\label{inhom.eq}
-z'' = {\lambda}r z + r v, \quad \text{on $(-1,1)$}.$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lag.eq}
\int_0^x u v r &= \big[u'z-uz'\big]_0^x, \quad x \in[-1,1].\end{aligned}$$
Multiply by $z$, by $u$, subtract and integrate by parts.
We will also need some information regarding the derivatives $w_{\lambda}= w_{\lambda}({\lambda},{\theta})$ and $w_{\theta}= w_{\theta}({\lambda},{\theta})$. By and , these derivatives satisfy the following initial value problems: $$\begin{aligned}
{10}
\label{IVPwla}
-w_{\lambda}'' &={\lambda}r w_{\lambda}+ r w,
\quad&
w_{\lambda}(0) &= 0, & w_{\lambda}'(0) &= \tfrac12 {\lambda}^{-1/2}
r(0)^{1/2}\cos{\theta},
\\
\label{IVPwth}
-w_{\theta}''&={\lambda}r w_{\theta},
&
w_{\theta}(0)&=\cos{\theta}, \quad & w_{\theta}'(0)&=-({\lambda}r(0))^{1/2}\sin {\theta}.\end{aligned}$$
\[est\_v.lem\] For ${\lambda}\ge {\Lambda}_2 := {r_\mathrm{min}}^2/(4r_{\max}^3c_{\max}^2)$ and ${\theta}\in [0,2\pi]$, $$\label{est_v_vd.eq}
\begin{aligned}
{\lambda}^{1/2} |w_{\lambda}({\lambda},{\theta})|_0 &\le c_2 := 3{r_\mathrm{max}}^2(c_{\max}/{r_\mathrm{min}})^{3/2}
\\
|w_{\lambda}({\lambda},{\theta})'|_0 &\le c_3 := 3{r_\mathrm{max}}^2c_{\max}^{3/2}/{r_\mathrm{min}}.
\end{aligned}$$
Let ${\widetilde \psi}_0 := w({\lambda},0)/({\lambda}r(0))^{1/2} $, $\psi_1 := w({\lambda},\pi/2)$. Using the Lyapunov functions associated to ${\widetilde \psi}_0$ and $\psi_1$ shows that $$\label{estpsi.eq}
\begin{aligned}
|{\widetilde \psi}_0|_0 &\le (c_{\max}/{r_\mathrm{min}})^{1/2}{\lambda}^{-1/2}, &
|{\widetilde \psi}_0'|_0 &\le c_{\max}^{1/2} ,
\\
|\psi_1|_0 &\le (c_{\max}{r_\mathrm{max}}/{r_\mathrm{min}})^{1/2}, &\quad
|\psi_1'|_0 &\le (c_{\max}{r_\mathrm{max}})^{1/2}{\lambda}^{1/2} .
\end{aligned}$$ The variation of constants formula for the differential equation in yields $$\begin{aligned}
w_{\lambda}(x) &= w_{\lambda}'(0){\widetilde \psi}_0(x) + \int_0^x
\big[\psi_1(x){\widetilde \psi}_0(y)-\psi_1(y){\widetilde \psi}_0(x)\big]r(y)w(y) \,dy,
\\
w_{\lambda}'(x) &= w_{\lambda}'(0){\widetilde \psi}_0'(x) + \int_0^x
\big[\psi_1'(x){\widetilde \psi}_0(y)-\psi_1(y){\widetilde \psi}_0'(x)\big]r(y)w(y) \,dy,\end{aligned}$$ so by , $$\begin{aligned}
|w_{\lambda}|_0 &\le \frac12{r_\mathrm{max}}^{1/2} {\lambda}^{-1/2} |{\widetilde \psi}_0|_0
+ 2 {r_\mathrm{max}}|w|_0 |\psi_1|_0 |{\widetilde \psi}_0|_0 ,
\\
|w_{\lambda}'|_0 &\le \frac12{r_\mathrm{max}}^{1/2} {\lambda}^{-1/2} |{\widetilde \psi}_0'|_0
+ {r_\mathrm{max}}|w|_0 \big(|\psi_1'|_0 |{\widetilde \psi}_0|_0 + |\psi_1|_0
|{\widetilde \psi}_0'|_0\big) ,\end{aligned}$$ and now follows from and .
\[signla.lem\] If ${\lambda}\ge {\Lambda}_3 := \max \{\frac14c_1^{-2}{r_\mathrm{max}},{\Lambda}_1\}$ and $w(\pm1)=0$ then$:$\
$(a)$ $w'(\pm1)w_{\theta}(\pm1)>0;$\
$(b)$ $\pm w'(\pm1)w_{\lambda}(\pm1)>0$.
Combining and with Lemma \[lag.lem\] yields $$\label{wwth}
w'(\pm1)w_{\theta}(\pm1)=({\lambda}r(0))^{1/2}$$ and $$\label{wwla}
w'(\pm1)w_{\lambda}(\pm1)=\int_0^{\pm1} r w^2
- \frac12 {\lambda}^{-1/2} r(0)^{1/2}\sin {\theta}\cos{\theta}.$$ Hence (a) follows immediately (for all ${\lambda}>0$), while (b) follows from Lemma \[int\_est.lem\].
The constant coefficient case
-----------------------------
To illustrate the above estimates, let us briefly consider the case $r
\equiv1$. For $w=w({\lambda},0)$, we have $$w(x) = \sin({\lambda}^{1/2}x), \quad w'(x) = {\lambda}^{1/2}\cos({\lambda}^{1/2}x),$$ $$w_{\lambda}(x)=\frac12 {\lambda}^{-1/2} x \cos({\lambda}^{1/2}x)$$ and $$w_{\lambda}'(x)=\frac12\big[{\lambda}^{-1/2}\cos({\lambda}^{1/2}x)-x
\sin({\lambda}^{1/2}x)\big].$$ In this case, the Lyapunov function $E \equiv 1$, and all the above estimates hold with $c_{\min/\max}=1$. We particularly want to emphasize here that a lower bound of the form cannot hold uniformly for all ${\lambda}>0$ since $$\pm\int_0^{\pm1} w^2 =\frac12
\left(1-\frac{\sin(2{\lambda}^{1/2})}{2{\lambda}^{1/2}}\right).$$
Notation
--------
In principle, the coefficients ${\alpha}^\pm$ are $\eta^\pm$ are fixed, but many of the proofs will be by continuation with respect to the coefficients ${\alpha}^\pm$ so we will often explicitly display the dependence of various functions on these coefficients. Of course, most of the functions we introduce also depend on the coefficients $\eta^\pm$, but we will usually regard these coefficients as fixed and omit them from the notation. In particular, it will be important to observe that all estimates we obtain will be uniform with respect to ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$, as ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$ varies over the set $ \{ {\boldsymbol{\alpha}}: |{\alpha}^\pm| < 1 \} . $
Also, even though the results of Theorem \[spec.thm\] depend on $r$, we will generally consider $r$ to be fixed in Sections \[single\_bc.sec\] and \[evals.sec\], so, except where necessary, we will not explicitly display the dependence on $r$.
Solutions with a single boundary condition {#single_bc.sec}
==========================================
In this section we consider the problem $$\begin{gathered}
- u'' = {\lambda}r u , \quad \text{on $(-1,1)$},
\label{single_bc_de.eq}
\\
u(\eta_0) = \sum^{m}_{i=1} {\alpha}_i u(\eta_i) ,
\label{single_bc.eq}\end{gathered}$$ with a single, multi-point boundary condition, and fixed ${\lambda}> 0$, $m \ge 1$, ${\alpha}\in {\mathbb{R}}^m$, $\eta_0 \in [-1,1]$ and $\eta \in [-1,1]^m$. We will show that the set of solutions of , , is 1-dimensional. This result will show that the eigenspace corresponding to an eigenvalue is 1-dimensional. For separated boundary value problems this 1-dimensionality is a consequence of the uniqueness of the solutions of the initial value problem with a single point initial condition. Theorem \[single\_bc.thm\] below can be regarded as an analogue of this result for the multi-point ‘initial condition’ .
For the following results, it will be convenient to regard ${\lambda}$ as fixed, and ${\alpha}$ as variable, so we will omit ${\lambda}$ from the notation and include ${\alpha}$. Also, we recall that any solution $u$ of must have the form $u = C w({\theta})$, for suitable $C,\,{\theta}\in {\mathbb{R}}$.
We first prove a preliminary lemma which will also be useful later.
\[single\_bc\_u\_simple.lem\] If $|{\alpha}| < a_1:=({r_\mathrm{min}}{c_\mathrm{min}}/{r_\mathrm{max}}{c_\mathrm{max}})^{1/2}$ and $u$ is a non-trivial solution of , , then $u'(\eta_0) \ne 0. $
Suppose that $u'(\eta_0) = 0. $ Since $u = C w({\theta})$, for some $C,\,{\theta}\in {\mathbb{R}}$, $w({\theta})'(\eta_0)=0$ and it follows by - that $$\begin{aligned}
|w({\theta})(\eta_0)| &=
\left( \frac{E(w({\theta}))(\eta_0)}{{\lambda}r (\eta_0)}\right)^{1/2}
\ge c_{\min}^{1/2} \left( \frac{r(0)}{r (\eta_0)} \right)^{1/2},
\\
|w({\theta})(\eta_i)| &
\le \left(\frac{E(w({\theta}))(\eta_i)}{{\lambda}r(\eta_i)}\right)^{1/2}
\le c_{\max}^{1/2} \left(\frac{r(0)}{r (\eta_i)}\right)^{1/2},
\quad i=1,\dots,m.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, by , $$c_{\min}^{1/2} \left( \frac{r(0)}{r (\eta_0)} \right)^{1/2}
\le |w({\theta})(\eta_0)| \le \sum^{m}_{i=1} |{\alpha}_i| |w({\theta})(\eta_i)|
\le c_{\max}^{1/2} \sum^{m}_{i=1} |{\alpha}_i|
\left(\frac{r(0)}{r(\eta_i)}\right)^{1/2},$$ which yields $$\sum^{m}_{i=1} |{\alpha}_i| \left(\frac{r(\eta_0)}{r(\eta_i)}\right)^{1/2}
\ge \left(\frac{c_{\min}}{c_{\max}}\right)^{1/2}.$$ But this contradicts the assumption that $|{\alpha}|<a_1$, and so completes the proof.
We can now prove the main result of this section.
\[single\_bc.thm\] If $|{\alpha}| < a_1$ then the set of solutions of , , is 1-dimensional.
Since any solution of has the form $u = C w({\theta})$ for suitable $C,\,{\theta}\in {\mathbb{R}}$, we see that $u$ satisfies if and only if $$\label{single_bc_zeros.eq}
{\Gamma}({\theta},{\alpha}) :=
w({\theta})(\eta_0) - \sum^{m}_{i=1} {\alpha}_i w({\theta})(\eta_i)
= 0 , \quad {\theta}\in {\mathbb{R}}.$$ The function ${\Gamma}: {\mathbb{R}}{\times}{\mathbb{R}}^m \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is $C^1$, and we will denote the partial derivative of ${\Gamma}$ with respect to ${\theta}$ by ${\Gamma}_{\theta}$.
\[single\_bc\_simple.lem\] If $|{\alpha}| < a_1$ then $${\Gamma}({\theta},{\alpha}) = 0 \implies {\Gamma}_{\theta}({\theta},{\alpha}) \ne 0 ,
\quad {\theta}\in {\mathbb{R}}.$$
Suppose that ${\Gamma}({\theta},{\alpha}) = {\Gamma}_{\theta}({\theta},{\alpha}) = 0$, for some $({\theta},{\alpha}) \in {\mathbb{R}}{\times}{\mathbb{R}}^m$. Defining a linear functional $B_{\alpha}: C^0[-1,1] \to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $$B_{\alpha}z := z(\eta_0) - \sum^{m}_{i=1} {\alpha}_i z(\eta_i),
\quad z \in C^0[-1,1] ,$$ we see that $$\begin{pmatrix}
0 \\ 0
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
B_{\alpha}(w({\theta})) \\ B_{\alpha}(w_{\theta}({\theta}))
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos {\theta}& \sin {\theta}\\
- \sin {\theta}& \cos {\theta}\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
B_{\alpha}(w(0)) \\ B_{\alpha}(w(\pi/2))
\end{pmatrix} ,$$ so $B_{\alpha}(w(0)) = B_{\alpha}(w(\pi/2)) = 0$. Thus, there exists ${\theta}_0$ such that $w({\theta}_0)'(\eta_0) = 0 $ and $B_{\alpha}(w({\theta}_0)) = 0 $. However, this contradicts Lemma \[single\_bc\_u\_simple.lem\], which proves Lemma \[single\_bc\_simple.lem\].
Now, by definition, ${\Gamma}(\cdot,0) = w(\cdot)(\eta_0)$ has exactly 1 zero in $[0,\pi)$, and so it follows from Lemma \[single\_bc\_simple.lem\] and continuity that ${\Gamma}(\cdot,{\alpha})$ has exactly 1 zero in $[0,\pi)$, for all ${\alpha}$ with $|{\alpha}| < a_1$ (of course, by periodicity and linearity, there are other zeros outside $[0,\pi)$, but these do not yield distinct solutions of ). This proves Theorem \[single\_bc.thm\].
Eigenvalues {#evals.sec}
===========
We now consider the eigenvalue problem , , which can be rewritten as $$\label{mp_eval.eq}
-{\Delta}(u) = {\lambda}r u , \quad u \in X .$$ In the following subsections we will prove various properties of the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions, including Theorem \[spec.thm\].
Proof of Theorem \[spec.thm\] {#proof_spec_thm.sec}
-----------------------------
We first establish some useful properties of solutions. Let $({\lambda},u)$ be a nontrivial solution of , with $|{\alpha}^\pm| < 1$.
\[max\_e\_pt.lem\] $|u(\pm 1)| \le |{\alpha}^\pm| |u|_0 < |u|_0$.
By , $$|u(\pm 1)| \le \sum_{i=1} ^{m^\pm} |{\alpha}_i^\pm| |u(\eta_i^\pm)|
\le |{\alpha}^\pm| |u|_0 .
\vspace{- 2 \baselineskip}$$
\[max\_int.lem\] If ${\lambda}< 0$ then $u$ cannot have a strictly positive local max $($respectively, a strictly negative local min$)$ in $(-1,1)$.
Suppose that $u'(x_0) = 0$, $x_0 \in (-1,1)$. Then $$u'(x) = - {\lambda}\int_{x_0}^x r u ,
\quad x \in [-1,1] ,$$ and the result follows by inspecting the sign of $u'$ in a neighbourhood of $x_0$.
Combining Theorem \[De\_inverse.thm\] with Lemmas \[max\_e\_pt.lem\] and \[max\_int.lem\] shows that ${\lambda}> 0$ and that $|u|_0$ is attained in $(-1,1)$, that is, $u$ must have a global max or min in $(-1,1)$. The following lemma shows that if $|{\alpha}^\pm|$ are sufficiently small then ${\lambda}$ is uniformly bounded away from zero.
\[labaway.lem\] There exists ${\Lambda}_4>0$ such that if $|{\alpha}^\pm| \le \frac12$ then ${\lambda}\ge {\Lambda}_4$.
Suppose, on the contrary, that for each $n = 1,2,\dots,$ there exist ${\alpha}_n^\pm$, with $|{\alpha}_n^\pm| \le \frac12$, and a corresponding solution $({\lambda}_n,u_n)$ of - with $|u_n|_0 = 1$ and ${\lambda}_n>0$, such that ${\lambda}_n \to 0$ as $n \to \infty$. Then, by , $|u_n''|_0 \to 0$, so there exist constants $c$, $m$, and a subsequence such that $u_n(x) \to c + m x$, uniformly for $x \in [-1,1]$. However, this contradicts and the assumption that $|{\alpha}^\pm| \le \frac12$.
The next lemma shows that if $|{\alpha}^\pm|$ are sufficiently small then any eigenfunction must lie in one of the nodal sets $T_k$.
\[efun\_in\_T.lem\] If $|{\alpha}^\pm| < a_1$ then $u'(-1)u'(1) \neq 0$ and $u \in T_k$, for some $k \ge 1$.
The first part of the lemma follows from Lemma \[single\_bc\_u\_simple.lem\]. The second part then follows from this, together with the definition of the sets $T_k$ and the properties of solutions of the differential equation .
We now define $C^1$ functions ${\Gamma}^\pm : (0,\infty) {\times}{\mathbb{R}}{\times}{\mathbb{R}}^{m^\pm} \to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $$\label{defofGa}
{\Gamma}^\pm({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^\pm) :=
w({\lambda},{\theta})(\pm 1) - \sum^{m^\pm}_{i=1} {\alpha}_i^\pm w({\lambda},{\theta})(\eta_i^\pm)$$ (where $w({\lambda},{\theta})$ is as in Section \[prelim.sec\]). Substituting $w({\lambda},{\theta})$ into shows that, for given coefficients ${\alpha}^\pm$, a number ${\lambda}$ is an eigenvalue if and only if $$\label{simul_zeros.eq}
{\Gamma}^\pm({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^\pm) = 0 ,$$ for some ${\theta}\in {\mathbb{R}}$. Hence it suffices to consider the set of solutions of .
We will prove Theorem \[spec.thm\] by continuation with respect to ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$, away from ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}={{\boldsymbol{0}}}$, where the required information on the solutions of follows from the standard theory of the separated Dirichlet problem, with boundary conditions $u(\pm 1)=0$. For reference, we state this in the following lemma.
\[Ga\_zeros\_at\_zero.lem\] Suppose that ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}={{\boldsymbol{0}}}$. For each $k = 1,2,\dots,$ there exists an eigenvalue ${\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k > 0$ and a unique ${\theta}_k^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}\in [0,\pi)$ such that $u^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k = w({\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k,{\theta}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k) \in T_k$ is a corresponding eigenfunction. Also, ${\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k < {\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_{k+1}$, and ${\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k \to\infty$ as $k \to\infty$.
By construction, each $({\lambda}_k^{{\boldsymbol{0}}},{\theta}_k^{{\boldsymbol{0}}})$ satisfies (with ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}= {{\boldsymbol{0}}}$). Of course, by the periodicity properties of ${\Gamma}^\pm$ with respect to ${\theta}$, there are other solutions of than those in Lemma \[Ga\_zeros\_at\_zero.lem\], but these do not yield distinct solutions of the eigenvalue problem . In fact, to remove these extra solutions and to reduce the domain of ${\theta}$ to a compact set, from now on we will regard ${\theta}$ as lying in the circle obtained from the interval $[0,2\pi]$ by identifying the points $0$ and $2\pi$, which we denote by $S^1$, and we regard the domain of the functions ${\Gamma}^\pm$ as $(0,\infty) {\times}S^1 {\times}{\mathbb{R}}^{m^\pm}$.
We now wish to solve for small ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$ by applying the implicit function theorem at the points $({\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k,{\theta}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k,{{\boldsymbol{0}}})$, $k \ge 1$. We would like to obtain solutions $({\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}),{\theta}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}),{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})$, for all $k \ge 1$, for all ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$ lying in a fixed set ${{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma}$ (with ${\gamma}$ independent of $k$). Simply applying the implicit function theorem at each of the points $({\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k,{\theta}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k,{{\boldsymbol{0}}})$ would not, of course, yield a fixed set ${{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma}$, so we proceed in two steps: we first obtain a fixed set ${{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma}$ for all ‘large’ eigenvalues using uniform estimates and continuation; we then deal with the remaining (finite) set of ‘small’ eigenvalues.
The following result will allow us to apply the implicit function theorem at the points $({\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k,{\theta}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k,{{\boldsymbol{0}}})$, for sufficiently large $k \ge 1$.
\[nu\_Ga\_zero\_zero\_pos.prop\] If ${\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k \ge {\Lambda}_3$ then $$\label{nu_Ga_zero_zero_pos.eq}
\pm {\Gamma}_{\lambda}^\pm({\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k,{\theta}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k,0)
{\Gamma}_{\theta}^\pm({\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k,{\theta}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k,0) > 0.$$
Since ${\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k$ is a Dirichlet eigenvalue $w({\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k,{\theta}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k)(\pm1)=0$, so by Lemma \[signla.lem\], if ${\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k \ge {\Lambda}_3$ then $$\pm w_{\lambda}({\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k,{\theta}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k)(\pm 1)
w_{\theta}({\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k,{\theta}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k)(\pm 1)
> 0 ,$$ which, by the definition of ${\Gamma}^\pm$, is .
We now wish to extend the result of Proposition \[nu\_Ga\_zero\_zero\_pos.prop\] to small ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\neq{{\boldsymbol{0}}}$. To do this we first prove a partial result. We will suppose from now on that $|{\alpha}^\pm| \le \min \{a_1,\frac12\}$ so that Theorem \[single\_bc.thm\] and Lemmas \[single\_bc\_simple.lem\], \[labaway.lem\] and \[efun\_in\_T.lem\] hold.
\[Ga\_simple\_zeros.lem\] There exists $a_s\in \big(0,\min \{a_1,\frac12\}\big)$ and ${\Lambda}_s > 0$ such that, if $\nu \in \{\pm\}$, ${\lambda}\ge {\Lambda}_s$, $0 \le |{\alpha}^\nu| < a_s$, and ${\theta}\in S^1$, then $$\label{Ga_ab_zero_implies.eq}
{\Gamma}^\nu({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^\nu) = 0
\implies
{\Gamma}^\nu_{\lambda}({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^\nu) \,
{\Gamma}^\nu_{\theta}({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^\nu) \ne 0.$$
We prove the result for ${\Gamma}^+$, and we omit the superscript throughout the proof; the other case is similar. We also omit the argument $({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha})$ throughout.
By Lemma \[single\_bc\_simple.lem\], ${\Gamma}=0 \Rightarrow {\Gamma}_{\theta}\ne 0$, so we need only prove that $
{\Gamma}=0 \Rightarrow {\Gamma}_{\lambda}\ne 0.
$ Suppose, on the contrary, that there exists some $({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha})$ such that $$\label{Gd_zero.eq}
{\Gamma}= w(1) - \sum^{m}_{i=1} {\alpha}_i w(\eta_i) = 0,
\quad
{\Gamma}_{\lambda}= w_{\lambda}(1) - \sum^{m}_{i=1} {\alpha}_i w_{\lambda}(\eta_i) = 0 .$$ Then $$\label{estal}
|w(1)| \le |{\alpha}||w|_0 , \quad |w_{\lambda}(1)| \le |{\alpha}||w_{\lambda}|_0.$$ It follows from with $u=v=w$ and $z=w_{\lambda}$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^1 w^2 r &= [w' w_{\lambda}- w w_{\lambda}']_0^1.\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the estimates , , , and into this equation shows that, for ${\lambda}\ge \max \{{\Lambda}_1,{\Lambda}_2\}$, $$c_1 \le \int_0^1 w^2 r
\le c_4 |{\alpha}| + \frac12 r(0)^{1/2} {\lambda}^{-1/2},$$ where $c_4 := ({r_\mathrm{max}}{c_\mathrm{max}})^{1/2} ( c_2 + c_3{r_\mathrm{min}}^{-1/2} ) > 0$. This proves that if ${\lambda}$ is sufficiently large and $|{\alpha}^\pm|$ is sufficiently small then cannot hold, which completes the proof of Lemma \[Ga\_simple\_zeros.lem\].
We now extend the result of Lemma \[Ga\_simple\_zeros.lem\] to yield similar sign conditions to those in in Proposition \[nu\_Ga\_zero\_zero\_pos.prop\].
\[nu\_Ga\_zero\_pos.prop\] If $\nu \in \{\pm\}$, ${\lambda}\ge {\Lambda}_s$, $0 \le |{\alpha}^\nu| < a_s$ and ${\theta}\in S^1$, then $$\label{nu_Ga_zero_pos.eq}
{\Gamma}^\nu({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^\nu) = 0
\implies
\nu \, {\Gamma}^\nu_{\lambda}({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^\nu) \,
{\Gamma}^\nu_{\theta}({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^\nu) > 0.$$
Suppose that ${\Gamma}^\nu({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^\nu) = 0$. We regard $({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^\nu)$ as fixed, and consider the equation $$\label{Gz_eq_z.eq}
G({\widetilde \theta},t) := {\Gamma}^\nu({\lambda},{\widetilde \theta},t {\alpha}^\nu) = 0,
\quad ({\widetilde \theta},\ t) \in S^1 {\times}[0,1].$$ Clearly, if $t \in [0,1]$ then $|t{\alpha}^\nu| < a_s$, so by , $$\label{Gz_th.eq}
G({\theta},1) = 0 \quad \text{and} \quad
G({\widetilde \theta},t) = 0 \implies G_{\theta}({\widetilde \theta},t) \ne 0 .$$ Hence, by , the implicit function theorem, and the compactness of $S^1$, there exists a $C^1$ solution function $
t \to {\widetilde \theta}(t) : [0,1] \to S^1 ,
$ for such that $${\widetilde \theta}(1) = {\theta}\quad \text{and} \quad
{\Gamma}^\nu({\lambda},{\widetilde \theta}(t),t{\alpha}^\nu) = 0 , \quad t \in [0,1]$$ (the local existence of this solution function, near $t=1$, is trivial; standard arguments show that its domain can be extended to include the interval $[0,1]$).
Next, by Proposition \[nu\_Ga\_zero\_zero\_pos.prop\], the implication holds at $({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^\nu) = ({\lambda},{\widetilde \theta}(0),0)$ and hence, by and continuity, holds at $({\lambda},{\widetilde \theta}(t),t {\alpha}^\nu)$ for all $t \in [0,1]$. In particular, putting $t=1$ shows that holds at $({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^\nu)$, which completes the proof of Proposition \[nu\_Ga\_zero\_pos.prop\].
We now return to the pair of equations . To solve these using the implicit function theorem we define the Jacobian determinant $$J(s,{\theta},{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) :=
\begin{vmatrix}
{\Gamma}^-_{\lambda}({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^-) & {\Gamma}^-_{\theta}({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^-)
\\[1 ex]
{\Gamma}^+_{\lambda}({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^+) & {\Gamma}^+_{\theta}({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^+)
\end{vmatrix},
$$ for $({\lambda},{\theta},{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) \in (0,\infty) {\times}S^1 {\times}{{\mathcal A}_{a_s}}.$ The sign properties of ${\Gamma}^\pm_{\lambda},\ {\Gamma}^\pm_{\theta}$ proved in Propositions \[nu\_Ga\_zero\_zero\_pos.prop\] and \[nu\_Ga\_zero\_pos.prop\] now yield the following results.
\[jac.cor\] $(a)$If ${\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k \ge {\Lambda}_s$ then $J({\lambda}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k,{\theta}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}_k,{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) \ne 0$.\
$(b)$ If ${\lambda}\ge {\Lambda}_s$ and $0 \le |{\alpha}^\pm| < a_s$ then $${\Gamma}^+({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^+) = {\Gamma}^-({\lambda},{\theta},{\alpha}^-) = 0
\implies J({\lambda},{\theta},{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) \ne 0 .$$
The following lemma will be useful to separate ‘small’ and ‘large’ eigenvalues.
\[s\_bdd.lem\] There exists an integer $k_s$ and a constant ${\kappa}> 0$ such that if ${\lambda}$ is an eigenvalue with eigenfunction $u \in T_k$ with $k \ge k_s$ then ${\Lambda}_s + 1 \le {\lambda}\le {\kappa}k^2$.
This follows immediately by applying the Sturm comparison theorem to the differential equation .
Now suppose that $({\lambda},{\theta},{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) \in ({\Lambda}_s,\infty) {\times}S^1 {\times}{{\mathcal A}_{a_s}}$ is an arbitrary solution of , with $w({\lambda},{\theta})\in T_{k}$ for some $k \ge k_s$. By Corollary \[jac.cor\] and the implicit function theorem, there exists a maximal open interval ${{\widetilde N}}$ containing $1$ and a $C^1$ solution function $$t \to ({\widetilde \lambda}(t),{\widetilde \theta}(t)) : {{\widetilde N}}\to (0,\infty) {\times}S^1,$$ such that $$({\widetilde \lambda}(1),{\widetilde \theta}(1)) = ({\lambda},{\theta}),
\quad {\Gamma}^\pm({\widetilde \lambda}(t),{\widetilde \theta}(t),t{\alpha}^\pm) = 0 ,
\quad t \in {{\widetilde N}}.$$ Also, it follows immediately from Lemma \[efun\_in\_T.lem\] and continuity that $$\label{kz_defn.eq}
w({\widetilde \lambda}(t),{\widetilde \theta}(t)) \in T_{k} , \quad t \in {{\widetilde N}}.$$ Furthermore, Lemma \[s\_bdd.lem\] and show that $${\Lambda}_s + 1 \le {\widetilde \lambda}(t) \le {\kappa}k^2, \quad t \in {{\widetilde N}},$$ and combining this estimate with Corollary \[jac.cor\] and a standard continuation argument (similar to the argument in the proof of [@GR Lemma 4.8(b)]) shows that, since ${{\widetilde N}}$ is a maximal interval, in fact $[0,1] \subset {{\widetilde N}}$.
Hence, the above arguments have shown that, for any ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}_{a_s}}$ and $k \ge k_s$:
if $({\lambda},{\theta},{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) \in ({\Lambda}_s,\infty) {\times}S^1 {\times}{{\mathcal A}_{a_s}}$ is a solution of with $w({\lambda},{\theta}) \in T_k$, then $({\lambda},{\theta},{\boldsymbol{\alpha}})$ can be continuously connected to the solution $({\lambda}_k^{{\boldsymbol{0}}},{\theta}_k^{{\boldsymbol{0}}},{{\boldsymbol{0}}})$.
Similar arguments show that:
any solution $({\lambda}_k^{{\boldsymbol{0}}},{\theta}_k^{{\boldsymbol{0}}},{{\boldsymbol{0}}})$, $k \ge k_s$, can be continuously connected to exactly one solution of in $({\Lambda}_s,\infty) {\times}S^1 {\times}{{\mathcal A}_{a_s}}$, say $({\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}),{\theta}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}),{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) $.
We now extend these properties to the full set of solutions, for sufficiently small $|{\alpha}^\nu|$.
\[nu\_Ga\_zero\_pos2.prop\] There exists ${\gamma}\in(0,a_s]$ such that if ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}}$ then the properties $C$-$(a)$ and $C$-$(b)$ hold for all $k \ge 1$.
For any ${\lambda}> 0$ and ${\theta}\in {\mathbb{R}}$ we now let ${\widetilde w}({\lambda},{\theta}) \in C^2({\mathbb{R}})$ denote the solution of satisfying the initial conditions $$\label{tw_soln_form.eq}
{\widetilde w}({\lambda},{\theta})(0) = \sin {\theta},
\quad
{\widetilde w}({\lambda},{\theta})'(0) = \cos {\theta},$$ and define functions ${\widetilde \Gamma}^\pm$ as in , but using ${\widetilde w}$ instead of $w$. Analogously to equation , eigenvalues of also correspond to solutions of the pair of equations ${\widetilde \Gamma}^\pm = 0$. However, the fact that the initial conditions for ${\widetilde w}$ do not depend on ${\lambda}$ now allows us to establish the analogue of Lemma \[signla.lem\], and hence Proposition \[nu\_Ga\_zero\_zero\_pos.prop\], for all ${\lambda}> 0$ (in this case the right hand side of becomes 1, while the second term on the right hand side of becomes 0). Hence, we may now follow the previous argument to show that we can apply the implicit function theorem to the equations ${\widetilde \Gamma}^\pm = 0$ at each of the points $({\lambda}_k^{{\boldsymbol{0}}},{\theta}_k^{{\boldsymbol{0}}},{{\boldsymbol{0}}})$, $1 \le k < k_s$. Combining this with the above results for $k \ge k_s$ then yields a common ‘continuation domain’ ${{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}} \subset {{\mathcal A}_{a_s}}$ for all the eigenvalues.
We used the function $w$ in the continuation argument to obtain the ‘large’ eigenvalues in the interval $({\Lambda}_s,\infty)$ since this function yielded uniform estimates in Section \[soln\_ests.sec\] for all large ${\lambda}$, based on the equation . Unfortunately, although the initial conditions for ${\widetilde w}$ (and, more particularly, for ${\widetilde w}_{\lambda}$) are simpler than those for $w$, the analogue of for ${\widetilde w}$ is $$E({\lambda},{\widetilde w}({\lambda},{\theta}))(0) = \cos^2 {\theta}+ {\lambda}r(0) \sin^2 {\theta},
\quad {\theta}\in [0,2\pi] ,$$ which would not yield uniform estimates for large ${\lambda}$.
We conclude from the above results that, for all $k \ge 1$ and ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}}$, there is an eigenvalue ${\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})$ with corresponding eigenfunction $ u_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) := w({\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}),{\theta}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})) \in T_k $ (or $ u_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) := {\widetilde w}({\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}),{\theta}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}))$ when $1 \le k < k_s$), and there is no eigenvalue $\hat {\lambda}\ne {\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})$ having an eigenfunction $\hat u \in T_k$. Also, by Lemma \[Ga\_zeros\_at\_zero.lem\], ${\lambda}_k^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}< {\lambda}_{k+1}^{{\boldsymbol{0}}}$, and by Theorem \[single\_bc.thm\], ${\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) \ne {\lambda}_{k+1}({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})$ for any ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}}$, so it follows from the continuation construction that ${\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) < {\lambda}_{k+1}({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})$ for all ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}}$. The fact that ${\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})$ has algebraic multiplicity equal to 1 (and so is simple) will be proved in Lemma \[alge\_mult.lem\] below.
Finally, for fixed ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$, the fact that $u_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) \in T_k$, for $k \ge 1$, shows that as $k \to \infty$ the oscillation count tends to $\infty$, so by standard properties of the differential equation , we must have $\lim_{k \to\infty} {\lambda}_k = \infty$. This concludes the proof of Theorem \[spec.thm\]. $\Box$
Continuity of the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions {#continuity.sec}
------------------------------------------------
The implicit function theorem construction of ${\lambda}_k$ and $u_k$ in the proof of Theorem \[spec.thm\] also implies continuity properties which will be useful below, so we state these in the following corollary (continuity of $u_k$ will be in the space $C^0[-1,1]$, although stronger results could easily be obtained).
\[cts\_evals.cor\] For each $k \ge 1$, ${\lambda}_k \in {\mathbb{R}}$ and $u_k \in C^0[-1,1]$ depend continuously on $({\boldsymbol{\alpha}},{\boldsymbol{\eta}}) \in {{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}} {\times}(-1,1]^{m^-} {\times}[-1,1)^{m^+}$.
Algebraic multiplicity and topological degree {#alg_mult.sec}
---------------------------------------------
By Theorem \[De\_inverse.thm\], for $|{\alpha}^{\pm}|<1$ we may define a compact linear operator $K_r : Y \to Y$ by $K_r u := -{\Delta}^{-1}(ru)$, $u \in Y$, and then the eigenvalue problem is equivalent to the problem $$\label{K_la_u.eq}
u = {\lambda}K_r u, \quad u \in Y .$$ In particular, for ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}}$, the eigenvalues ${\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})$ obtained in Theorem \[spec.thm\] are the characteristic values of $K_r$, so we may define the algebraic multiplicity of ${\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})$ to be the algebraic multiplicity of ${\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})$ as a characteristic value of $K_r$, that is $${{\mathfrak m}}({\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}))
:=\dim \bigcup_{l=1}^\infty N\big((I_Y-{\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) K_r)^l\big),$$ where $N$ denotes null-space and $I_Y$ is the identity on $Y$.
\[alge\_mult.lem\] Suppose that ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}}$. Then ${{\mathfrak m}}({\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}))=1$, $k \ge 1$.
The proof follows by the same continuation argument as in [@RYN5 Lemma 5.13], starting from ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}={{\boldsymbol{0}}}$, where the result is easily verified.
Now, if ${\lambda}$ is not a characteristic value of $K_r$ then the Leray-Schauder degree $\deg(I_Y - {\lambda}K_r, B_R,0)$ is well defined for any $R>0$, where $B_R$ denotes the open ball in $Y$ centred at $0$ with radius $R$, see [@ZEI Ch. 13].
\[degree.prop\] Suppose that ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}}$. Then, for any $R > 0$, $$\deg(I_Y - {\lambda}K_r, B_R,0)=
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if ${\lambda}< {\lambda}_1,$} \\
(-1)^k, & \text{if ${\lambda}\in ({\lambda}_k, {\lambda}_{k+1}),$ $k \ge 1$.}
\end{cases}$$
The result follows from Lemma \[alge\_mult.lem\] and the Leray-Schauder index theorem (see, for example, [@ZEI Proposition 14.5]).
Positivity of the principal eigenfunction {#positivity.sec}
-----------------------------------------
A slight extension of the above proof of Theorem \[spec.thm\] also proves the following result.
\[pos\_efuns.cor\] $(a)$ If each ${\alpha}^\pm > 0$, then $u_1 > 0$ on $[-1,1]$.\
$(b)$ If either ${\alpha}^- < 0$ or ${\alpha}^+ < 0$, then $u_1$ changes sign on $(-1,1)$.
If ${\alpha}^\pm > 0$ then the proof of Lemma \[max\_e\_pt.lem\] can be extended to show that $u$ cannot have a strictly positive global max or strictly negative global min at the end-points $x= \pm 1$. Hence, if $\min u_1 < 0 < \max u_1$, then $u_1'$ must have at least two zeros in $(-1,1)$, contradicting $u_1 \in T_1^+$. Therefore, $u_1 > 0$ on $(-1,1)$, and the boundary conditions now show that $u(\pm1) > 0$, which proves case (a). Case (b) follows immediately from the boundary conditions .
Counterexamples {#counterex.sec}
---------------
As mentioned in the introduction, in the constant coefficient case with $r \equiv 1$, Theorem \[spec.thm\] holds for all ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in{{\mathcal A}}_1$. In this section we give two examples showing that this is not true in the variable coefficient case. The first example shows that, for certain ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in{{\mathcal A}}_1$ and $r \in C^1[-1,1]$, ‘many’ eigenvalues of - may be ‘missing’.
[**Example 1.**]{} For ${\delta}\in (0,1/2)$, we consider equation with $$r_{\delta}(x) :=
\begin{cases}
1, & x \in [-{\delta},{\delta}] ,
\\
4, & x \in [-1,-{\delta}) \cup ({\delta},1] ,
\end{cases}$$ together with the symmetric boundary conditions $$\label{ex1_bc.eq}
u( \pm 1) = \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} u(0).$$ We will show that there are no eigenvalues in the interval $I_{\delta}:= [(\tfrac{\pi}{4{\delta}})^2 , (\tfrac{3\pi}{4{\delta}})^2]$. Since, for small ${\delta}$, the interval $I_{\delta}$ can be arbitrarily long and an eigenvalue ${\lambda}$ corresponds to an oscillation count of ‘roughly’ $4{\lambda}^{1/2}/\pi$ (rigorous estimates can easily be given using the form of $r$ and the solutions of ), this result shows that there may be arbitrarily many oscillation counts $k$ for which there are no corresponding eigenvalues.
We first observe that if $u$ is an eigenfunction corresponding to an eigenvalue ${\lambda}$, then the function $u_{\mathrm{e}}(x):=\frac12(u(x)+u(-x))$ is an even eigenfunction corresponding to ${\lambda}$, so it suffices to show that there are no even eigenfunctions corresponding to eigenvalues ${\lambda}\in I_{\delta}$.
We now search for an even solution $u$ of , , which we suppose to be normalized to $u(0) = 1$. Thus, $u$ must have the form $$\label{ex1_even_soln.eq}
u(x) =
\begin{cases}
\cos {\lambda}^{1/2} x, & x \in [0,{\delta}] ,
\\
C_{\delta}\cos 2{\lambda}^{1/2} (x-{\epsilon}_{\delta}), & x \in ({\delta},1] ,
\end{cases}$$ where $C_{\delta}\neq 0$ and ${\epsilon}_{\delta}$ are chosen so that $u\in C^1[-1,1]$. The Lyapunov function $E({\lambda},u)$ defined in is piecewise constant here, with $$\begin{aligned}
{10}
u^2 + \frac{1}{{\lambda}} (u')^2 &\equiv 1 , & &\text{in $[0,{\delta}]$,}
\\
u^2 + \frac{1}{4{\lambda}} (u')^2
&\equiv u({\delta})^2 + \frac{1}{4{\lambda}} u'({\delta})^2
= u({\delta})^2 + \frac{1}{4} (1 - u({\delta})^2)
\\&
= \frac{1}{4} + \frac{3}{4} u({\delta})^2,
&\quad &\text{in $[{\delta},1]$}.\end{aligned}$$ Now suppose that ${\lambda}\in I_{\delta}$. Then $u({\delta})^2\le1/2$, and hence $$u(1)^2
\le \frac{1}{4} + \frac{3}{4} u({\delta})^2
\le \frac{5}{8}
< \frac{3}{4} u(0)^2,$$ so $u$ cannot satisfy , and hence there are no eigenvalues in $I_{\delta}$.
Finally, a similar example with a $C^1$ coefficient function $r$ can be constructed by choosing a suitable $C^1$ approximation of the function $r_{\delta}$. $\square$
Our second example shows that, for some ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in{{\mathcal A}}_1$ and $r \in C^1[-1,1]$, some eigenvalues may not be simple.
[**Example 2.**]{} Consider equation with $$r(x) := 2 - \cos(\tfrac{\pi}{2}x), \quad x\in[-1,1].$$ Let $\mu^D>0$ be any eigenvalue of the Dirichlet problem $$-u''=\mu r u \quad \text{on $(0,1)$}, \quad u(0)=u(1)=0,$$ with corresponding eigenfunction $u^D$. Clearly, $u^D$ can be extended by antisymmetry to a solution $u$ of satisfying $$\label{ex_bc.eq}
u(\pm1)={\alpha}u(0),$$ for any ${\alpha}\in(-1,1)$. On the other hand, let $v$ be the (even) solution of the initial value problem $$-v''=\mu^D r v \quad \text{on $(-1,1)$}, \quad v(0)=1, \ v'(0)=0.$$ Setting ${\alpha}:=v(1)$ in , we see that $u$ and $v$ are two linearly independent eigenfunctions of the problem , , corresponding to the eigenvalue ${\lambda}=\mu^D$. We only need to check that $|{\alpha}| = |v(1)| <1$. The Lyapunov function associated with $v$ (defined in ) satisfies $$0 \le \frac{E'(x)}{E(x)} \le \frac{r'(x)}{r(x)} < r'(x) ,
\quad x \in (0,1],$$ so by integration, $$v'(1)^2 + 2 \mu^D v(1)^2 = E(1) < E(0) \int_0^1 r' = \mu^D ,$$ which yields $|v(1)| < 2^{-1/2}$. $\square$
A non-resonance condition {#nonres.sec}
=========================
In this section we consider the problem , , which we can rewrite as $$\label{nonres.eq}
-{\Delta}u = f(u),
\quad u \in X ,$$ and we establish the existence of solutions under a ‘nonresonance’ condition. We suppose that $f \in C^0([-1,1] {\times}{\mathbb{R}},{\mathbb{R}})$ satisfies the following condition.
There exists $r_\infty \in C^1[-1,1]$ such that $$\label{f_lim_infty.eq}
\lim_{|\xi| \to \infty} \frac{f(x,\xi)}{\xi} = r_\infty(x)>0,
\quad \text{uniformly for} \ x \in[-1,1].$$
We also assume that $|{\alpha}^\pm| <{\gamma}(r_\infty)$, and we define the eigenvalues ${\lambda}_k^\infty := {\lambda}_k(r_\infty)$, $k = 1,2,\dots.$
\[nonres.thm\] Suppose that $(\mathrm{F}_\infty)$ holds, and ${\lambda}_k^\infty \ne 1$, for all $k \ge 1$. Then has a solution.
Equation is equivalent to $$u = {{\mathcal T}}(u), \quad u \in Y,$$ where we define ${{\mathcal T}}:Y \to Y$ by ${{\mathcal T}}(u) := - {\Delta}^{-1}(f(u))$. We now define a homotopy $H:[0,1]{\times}Y \to Y$ by $$H(t,u)=(1-t){{\mathcal T}}(u) + t K_{r_\infty}(u), \quad (t,u) \in [0,1]{\times}Y .$$ It follows from Theorem \[De\_inverse.thm\] that $H$ is completely continuous. Furthermore, arguments similar to the proof of [@DR Theorem 5.3] show that there exists $R>0$ such that all solutions $(t,u)\in [0,1]{\times}Y$ of $u=H(t,u)$ satisfy $|u|_0<R$. Hence, it follows from the invariance property of the degree (see [@ZEI Section 13.6]) and Proposition \[degree.prop\] that $$\deg(I_Y-{{\mathcal T}}, B_R, 0)=\deg(I_Y-K_{r_\infty}, B_R, 0)\neq0,$$ which proves the theorem.
Nodal solutions {#nodal.sec}
===============
In this section we consider the following special case of , $$\label{nodal.eq}
-{\Delta}u = g(u) u, \quad u \in X ,$$ and we establish the existence of nodal solutions of (that is, solutions $u$ lying in specific sets $T_k^\pm$). We suppose throughout this section that $g\in C^1([-1,1]{\times}{\mathbb{R}})$ satisfies the following condition.
There exists $r_0,\ r_\infty \in C^1[-1,1]$ such that $$\label{f_lim_zero.eq}
\lim_{\xi \rightarrow 0} g(x,\xi) = r_0(x)>0 ,
\quad
\lim_{|\xi| \to \infty} g(x,\xi) = r_\infty(x)>0,$$ uniformly for $x \in[-1,1]$, and $$\sup |g_x| + \sup |\xi g_\xi| <\infty.$$
It follows from $(\mathrm{G})$ that the Nemitskii mapping $g:Y\to Y$ satisfies $$\label{tfzero}
\lim_{|u|_0 \to 0} |g(u) - r_0 |_0 = 0 .$$
We also assume throughout that $|{\alpha}^\pm| < \min \{{\gamma}(r_0),{\gamma}(r_\infty)\}$, and we define the eigenvalues ${\lambda}_k^0 := {\lambda}_k(r_0)$, ${\lambda}_k^\infty := {\lambda}_k(r_\infty)$, $k = 1,2,\dots.$
We will establish the existence of nodal solutions of by studying the solution set of the bifurcation-type problem $$\label{rew_bif.eq}
- {\Delta}u = {\lambda}g(u) u, \quad ({\lambda},u) \in (0,\infty) {\times}X$$ (solutions of with ${\lambda}= 1$ yield solutions of ). Clearly, $({\lambda},u) = ({\lambda},0)$ is a (trivial) solution of for any ${\lambda}\in {\mathbb{R}}$, and we let ${\mathcal S}$ denote the set of non-trivial solutions of . We will use global bifurcation arguments to obtain unbounded, closed, connected sets of solutions of , and then use these sets to obtain solutions of . We first prove two preliminary lemmas.
\[sol\_prop.lem\] For any ${\Lambda}> 0$ there exists ${\gamma}={\gamma}_{g,{\Lambda}}\in(0,1)$ such that, if ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{\gamma}$ and $({\lambda},u) \in {\mathcal S}$ with ${\lambda}\le {\Lambda}$, then $u \in T_k$ for some $k \ge 1$.
The proof is similar to that of Lemma \[efun\_in\_T.lem\], and we need only show that $u'(-1)u'(1)\neq0$. For $({\lambda},u) \in {\mathcal S}$, we define the Lyapunov function $$E(x):=u'(x)^2 + {\lambda}g(x,u(x))u(x)^2, \quad x \in[-1,1].$$ Then, by , $$E'(x)={\lambda}[ g_x(x,u(x)) + g_\xi(x,u(x))u'(x) ] u(x)^2$$ and so, by $(\mathrm{G})$, there exist $C_1,C_2>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
|E'| & \le C_1{\lambda}u^2 + C_2 {\lambda}^{1/2} |u'| {\lambda}^{1/2} |u|
\le C_1{\lambda}u^2 + C_2 {\lambda}^{1/2} [(u')^2 + {\lambda}u^2] \\
& \le (C_1 + C_2 {\lambda}^{1/2})[(u')^2 + {\lambda}u^2]
= (C_1 + C_2 {\lambda}^{1/2})[(u')^2 + g_{\min}^{-1} {\lambda}g_{\min} u^2] \\
& \le \max\{1,g_{\min}^{-1}\}
(C_1 + C_2 {\lambda}^{1/2})[(u')^2 + {\lambda}g_{\min} u^2] \\
& \le \max\{1,g_{\min}^{-1}\} (C_1 + C_2 {\lambda}^{1/2}) E =: R({\lambda}) E.\end{aligned}$$ It follows by integration that $$E(0){\mathrm{e}}^{-R({\lambda})} \le E(x) \le E(0){\mathrm{e}}^{R({\lambda})} .$$ A similar argument to the proof of Lemma \[single\_bc\_u\_simple.lem\] now shows that if $$|{\alpha}^\pm|<
{\gamma}_{g,{\Lambda}}:=\left(\frac{g_{\min}}{g_{\max}}\right)^{1/2} e^{-R({\Lambda})}$$ then $u'(-1)u'(1)\neq0$.
\[sturm\_comp.lem\] If $({\lambda},u) \in {\mathcal S}$ with $u \in T_k$, for some $k \ge 1$, then ${\lambda}< {\Lambda}(k) := g_{\min}^{-1}((k+2)\pi/2)^2$.
The function $\sin \big( \frac{(k+2)\pi}{2} (x+1)\big)$ has $k+3$ zeros in $[-1,1]$ so, by the Sturm comparison theorem, if ${\lambda}\ge {\Lambda}(k)$ then $u$ must have at least $k+2$ zeros in $[-1,1]$, and hence $u'$ must have at least $k+1$ zeros in $[-1,1]$, which contradicts $u\in T_k$.
We can now prove the following Rabinowitz-type global bifurcation theorem, for individual nodal counts $k \ge 1$.
\[rab\_glob.thm\] For a given $k \ge 1$, let ${\gamma}_k := {\gamma}_{g,{\Lambda}(k)}$ $($recall Lemmas \[sol\_prop.lem\] and \[sturm\_comp.lem\]$)$, and suppose that ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}_k}$. Then there exists closed connected sets ${{\mathcal C}}_k^\pm \subset \overline {\mathcal S}$ with the properties$:$
$({\lambda}_k^0,0)\in {\mathcal C_k^\pm};$
${\mathcal C_k^\pm}\backslash \{({\lambda}_k^0,0)\} \subset
(0,{\Lambda}(k)] \times T_k^\pm;$
${\mathcal C_k^\pm}$ is unbounded in $(0,{\Lambda}(k)] {\times}Y$.
By Theorem \[De\_inverse.thm\], equation is equivalent to the equation $$\label{invertbif.eq}
u = G({\lambda},u), \quad ({\lambda},u) \in (0,\infty) {\times}Y ,$$ where $$G({\lambda},u) := -{\lambda}{\Delta}^{-1}(g(u) u) , \quad ({\lambda},u) \in (0,\infty) {\times}Y ,$$ and by , $$|G({\lambda},u) - {\lambda}K_{r_0} u|_0 = {\rm o}(|u|_0) ,
\quad \text{as $|u|_0 \to 0$,}$$ uniformly on bounded ${\lambda}$ intervals. This shows that equation has the same form as the bifurcation problems considered in [@RAB]. Hence, by the methods in [@RAB] (in particular, the proof of [@RAB Theorem 2.3], which deals with separated Sturm-Liouville problems), we can show that:
- there exist closed, connected sets ${{\mathcal C}}_k^\pm \subset \overline{\mathcal S}$ satisfying (a) and (b) in a neighbourhood of $({\lambda}_k^0,0)$, and the following alternatives for each $\nu\in \{\pm\}$: (i) $({\lambda}_{k'}^0,0) \in {{\mathcal C}}_k^\nu$, with $k' \ne k$, or (ii) ${{\mathcal C}}_k^\nu$ is unbounded in $(0,\infty) {\times}Y$;
- by Lemmas \[sol\_prop.lem\] and \[sturm\_comp.lem\], the sets ${{\mathcal C}}_k^\pm$ cannot intersect either $(0,{\Lambda}(k)] \times {\partial}T_k^\pm$ or $\{{\Lambda}(k)\} \times T_k^\pm$, so (b) must hold globally;
- since (b) holds, it now follows, as in the proof of [@RAB Theorem 2.3], that alternative (i) above cannot hold, which proves (c).
The proof is complete.
\[technical.rem\] For fixed ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\neq{{\boldsymbol{0}}}$, Theorem \[rab\_glob.thm\] does not yield unbounded continua ${{\mathcal C}}_k^\pm$ for arbitrarily large $k$, since $\lim_{k \to\infty} {\gamma}_k = 0$. This is due to the dependence of ${\gamma}_{g,{\Lambda}}$ on ${\Lambda}$ in Lemma \[sol\_prop.lem\]. Also, the proof of this lemma is where we used the assumptions in condition $(\mathrm{G})$ on the derivatives of $g$. By a more detailed argument we could remove these assumptions and obtain Lemma \[sol\_prop.lem\] for (suitably bounded) $C^0$ functions $g$. However, it is not clear that the dependence on ${\Lambda}$ can be removed, or what would be the most general result, so for simplicity we have retained condition $(\mathrm{G})$ and the above method of proof of Lemma \[sol\_prop.lem\], which fits in with our previous arguments using the Lyapunov functions.
We now prove the existence of nodal solutions for .
\[nodal.thm\] Suppose that $({\lambda}_k^0 - 1) ({\lambda}_k^\infty - 1) < 0$ and ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}_k}$, for some $k \ge1$. Then has solutions $u_k^\pm \in T_k^\pm$.
By Theorem \[rab\_glob.thm\] (c) and standard arguments (see, for example, the proof of [@DR Theorem 5.3]), we may choose sequences $\{(\mu_n^\pm,u_n^\pm)\} \subset {{\mathcal C}}_k^\pm$ such that $\mu_n^\pm \to {\lambda}_k^\infty$ and $|u_n^\pm|_0\to\infty$, as $n \to\infty$. Hence, by connectedness, the sets ${{\mathcal C}}_k^\pm$ intersect the hyperplane $\{1\} {\times}Y$, which proves Theorem \[nodal.thm\].
Finally, we briefly consider the special case where $g$ has the form with $r \in C^1[-1,1], \ r > 0$, and ${\widetilde g}\in C^1({\mathbb{R}})$. The hypothesis $(\mathrm{G})$ is satisfied if $|{\widetilde g}'(\xi)\xi|$ is bounded and the limits $$\label{g_lim.eq}
{\widetilde g}_0:=\lim_{\xi \rightarrow 0} {\widetilde g}(\xi) > 0,
\quad
{\widetilde g}_\infty:=\lim_{|\xi| \rightarrow \infty} {\widetilde g}(\xi) > 0$$ exist. For $k \ge 1$, if we write ${\lambda}_k:={\lambda}_k(r)$ then ${\lambda}_k^0 = {\lambda}_k/{\widetilde g}_0$, ${\lambda}_k^\infty = {\lambda}_k/{\widetilde g}_\infty$, and Theorem \[nodal.thm\] now takes the following form.
\[nodal2.thm\] Suppose that $({\lambda}_k-{\widetilde g}_0)({\lambda}_k-{\widetilde g}_\infty)<0$ and ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}_k}$, for some $k \ge1$. Then has solutions $u_k^\pm \in T_k^\pm$.
The condition $({\lambda}_k-{\widetilde g}_0)({\lambda}_k-{\widetilde g}_\infty)<0$ in Theorem \[nodal.thm\] says that the range of ${\widetilde g}$ ‘crosses’ the eigenvalue ${\lambda}_k$. The use of such crossing conditions to obtain solutions is well known in many settings.
Similar results to Theorem \[nodal2.thm\] have been obtained recently in, for example, [@CKK; @KKW2] and references cited therein. Roughly speaking, these papers deal with problems of the form with boundary conditions of the form $$\label{half_sep_bc.eq}
c_0 u(-1) + c_1 u'(-1) = 0, \quad
u(1) = \sum^{m^+}_{i=1} {\alpha}^+_i u(\eta^+_i) ,$$ with constants $c_0,\,c_1$ satisfying $|c_0| + |c_1| > 0$, that is, a single, separated boundary condition at one end-point, and a multi-point condition at the other end-point. They also assume that $g$ has the form (or a sum of such terms — to simplify the discussion we merely consider the form here). Although our results, as stated, do not cover the multi-point boundary conditions , it is trivial to extend them to do so. In particular, the analogue of Theorem \[spec.thm\] holds here. The proof is by a similar (but simpler) continuation argument in which the function $w$ can now be specified to satisfy the boundary condition at $x = -1$ for all ${\lambda}$ and ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$ (so there is now no analogue of the variable ${\theta}$), and then the boundary condition at $x = 1$ leads to a single equation to solve for ${\lambda}({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})$ (instead of a pair of equations). This considerably simplifies the construction, and yields a set of eigenvalues ${\lambda}_k(r)$, $k \ge 1$, of , , for all ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}$ in a suitable set ${{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}(r)}$. Once the eigenvalues have been obtained the discussion of the nonlinear problem , proceeds as above and, in particular, yields the analogue of Theorem \[nodal2.thm\] for this problem.
The main results and hypotheses in [@CKK; @KKW2] for the problem , can be summarised as follows (for brevity we omit various detailed conditions; in particular, it is hard to describe the conditions on the size of $|{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}|$ in [@CKK; @KKW2], or to compare them with our conditions). Letting $\mu_k$, $k \ge 1$, denote the eigenvalues of together with the separated boundary conditions $$\label{full_sep_bc.eq}
c_0 u(-1) + c_1 u'(-1) = 0, \quad u'(1) = 0 ,$$ they obtain nodal solutions $u_k^\pm\in T_k^\pm$ of , if ${\widetilde g}_0 < \mu_k < \mu_{k+1} < {\widetilde g}_\infty$ or ${\widetilde g}_\infty < \mu_k < \mu_{k+1} < {\widetilde g}_0$, that is, if ${\widetilde g}$ ‘crosses’ the interval $[\mu_k,\mu_{k+1}]$. In other words, the range of ${\widetilde g}$ is compared with the eigenvalues of the linear problem obtained by replacing the original multi-point boundary conditions with the separated boundary conditions . Heuristically, one could say that using the eigenvalues $\mu_k$ corresponding to the changed boundary conditions leads to the necessity for the function ${\widetilde g}$ to cross the interval $[\mu_k,\mu_{k+1}]$, rather than crossing the single eigenvalue ${\lambda}_k$ obtained from the original boundary conditions. The following lemma shows that if ${\widetilde g}$ crosses $[\mu_k,\mu_{k+1}]$ then it crosses ${\lambda}_k$, but obviously the converse need not hold.
If ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}(r)}$ then, for each $k \ge 1$, $\mu_k < {\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) < \mu_{k+1}$.
We denote by $u_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})$ the eigenfunctions of problem , obtained by adapting our arguments in Section \[evals.sec\], as outlined above. First, at ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}={{\boldsymbol{0}}}$, we apply Sturm’s comparison theorem to the problems , and , . It follows that $\mu_k < {\lambda}_k({{\boldsymbol{0}}}) < \mu_{k+1}$, for all $k\ge1$. Now suppose that ${\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})=\mu_k$, for some $k \ge 1$ and ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}(r)}$, and let $v_k$ be an eigenfunction of , , corresponding to the eigenvalue $\mu_k$. Since $u_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})$ and $v_k$ each satisfy the boundary condition in at $x=-1$, by a rescaling we may suppose that $u_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}}) = v_k$. But the analogue of Lemma \[efun\_in\_T.lem\] for this setting shows that $v_k'(1) \ne 0$, which contradicts $v_k$ being an eigenfunction of , . Therefore, for all ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}(r)}$ and $k\ge1$, ${\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})\neq\mu_k$ and a similar argument shows that ${\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})\neq\mu_{k+1}$. Hence, by continuation, $\mu_k<{\lambda}_k({\boldsymbol{\alpha}})<\mu_{k+1}$ for all ${\boldsymbol{\alpha}}\in {{\mathcal A}}_{{\gamma}(r)}$, $k\ge1$.
We conclude that the crossing condition in [@CKK; @KKW2] is more restrictive than that in Theorem \[nodal2.thm\] above. In addition, we have obtained results for the boundary conditions , having multi-point conditions at both end-points. It is much easier to deal with the conditions than with since shooting methods can be used, as in [@CKK; @KKW2] (shooting from $x=-1$, using the separated boundary condition to provide an ‘initial condition’; this is not possible with multi-point conditions at both ends). Finally, as explained in the introduction, it is straightforward to extend our methods to the case of integral boundary conditions at both end-points.
[99]{}
, Nodal solutions of boundary value problems with boundary conditions involving Riemann-Stieltjes integrals, [*Nonlinear Anal.*]{} [**74**]{} (2011), 2380–2387.
, Spectral properties and nodal solutions for second-order, $m$-point, $p$-Laplacian boundary value problems, [*Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal.*]{} [**32**]{} (2008), 21–40.
, Some recent results on the spectrum of multi-point eigenvalue problems for the $p$-Laplacian, to appear in [*Commun. Appl. Anal.*]{}
, Nodal solutions for $m$-point boundary value problems using bifurcation, [*Nonlinear Anal.*]{} [**68**]{} (2008), 3034–3046.
, [*Real and Abstract Analysis*]{}, Second Edition, Springer, 1969.
, [*Introductory Real Analysis*]{}, Dover, New York, 1975.
, Existence of nodal solutions of multi-point boundary value problems, [*Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 2009, Dynamical Systems, Differential Equations and Applications. 7th AIMS Conference, suppl.*]{} (2009), 457–465.
, Nodal solutions of multi-point boundary value problems, [*Nonlinear Anal.*]{} [**72**]{} (2010), 382–389.
, Nodal solutions for second-order $m$-point boundary value problems with nonlinearities across several eigenvalues, [*Nonlinear Anal.*]{} [**64**]{} (2006), 1562–1577.
, Some global results for nonlinear eigenvalue problems, [*J. Funct. Analysis*]{} [**7**]{} (1971), 487–513
, Spectral properties and nodal solutions for second-order, $m$-point, boundary value problems, [*Nonlinear Analysis*]{} [**67**]{} (2007), 3318–3327.
, Spectral properties of second-order, multi-point, $p$-Laplacian boundary value problems, [*Nonlinear Analysis*]{} [**72**]{} (2010), 4244-4253.
, Spectral properties of $p$-Laplacian problems with Neumann and mixed-type multi-point boundary conditions, [*Nonlinear Analysis*]{} [**74**]{} (2011), 1471–1484.
, Eigenvalue criteria for existence of positive solutions of second-order, multi-point, $p$-Laplacian boundary value problems, [*Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal.*]{} [**36**]{} (2011), 311–326.
, Positive solutions of nonlocal boundary value problems: a unified approach, [*J. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**74**]{} (2006), 673–693.
Eigenvalue criteria for existence of multiple positive solutions of nonlinear boundary value problems of local and nonlocal type, [*Topol. Methods Nonlinear Anal.*]{} [**27**]{} (2006), 91–115.
, *Nonlinear Functional Analysis and its Applications, Vol. I - Fixed Point Theorems*, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
J.A. Gracey,\
Theoretical Physics Division,\
Department of Mathematical Sciences,\
University of Liverpool,\
P.O. Box 147,\
Liverpool,\
L69 3BX,\
United Kingdom.
title: Low momentum propagators at two loops in gluon mass model
---
[**Abstract.**]{} We compute the two loop corrections to the gluon propagator for low momentum in a gluon mass model. This model has recently been proposed as an alternative to the Gribov construction in the way it handles Gribov copies in the gauge fixing. The corrections provide improvements for estimating the point where the gluon propagator freezes in relation to lattice data.
Introduction.
=============
The low momentum properties of the propagators of gluons and Faddeev-Popov ghosts in Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) has been the subject of intense interest in recent years. See, for example, [@1; @2; @3; @4; @5; @6; @7; @8; @9; @10; @11]. The main motivation for such studies rests in their relation to colour confinement. In a non-abelian gauge theory gluons have a fundamental style of propagator at high energy indicating an effective particle interpretation. Specifically the fields are effectively massless and asymptotically free. That such vector gauge bosons are not observed in nature is indicative of a deeper structure from the point of view of the full propagator. In other words taken over the whole energy spectrum the gluon propagator does not have a fundamental structure with a simple pole at zero or a non-zero value. Instead recent lattice gauge theory studies have reached the consensual picture that the propagator not only does not have a pole but it freezes at zero momentum to a non-zero value [@1; @2; @3; @4; @5; @6; @7; @8; @9]. This positivity violating form is consonant with a confined gluon and hence no free colourful strong force vector bosons are seen in nature in isolation. While the non-zero frozen value of the propagator clearly has a scale it is strictly speaking not a true mass since that is adduced from a simple pole of a propagator. However, the key point from lattice data is that some scale can be associated with the infrared dynamics of the gluon. From a quantum field theory point of view understanding the origin of such a scale in a Lagrangian context could prove useful in gaining an insight into the colour confinement mechanism.
Over the years there have been various attempts at such an understanding. For instance, in [@12] a gauge independent mass term for the gluon was considered. When quantum corrections were included this produced a gluon propagator whose full momentum dependence was remarkably consistent with the lattice data of recent years. Indeed the consequences of such an underlying gluon mass was explored in [@13] where the glueball spectrum was constructed using a variational method approach. Another of the early and deep insights was provided by Gribov in [@14]. There it was observed that the ambiguity deriving from the non-uniqueness of fixing the gauge globally could induce a cutoff in the path integral defining the gluon configuration space. Such a restriction affected the structure of the gluon propagator but in such a way as to retain its massless fundamental-like behaviour at high energy. However, taken in the full the propagator contained a new scale parameter called the Gribov mass and produced a positivity violating propagator, [@14]. Though this new parameter was not an independent quantity as it satisfies a gap equation. In the current context the Gribov propagator suffered from the drawback that while freezing in the infrared to a finite value, that finite value was actually zero and not consistent with current lattice data. A modification [@13; @14; @15; @16] of the Gribov construction built on Zwanziger’s localization programme, [@19; @20; @21; @22; @23; @24; @25; @26; @27; @28; @29], can be used to model the data. Moreover, that required the condensation of the additional localizing fields introduced in [@16; @17; @18] to produce a dynamic mass scale aside from the Gribov mass which was already present. While successful in modelling the data it does not appear to be constructed in a fundamental way within the ethos of Gribov’s elegant construction.
In recent years there has been a re-examination of the Gribov copy problem in a series of articles, [@30; @31; @32]. For instance, in [@30] a reweighting of the average of Gribov copies has produced a new Lagrangian in which to study Gribov copy issues and thence to examine their effect on the propagator at low momentum. In essence a new type of gauge fixed Lagrangian emerges with a new gauge parameter which has dimensions of mass. As an aside we note that like the work we have summarized so far we are concentrating throughout this article on the Landau gauge. This new gauge parameter is related to counting replicas derived from the Gribov copies, [@30]. The resulting Lagrangian bears a strong resemblance to the nonlinear gauge known as the Curci-Ferrari gauge, [@33; @34]. Moreover, it has similarities to earlier attempts to have a copy free gauge fixing such as those advocated in [@35; @36; @37; @38]. In those articles a gluon mass term was added to the Lagrangian with the mass playing a role similar to a gauge parameter. The fixing was copy free since the additional term had the property of gauge invariance. Although, like the Gribov Lagrangian, the new Lagrangian was no longer local similar to the situation in [@12]. More recently, the one loop analysis carried out for the propagators in [@30] has been extended to one loop for vertex functions in three as well as four dimensions, [@32]. While such propagator and vertex functions derived in [@32] appear to be in general qualitative accord with lattice data, it is worth noting that parallel analyses using the Gribov-Zwanziger Lagrangian and its extensions also qualitatively agree with data. At this one loop precision it would be overambitious to hope for quantitative agreement. Instead one could aim to produce tests whereby certain Lagrangian motivated ansätze are excluded. For instance, in [@39] the power corrections to the triple gluon vertex at one loop at the symmetric point had dimension two or four as the leading corrections depending on whether they were determined in a Gribov-Zwanziger or refined Gribov-Zwanziger Lagrangian compared with a gluon mass motivated model akin to [@30; @31; @32]. Lattice data has not currently reached enough accuracy in the intermediate energy range where such power corrections can be differentiated between. Nevertheless it is worth pursuing this programme to higher loop order which is the purpose of this article.
Several additional comments are in order for balance to contrast the differing positions between the Gribov-Zwanziger approach and that of gluon mass model. By the latter we include both the original Curci-Ferrari model as well as the copy free observation of [@30; @31; @32]. For instance, if one considers the energy-momentum tensor trace in the gluon mass case it is non-zero unlike the Gribov-Zwanziger situation. This is because the horizon condition defining the first Gribov region defines a gap equation for the Gribov mass which when imposed removes the non-zero contribution to the energy-momentum tensor trace. Such a gap equation derives naturally from the no pole condition of the Gribov construction which is not the case for a gluon mass model. Though in [@40] it was argued that one could define a gap equation consistent with the renormalization group equation so that the mass was not a free parameter similar to the Gribov case. While such a condition is not fully similar to that of [@30; @31; @32] it is indicative that a condition of some sort is required for such mass models. Another issue which is not unnatural to raise concerns whether the gluon propagator or correlator as measured on the lattice is actually the same quantity as is computed in a Lagrangian approach. Using field theories with explicit spin-$1$ mass terms could be regarded as merely modelling the lattice data. We include the refined Gribov-Zwanziger extension of [@16; @17; @18] in these comments where localizing ghost mass is included. Thus there is no fully accepted explanation of the underlying mechanism behind a frozen gluon propagator. One point of view is that the loss of Lorentz symmetry using lattice regularization means it is difficult to be certain of true zero momentum behaviour in the restoration of the continuum limit. In a dimensional regularization translational invariance is not lost. Equally the zero momentum values of the gluon and Faddeev-Popov ghost propagators are not renormalization group invariants. So the specific value is not protected by that principle.
Instead an alternative position is that it could actually be the case that at low momentum the gluon propagator does indeed vanish analytically and the lattice definition of the spin-$1$ adjoint field in the infrared is not that of the continuum. As an aside while there is no symmetry principle as such which implies a vanishing gluon propagator, arguments have been given in [@20; @41] that this is the case in the Gribov-Zwanziger Lagrangian. Currently, for the gluon this has been verified only at one loop and part of the motivation behind this article is actually to provide the computational algorithm for a future Gribov-Zwanziger analysis at two loops. Recently some evidence has been provided in [@42] that the lattice gluon variables may not be the same as those of the continuum. To understand this we need to recall properties of the Gribov-Zwanziger formalism. In the pure case [@14] the gluon propagator vanishes in the infrared with the Faddeev-Popov ghost propagator enhancing. The lattice finds a frozen gluon propagator and a non-enhanced Faddeev-Popov ghost propagator. The latter behaviour can be accommodated non-uniquely in the refined Gribov-Zwanziger scenario, [@16; @17; @18]. However, in both scenarios there are predictions for the bosonic localizing ghost propagator. In the pure case it enhances like the Faddeev-Popov ghost which has been examined at one loop in [@18; @43]. An all orders analysis was also provided in [@41]. However, in the refined case at low momentum the bosonic localizing ghost propagator can either freeze to a non-zero value or behave in a non-enhanced way, [@18]. The actual property depends on the different condensation channels. What has been interesting in the recent lattice study of the bosonic localizing ghost propagator of [@42] is that an [*enhanced*]{} propagator emerges for it. In any Lagrangian analysis no such enhancement is present when the gluon propagator freezes to a non-zero finite value. Instead the vanishing of the gluon propagator at zero momentum is inextricably linked to the enhancement of its ghost partners. While [@42] represents an early lattice investigation into the properties of this propagator it is perhaps premature to make a final statement on the difference in definition of gluon variables in various approaches.
Returning to our focus here we will extend the propagator analysis in the gluon mass model of [@30] to two loops as the initial stage in providing more accurate tests. However, at this loop order this inevitably has to be in a limit since the underlying full two loop basic master Feynman integrals have yet to be determined as closed functions of mass for all values of momentum. Instead we will perform the analysis using a zero momentum expansion of the propagators within a Feynman integral. Such a computation is possible due to the algorithm developed in [@44]. One aim is to refine the value of the propagator at zero mass. As discussed in [@30] while the tree propagator of the model is similar to that of a scalar field the one loop corrections wash out the pole and produce a positivity violating propagator whose behaviour and shape is qualitatively in keeping with data, [@30; @32]. Thus having a correction to the one loop freezing value of the gluon propagator in this model will aid the extraction of the fundamental scale that appears to be associated with the colour confinement picture. Although we have concentrated on the gluon a partner in the analysis is the Faddeev-Popov ghost. In the Gribov construction, [@14], the ghost propagator was found to behave as a dipole propagator in the deep infrared. Hence it satisfied the Kugo-Ojima colour confinement criterion of [@45; @46]. Indeed more recently, [@47], this condition has been discussed in gauges other than Landau with indications that it may be pointing the way to understanding gluon confinement in a gauge independent fashion. Here we will also refine the two loop structure of the Faddeev-Popov ghost propagator and extend the computation of [@32]. Such an approximate calculation of this and the gluon propagator will also serve as a useful independent check on any future [*full*]{} two loop analysis which is another motivation for the article.
The article is organized as follows. We provide the background quantum field theory to our computations in the next section including the essentials of the computational algorithm we will use. The results of its application to the four and three dimensional models are given in sections 3 and 4 respectively. Concluding remarks are given in section 5 while an appendix summarizes the expansion of several massive two loop propagator integrals.
Background.
===========
We begin by recalling the key features of the gluon mass model, [@30; @31; @32], in the Landau gauge which are required for the two loop analysis. The Lagrangian is [@30; @31] $$L ~=~ -~ \frac{1}{4} G^a_{\mu\nu} G^{a \, \mu\nu} ~+~ \frac{1}{2} m^2 A^a_\mu
A^{a\,\mu} ~+~ \bar{c}^a \partial^\mu \left( D_\mu c \right)^a ~+~
i \bar{\psi} {D \! \! \! \! /}\psi ~-~
\frac{1}{2\alpha} \left( \partial^\mu A^a_\mu \right)^2
\label{lagglm}$$ where $A^a_\mu$ is the gluon field of mass $m$, $c^a$ is the Faddeev-Popov ghost, $\psi^i$ are the massless quarks and $D_\mu$ is the covariant derivative. While quarks essentially play a passive role in relation to the infrared behaviour we have included them here partly for completeness but also because of their value in internal checks within the automatic symbolic manipulations we will carry out. The index $a$ runs over the range $1$ $\leq$ $a$ $\leq$ ${N_{\!A}}$ where ${N_{\!A}}$ is the dimension of the adjoint representation of the colour group. We have included the canonical gauge parameter $\alpha$ since a non-zero value is required to deduce the gluon propagator. Thereafter it is set to zero throughout as we will only be considering the Landau gauge. Thus in this gauge the $A^a_\mu$ propagator is $$\langle A_\mu^a(p) A_\nu^b(-p) \rangle ~=~ -~ \frac{\delta^{ab}}{[p^2+m^2]}
\left[ \eta_{\mu\nu} ~-~ \frac{p_\mu p_\nu}{p^2} \right] ~.$$ The Feynman rules for the remaining propagators are the same as those derived from the Lagrangian with $m$ set to zero. As noted in [@30] this mass parameter derives from a replica limit and the sampling of the Gribov copies in the gauge fixing. The idea being that the replica limit is taken before the Landau gauge limit and the presence of the mass should ensure that the deep infrared regime can be probed using perturbation theory, [@30]. Indeed the analysis of [@32] is not inconsistent with this proposal in relation to lattice data. As the early investigations into the use of (\[lagglm\]) foundered on the loss of unitarity several comments are in order. For instance the Curci-Ferrari gauge and model have been examined on the lattice, [@48; @49], as it is believed to circumvent the Neuberger problem. In those studies it is argued that for perturbative Green’s functions the massless limit is smooth and that the appropriate way to take the limit is in a l’Hôpital sense. However, for (\[lagglm\]) one should be careful in the point of view. Clearly the gluon propagator from (\[lagglm\]) is of a fundamental form and as such it models lattice data. This does not imply that (\[lagglm\]) represents the true position. Rather it should be regarded as an effective theory which is valid in some region. In other words it could be regarded as the leading form of an expansion of a more general but unitarity theory which is as yet not known. Indeed from our understanding of the Gribov construction it would not be unexpected if such a theory was non-local. So the arguments concerning the loss of unitarity of the Curci-Ferrari model which were applied to the theory as a whole may not be applicable in this effective situation.
Next we detail our method of computation. First, we generate the relevant one and two loop Feynman diagrams for the $2$-point functions we are interested in using the [Qgraf]{} package, [@50]. Overall there are $4$ one loop and $23$ two loop graphs for the gluon self energy. The respective numbers for the Faddeev-Popov ghost self energy are $1$ and $7$. In both cases these are larger than one would normally encounter in an analysis of the structure of $2$-point functions in QCD because one has to allow for massive snail graphs deriving from the closure of two legs on a quartic gluon vertex. Ordinarily such a graph would be zero in massless QCD. The electronic representations of the graphs are then converted into [Form]{} input notation where [Form]{} is a symbolic manipulation language, [@51]. At this stage the Lorentz, colour and spinor indices are appended. As we are interested in the zero momentum behaviour of the $2$-point functions we cannot use the vacuum bubble expansion of [@52; @53]. This is because this is primarily to determine the divergent parts of the contributing Feynman graphs in order to deduce the corresponding renormalization group functions. In other words the vacuum bubble expansion is an automatic way of implementing the method of infrared rearrangement, [@52; @53]. Instead we use the method of [@44] which is a way of determining the correct finite part of basic Feynman integrals when one is expanding at low momentum. This is a non-trivial task as emphasised in [@44]. The main reason for this is that if one naively expanded an integral in powers of momentum, for certain integrals with massless propagators one would obtain spurious infrared divergences. Moreover, if not handled systematically by some technique one could be led to obtain results which would contradict the renormalizability of the underlying quantum field theory. Given these general observations in [@44], where a robust method of expansion of such Feynman integrals was provided, the relevant parts of [@44] will be discussed later. However, in order to be able to apply such a technique we first have to write the contributing Feynman integrals for each graph in a compact notation.
In choosing to follow [@44] we concentrate for the most part on the two loop situation as the process for one loop graphs is similar but considerably simpler. We define the general two loop self-energy integral by $$\begin{aligned}
&& I_{m_1 m_2 m_3 m_4 m_5}(n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4,n_5) \nonumber \\
&& =~
\int_{kl} \frac{1}{[k^2+m_1^2]^{n_1} [l^2+m_2^2]^{n_2} [(k-p)^2+m_3^2]^{n_3}
[(l-p)^2+m_4^2]^{n_4} [(k-l)^2+m_5^2]^{n_5}}
\label{genint}\end{aligned}$$ where $\int_k$ $=$ $\int d^dk/(2\pi)^d$ and $d$ is the space-time dimension. Our notation is similar to [@44] but we note that the order of our labels differs from that of [@44]. Also for the specific problem we are interested in $m_i$ $\in$ $\{0,m\}$. Given the structure of this general two loop $2$-point function, it is possible to write, using a [Form]{} module, all numerator scalar products of the three different momenta in terms of the denominator factors. In other words there are no irreducible tensors for (\[genint\]). At this stage there are several ways of extracting the low momentum behaviour. For instance, one could apply the method of [@44] directly to each of the contributing integrals but regard this as inefficient. Instead we have chosen to apply the Laporta algorithm, [@54]. This is a technique to create integration by parts identities between all the necessary integrals and then solve them order by order from a level which includes the highest numerator power. The method then produces a series of relations between all the integrals required for the full calculation and a relatively small set of base integrals which are known as the masters, [@54]. The expressions for these can be substituted when they are evaluated by methods other than integration by parts. In our particular case not all the two loop self energy master integrals are known for all mass configurations. For instance, some are available for cases which are relevant to standard model analyses, [@55]. Therefore at this stage we substitute the values for each master integral from the values obtained from applying the method of [@44] to the emerging master integrals. In order to apply the Laporta algorithm we have chosen to use the [Reduze]{} implementation, [@56], which uses [GiNaC]{}, [@57], and is written in C$++$. Once the setup parameters are specified for the basic topologies and mass configuration, [Reduze]{} creates a database. From this we can extract the relations for all the integrals relevant to the self-energy analysis in terms of the master integrals. Again we use the feature of [Reduze]{} that allows for the output from the database to be written as a [Form]{} module. Therefore, we can perform the full computation for each of the $2$-point functions of interest automatically. Moreover, we have carried this out in such a way that the three dimensional analysis can also be performed. This requires constructing a separate [Form]{} module for substituting the three dimensional master integrals.
The next stage is the insertion of the low momentum expansion of the emergent master integrals. These can be classified into several sets dependent upon the number of propagators. In some cases the exact expression for such masters is known which is the case for two and three propagator two loop self energy integrals. We note that the Laporta algorithm [@54] is designed in such a way that only non-trivial masters arise. For instance, those integrals which are zero because of a massless one loop bubble never emerge in the [Reduze]{} output. So one two loop two propagator case is the product of two one loop massive vacuum bubbles. Equally the three propagator case can be the basic sunset topology with different mass configurations, or the product of a one loop massless or massive self energy graph with a one loop massive vacuum bubble. In these cases the low momentum values are trivial to substitute. Though we note that in certain cases the Laporta algorithm may produce a sunset topology with an irreducible numerator. For this and the four and five propagator cases we resort to the algorithm of [@44] which we briefly recall.
In general, integrals such as (\[genint\]) can be expanded in powers of $p^2/m^2$ where $p$ is the external momentum. However, as noted in [@44] the naive expansion of the constituent propagators within the integral itself does not necessarily lead to the correct expansion. This is straightforward to see in a simple example. As is well known $I_{m0000}(1,1,1,1,1)$ is a finite integral and its exact value is known [@55]. However, if one naively Taylor expands a massless propagator within $I_{m0000}(1,1,1,1,1)$ which depends on the external momentum $p$, then the terms of the Taylor series in $p$ beyond the leading one, when finally evaluated witin the context of the overall Feynman integral itself will have poles in $\epsilon$. These divergences are infrared in nature since the overall original Feynman integral was infrared finite. They arise due to the simple fact that expanding a $p$ dependent massless propagator, which is not protected by a non-zero mass, will naturally produce propagators which have infrared singularities. Hence this expansion approach cannot be used. However, in [@44] a method was developed where these infrared singularities could be systematically cancelled. It relies on understanding the particle thresholds within the basic graph when various mass configurations are present. Clearly if a $p$ dependent propagator has a non-zero mass then Taylor expanding it in the usual way does not introduce any infrared singularities. The problem arises in (\[genint\]) when it is not possible to route the external momentum through the propagators from one external vertex to the other via a full set of [*massive*]{} propagators. An example of when this is not possible is when one of the one loop subgraphs of (\[genint\]) is completely massless. In this and other instances, [@44] provided an algorithm where the naive expansion of the propagators in (\[genint\]) have the expansion of related but different integrals appended. Symbolically this is given by $$I_\Gamma ~ \sim ~ \sum_\lambda \, I_{\Gamma/\lambda} \circ
{\cal T}_{\{q_i\}} I_\lambda$$ where $I_\Gamma$ corresponds to the integral of (\[genint\]), $\Gamma$ corresponds to the original graph and $\gamma$ is a subgraph of $\Gamma$. The sum is over a particular set of subgraphs. This is the set of subgraphs which contain all the massive propagators and are one particle irreducible with respect to the massless lines, [@44]. The graph corresponding to $\Gamma/\gamma$ is that where the subgraph $\gamma$ has been shrunk to a point. Finally, within the sum the integral corresponding to the subgraph is first expanded using the ${\cal T}_{\{q_i\}}$ operator, where $q_i$ are a particular set of momenta of the subgraph $\gamma$, and which operates on the propagators. The specific set $\{q_i\}$ depends in the mass configuration of the original Feynman integral. For instance, [@44], $$T_l \frac{1}{[(l-p)^2+m_4^2]} ~=~ \sum_{i=0}^\infty
\frac{[2lp-l^2]^i}{[l^2+m_4^2]^{i+1}}$$ where $m_4$ does not have to be non-zero here. Once the expansion of all the subgraphs has been carried out to the necessary order for the overall $2$-point functions of the problem at hand, the integration over the two loop momenta of the integral of the master is performed. The individual integrals which emerge to complete the determination of each master are either two loop massive vacuum bubbles, the product of one loop integrals or massless two loop integrals. At this stage we have chosen to build a second [Reduze]{} database in order to handle the reduction of the first of these three classes down to a base set of two loop master vacuum bubbles. The explicit expressions for these have been known for a long time for four dimensions. For example, see [@58; @59; @60], for four dimensions and [@61] for three dimensions. Once the expansions have been obtained they are substituted at the appropriate point of the overall automatic [Form]{} computation. We note that in developing this [Form]{} module we have checked the expansion algorithm we have written for the known cases given in [@44] in four dimensions and find agreement. As a final check on the overall expansion, when all the diagrams contributing to a $2$-point function are summed we recover the usual ${\overline{\mbox{MS}}}$ renormalization constants for the gluon and quark wave function renormalizations as well as that for the gluon mass parameter in the Landau gauge. This ensures that no rogue infrared divergence from the application of the algorithm of [@44] to the masters has survived to upset the renormalizability of QCD.
Four dimensions.
================
In this section we collect the results for the low momentum expansion of the propagators in four dimensions. As a check on the computation we have recovered the correct ${\overline{\mbox{MS}}}$ divergences in the Landau gauge in the presence of a gluon mass term. This is a non-trivial check on the computation since we are evaluating massive Feynman diagrams in a zero momentum limit. Therefore, we have to be sure that using the approach of [@44] we do not incorrectly include an infrared divergence in dimensional regularization as it is indistinguishable from an ultraviolet one. For instance, a mismatch in the application of the diagram subtraction process of [@44] could produce such a pole in $\epsilon$. Therefore, we note that in the four dimensional case we have correctly obtained the known two loop ${\overline{\mbox{MS}}}$ wave function renormalization constants for the gluon and the ghost, [@62; @63], as well as the Slavnov-Taylor identity for the gluon mass term. As was originally noted in [@64] and subsequently rediscovered in a three loop computation in [@65], the anomalous dimension of $m$ satisfies $$\gamma_m(a) ~=~ \frac{1}{2} \left[ \gamma_A(a) ~+~ \gamma_c(a) \right]
\label{sti}$$ in the Landau gauge where $\gamma_i(a)$ is the anomalous dimension of the quantity $i$, $a$ $=$ $g^2/(16\pi^2)$ and $g$ is the coupling constant. We note that (\[sti\]) differs by a factor of $2$ from the relation presented in [@65]. This is because in [@65] the anomalous dimension of the gluon mass operator itself was determined and the renormalization constant of the mass operator and the mass parameter, $m$, are not equivalent but related by a power. For clarity we note that we renormalize the gluon mass with $$m_{\mbox{\footnotesize{o}}} ~=~ Z_m \, m$$ where ${}_{\mbox{\footnotesize{o}}}$ indicates a bare quantity, and $\gamma_m(a)$ is the anomalous dimension associated with the gluon mass renormalization constant $Z_m$.
Applying the algorithm we have outlined earlier to the gluon and ghost $2$-point functions we find that at low momentum the former is $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A^a_\mu(p) A^b_\nu(-p) \rangle &=& \left[ \,-~ p^2 - m^2
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~
+ \left[ \left[
-~ \frac{5}{8}
+ \frac{3}{4} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right] m^2 C_A
\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. ~~~~~~
+ \left[
-~ \frac{1}{8}
- \frac{25}{12} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
- \frac{1}{12} \ln \left( \frac{p^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right] p^2 C_A
\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. ~~~~~~
+ \left[
-~ \frac{20}{9}
+ \frac{4}{3} \ln \left( \frac{p^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right] p^2 T_F {N_{\!f}}\right] a
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~
+ \left[
\left[
\frac{743}{384}
-~ \frac{891}{128} s_2
+ \frac{11}{64} \zeta(2)
+ \frac{245}{96} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
- \frac{53}{32} \ln^2 \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right] m^2 C_A^2
\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. ~~~~~~
+ \left[
\frac{5}{24}
+ \zeta(2)
- \frac{2}{3} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
+ \frac{1}{2} \ln^2 \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right] m^2 T_F C_A {N_{\!f}}\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. ~~~~~~
+ \left[
-~ \frac{737}{216}
+ \frac{45}{8} s_2
- \frac{2}{9} \zeta(2)
- \frac{145}{144} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
+ \frac{3}{2} \ln^2 \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right. \right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. \left. ~~~~~~~~~~~
+ \frac{1}{8} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\ln \left( \frac{p^2}{\mu^2} \right)
- \frac{5}{48} \ln \left( \frac{p^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right] p^2 C_A^2
\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. ~~~~~~
+ \left[
-~ \frac{139}{108}
+ 2 \zeta(2)
+ \frac{35}{9} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
+ \ln^2 \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right. \right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. \left. ~~~~~~~~~~~
-~ 2 \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right) \ln \left( \frac{p^2}{\mu^2} \right)
+ \frac{5}{3} \ln \left( \frac{p^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right] p^2 T_F C_A {N_{\!f}}\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. ~~~~~~
+ \left[
-~ 3
+ 4 \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right] p^2 T_F C_F {N_{\!f}}\right] a^2 ~+~ O \left( a^3; (p^2)^3 \right)
\right] P_{\mu\nu}(p) \nonumber \\
&& +
\left[
-~ m^2
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~~~
+ \left[ \left[
-~ \frac{5}{8}
+ \frac{3}{4} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right] m^2 C_A
+ \left[
\frac{11}{24}
- \frac{1}{4} \ln \left( \frac{p^2}{m^2} \right)
\right] p^2 C_A
\right] a
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~~~
+ \left[
\left[
\frac{743}{384}
- \frac{891}{128} s_2
+ \frac{11}{64} \zeta(2)
+ \frac{245}{96} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
- \frac{53}{32} \ln^2 \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right] m^2 C_A^2
\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. ~~~~~~~
+ \left[
\frac{5}{24}
+ \zeta(2)
- \frac{2}{3} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
+ \frac{1}{2} \ln^2 \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right] m^2 T_F C_A N_f
\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. ~~~~~~~
+ \left[
\frac{4967}{1152}
- \frac{459}{32} s_2
- \frac{5}{24} \zeta(2)
- \frac{53}{48} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
+ \frac{3}{8} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\ln \left( \frac{p^2}{m^2} \right)
\right. \right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. \left. ~~~~~~~~~~~~
- \frac{5}{16} \ln \left( \frac{p^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right] p^2 C_A^2
+ \left[
-~ \frac{5}{9}
+ \frac{1}{3} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right] p^2 T_F C_A N_f
\right] a^2
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~
+~ O \left( a^3; (p^2)^3 \right)
\right] L_{\mu\nu}(p)\end{aligned}$$ where $$P_{\mu\nu}(p) ~=~ \eta_{\mu\nu} ~-~ \frac{p_{\mu}p_{\nu}}{p^2} ~~~,~~~
L_{\mu\nu}(p) ~=~ \frac{p_{\mu}p_{\nu}}{p^2}$$ $\zeta(z)$ is the Riemann zeta function, $s_2$ $=$ $(2\sqrt{3}/9) \mbox{Cl}_2(2\pi/3)$ which involves the Clausen function $\mbox{Cl}_2(\theta)$, and $\mu$ is the renormalization scale introduced as a consequence of the dimensional regularization in order to handle the dimensionality of the coupling constant in $d$-dimensions. Numerically $s_2$ $=$ $0.2604341$. The order symbols are intended to indicate the order in which each of the coupling constant and momentum powers the expansion is performed to. The colour group Casimirs $C_A$, $C_F$ and $T_F$ are given by $$T^a T^a ~=~ C_F I ~~,~~ f^{acd} f^{bcd} ~=~ C_A \delta^{ab} ~~,~~
\mbox{Tr} \left( T^a T^b \right) ~=~ T_F \delta^{ab}$$ where $T^a$ are the generators of the colour group whose structure constants are $f^{abc}$, $I$ is the unit matrix which with $T^a$ complete the basis for colour space. To appreciate the relative properties of the loop corrections we have plotted the coefficient of $(-1) m^2 a^L$ at zero momentum for ${N_{\!f}}$ $=$ $3$ where $L$ $=$ $0$, $1$ and $2$ in Figure $1$ where $x$ $=$ $m^2/\mu^2$. For low values of $x$ the corrections have the same signs.
{width="7.6cm" height="8cm"}
The situation for the ghost is somewhat similar though simpler since $$\begin{aligned}
\langle c^a(p) \bar{c}^b(-p) \rangle &=& \left[ \,-~ 1
+ \left[
\frac{5}{8}
- \frac{3}{4} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right] C_A a
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~
+ \left[
\left[
-~ \frac{893}{384}
+ \frac{891}{128} s_2
- \frac{11}{64} \zeta(2)
- \frac{155}{96} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
+ \frac{35}{32} \ln^2 \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right] C_A^2
\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. ~~~~~
+ \left[
-~ \frac{5}{24}
- \zeta(2)
+ \frac{2}{3} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
- \frac{1}{2} \ln^2 \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
\right] T_F C_A {N_{\!f}}\right] a^2
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~~~~~
\,+~ O(a^3) \right] p^2 ~+~ O \left( (p^2)^2 \right) ~.\end{aligned}$$ One interesting feature of both $2$-point functions resides in the one loop leading order terms which are very similar. For instance, if we were in a Gribov scenario then there is a gap equation for the corresponding mass parameter deriving from the horizon condition defining the boundary of the first Gribov region, [@14]. This condition when imposed means that the ghost propagator enhances and, moreover, satisfies the Kugo-Ojima confinement criterion, [@45; @46]. However, if one wished to impose a Kugo-Ojima type confinement criterion on the Faddeev-Popov ghost propagator in order to have ghost enhancement it might appear that at the same stroke the gluon propagator would be massless at zero momentum. A closer examination of the actual signs clearly indicates, however, that such a scenario does not occur. Setting such a pseudo-Kugo-Ojima criterion, for example, merely retains a non-zero value for the gluon propagator at zero momentum or in other words a frozen propagator consistent with the decoupling scenario, [@10; @11], favoured by lattice data, [@1; @2; @3; @4; @5; @6; @7; @8; @9]. The Faddeev-Popov ghost would then enhance but this is not observed in lattice data when there is a non-zero frozen gluon propagator.
Three dimensions.
=================
We have repeated the analysis for the three dimensional case. The procedure is the same with the main difference being the use of different master integrals after the application of the Laporta reduction. Therefore, we have adapted our [Form]{} code to accommodate this variation. However, there are some novel features in three dimensions compared with the previous section. For instance, the theory is superrenormalizable and hence not every Green’s function is divergent. It transpires that to two loops both the gluon and ghost $2$-point functions are finite when there is a non-zero gluon mass term in the Lagrangian. Therefore unlike the four dimensional case when the divergences for these Green’s functions are known and thereby provide an internal check on the computations, there is no such check in this case. However, the use of predominantly the same code aside from master integrals should ensure the correctness of our results in this instance. Another aspect of the superrenormalizability relates to the dimensionality of the coupling constant which is no longer dimensionless. Instead in three dimensions $a$ has mass dimension one. One point which may arise concerning the applicability of the approach to the three dimensional case relates to the work of [@66]. In [@66] massless gauge theories were examined at two loops due to the potential breakdown of perturbation theory. However, it was shown that this was not the case. Here the corresponding situation does not arise since the presence of the mass obviates this issue.
For the gluon $2$-point function we find that to two loops the low momentum structure is $$\begin{aligned}
\langle A^a_\mu(p) A^b_\nu(-p) \rangle &=& \left[ \,-~ p^2 - m^2
+ \left[ \frac{1}{64} \sqrt{p^2} C_A - \frac{1}{8} \sqrt{p^2} T_F {N_{\!f}}- \frac{1}{6\pi} m C_A
+ \frac{9}{40\pi} \frac{p^2}{m} C_A \right] a
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~
+ \left[ \frac{1}{192\pi} \frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{m} C_A^2
- \frac{1}{24\pi} \frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{m} C_A T_F {N_{\!f}}\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. ~~~~~
+ \left[
-~ \frac{121}{1536}
- \frac{1}{12} \ln(2)
+ \frac{21}{256} \ln(3)
\right] \frac{C_A^2}{\pi^2}
+ \frac{1}{48\pi^2} C_A T_F {N_{\!f}}\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. ~~~~~
+ \left[
-~ \frac{11951}{691200}
+ \frac{9}{1280} \ln(3)
+ \frac{1}{1280} \ln \left( \frac{p^2}{m^2} \right)
\right] \frac{p^2}{m^2} \frac{C_A^2}{\pi^2}
- \frac{1}{16384} \frac{p^2}{m^2} C_A^2
\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. ~~~~~
+ \left[
\frac{139}{1800\pi^2}
- \frac{1}{80\pi^2} \ln \left( \frac{p^2}{m^2} \right)
\right] \frac{p^2}{m^2} C_A T_F {N_{\!f}}- \frac{1}{512} \frac{p^2}{m^2} C_A T_F {N_{\!f}}\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. ~~~~~
- \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \frac{p^2}{m^2} C_F T_F {N_{\!f}}+ \frac{1}{256} \frac{p^2}{m^2} C_F T_F {N_{\!f}}\right] a^2 ~+~ O \left( a^3 ; (p^2)^{{\mbox{\small{$\frac{3}{2}$}}}} \right)
\right] P_{\mu\nu}(p) \nonumber \\
&& +
\left[ \,-~ m^2
+ \left[ \frac{1}{32} \sqrt{p^2} C_A
- \frac{1}{6\pi} m C_A
- \frac{1}{30\pi} \frac{p^2}{m} C_A \right] a
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~
+ \left[ \frac{1}{96\pi} \frac{\sqrt{p^2}}{m} C_A^2
+ \left[
-~ \frac{121}{1536}
- \frac{1}{12} \ln(2)
+ \frac{21}{256} \ln(3)
\right] \frac{C_A^2}{\pi^2}
+ \frac{1}{48\pi^2} C_A T_F {N_{\!f}}\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. ~~~~~
+ \left[
-~ \frac{1783}{115200}
- \frac{5}{96} \ln(2)
+ \frac{13}{320} \ln(3)
+ \frac{1}{960} \ln \left( \frac{p^2}{m^2} \right)
\right] \frac{p^2}{m^2} \frac{C_A^2}{\pi^2}
\right. \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. \left. ~~~~~
- \frac{3}{4096} \frac{p^2}{m^2} C_A^2
+ \left[
-~ \frac{31}{3600\pi^2}
+ \frac{1}{240\pi^2} \ln \left( \frac{p^2}{m^2} \right)
\right] \frac{p^2}{m^2} C_A T_F {N_{\!f}}\right] a^2
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left.
+~ O \left( a^3 ; (p^2)^{{\mbox{\small{$\frac{3}{2}$}}}} \right) \right] L_{\mu\nu}(p) ~. \end{aligned}$$ In terms of structure for these corrections compared to the four dimensional case the role $s_2$ played is taken now by the presence of $\ln(2)$ and $\ln(3)$. For the ghost $2$-point function the situation is somewhat simpler since $$\begin{aligned}
\langle c^a(p) \bar{c}^b(-p) \rangle &=& \left[ \,-~ 1
+ \frac{C_A}{6\pi m} a \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~
+ \left[ \left[
\frac{235}{4608}
+ \frac{1}{12} \ln(2)
- \frac{21}{256} \ln(3)
\right] \frac{C_A^2}{\pi^2 m^2}
- \frac{1}{48} \frac{C_A T_F {N_{\!f}}}{\pi^2 m^2}
\right] a^2 ~+~ O(a^3) \right] p^2 \nonumber \\
&& +~ O \left( (p^2)^2 \right) ~.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we observe that there is a similar structure to the four dimensional case. Within the one loop ghost $2$-point function one can observe the origins of the Gribov mass gap equation and the same comments apply in relation to what was stated for the Kugo-Ojima criterion earlier. Equally the situation is blurred at two loops since the mixed mass scale master integrals can not be adduced within the above results.
Discussion.
===========
We conclude with brief remarks. In analysing the two loop corrections to the gluon and ghost propagators in this effective theory of Gribov copies, [@30; @31; @32], we have provided useful values for the approach to zero momentum. This will be important for the programme proposed in [@31] which indicated that the exact evaluation of the two loop corrections would be possible. For instance, having [*independent*]{} computations, albeit in the low momentum limit, is crucial to establishing the correctness of an exact result. However, the determination of the two loop correction to where the gluon propagator freezes emerges from this calculation. Indeed there are intriguing similarities to the structure of the corrections when compared to propagators evaluated in the Gribov-Zwanziger construction. For instance, a pseudo-mass gap appears to be present which is similar in terms of numerical values to the gap equation for the Gribov mass.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} The author thanks Dr M. Tissier for useful discussions.
Master integrals.
=================
In this appendix we give the $\epsilon$ expansion for several master integrals which were required in three and four dimensions. We have applied the method of [@44] and have reproduced the expressions given for the various integrals in Table $1$ of [@44]. As the [Reduze]{} algorithm produces additional master integrals for our particular computation we note that several of these are $$\begin{aligned}
I_{m0m00}(1,1,1,0,1) &=& \frac{1}{2\epsilon^2}
+ \left[ \frac{1}{2} - \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right) \right]
\frac{1}{\epsilon}
+ \frac{1}{2} - \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
+ \ln^2 \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
+ \frac{3}{2} \zeta(2) \nonumber \\
&& + \left[ - \frac{1}{6\epsilon} - \frac{1}{3}
+ \frac{1}{3} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right) \right] \frac{p^2}{m^2}
\nonumber \\
&& + \left[ \frac{1}{60\epsilon} + \frac{11}{120}
- \frac{1}{30} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right) \right] \frac{(p^2)^2}{m^4}
\nonumber \\
&& + \left[ - \frac{1}{420\epsilon} - \frac{1}{45}
+ \frac{1}{210} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right) \right]
\frac{(p^2)^3}{m^6} ~+~ O \left( \frac{(p^2)^4}{m^8} \right) \nonumber \\
I_{mm00m}(1,1,1,0,1) &=& \frac{1}{2\epsilon^2}
+ \left[ \frac{3}{2} - \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right) \right]
\frac{1}{\epsilon}
+ \frac{7}{2} - \frac{27}{2} s_2
- 3 \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
+ \ln^2 \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right) \nonumber \\
&& +~ \frac{1}{2} \zeta(2)
+ \left[ - \frac{1}{2\epsilon} - \frac{3}{4}
+ \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right) \right] \frac{p^2}{m^2}
\nonumber \\
&& + \left[ \frac{1}{6\epsilon} + \frac{1}{2}
- \frac{1}{3} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right) \right] \frac{(p^2)^2}{m^4}
\nonumber \\
&& + \left[ - \frac{1}{12\epsilon} - \frac{113}{360}
+ \frac{1}{6} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right) \right]
\frac{(p^2)^3}{m^6} ~+~ O \left( \frac{(p^2)^4}{m^8} \right) \nonumber \\
I_{mmm0m}(1,1,1,0,1) &=& \frac{1}{2\epsilon^2}
+ \left[ \frac{1}{2} - \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right) \right]
\frac{1}{\epsilon}
+ \frac{1}{2} - \frac{9}{2} s_2
- \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
+ \ln^2 \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right)
+ \frac{1}{2} \zeta(2) \nonumber \\
&& + \left[ - \frac{1}{6\epsilon} - \frac{2}{9} + s_2
+ \frac{1}{3} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right) \right] \frac{p^2}{m^2}
\nonumber \\
&& + \left[ \frac{1}{60\epsilon} + \frac{247}{3240} - \frac{2}{9} s_2
- \frac{1}{30} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right) \right] \frac{(p^2)^2}{m^4}
\nonumber \\
&& + \left[ - \frac{1}{420\epsilon} - \frac{113}{4860} + \frac{2}{27} s_2
+ \frac{1}{210} \ln \left( \frac{m^2}{\mu^2} \right) \right]
\frac{(p^2)^3}{m^6} ~+~ O \left( \frac{(p^2)^4}{m^8} \right) \nonumber \\
I_{mm00m}(1,1,1,1,1) &=& \left[ \frac{27}{2} s_2 - \zeta(2)
- \left[ \frac{3}{2} + \frac{27}{4} s_2 - \frac{3}{2} \zeta(2) \right]
\frac{p^2}{m^2}
+ \left[ \frac{47}{18} - \frac{4}{3} \zeta(2) \right] \frac{(p^2)^2}{m^4}
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~
- \left[ \frac{1703}{720} - \frac{27}{8} s_2 - \frac{3}{4} \zeta(2) \right]
\frac{(p^2)^3}{m^6}
\right] \frac{1}{m^2} ~+~ O \left( \frac{(p^2)^4}{m^{10}} \right) \nonumber \\
I_{mmmmm}(1,1,1,1,1) &=& \left[ 3 s_2
- \left[ \frac{2}{27} + \frac{1}{6} s_2 \right] \frac{p^2}{m^2}
+ \left[ \frac{29}{972} - \frac{1}{27} s_2 \right] \frac{(p^2)^2}{m^4}
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~
- \left[ \frac{367}{29160} - \frac{11}{324} s_2 \right] \frac{(p^2)^3}{m^6}
\right] \frac{1}{m^2} ~+~ O \left( \frac{(p^2)^4}{m^{10}} \right)\end{aligned}$$ in four dimensions.
In three dimensions similar masters are required but in contrast to four dimensions they do not have poles in $\epsilon$. For comparison we record the same masters are $$\begin{aligned}
I_{m0m00}(1,1,1,0,1) &=& \left[ \frac{1}{32}
- \frac{5}{576} \frac{p^2}{m^2}
+ \frac{1}{300} \frac{(p^2)^2}{m^4}
- \frac{151}{94080} \frac{(p^2)^3}{m^6}
\right] \frac{1}{\pi^2 m^2} \nonumber \\
&& +~ O \left( \frac{(p^2)^4}{m^{10}} \right) \nonumber \\
I_{mm00m}(1,1,1,0,1) &=& \left[ -~ \frac{1}{16} \ln \left( \frac{2}{3} \right)
+ \left[ - \frac{1}{384} + \frac{1}{48} \ln \left( \frac{2}{3} \right) \right]
\frac{p^2}{m^2}
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~
+ \left[ \frac{9}{5120} - \frac{1}{80} \ln \left( \frac{2}{3} \right) \right]
\frac{(p^2)^2}{m^4}
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~
+ \left[ -~ \frac{55}{43008} + \frac{1}{112} \ln \left( \frac{2}{3} \right)
\right]
\frac{(p^2)^3}{m^6}
\right] \frac{1}{\pi^2 m^2}
~+~ O \left( \frac{(p^2)^4}{m^{10}} \right) \nonumber \\
I_{mmm0m}(1,1,1,0,1) &=& \left[ \frac{1}{96}
- \frac{5}{3888} \frac{p^2}{m^2}
+ \frac{323}{1555200} \frac{(p^2)^2}{m^4}
- \frac{20789}{548674560} \frac{(p^2)^3}{m^6}
\right] \frac{1}{\pi^2 m^2} \nonumber \\
&& +~ O \left( \frac{(p^2)^4}{m^{10}} \right) \nonumber \\
I_{mm00m}(1,1,1,1,1) &=& \left[ \frac{1}{16} \ln \left( \frac{4}{3} \right)
+ \left[ \frac{1}{192} - \frac{1}{12} \ln \left( \frac{4}{3} \right) \right]
\frac{p^2}{m^2}
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~
+ \left[ \frac{13}{7680} + \frac{13}{240} \ln \left( \frac{4}{3} \right)
\right]
\frac{(p^2)^2}{m^4}
\right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. ~
+ \left[ -~ \frac{1531}{107520} - \frac{1}{210} \ln \left( \frac{4}{3} \right)
\right]
\frac{(p^2)^3}{m^6}
\right] \frac{1}{\pi^2 m^4} \nonumber \\
&& +~ O \left( \frac{(p^2)^4}{m^{12}} \right) \nonumber \\
I_{mmmmm}(1,1,1,1,1) &=& \left[ \frac{1}{576}
- \frac{1}{1944} \frac{p^2}{m^2}
+ \frac{1451}{11197440} \frac{(p^2)^2}{m^4}
- \frac{2941}{94058496} \frac{(p^2)^3}{m^6}
\right] \frac{1}{\pi^2 m^4} \nonumber \\
&& +~ O \left( \frac{(p^2)^4}{m^{12}} \right) ~.\end{aligned}$$ The expressions for the four dimensional case should be useful for other problems.
[99]{} A. Cucchieri & T. Mendes, PoS LAT2007 (2007), 297. I.L. Bogolubsky, E.M. Ilgenfritz, M. Müller-Preussker & A. Sternbeck, PoS LAT2007 (2007), 290. A. Maas, Phys. Rev. [**D75**]{} (2007), 116004. A. Sternbeck, L. von Smekal, D.B. Leinweber & A.G. Williams, PoS LAT2007 (2007), 304. I.L. Bogolubsky, E.M. Ilgenfritz, M. Müller-Preussker & A. Sternbeck, Phys. Lett. [**B676**]{} (2009), 69. A. Cucchieri & T. Mendes, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{} (2008), 241601. A. Cucchieri & T. Mendes, Phys. Rev. [**D78**]{} (2008), 094503. O. Oliveira & P.J. Silva, Phys. Rev. [**D79**]{} (2009), 031501. Ph. Boucaud, J.P. Leroy, A.L. Yaounac, J. Micheli, O. Pène & J. Rodríguez-Quintero, JHEP [**0806**]{} (2008), 099. A.C. Aguilar, D. Binosi & J. Papavassiliou, Phys. Rev. [**D78**]{} (2008), 025010. C.S. Fischer, A. Maas & J.M. Pawlowski, Annals Phys. [**324**]{} (2009), 2408. J.M. Cornwall, Phys. Rev. [**D26**]{} (1982), 1453. J.M. Cornwall & A. Soni, Phys. Lett. [**B120**]{} (1983), 431. V.N. Gribov, Nucl. Phys. [**B139**]{} (1978), 1. D. Dudal, S.P. Sorella, N. Vandersickel & H. Verschelde, Phys. Rev. [**D77**]{} (2008), 071501. D. Dudal, J.A. Gracey, S.P. Sorella, N. Vandersickel & H. Verschelde, Phys. Rev. [**D78**]{} (2008), 065047. D. Dudal, J.A. Gracey, S.P. Sorella, N. Vandersickel & H. Verschelde, Phys. Rev. [**D78**]{} (2008), 125012. J.A. Gracey, Phys. Rev. [**D82**]{} (2010), 085032. D. Zwanziger, Nucl. Phys. [**B209**]{} (1982), 336. D. Zwanziger, Nucl. Phys. [**B321**]{} (1989), 591. D. Zwanziger, Nucl. Phys. [**B323**]{} (1989), 513. G. Dell’Antonio & D. Zwanziger, Nucl. Phys. [**B326**]{} (1989), 333. G. Dell’Antonio & D. Zwanziger, Commun. Math. Phys. [**138**]{} (1991), 291. D. Zwanziger, Nucl. Phys. [**B364**]{} (1991), 127. D. Zwanziger, Nucl. Phys. [**B378**]{} (1992), 525. D. Zwanziger, Nucl. Phys. [**B399**]{} (1993), 477. D. Zwanziger, Nucl. Phys. [**B412**]{} (1994), 657. D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. [**D65**]{} (2002), 094039. D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. [**D69**]{} (2004), 016002. J. Serreau & M. Tissier, Phys. Lett. [**B712**]{} (2012), 97. J. Serreau, M. Tissier & A. Tresmontant, Phys. Rev. [**D89**]{} (2014), 125019. M. Pelaez, M. Tissier & N. Wschebor, Phys. Rev. [**D88**]{} (2013), 125003. G. Curci & R. Ferrari, Nuovo Cim. [**A32**]{} (1976), 151. R. Delbourgo & P.D. Jarvis, J. Phys. [**A15**]{} (1982), 611. D. Zwanziger, Nucl. Phys. [**B345**]{} (1990), 461. C. Parrinello & G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Lett. [**B251**]{} (1990), 175. S. Fachin & C. Parrinello, Phys. Rev. [**D44**]{} (1991), 2558. S. Fachin, Phys. Rev. [**D47**]{} (1993), 3487. J.A. Gracey, Phys. Rev. [**D86**]{} (2012), 105029. S.P. Sorella, Annals Phys. [**321**]{} (2006), 1747. D. Zwanziger, Phys. Rev. [**D81**]{} (2010), 125027. A. Cucchieri, D. Dudal, T. Mendes & N. Vandersickel, arXiv:1405.1547. J.A. Gracey, Eur. Phys. J. [**C70**]{} (2010), 451. F.A. Behrends, A.I. Davydychev, V.A. Smirnov & J.B. Tausk, Nucl. Phys. [**B439**]{} (1995), 536. T. Kugo & I. Ojima, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**66**]{} (1979), 1; Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**71**]{} (1984), 1121. T. Kugo, hep-th/9511033. V. Mader, M. Schaden, D. Zwanziger & R. Alkofer, Eur. Phys. J. [**C74**]{} (2014), 2881. A.C. Kalloniatis, L. von Smekal & A.G. Williams, Phys. Lett. [**B609**]{} (2005), 424. L. von Smekal, M. Ghiotti & A.G. Williams, Phys. Rev. [**D78**]{} (2008), 085016. P. Nogueira, J. Comput. Phys. [**105**]{} (1993), 279. J.A.M. Vermaseren, math-ph/0010025. M. Misiak & M. Münz, Phys. Lett. [**B344**]{} (1995), 308. K.G. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak & M. Münz, Nucl. Phys. [**B518**]{} (1998), 473. S. Laporta, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A15**]{} (2000), 5087. D.J. Broadhurst, J. Fleischer & O.V. Tarasov, Z. Phys. [**C60**]{} (1993), 287. C. Studerus, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**181**]{} (2010), 1293. C.W. Bauer, A. Frink & R. Kreckel, J. Symb. Comput, [**33**]{} (2002), 1. J. van der Bij & M. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. [**B231**]{} (1984), 205. C. Ford, I. Jack & D.R.T. Jones, Nucl. Phys. [**B387**]{} (1992), 373. A.I. Davydychev & J.B. Tausk, Nucl. Phys. [**B397**]{} (1993), 123. A.K. Rajantie, Nucl. Phys. [**B480**]{} (1996), 729; Nucl. Phys. [**B513**]{} (1998), 761. O.V. Tarasov & A.A. Vladimirov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**25**]{} (1977), 585. E. Egorian & O.V. Tarasov, Theor. Math. Phys. [**41**]{} (1979), 863. R.M. Doria, F.A.B. Rabelo de Carvalho & S.P. Sorella, Braz. J. Phys. [**20**]{} (1990), 316. J.A. Gracey, Phys. Lett. [**B552**]{} (2003), 101. R. Jackiw & S. Templeton, Phys. Rev. [**D23**]{} (1981), 2291.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: 'ÉNS Lyon, UMPA, 46 allée d’Italie, 69007 Lyon, France'
author:
- François Brunault
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
---
**On the Mahler measure associated to $X_1(13)$**
*Abstract.* We show that the Mahler measure of a defining equation of the modular curve $X_1(13)$ is equal to the derivative at $s=0$ of the $L$-function of a cusp form of weight 2 and level 13 with integral Fourier coefficients. The proof combines Deninger’s method, an explicit version of Beilinson’s theorem together with an idea of Merel to express the regulator integral as a linear combination of periods. Finally, we present further examples related to the modular curves of level 16, 18 and 25.
The Mahler measure of a polynomial $P \in {\mathbf{C}}[x_1^{\pm 1},\ldots,x_n^{\pm 1}]$ is defined by $$m(P)=\frac{1}{(2\pi i)^n} \int_{|z_1|=1} \cdots \int_{|z_n|=1} \log |P(z_1,\ldots,z_n)| \frac{dz_1}{z_1} \cdots \frac{dz_n}{z_n}.$$
In a fascinating paper, Boyd [@boyd:expmath] developed a body of conjectures relating Mahler measures of $2$-variable polynomials and special values of $L$-functions of elliptic curves. Deninger [@deninger:mahler] provided a bridge between the world of Mahler measures and certain $K$-theoretic regulators. He thus showed the relevance of Beilinson’s conjectures to prove relations between Mahler measures and special values of $L$-functions. In the case of curves, such identities have been proven rigorously only in rare instances, mainly in the case of genus $0$ and $1$ ([@brunault:cras], [@rogers-zudilin], [@rogers-zudilin2]...). There has been some recent work, however, in the case of genus 2 (see [@bertin-zudilin] and the references therein).
The aim of this paper is to achieve such a relation in the case of a curve of genus $2$. We work with the modular curve $X_1(13)$. Thanks to [@lecacheux:13 p. 56], a defining equation of $X_1(13)$ is $$P=y^2 x(x-1)+y(-x^3+x^2+2x-1)-x^2+x.$$
We prove the following theorem.
\[main thm\] We have the identity $m(P)=2L'(f,0)$, where $f$ is the cusp form of weight $2$ and level $13$ whose Fourier expansion begins with $$f = 2q-3q^2-2q^3+q^4+6q^6-q^9-3q^{10}-4q^{12}-5q^{13}+O(q^{15}).$$
Note that the cusp form $f$ is not a newform; rather, it is the trace of the unique (up to Galois conjugacy) newform of weight $2$ on the group $\Gamma_1(13)$.
In the last section, we present further examples of relations between Mahler measures and $L$-values in the case of the modular curves $X_1(16)$, $X_1(18)$ and $X_1(25)$.
This article grew out of results in my PhD thesis (see especially [@brunault:these §3.8 and Remarque 112]). I would like to thank Odile Lecacheux for helpful exchanges having led to the discovery of these identities. I would also like to thank Wadim Zudilin for useful comments.
Deninger’s method
=================
In this section we express the Mahler measure of $P$ in terms of the integral of a differential $1$-form on the modular curve $X_1(13)$, following Deninger’s method [@deninger:mahler].
We view $P$ as a polynomial in $h$: $$P(H,h) = -H + (-H^2+2H+1)h+(H^2+H-1)h^2-Hh^3.$$ Note that the constant term of $P$ is given by $P^*(H)=-H$.
Let $Z \subset {\mathbf{G}_m}^2$ be the curve defined by the equation $P=0$. Then $Z$ identifies with an affine open subscheme of $X_1(13)$ by [@lecacheux:13 p. 56]. In particular $Z$ is smooth.
Looking at the resultant of the polynomials $P(H,h)$ and $H^2 h^3 P(\frac{1}{H},\frac{1}{h})$ with respect to $h$, it can be checked that $P$ doesn’t vanish on the torus $T^2 = \{(H,h) \in {\mathbf{C}}: |H|=|h|=1\}$. Moreover, we check numerically that for each $H \in T$, there exists a unique $h(H) \in {\mathbf{C}}$ such that $P(H,h(H))=0$ and $0<|h(H)|<1$. The map $H \in T \mapsto h(H)$ defines a closed cycle $\gamma_P$ in $H_1(Z({\mathbf{C}}),{\mathbf{Z}})$. We call $\gamma_P$ the *Deninger cycle* associated to $P$. We give $\gamma_P$ the canonical orientation coming from $T$.
Since $P^*$ doesn’t vanish on $T$, the polynomial $P$ satisfies the assumptions [@deninger:mahler 3.2], so that the discussion in *loc. cit.* applies. Consider the differential form $\eta = \log |h| \frac{dH}{H}$ on $Z({\mathbf{C}})$. Using Jensen’s formula, and noting that $m(P^*)=0$, we have [@deninger:mahler (23)] $$m(P) = -\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\gamma_P} \eta.$$ Now we may express this as an integral of a closed differential form. By [@deninger:mahler Prop. 3.3], we get $$m(P) = -\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\gamma_P} \log |H| \cdot (\partial-\overline{\partial}) \log |h| - \log |h| \cdot (\partial-\overline{\partial}) \log |H|.$$
We now introduce a standard notation.
For any two meromorphic functions $u,v$ on a Riemann surface, define $$\eta(u,v) : = \log |u| \operatorname{darg}(v) - \log |v| \operatorname{darg}(u).$$
The $1$-form $\eta(u,v)$ is well-defined outside the set of zeros and poles of $u$ and $v$. It is closed, so we may integrate it over cycles. Moreover, we have $\operatorname{darg}(u) = -i (\partial-\overline{\partial}) \log |u|$. Thus we have proved the following proposition.
\[pro deninger\] We have $m(P)=\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\gamma_P} \eta(h,H)$.
Let $c$ denote complex conjugation on $Z({\mathbf{C}})$. We have $c_* \gamma_P = -\gamma_P$.
For every $H \in T$, we have $h(\overline{H})=\overline{h(H)}$. It follows that $c_* \gamma_P=-\gamma_P$.
Determining Deninger’s cycle
============================
In this section, we determine $\gamma_P$ explicitly in terms of modular symbols.
The space $S_2(\Gamma_1(13))$ of cusp forms of weight $2$ and level $13$ has dimension $2$ over ${\mathbf{C}}$. Let ${\varepsilon}: ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times \to {\mathbf{C}}^\times$ be the unique Dirichlet character satisfying ${\varepsilon}(2)=\zeta_6 := e^{\frac{2\pi i}{6}}$. It is even and has order $6$. A basis of $S_2(\Gamma_1(13))$ is given by $(f_{\varepsilon},f_{{\overline{\varepsilon}}})$, where $f_{\varepsilon}$ (resp. $f_{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}$) is a newform having character ${\varepsilon}$ (resp. ${{\overline{\varepsilon}}}$). The Fourier coefficients of $f_{\varepsilon}$ and $f_{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}$ belong to the field ${\mathbf{Q}}(\zeta_6)$ and are complex conjugate to each other. We define $f=f_{\varepsilon}+f_{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}$.
We denote by $\langle d \rangle$ the diamond automorphism of $X_1(13)$ associated to $d \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times/\pm 1$.
Let $\hat{\mathcal{H}}=H_1(X_1(13)({\mathbf{C}}),\{\mathrm{cusps}\},{\mathbf{Z}})$ be the homology group of $X_1(13)({\mathbf{C}})$ relative to the cusps. Let $E_{13}$ be the set of non-zero vectors of $({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^2$. For any $x \in E_{13}$, we let $\xi(x) = \{g_x 0, g_x \infty\}$, where $g_x \in \operatorname{SL}_2({\mathbf{Z}})$ is any matrix whose bottom line is congruent to $x$ modulo $13$. Using Manin’s algorithm [@manin] and its implementation in Magma [@magma], we find that a ${\mathbf{Z}}$-basis of $\mathcal{H}=H_1(X_1(13)({\mathbf{C}}),{\mathbf{Z}})$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_1 & = \xi(1,-5)-\xi(2,5)-\xi(1,-2) = \left\{\frac15,\frac25\right\}\\
\gamma_2 & = \langle 2 \rangle_* \gamma_1 = \xi(2,3)-\xi(4,-3)-\xi(2,-4)\\
\gamma_3 & = \xi(1,-3)-\xi(1,3) = \left\{\frac13,-\frac13\right\}\\
\gamma_4 & = \langle 2 \rangle_* \gamma_3 = \xi(2,-6)-\xi(2,6).\end{aligned}$$
Consider the pairing $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle : \hat{\mathcal{H}} \times S_2(\Gamma_1(13)) & \to {\mathbf{C}}\\
(\gamma,f) & \mapsto \int_\gamma 2\pi i f(z)dz.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\mathcal{H}^- := \{ \gamma \in \mathcal{H} : c_* \gamma=-\gamma\}$. We define the map $$\begin{aligned}
\iota : \mathcal{H}^- & \to {\mathbf{C}}\\
\gamma & \mapsto \langle \gamma,f_\varepsilon \rangle.\end{aligned}$$
\[iota injective\] The map $\iota$ is injective.
If $\iota(\gamma)=0$ then $\langle \gamma,f_{\overline{\varepsilon}} \rangle = \overline{\langle c_* \gamma, f_\varepsilon \rangle} = -\overline{\langle \gamma,f_\varepsilon \rangle} = 0$. Thus $\gamma$ is orthogonal to $S_2(\Gamma_1(13))$, which implies $\gamma=0$.
\[iota lattice\] The image of $\iota$ is the hexagonal lattice generated by $\iota(\gamma_3)$ and $\iota(\gamma_4) = \zeta_6 \iota(\gamma_3)$.
The action of complex conjugation on $\mathcal{H}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
c_*(\gamma_1) & = \gamma_1+\gamma_4\\
c_*(\gamma_2) & = \gamma_2 - \gamma_3 + \gamma_4\\
c_*(\gamma_3) & = -\gamma_3\\
c_*(\gamma_4) & = -\gamma_4.\end{aligned}$$ From these formulas, it is clear that a ${\mathbf{Z}}$-basis of $\mathcal{H}^-$ is given by $(\gamma_3,\gamma_4)$. By Lemma \[iota injective\], we have $\iota(\gamma_3) \neq 0$. Then $$\iota(\gamma_4) = \langle \langle 2 \rangle_* \gamma_3, f_\varepsilon \rangle = \langle \gamma_3, f_\varepsilon | \langle 2 \rangle \rangle = \varepsilon(2) \iota(\gamma_3) = \zeta_6 \iota(\gamma_3).$$
We have $\gamma_3 = \{\frac13,-\frac13\} = \{\frac13,g_1 \left(\frac13\right)\}$ with $g_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 14 & -5 \\ -39 & 14 \end{pmatrix} \in \Gamma_1(13)$. Let us choose $z_0 = \frac{14+i}{39}$. Then $g_1 (z_0) = \frac{-14+i}{39}$. We have $$\langle \gamma_3,f_\varepsilon \rangle = \int_{z_0}^{g_1 z_0} 2\pi i f_\varepsilon(z) dz = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{a_n(f_\varepsilon)}{n} \left(e^{\frac{-28\pi i n}{39}}-e^{\frac{28\pi i n}{39}}\right) e^{-\frac{2\pi n}{39}}.$$ Using Magma, we get numerically $$\langle \gamma_3,f_\varepsilon \rangle \sim 1.06759 - 2.60094i.$$
\[pro gamma0\] Let $\gamma_P \in \mathcal{H}^-$ be Deninger’s cycle. We have $\gamma_P=\gamma_3$.
A ${\mathbf{Q}}$-basis of $\Omega^1(X_1(13))$ is given by $(\omega, h\omega)$ where $$\omega = \frac{(h^2 - h)H - h^3 + h^2 + 2h - 1}{h^4 - 2h^3 + 3h^2 - 2h + 1}dH.$$ Using Magma, we compute the Fourier expansion of $\omega$ and $h\omega$ at infinity, and deduce $$\label{feps omega}
2\pi i f_\varepsilon(z)dz = \alpha \omega + \beta h\omega$$ with $$\alpha \sim 0.71163+0.70256i \qquad \beta \sim 0.25262-0.96757i.$$ Note that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are algebraic numbers, but we won’t need an explicit formula for them. With Pari/GP [@pari273], we find $$\label{int gammaP}
\int_{\gamma_P} \omega \sim - 3.21731i \qquad \int_{\gamma_P} h\omega \sim - 1.23275i.$$ From (\[feps omega\]) and (\[int gammaP\]), it follows that $$\langle \gamma_P, f_\varepsilon \rangle \sim 1.06759-2.60094i \sim \langle \gamma_3, f_\varepsilon \rangle.$$ Since the image of $\iota$ is a lattice by Lemma \[iota lattice\], we may ascertain that $\gamma_P=\gamma_3$.
We will also need to make explicit the action of the Atkin-Lehner involution $W_{13}$ on $\gamma_P$.
\[pro W13gamma0\] We have $W_{13} \gamma_P = \gamma_4-\gamma_3$.
By [@Atkin-Li Thm 2.1], we have $W_{13} f_\varepsilon = w \cdot f_{\overline{\varepsilon}}$ with $$\label{eq w}
w = \frac{3\zeta_6-4}{13} \tau(\varepsilon) \sim -0.96425+0.26501i.$$ We deduce $$\iota(W_{13} \gamma_P) = \langle \gamma_P, W_{13} f_\varepsilon \rangle = w \langle \gamma_P, f_{\overline{\varepsilon}} \rangle = w \overline{\langle c_* \gamma_P, f_\varepsilon \rangle} = -w \overline{\langle \gamma_P, f_\varepsilon \rangle} \sim 1.71869+2.22503i.$$ Moreover, we have $$\iota(\gamma_4) = \zeta_6 \iota(\gamma_3) \sim 2.78628-0.37591i \sim \iota(W_{13} \gamma_P) + \iota(\gamma_3).$$ Using Lemma \[iota lattice\] again, we conclude that $W_{13} \gamma_P = \gamma_4-\gamma_3$.
Beilinson’s theorem
===================
We now recall the explicit version of Beilinson’s theorem on the modular curve $X_1(N)$ [@brunault:smf]. Let ${\mathbf{C}}(X_1(N))$ be the function field of $X_1(N)$. The *regulator map* on $X_1(N)$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
r_N : K_2({\mathbf{C}}(X_1(N))) & \to \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbf{C}}(S_2(\Gamma_1(N)),{\mathbf{C}})\\
\{u,v\} & \mapsto \left(f \mapsto \int_{X_1(N)({\mathbf{C}})} \eta(u,v) \wedge \omega_f \right)\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_f := 2\pi i f(z) dz$. After tensoring with ${\mathbf{C}}$, we get a linear map $$r_N : K_2({\mathbf{C}}(X_1(N))) \otimes {\mathbf{C}}\to \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbf{C}}(S_2(\Gamma_1(N)),{\mathbf{C}}).$$ For any even non-trivial Dirichlet character $\chi : ({\mathbf{Z}}/N{\mathbf{Z}})^\times \to {\mathbf{C}}^\times$, there exists a modular unit $u_{\chi} \in \mathcal{O}^{\times}(Y_1(N)({\mathbf{C}})) \otimes {\mathbf{C}}$ satisfying $$\log |u_{\chi}(z)| = \frac{1}{\pi} \lim_{\substack{s \rightarrow 1\\ \operatorname{Re}(s)>1}} \left(\sideset{}{'}\sum_{(m,n) \in {\mathbf{Z}}^2} \frac{\chi(n) \cdot \operatorname{Im}(z)^s}{{|Nmz+n|}^{2s}}\right) \qquad (z \in {\mathfrak{H}}),$$ where $\sideset{}{'}\sum$ denotes that we omit the term $(m,n) = (0,0)$ (see [@brunault:smf Prop 5.3]).
We are working with the model of $X_1(N)$ in which the $\infty$-cusp is not defined over ${\mathbf{Q}}$, but rather over ${\mathbf{Q}}(\zeta_N)$. Therefore, the modular unit $u_\chi$ is not defined over ${\mathbf{Q}}$ but rather over ${\mathbf{Q}}(\zeta_N)$.
[@brunault:smf Thm 1.1]\[explicit beilinson\] Let $f \in S_2(\Gamma_1(N),\psi)$ be a newform of weight $2$, level $N$ and character $\psi$. For any even primitive Dirichlet character $\chi : ({\mathbf{Z}}/N{\mathbf{Z}})^\times \to {\mathbf{C}}^\times$, with $\chi \neq \overline{\psi}$, we have $$\label{explicit beilinson formula}
L(f,2) L(f,\chi,1) = \frac{N \pi \tau(\chi)}{2 \phi(N)} \bigl\langle r_N(\{u_{\overline{\chi}},u_{\psi\chi}\}), f \bigr\rangle$$ where $L(f,\chi,s):=\sum_{n=1} a_n(f) \chi(n) n^{-s}$ denotes the $L$-function of $f$ twisted by $\chi$, $\tau(\chi):=\sum_{a \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/N{\mathbf{Z}})^\times} \chi(a) e^{\frac{2\pi ia}{N}}$ denotes the Gauss sum of $\chi$, and $\phi(N)$ denotes Euler’s function.
We will also need the following lemma.
\[lem ceta\] Let $c$ denote complex conjugation on $Y_1(N)({\mathbf{C}})$. For any even non-trivial Dirichlet characters $\chi,\chi' : ({\mathbf{Z}}/N{\mathbf{Z}})^\times \to {\mathbf{C}}^\times$, we have $c^* \eta(u_\chi,u_{\chi'}) = -\eta(u_\chi,u_{\chi'})$.
Recall that $c$ is given by $c(z)=-\overline{z}$ on ${\mathfrak{H}}$. We have $c^* \log |u_\chi| = \log |u_\chi|$, and $c^*$ exchanges the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic parts of $\operatorname{dlog} |u_\chi|$. Since $\operatorname{darg}(u_\chi) = -i (\partial-\overline{\partial}) \log |u_\chi|$, we get $c^* \operatorname{darg}(u_\chi) = -\operatorname{darg}(u_\chi)$, and thus $c^* \eta(u_\chi,u_{\chi'}) = -\eta(u_\chi,u_{\chi'})$.
By [@brunault:smf Prop. 5.4 and Prop. 6.1], we have $\{u_\chi,u_{\chi'}\} \in K_2(X_1(N)({\mathbf{C}})) \otimes {\mathbf{C}}$. This implies that for $\gamma \in H_1(Y_1(N)({\mathbf{C}}),{\mathbf{Z}})$, the integral $\int_\gamma \eta(u_{\chi},u_{\chi'})$ depends only on the image of $\gamma$ in $H_1(X_1(N)({\mathbf{C}}),{\mathbf{Z}})$ (see for example the discussion in [@dokchitser-dejeu-zagier §3]). Therefore, we have a well-defined map $$\int \eta(u_{\chi},u_{\chi'}) : H_1(X_1(N)({\mathbf{C}}),{\mathbf{Z}}) \to {\mathbf{C}}.$$ It can be extended by linearity to $H_1(X_1(N)({\mathbf{C}}),{\mathbf{C}})$.
\[rem int eta\] Since $c^* \eta(u_\chi,u_{\chi'}) = -\eta(u_\chi,u_{\chi'})$ by Lemma \[lem ceta\], we have $\int_\gamma \eta(u_\chi,u_{\chi'}) = \int_{\gamma^-} \eta(u_\chi,u_{\chi'})$ with $\gamma^- = \frac12(\gamma-c_* \gamma)$.
Merel’s formula
===============
In this section, we express the regulator integral appearing in the right hand side of (\[explicit beilinson formula\]) as a linear combination of periods. In order to do this, we use an idea of Merel to express the integral over $X_1(N)({\mathbf{C}})$ as a linear combination of products of $1$-dimensional integrals.
Let $N \geq 1$ be an integer. Let $E_N$ be the set of vectors $(u,v) \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/N{\mathbf{Z}})^2$ such that $(u,v,N)=1$. For any $f \in S_2(\Gamma_1(N))$ and any $x \in E_N$, we define the *Manin symbol* $$\xi_f(x) = -\frac{1}{2\pi} \langle \xi(x),f \rangle = -i \int_{g_x 0}^{g_x \infty} f(z) dz,$$ where $g_x \in \operatorname{SL}_2({\mathbf{Z}})$ is any matrix whose bottom row is congruent to $x$ modulo $N$.
Let $\rho = e^{\frac{\pi i}{3}}$ and $\sigma = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}$, $\tau= \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & -1 \end{pmatrix}$, $T=\begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix} \in \operatorname{SL}_2({\mathbf{Z}})$.
The following theorem is a variant of a theorem of Merel which expresses the Petersson scalar product of two cusp forms $f$ and $g$ of weight 2 as a linear combination of products of Manin symbols of $f$ and $g$ [@merel:symbmanin Théorème 2].
\[thm reg eta\] Let $f \in S_2(\Gamma_1(N))$ be a cusp form of weight 2 and level $N$, and let $u,v \in \mathcal{O}^\times(Y_1(N)({\mathbf{C}}))$ be two modular units. We have $$\label{eq reg eta}
\int_{X_1(N)({\mathbf{C}})} \eta(u,v) \wedge \omega_f = \frac{\pi}{2} \sum_{x \in E_N} \left(\int_{g_x \rho}^{g_x \rho^2} \eta(u,v) \right) \xi_f(x).$$
Let $\mathcal{F}$ be the standard fundamental domain of $\operatorname{SL}_2({\mathbf{Z}}) \backslash {\mathfrak{H}}$: $$\mathcal{F} = \{z \in {\mathfrak{H}}: |\mathrm{Re}(z)| \leq \frac12, |z| \geq 1\}.$$ Its boundary $\partial \mathcal{F}$ is the hyperbolic triangle with vertices $\rho^2,\rho,\infty$. Define $$F_x(z) = \int_\infty^z \omega_f | g_x \qquad (x \in E_N, z \in {\mathfrak{H}}).$$ We have $$\int_{X_1(N)({\mathbf{C}})} \eta(u,v) \wedge \omega_f = \sum_{x \in E_N/\pm 1} \int_{\mathcal{F}} (\eta(u,v) \wedge \omega_f) | g_x.$$ Since $\eta(u,v)$ is closed, we have $(\eta(u,v) \wedge \omega_f) | g_x = -d(F_x \cdot (\eta(u,v)|g_x))$ and Stokes’ formula gives $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber \int_{X_1(N)({\mathbf{C}})} \eta(u,v) \wedge \omega_f & = - \sum_{x \in E_N/\pm 1} \int_{\partial \mathcal{F}} F_x \cdot (\eta(u,v)|g_x)\\
\label{eq int} & = - \sum_{x \in E_N/\pm 1} \left(\int_{\rho^2}^\rho + \int_\rho^\infty + \int_\infty^{\rho^2}\right) F_x \cdot (\eta(u,v)|g_x).\end{aligned}$$ The matrix $T$ fixes $\infty$ and maps $\rho^2$ to $\rho$. We have $$F_x(Tz) = \int_\infty^{Tz} \omega_f | g_x = \int_\infty^{z} \omega_f | g_x T = F_{xT}(z).$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{x \in E_N/\pm 1} \int_\rho^\infty F_x \cdot (\eta(u,v)|g_x) & = \sum_{x \in E_N/\pm 1} \int_{\rho^2}^\infty F_x | T \cdot (\eta(u,v)|g_x T)\\
& = \sum_{x \in E_N/\pm 1} \int_{\rho^2}^\infty F_{xT} \cdot (\eta(u,v)|g_{xT})\\
& = \sum_{x \in E_N/\pm 1} \int_{\rho^2}^\infty F_x \cdot (\eta(u,v)|g_x).\end{aligned}$$ Hence (\[eq int\]) simplifies to $$\int_{X_1(N)({\mathbf{C}})} \eta(u,v) \wedge \omega_f = \sum_{x \in E_N/\pm 1} \int_{\rho}^{\rho^2} F_x \cdot (\eta(u,v)|g_x).$$ Similarly, let us use the matrix $\sigma$, which exchanges $\rho$ and $\rho^2$, as well as $0$ and $\infty$. Since $F_x(\sigma z) = F_{x \sigma}(z)+2\pi \xi_f(x)$, we get $$\int_{\rho}^{\rho^2} F_x \cdot (\eta(u,v)|g_x) = \int_{\rho^2}^{\rho} F_{x\sigma} \cdot (\eta(u,v)|g_{x\sigma}) + 2\pi \xi_f(x) \int_{\rho^2}^{\rho} \eta(u,v) | g_x.$$ Summing over $x$ and using the fact that $\xi_f(x\sigma)=-\xi_f(x)$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{X_1(N)({\mathbf{C}})} \eta(u,v) \wedge \omega_f & = \frac12 \sum_{x \in E_N/\pm 1} 2\pi \xi_f(x) \int_{\rho^2}^{\rho} \eta(u,v) | g_{x\sigma}\\
& = \pi \sum_{x \in E_N/\pm 1} \xi_f(x) \int_\rho^{\rho^2} \eta(u,v) | g_{x}.\end{aligned}$$
It can be shown that if $\{u,v\}$ defines an element in $K_2(X_1(N)({\mathbf{C}})) \otimes {\mathbf{Q}}$, then the cycle $\sum_{x \in E_N} \left(\int_{g_x \rho}^{g_x \rho^2} \eta(u,v)\right) \xi(x)$ is *closed*. This follows from the fact that if $\gamma_P$ denotes a small loop around a cusp $P$ of $X_1(N)({\mathbf{C}})$, then $\int_{\gamma_P} \eta(u,v) = 2\pi \log |\partial_P(u,v)|$, where $\partial_P(u,v)$ denotes the tame symbol of $\{u,v\}$ at $P$ (see for example [@rodriguez:modular §4, Lemma]).
Let $f \in S_2(\Gamma_1(N))$ be a cusp form of weight 2 and level $N$. Consider the following relative cycle on $Y_1(N)({\mathbf{C}})$: $$\gamma_f := \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x) \{g_x \rho, g_x \rho^2\}.$$ Furthermore, let us define $\gamma_f^- := \frac12 (\gamma_f-c_* \gamma_f)$.
Combining Theorem \[explicit beilinson\], Theorem \[thm reg eta\] and Remark \[rem int eta\], we get the following result.
\[explicit beilinson 2\] Let $f \in S_2(\Gamma_1(N),\psi)$ be a newform of weight $2$, level $N$ and character $\psi$. For any even primitive Dirichlet character $\chi : ({\mathbf{Z}}/N{\mathbf{Z}})^\times \to {\mathbf{C}}^\times$, with $\chi \neq \overline{\psi}$, we have $$\label{explicit beilinson formula 2}
L(f,2) L(f,\chi,1) = \frac{N \pi^2 \tau(\chi)}{4 \phi(N)} \int_{\gamma_f} \eta(u_{\overline{\chi}},u_{\psi\chi}) = \frac{N \pi^2 \tau(\chi)}{4 \phi(N)} \int_{\gamma_f^-} \eta(u_{\overline{\chi}},u_{\psi\chi}).$$
We will also need an explicit expression of $\gamma_f$ in terms of Manin symbols. For any $f \in S_2(\Gamma_1(N))$ and any $x=(u,v) \in E_N$, let us define $x^c=(-u,v)$ and $$\xi_f^+(x) = \frac12 (\xi_f(x)+\xi_f(x^c)) = \frac12 (\xi_f(x)+\overline{\xi_{f^*}(x)}),$$ where $f^*$ denotes the cusp form with complex conjugate Fourier coefficients.
\[pro gammaf\] Let $f \in S_2(\Gamma_1(N))$ be a cusp form of weight $2$ and level $N$. The cycle $\gamma_f$ is closed, and its image in $H_1(X_1(N)({\mathbf{C}}),{\mathbf{Z}})$ can be expressed as follows: $$\label{eq gammaf}
\gamma_f = -\frac13 \sum_{x \in E_N} \left(\xi_f(x)+2\xi_f(x \tau)\right) \xi(x).$$ Moreover, we have $$\label{eq gammaf 2}
\gamma_f^- = -\frac13 \sum_{x \in E_N} \left(\xi_f^+(x)+2\xi_f^+(x \tau)\right) \xi(x).$$
Let us compute the boundary of $\gamma_f$. Since $\sigma(\rho)=\rho^2$ and $\xi_f(x\sigma)=-\xi_f(x)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\partial \gamma_f & = \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x) ([g_x \rho^2]-[g_x \rho])\\
& = \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x) ([g_{x\sigma} \rho]-[g_x \rho])\\
& = -2 \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x) [g_x \rho].\end{aligned}$$ Since $\tau(\rho)=\rho$ and because of Manin’s relation $\xi_f(x)+\xi_f(x\tau)+\xi_f(x\tau^2)=0$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\partial \gamma_f & = -\frac23 \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x) ([g_x \rho] + [g_{x \tau} \rho]+[g_{x \tau^2} \rho])\\
& = -\frac23 \sum_{x \in E_N} (\xi_f(x)+\xi_f(x \tau)+\xi_f(x \tau^2)) [g_x \rho] = 0.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_f & = \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x) (\{g_x \rho, g_x \infty\}+ \{g_x \infty, g_x \rho^2\})\\
& = \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x) (\{g_x \rho, g_x \infty\} - \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x) \{g_x 0, g_x \rho\})\\
& = 2 \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x) \{g_x \rho, g_x \infty\} - \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x) \xi(x).\end{aligned}$$ Using the matrix $\tau$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_f & = \frac23 \sum_{x \in E_N} \left(\xi_f(x) \{g_x \rho, g_x \infty\}+\xi_f(x\tau) \{g_{x\tau} \rho, g_{x\tau} \infty\}+\xi_f(x\tau^2) \{g_{x\tau^2} \rho, g_{x\tau^2} \infty\}\right) - \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x) \xi(x)\\
& = \frac23 \sum_{x \in E_N} \left(\xi_f(x) \{g_x \rho, g_x \infty\}+\xi_f(x\tau) \{g_{x} \rho, g_{x} 0\}+\xi_f(x\tau^2) \{g_{x} \rho, g_{x} 1\}\right) - \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x) \xi(x)\\
& = \frac23 \sum_{x \in E_N} \left(\xi_f(x\tau) \{g_{x} \infty, g_{x} 0\}+\xi_f(x\tau^2) \{g_{x} \infty, g_{x} 1\}\right) - \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x) \xi(x)\\
& = \frac23 \sum_{x \in E_N} \left(-\xi_f(x\tau) \xi(x) +\xi_f(x\tau^2) \{g_{x\tau^2} 0, g_{x\tau^2} \infty\}\right) - \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x) \xi(x)\\
& = \frac23 \sum_{x \in E_N} \left(-\xi_f(x\tau) \xi(x) +\xi_f(x) \xi(x)\right) - \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x) \xi(x)\\
& = \frac13 \sum_{x \in E_N} (\xi_f(x) - 2 \xi_f(x\tau)) \xi(x).\end{aligned}$$ This gives (\[eq gammaf\]). The action of complex conjugation on $\gamma_f$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
c_* \gamma_f & = \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x) \{c(g_x \rho),c(g_x \rho^2)\}\\
& = \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x) \{g_{x^c} \rho^2,g_{x^c} \rho\}\\
& = - \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f(x^c) \{g_x \rho,g_x \rho^2\}.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\gamma_f^- = \sum_{x \in E_N} \xi_f^+(x) \{g_x \rho,g_x \rho^2\}.$$ Since the quantities $\xi_f^+(x)$ satisfy the Manin relations, the same proof as above gives (\[eq gammaf 2\]).
Proof of the main theorem
=========================
Let us return to the case $N=13$. Using Theorem \[explicit beilinson 2\] with $f=f_{\varepsilon}$, $\psi={\varepsilon}$ and $\chi={\varepsilon}^3$, we get $$\label{formula 1}
L(f_{\varepsilon},2) L(f_{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}^3,1) = \frac{13 \pi^2 \tau({\varepsilon}^3)}{48} \int_{\gamma_{f_{\varepsilon}}^-} \eta(u_{{\varepsilon}^3},u_{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^2}).$$ We are going to make explicit each term in this formula. Note that $\tau({\varepsilon}^3)=\sqrt{13}$.
For any Dirichlet character $\psi : ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times \to {\mathbf{C}}^\times$, let us denote $\mathcal{H}(\psi)$ (resp. $\hat{\mathcal{H}}(\psi)$) the $\psi$-isotypical component of $\mathcal{H} \otimes {\mathbf{C}}$ (resp. $\hat{\mathcal{H}} \otimes {\mathbf{C}}$) with respect to the action of diamond operators $\langle d \rangle_*$, $d \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times$. For any $\gamma \in \hat{\mathcal{H}} \otimes {\mathbf{C}}$, let $\gamma^\psi$ denote its $\psi$-isotypical component. Moreover, let us define $\hat{\mathcal{H}}^{\pm}(\psi) = (\hat{\mathcal{H}}^\pm \otimes {\mathbf{C}}) \cap \hat{\mathcal{H}}(\psi)$ and $\mathcal{H}^{\pm}(\psi) = (\mathcal{H}^\pm \otimes {\mathbf{C}}) \cap \mathcal{H}(\psi)$.
\[lem Hpsi\] Let $\psi=\varepsilon$ or $\overline{\varepsilon}$. Then $\mathcal{H}^{\pm}(\psi)$ has dimension $1$, and a generator is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_\psi^+ & := \sum_{a \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times} \varepsilon^3(a) \xi(1,a)^\psi\\
\gamma_\psi^- & := \xi(1,-3)^\psi - \xi(1,3)^\psi.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we have $W_{13} \gamma_\psi^+ = \psi(2) \gamma_{\overline{\psi}}^+$.
The pairing $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ induces a perfect pairing $$\mathcal{H}^{\pm}(\psi) \times S_2(\Gamma_1(13),\psi) \to {\mathbf{C}}.$$ Since $S_2(\Gamma_1(13),\psi)$ is $1$-dimensional, we get $\dim_{\mathbf{C}}\mathcal{H}^{\pm}(\psi)=1$. From the definition, it is clear that $\gamma_\psi^+ \in \hat{\mathcal{H}}^+(\psi)$ and $\gamma_\psi^- \in \hat{\mathcal{H}}^-(\psi)$. Moreover, since $\gamma_\psi^- = \gamma_3^\psi$, we have $\gamma_\psi^- \in \mathcal{H}^-(\psi)$.
Let us compute the boundary of $\gamma_\psi^+$. For any $u,v \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times$, we have $\partial \xi(u,v) = P_u - P_v$ with $P_d:=\langle d \rangle(0)$. Moreover, for any $x \in E_{13}$, we have $$\xi(x)^\psi = \frac{1}{12} \sum_{d \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times} \overline{\psi}(d) \langle d \rangle_* \xi(x) = \frac{1}{12} \sum_{d \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times} \overline{\psi}(d) \xi(d x).$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\partial \gamma_\psi^+ & = \sum_{a \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times} \varepsilon^3(a) \partial(\xi(1,a)^\psi)\\
& = \frac{1}{12} \sum_{a \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times} \varepsilon^3(a) \sum_{d \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times} \overline{\psi}(d) \partial \xi(d,da)\\
& = \frac{1}{12} \sum_{a \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times} \varepsilon^3(a) \sum_{d \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times} \overline{\psi}(d) (P_d-P_{da})\\
& = \frac{1}{12} \sum_{d \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times} \left(\sum_{a \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times} \varepsilon^3(a)-\varepsilon^3\psi(a)\right) \overline{\psi}(d) \cdot P_d = 0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $\gamma_\psi^+ \in \mathcal{H}^+(\psi)$. By [@rebolledo Lemme 5], the elements $\xi(1,0)^\psi, \xi(1,2)^\psi, \xi(1,3)^\psi, \xi(1,-3)^\psi$ form a basis of $\hat{\mathcal{H}}(\psi)$, and we can express $\gamma_\psi^+$ in terms of this basis. This gives $$\label{eq gammapsi}
\gamma_\psi^+ = (2-4\psi(2)) \xi(1,2)^\psi + \xi(1,3)^\psi + \xi(1,-3)^\psi.$$ In particular $\gamma_\psi^+$ and $\gamma_\psi^-$ are nonzero, and thus they generate $\mathcal{H}^{\pm}(\psi)$.
It remains to compute the action of $W_{13}$ on $\gamma_\psi^+$. In view of (\[eq gammapsi\]), it is enough to determine the action of $W_{13}$ on $\xi(1,2)$ and $\xi(1,3)$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
W_{13} \xi(1,2) & = \left\{\frac{2}{13},\infty\right\} = \left\{\frac{2}{13},\frac{1}{6}\right\}+\left\{\frac{1}{6},0\right\}+\{0,\infty\}\\
& = -\xi(0,-6)+\xi(1,-6)+\xi(0,1).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, using [@rebolledo Lemme 5] again, we get $$\begin{aligned}
W_{13} (\xi(1,2)^\psi) & = -\xi(0,-6)^{\overline{\psi}}+\xi(1,-6)^{\overline{\psi}}+\xi(0,1)^{\overline{\psi}}\\
& = (\overline{\psi}(6)-1) \xi(1,0)^{\overline{\psi}} - \overline{\psi}(6) \xi(1,2)^{\overline{\psi}}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, we find $$\begin{aligned}
W_{13} (\xi(1,3)^\psi) & = (\overline{\psi}(4)-1) \xi(1,0)^{\overline{\psi}} - \overline{\psi}(4) \xi(1,-3)^{\overline{\psi}}\\
W_{13} (\xi(1,-3)^\psi) & = (\overline{\psi}(4)-1) \xi(1,0)^{\overline{\psi}} - \overline{\psi}(4) \xi(1,3)^{\overline{\psi}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since we know that $W_{13} \gamma_\psi^+$ is a multiple of $\gamma_{\overline{\psi}}^+$, we deduce $W_{13} \gamma_\psi^+ = -\overline{\psi}(4) \gamma_{\overline{\psi}}^+ = \psi(2) \gamma_{\overline{\psi}}^+$.
\[pro Lfeps3\] We have $L(f_\varepsilon,\varepsilon^3,1)=\frac{\overline{\varepsilon}(2)}{\sqrt{13}} \langle \gamma_\varepsilon^+, f_\varepsilon \rangle$.
By [@manin Thm 4.2.b)], we have $$L(f_\varepsilon,\varepsilon^3,1) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{13}} \sum_{a \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times} \varepsilon^3(a) \int_{a/13}^{\infty} \omega_{f_\varepsilon}.$$ Let us compute the cycle $\theta = \sum_{a \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times} \varepsilon^3(a) \{\frac{a}{13},\infty\}$ in terms of Manin symbols. We have $$W_{13} (\theta^\varepsilon) = (W_{13} \theta)^{\overline{\varepsilon}} = \sum_{a \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times} \varepsilon^3(a) \left\{-\frac{1}{a},0\right\}^{\overline{\varepsilon}} = \sum_{a \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times} \varepsilon^3(a) \xi(1,a)^{\overline{\varepsilon}} = \gamma_{\overline{\varepsilon}}^+.$$ By Lemma \[lem Hpsi\], it follows that $$\langle \theta, f_\varepsilon \rangle = \langle \theta^\varepsilon, f_\varepsilon \rangle = \langle W_{13}(\gamma_{\overline{\varepsilon}}^+), f_\varepsilon \rangle = \overline{\varepsilon}(2) \langle \gamma_\varepsilon^+, f_\varepsilon \rangle.$$
\[pro gammafeps\] We have $\gamma_{f_\varepsilon}^- = \frac{1-2\zeta_6}{\pi} \langle \gamma_\varepsilon^+, f_\varepsilon \rangle \cdot \gamma_{\overline{\varepsilon}}^-$.
By Proposition \[pro gammaf\], we have $$\gamma_{f_\varepsilon}^- = - \frac13 \sum_{x \in E_{13}} (\xi_{f_{\varepsilon}}^+(x)+2\xi_{f_{\varepsilon}}^+(x\tau)) \xi(x).$$ This sum involves 168 terms, but we may reduce it to 14 terms by considering the action of diamond operators. Let $\mathcal{E}$ be the set of 2-tuples $(0,1)$ and $(1,v)$, $v \in {\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}}$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma_{f_\varepsilon}^- & = - \frac13 \sum_{x \in \mathcal{E}} \sum_{d \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times} (\xi_{f_{\varepsilon}}^+(dx)+2\xi_{f_{\varepsilon}}^+(dx\tau)) \xi(dx)\\
& = - \frac13 \sum_{x \in \mathcal{E}} \sum_{d \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times} (\xi_{f_{\varepsilon}}^+(x)+2\xi_{f_{\varepsilon}}^+(x\tau)) \cdot {\varepsilon}(d) \langle d \rangle_* \xi(x)\\
& = -4 \sum_{x \in \mathcal{E}} (\xi_{f_{\varepsilon}}^+(x)+2\xi_{f_{\varepsilon}}^+(x\tau)) \xi(x)^{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}.\end{aligned}$$ A simple computation shows that the terms $x=(0,1)$ and $x=(1,0)$ cancel each other. Hence $$\gamma_{f_\varepsilon}^- = -4 \sum_{v \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^{*}} \bigl(\xi^{+}_{f_{{\varepsilon}}}(1,v)+2 {\varepsilon}(v) \xi^{+}_{f_{{\varepsilon}}}(1,1+\frac{1}{v})\bigr) \cdot \xi(1,v)^{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}}.$$ Using [@rebolledo Lemme 5], we may express $\xi_{f_{\varepsilon}}^+(1,v)$, $v \neq 0$ in terms of $\xi_{f_{\varepsilon}}^+(1,2)$ and $\xi_{f_{\varepsilon}}^+(1,3)$. We find $\xi^{+}_{f_{{\varepsilon}}}(1,-v) = \xi^{+}_{f_{{\varepsilon}}}(1,v)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\xi^{+}_{f_{{\varepsilon}}}(1,1) & = 0 & \xi^{+}_{f_{{\varepsilon}}}(1,4) & = (1-\zeta_{6})
\xi^{+}_{f_{{\varepsilon}}}(1,3)\\
\xi^{+}_{f_{{\varepsilon}}}(1,5) & = (\zeta_{6}-1) \bigl(\xi^{+}_{f_{{\varepsilon}}}(1,2) -
\xi^{+}_{f_{{\varepsilon}}}(1,3)\bigr) & \xi^{+}_{f_{{\varepsilon}}}(1,6)& = (\zeta_{6}-1) \xi^{+}_{f_{{\varepsilon}}}(1,2).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, also by [@rebolledo Lemme 5], the cycles $\xi(1,v)^{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}$, $v \neq 0$, are linear combinations of $\xi(1,2)^{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}$, $\xi(1,3)^{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}$ and $\xi(1,-3)^{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}$. Thus the same is true for $\gamma_{f_\varepsilon}^-$. But we know that $\gamma_{f_\varepsilon}^-$ is a multiple of $\gamma^{-}_{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}} = \xi(1,3)^{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}}-\xi(1,-3)^{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}}$. It is thus enough to compute the coefficient in front of $\xi(1,3)^{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}}$, which leads to the identity $$\gamma_{f_\varepsilon}^- = \left(12\xi^{+}_{f_{{\varepsilon}}}(1,2)+(8\zeta_{6}-4) \xi^{+}_{f_{{\varepsilon}}}(1,3)\right) \cdot \gamma^-_{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}.$$ Using (\[eq gammapsi\]) with $\psi={\varepsilon}$, we get the proposition.
Consider the modular units $x=W_{13}(h)$ and $y=W_{13}(H)$.
\[pro etaxy\] We have $\int_{\gamma_{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^-} \eta(x,y) = \frac{13^2 \sqrt{13}}{48}(1+\zeta_6) \tau({\varepsilon}^2) \int_{\gamma_{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^-} \eta(u_{{\varepsilon}^3},u_{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^2})$.
Since $h$ and $H$ are supported in the cusps above $0 \in X_0(13)({\mathbf{Q}})$, it follows that $x$ and $y$ are supported in the cusps above $\infty \in X_0(13)({\mathbf{Q}})$, namely the cusps $\langle d \rangle \infty$, $d \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/13{\mathbf{Z}})^\times/\pm 1$. The method of proof is simple : we decompose the divisors of $x$ and $y$ as linear combinations of Dirichlet characters.
Let us write $\begin{pmatrix} n_1 & n_2 & \cdots & n_6 \end{pmatrix}$ for the divisor $\sum_{d=1}^6 n_d \cdot \langle d \rangle \infty$. By [@lecacheux:13 p. 56], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{div}(x) & = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 & 1 & -1 & 0 & -1 \end{pmatrix}\\
\operatorname{div}(y) & = \begin{pmatrix} 1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 \end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ The divisors of $u_{{\varepsilon}^3}$ and $u_{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^2}$ are given by [@brunault:smf Prop 5.4]. We have $$\operatorname{div}(u_{{\varepsilon}^{3}}) = -\frac{L({\varepsilon}^{3},2)}{\pi^{2}} \cdot \begin{pmatrix} 1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 \end{pmatrix} = -\frac{4 \sqrt{13}}{13^{2}} \operatorname{div}(y).$$ Since the divisor of $x$ is invariant under the diamond operator $\langle 5 \rangle$, it is a linear combination of $\operatorname{div}(u_{{\varepsilon}^2})$ and $\operatorname{div}(u_{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^2})$. We find explicitly $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{div}(x) & = \frac{1-2\zeta_{6}}{3} \Bigl(\frac{\operatorname{div}(u_{{\varepsilon}^{2}})}{L({\varepsilon}^{2},2)/\pi^{2}} - \frac{\operatorname{div}(u_{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^{2}})}{L({{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^{2},2)/\pi^{2}}\Bigr)\\
& = \frac{13}{12} \bigl((2-\zeta_{6}) \tau({{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^{2}) \operatorname{div}(u_{{\varepsilon}^{2}}) + (1+\zeta_{6})
\tau({\varepsilon}^{2}) \operatorname{div}(u_{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^{2}})\bigr).\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used the classical formula [@cartier (1.80) and (3.87)] $$\frac{L(\chi,2)}{\pi^2} = \frac{\tau(\chi)}{N} \sum_{a=0}^{N-1} {{\overline{\chi}}}(a) B_2\left(\frac{a}{N}\right)$$ where $\chi$ is an even non-trivial Dirichlet character modulo $N$, and $B_2(x)=x^2-x+\frac16$ is the second Bernoulli polynomial.
Considering $u_{{\varepsilon}^3}$ and $u_{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^2}$ as elements of $\mathcal{O}^{*}(Y_{1}(13)({\mathbf{C}})) \otimes
{\mathbf{C}}$ and following the notations of [@brunault:smf (65)], we have $\widehat{u_{{\varepsilon}^3}}(\infty)=\widehat{u_{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^2}}(\infty)=1$ by [@brunault:smf Prop. 5.3]. Moreover, looking at the behaviour of $x$ and $y$ at $\infty$, we find $x(\infty)=1$ and $\widehat{y}(\infty)=-1$. Hence $x \otimes 1$ can be expressed as a linear combination of $u_{{\varepsilon}^2}$ and $u_{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^2}$ in $\mathcal{O}^{*}(Y_{1}(13)({\mathbf{C}})) \otimes
{\mathbf{C}}$, while $y \otimes 1$ is proportional to $u_{{\varepsilon}^3}$. Thus $$\eta(x,y) = -\frac{13^2}{4 \sqrt{13}} \cdot \frac{13}{12} \left((2-\zeta_{6}) \tau({{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^{2}) \eta(u_{{\varepsilon}^{2}},u_{{\varepsilon}^3}) + (1+\zeta_{6}) \tau({\varepsilon}^{2}) \eta(u_{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^{2}},u_{{\varepsilon}^3})\right).$$ Since the differential form $\eta(u_{{\varepsilon}^2},u_{{\varepsilon}^3})$ has character ${\varepsilon}$, we have $\int_{\gamma_{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}}^-} \eta(u_{{\varepsilon}^2},u_{{\varepsilon}^3}) = 0$, and the proposition follows.
Combining (\[formula 1\]) with Propositions \[pro Lfeps3\], \[pro gammafeps\], \[pro etaxy\], we get $$\label{formula 2}
L(f_{\varepsilon},2) = \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{13}} \cdot \frac{1-\zeta_6}{\tau({\varepsilon}^2)} \int_{\gamma_{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}}^-} \eta(x,y).$$ Formula (\[formula 2\]) simplifies if we use the functional equation of $L(f_{\varepsilon},s)$. Recall that $W_{13}(f_{\varepsilon}) = w f_{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}}$. Let $\Lambda(f,s):=13^{s/2} (2\pi)^{-s} \Gamma(s) L(f,s)$. Then the functional equation of $L(f_{\varepsilon},s)$ reads $$\Lambda(f_{\varepsilon},s) = -w \Lambda(f_{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}},2-s).$$ Using (\[eq w\]), we deduce that $$L(f_{\varepsilon},2) = \frac{4\pi^2}{13^2} (4-3\zeta_6) \tau({\varepsilon}) L'(f_{{\overline{\varepsilon}}},0).$$ Replacing in (\[formula 2\]) and using $\tau({\varepsilon}^2) \tau({\varepsilon}) = (4\zeta_6-3) \sqrt{13}$, we get $$\label{formula 3}
\int_{\gamma_{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^-} \eta(x,y) = 4\pi (\zeta_6-1) L'(f_{{\overline{\varepsilon}}},0).$$ Taking complex conjugation, and since $\overline{\eta(x,y)}=\eta(x,y)$, we obtain $$\label{formula 4}
\int_{\gamma_{\varepsilon}^-} \eta(x,y) = -4\pi \zeta_6 L'(f_{\varepsilon},0).$$ We have a direct sum decomposition $\mathcal{H}^- \otimes {\mathbf{C}}= \mathcal{H}^-({\varepsilon}) \oplus \mathcal{H}^-({{\overline{\varepsilon}}})$. Write $\gamma_3 = \gamma_3^{\varepsilon}+ \gamma_3^{{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}}$. Then $\gamma_4 = \langle 2 \rangle_* \gamma_3 = {\varepsilon}(2) \gamma_3^{\varepsilon}+ {{\overline{\varepsilon}}}(2) \gamma_3^{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}$. By Proposition \[pro W13gamma0\], we deduce $$W_{13} \gamma_P = \gamma_4 - \gamma_3 = (\zeta_6-1) \gamma_3^{\varepsilon}+ (\overline{\zeta_6}-1) \gamma_3^{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}= (\zeta_6-1) \gamma_{\varepsilon}^- + (\overline{\zeta_6}-1) \gamma_{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^-.$$ By (\[formula 3\]) and (\[formula 4\]), we then have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{W_{13} \gamma_P} \eta(x,y) & = (\zeta_6-1) \int_{\gamma_{\varepsilon}^-} \eta(x,y) + (\overline{\zeta_6}-1) \int_{\gamma_{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}^-} \eta(x,y)\\
& = 4\pi (L'(f_{\varepsilon},0) + L'(f_{{\overline{\varepsilon}}},0)).\end{aligned}$$ By Proposition \[pro deninger\], we conclude that $$m(P)=\frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\gamma_P} \eta(h,H) = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{W_{13} \gamma_P} \eta(x,y) = 2 L'(f,0).$$
There may have been a quicker way to proceed. Starting from Theorem \[explicit beilinson\] in the particular case $N=13$, probably all we need is a symplectic basis of $H_1(X_1(13)({\mathbf{C}}),{\mathbf{Z}})$ with respect to the intersection pairing (see the formula [@bost A.2.5]). But this is less canonical than Theorem \[thm reg eta\].
Another way of proving Theorem \[main thm\] would be to use the main formula of [@zudilin]. We have not worked out the details of this computation.
Let $g = f | \langle 2 \rangle = \zeta_6 f_{\varepsilon}+ \overline{\zeta_6} f_{{\overline{\varepsilon}}}$. Then $(f,g)$ is a basis of the space $S_2(\Gamma_1(13),{\mathbf{Q}})$ of cusp forms with rational Fourier coefficients. Is there a polynomial $Q \in {\mathbf{Z}}[x,y]$ such that $m(Q)$ is proportional to $L'(g,0)$?
Examples in higher level
========================
We note that the functions $H$ and $h$ used in the proof of Theorem \[main thm\] are modular units on $X_1(13)$ and that $P$ is their minimal polynomial. There is a similar story for the modular curve $X_1(11)$ [@brunault:cras Cor 3.3] and we may try to generalize this phenomenon.
Let $N \geq 1$ be an integer, and let $u$ and $v$ be two modular units on $X_1(N)$. Let $P \in {\mathbf{C}}[x,y]$ be an irreducible polynomial such that $P(u,v)=0$. Then the map $z \mapsto (u(z),v(z))$ is a modular parametrization of the curve $C_P : P(x,y)=0$ and we have a natural map $Y_1(N) \to C_P$. Assuming $P$ satisfies Deninger’s conditions, we may express $m(P)$ in terms of the integral of $\eta(u,v)$ over a (non necessarily closed) cycle $\gamma_P$.
The most favourable case is when the curve $C_P$ intersects the torus $T^2 = \{|x|=|y|=1\}$ only at cusps. In this case $\gamma_P$ is a modular symbol and we may use [@zudilin] to compute $\int_{\gamma_P} \eta(u,v)$ in terms of special values of $L$-functions.
In this section, we work out this idea for some examples of increasing complexity. We work with the modular units provided by [@yang]. These modular units are supported on the cusps above $\infty \in X_0(N)$, so that [@brunault:smf Prop 6.1] implies that $P$ is automatically tempered.
In all examples below, we found that $\gamma_P$ can be written as the sum of a closed path $\gamma_0$ and a path $\gamma_1$ joining cusps. The integral of $\eta(u,v)$ over $\gamma_1$ can be computed using [@zudilin Thm 1]. The integral of $\eta(u,v)$ over $\gamma_0$ can be dealt with using either [@zudilin Thm 1] or the explicit version of Beilinson’s theorem – we have not carried out the details of the computation. So in order to establish the identities below rigorously, it only remains to express $\gamma_0$ in terms of modular symbols and to compute $\int_{\gamma_0} \eta(u,v)$ using the tools explained above.
It would be interesting to understand when the identities obtained involve cusp forms (like (\[eq mP16\])), are of Dirichlet type (like (\[eq mP18\])), or of mixed type (like (\[eq mP25\])). In the general case, it would be also interesting to find conditions on the modular units $u$ and $v$ so that the boundary of $\gamma_P$ consists of cusps or other interesting points.
$N=16$
------
The modular curve $X_1(16)$ has genus 2 and has been studied in [@lecacheux:16]. Let $u$ and $v$ be the following modular units: $$\begin{aligned}
u & = q \prod_{\substack{n \geq 1\\ n \equiv \pm 1,\pm 5 (16)}} (1-q^n) / \prod_{\substack{n \geq 1 \\ n \equiv \pm 3,\pm 7 (16)}} (1-q^n)\\
v & = q \prod_{\substack{n \geq 1\\ n \equiv \pm 14 (16)}} (1-q^n) / \prod_{\substack{n \geq 1 \\ n \equiv \pm 10(16)}} (1-q^n).\end{aligned}$$ Their minimal polynomial is given by $$P_{16} = y-x-xy-xy^2+x^2y+xy^3.$$ This polynomial vanishes on the torus at the points $(x,y)=(1,1)$, $(1,\pm i)$, $(-1,-1)$, but the Deninger cycle $\gamma_{P_{16}}$ is *closed*. So we may expect that $m(P_{16})$ is equal to $L'(f,0)$ for some cusp form $f$ of level $16$ with rational coefficients. Indeed, we find numerically $$\label{eq mP16}
m(P_{16}) \stackrel{?}{=} L'(f,0)$$ where $f$ is the trace of the unique newform of weight $2$ and level $16$, having coefficients in ${\mathbf{Z}}[i]$.
$N=18$
------
The modular curve $X_1(18)$ has genus $2$ and has been studied in [@lecacheux:18]. It has 3 cusps above $\infty$, so we may form essentially two modular units supported on these cusps. Let $u$ and $v$ be the following modular units: $$\begin{aligned}
u & = q^3 \prod_{\substack{n \geq 1\\ n \equiv \pm 1,\pm 2 (18)}} (1-q^n) / \prod_{\substack{n \geq 1 \\ n \equiv \pm 7,\pm 8 (18)}} (1-q^n)\\
v & = q^2 \prod_{\substack{n \geq 1\\ n \equiv \pm 1,\pm 4 (18)}} (1-q^n) / \prod_{\substack{n \geq 1 \\ n \equiv \pm 5, \pm 8 (18)}} (1-q^n).\end{aligned}$$ Their minimal polynomial is given by $$P_{18} = -x^2+y^3+xy^2-x^2y+x^2y^2-x^3y^2.$$ This polynomial vanishes on the torus at the points $(x,y)=(1,\pm 1)$, $(-1,\pm 1)$, $(\zeta_6^2,\zeta_6)$ and $(\overline{\zeta_6}^2,\overline{\zeta_6})$ with $\zeta_6=e^{2\pi i/6}$. The points $(\zeta_6^2,\zeta_6)$ and $(\overline{\zeta_6}^2,\overline{\zeta_6})$ correspond respectively to the cusps $\frac16$ and $-\frac16$, and the Deninger cycle $\gamma_{P_{18}}$ is given by $\gamma_0+\{-\frac16,\frac16\}$, where $\gamma_0$ is a closed cycle. Using [@zudilin Thm 1], we find $$\int_{-1/6}^{1/6} \eta(u,v) = \frac{1}{4\pi} L(F,2)$$ where $F$ is a modular form of weight 2 and level (at most) $18^2$. Actually $F$ has level $18$ and [@zudilin Thm 1] simplifies if we use the functional equation $L(F,2)=-\frac{2\pi^2}{9} L'(W_{18} F,0)$. In fact [@zudilin Lemma 2] guarantees that $W_{18} F$ will be a modular form with *integral* Fourier coefficients. In this case, we find $$W_{18} F = -36 E_2^{\psi}$$ where $E_2^{\psi} = \sum_{n = 1}^\infty (\sum_{d | n} d) \psi(n) q^n$ is an Eisenstein series of level $9$, and $\psi : ({\mathbf{Z}}/3{\mathbf{Z}})^\times \to \{\pm 1\}$ is the unique Dirichlet character of conductor $3$. Since $L(E_2^{\psi},s)=L(\psi,s) L(\psi,s-1)$, we may expect that $m(P_{18})$ involves $L$-values of Dirichlet characters. Indeed, we find numerically $$\label{eq mP18}
m(P_{18}) \stackrel{?}{=} 2 L'(\psi,-1).$$
$N=25$
------
The modular curve $X_1(25)$ has genus 12 and the quotient $X=X_1(25)/\langle 7 \rangle$ has genus $4$. The curve $X$ and its modular units have been studied by Lecacheux [@lecacheux:25] and Darmon [@darmon:X1_25]. Consider the following modular units: $$\begin{aligned}
u & = q \prod_{\substack{n \geq 1\\ n \equiv \pm 3,\pm 4 (25)}} (1-q^n) / \prod_{\substack{n \geq 1 \\ n \equiv \pm 2,\pm 11 (25)}} (1-q^n)\\
v & = q^{-1} \prod_{\substack{n \geq 1\\ n \equiv \pm 9,\pm 12 (25)}} (1-q^n) / \prod_{\substack{n \geq 1 \\ n \equiv \pm 6,\pm 8 (25)}} (1-q^n).\end{aligned}$$ Their minimal polynomial is given by $$P_{25}=y^2 x^4 + (y^3 + y^2) x^3 + (3y^3 - y^2 - 2y)x^2 + (y^4 - 4y^2 + y - 1)x - y^3.$$ This polynomial vanishes on the torus at the points $(x,y)=(\zeta,-\zeta)$ for each primitive $5$-th root of unity $\zeta$. These points are cusps: letting $\zeta_5=e^{2\pi i/5}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
u(1/5) & =\zeta_5^2=-v(1/5) & u(-1/5) & =\zeta_5^{-2} = -v(-1/5)\\
u(2/5) & =\zeta_5=-v(2/5) & u(-2/5) & =\zeta_5^{-1} = -v(-2/5).\end{aligned}$$ The Deninger cycle associated to $P_{25}$ is given by $\gamma_{P_{25}}=\gamma_0+\gamma_1$ where $\gamma_0$ is a closed cycle and $\gamma_1 = \left\{\frac15,-\frac15\right\}+ \left\{-\frac25,\frac25\right\}$. Using [@zudilin Thm 1], we get $$\int_{\gamma_1} \eta(u,v) = \frac{1}{4\pi} L(F,2)$$ where $F$ is a modular form of weight 2 and level 25. This time $F$ is a linear combination of newforms and Eisenstein series. Let ${\varepsilon}: ({\mathbf{Z}}/25{\mathbf{Z}})^\times \to {\mathbf{C}}^\times$ be the unique Dirichlet character such that ${\varepsilon}(2)=\zeta_5$. A basis of eigenforms of $\Omega^1(X) \otimes {\mathbf{C}}$ is given by newforms $(f_a)_{a \in ({\mathbf{Z}}/5{\mathbf{Z}})^\times}$ having Fourier coefficients in ${\mathbf{Q}}(\zeta_5)$ and forming a single Galois orbit. The newform $f_a$ has character ${\varepsilon}^a$ and for any $\sigma \in \operatorname{Gal}({\mathbf{Q}}(\zeta_5)/{\mathbf{Q}})$, we have $\sigma(f_a) = f_{\chi(\sigma) a}$ where $\chi$ is the cyclotomic character. Moreover, let $\psi : ({\mathbf{Z}}/5{\mathbf{Z}})^\times \to {\mathbf{C}}^\times$ be the Dirichlet character defined by $\psi(2)=i$. Then $W_{25} F$ has integral coefficients and is given by $$W_{25} F = -10 \operatorname{Tr}_{{\mathbf{Q}}(\zeta_5)/{\mathbf{Q}}} (\lambda f_1) - 25(1+i) E_2^{\psi,\overline{\psi}} - 25 (1-i) E_2^{\overline{\psi},\psi}$$ where $\lambda = 2\zeta_5+\zeta_5^{-1}+2\zeta_5^{-2}$ and $E_2^{\psi,\overline{\psi}}$ is the Eisenstein series defined by $$E_2^{\psi,\overline{\psi}} = \sum_{m,n=1}^\infty m \overline{\psi}(m) \psi(n) q^{mn}.$$ We may therefore expect $m(P_{25})$ being a linear combination of $L'(\psi,-1)$, $L'(\overline{\psi},-1)$ and $L'(f,0)$, where $f$ is a cusp form with rational Fourier coefficients. Indeed, we find numerically $$\label{eq mP25}
m(P_{25}) \stackrel{?}{=} L'(f,0) + \frac{1+2i}{5} L'(\overline{\psi},-1) + \frac{1-2i}{5} L'(\psi,-1)$$ where $$f =\frac15 \operatorname{Tr}((2+\zeta_5+2\zeta_5^{-2}) f_1) = q + q^2-q^3-q^4-3q^5-2q^9+3q^{10}+4q^{11}+O(q^{12}).$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Paweł Lewulis[^1]'
- Andrzej Dragan
title: 'Three-line derivation of the Thomas precession'
---
Recently [@halfpage], a half-page derivation of the Thomas precession effect has been presented (see also all the references therein for the history and prehistory of the problem). In this short note we provide a much simpler, three-line derivation of that effect which, to our knowledge, is the simplest in the literature.
Consider Bob $B$ moving relative to Alice’s frame $A$ with a relativistic velocity $\boldsymbol{v}$, as shown in Fig. \[schemat\]. If Bob’s velocity changes by an infinitesimal value $\text{d}\boldsymbol{v}'$ relative to his initial reference frame $B$, Alice will observe his new velocity to be some $\boldsymbol{v}+\text{d}\boldsymbol{v}$. The new Bob’s frame $B'$ is now rotated relative to Alice’s frame by a Thomas–Wigner angle $\text{d}\boldsymbol{\Omega}$. In the non-relativistic theory we have $\text{d}\boldsymbol{v}' = \text{d}\boldsymbol{v}$ and the rotation is absent. Therefore, the Thomas–Wigner angle can be interpreted as an angle between the relativistic velocity of $B'$ with respect to $A$, $\boldsymbol{v}+\text{d}\boldsymbol{v}$, and it’s non-relativistic approximation, $\boldsymbol{v}+\text{d}\boldsymbol{v}'$: $$\label{angle}
\text{d}\boldsymbol{\Omega} = \frac{(\boldsymbol{v} + \text{d}\boldsymbol{v'})\times(\boldsymbol{v} + \text{d}\boldsymbol{v})}{v^2} = \frac{1}{v^2} (\boldsymbol{v}\times\text{d}\boldsymbol{v} - \boldsymbol{v}\times\text{d}\boldsymbol{v}').$$
Let us use a relativistic transformation of the perpendicular velocity component, $\boldsymbol{u}'_\perp = \frac{\boldsymbol{u}_\perp \sqrt{1-v^2}}{1-\boldsymbol{u}\cdot\boldsymbol{v}}$. We will consider a velocity transformation from $A$ to $B$. Here we substitute $\boldsymbol{u} \rightarrow \boldsymbol{v} + \text{d}\boldsymbol{v}$ and $\boldsymbol{u}' \rightarrow \text{d}\boldsymbol{v}'$. Next, we take the cross product of the resulting formula with $\boldsymbol{v}$:
$$\label{prod}
\boldsymbol{v}\times\text{d}\boldsymbol{v}' = \boldsymbol{v}\times \frac{(\boldsymbol{v} + \text{d}\boldsymbol{v}) \sqrt{1-v^2}}{1-(\boldsymbol{v} + \text{d}\boldsymbol{v})\cdot\boldsymbol{v}} = \frac{\boldsymbol{v}\times\text{d}\boldsymbol{v}}{\sqrt{1-v^2}},$$
where we used the fact that the parallel (to $\boldsymbol{v}$) components of velocities do not contribute to the vector product with $\boldsymbol{v}$, and neglected higher order corrections from the denominator. Substituting Eq. into Eq. and dividing by an infinitesimal time $\text{d}t$ we obtain the Thomas precession rate:
$$\dot{\boldsymbol{\Omega}} = -\frac{1}{v^2}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}} -1 \right) \boldsymbol{v}\times\dot{\boldsymbol{v}}.$$
/in [ (2.125,0.5)/B, (2.5,2)/B’, (0.625,0.5)/A ]{} circle (0.1) node\[below=0.35cm, left=-0.1cm\] [$\PointLabel$]{}; (pivot) at (2,2); (2.125,0.5) – (3.125,0.5) node\[right\][$\bm{v}$]{}; (2.5,2) – (3.5,2.8) node \[above=0.25cm ,right=-0.15cm\][$\bm{v} + {\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}\bm{v}$]{} ; (2.5,2) – (2.78,3.125) node \[above=0.3cm ,right=-0.3cm\][${\mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}\bm{v}'$]{};
[9]{}
A. Dragan and T. Odrzygozdz, Half-page derivation of the Thomas precession, Am. J. Phys. 81, 631 (2013).
[^1]: Supported by NCN Preludium 11, 2016/21/N/ST1/02599.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The low energy quasiparticle dispersion of various narrow gap and gapless semiconductors are respectively described by three dimensional massive and massless Dirac fermions. The three dimensional Dirac spinor structure admits a time-reversal invariant, odd parity and Lorentz pseudoscalar topological superconducting state. Here we derive the effective field theory of this topological paired state for massless Dirac fermions in the presence of a fluctuating Zeeman term, which appears as a chiral gauge field. The effective theory consists of a mixed electromagnetic and chiral anomaly term in the bulk, and a combination of pure and mixed anomalies for the surface. In this paper we demonstrate the existence of fermion zero modes in the dilute vortex phase under generic conditions. Guided by the existence of the zero modes and its intimate connection with the anomaly, we propose an effective topological field theory in the presence of Dirac mass. We briefly discuss the experimental consequences of the effective field theory and the zero modes for the low temperature unconventional superconducting states of $\mathrm{Cu}_x\mathrm{Bi}_2\mathrm{Se}_3$ and $\mathrm{Sn}_{1-x}\mathrm{In}_x\mathrm{Te}$.'
author:
- Pallab Goswami
- Bitan Roy
title: 'Effective field theory, chiral anomaly and vortex zero modes for odd parity topological superconducting state of three dimensional Dirac materials'
---
*Introduction:* Recently there has been a surge of theoretical and experimental interest in the time-reversal invariant topological states of matter in three spatial dimensions[@Review1; @Review2; @Review3]. In contrast to the abundance of materials in which a three dimensional $Z_2$ strong topological insulator phase has been realized, there are only a few candidates for three dimensional, time-reversal invariant topological superfluid (TSF) and superconducting (TSC) states. Apart from the $^3He-B$ phase, which is a charge neutral TSF [@Review3; @Volovik], there is only one charged, odd parity TSC state, which has been proposed in Ref. for $\mathrm{Cu}_x\mathrm{Bi}_2\mathrm{Se}_3$ [@ObWray1; @ObKriener; @ObWray2]. The odd parity TSC state may also occur in other narrow gap semi-conductors and semi-metals with a Dirac like quasiparticle dispersion in the normal state e.g, $\mathrm{Sn}_{1-x}\mathrm{In}_x\mathrm{Te}$ [@ObSasaki]. Both of these paired states belong to class DIII in the periodic table for topological insulators and superconductors[@Altland; @TenfoldRyu]. The BdG Hamiltonians for uniform topological paired states in class DIII possess a nontrivial $Z$ invariant ($N$)[@Review3; @TenfoldRyu; @FuBerg]. At an interface between two bulk states with different $N$, the jump $\Delta N$ governs the number of two component, two dimensional, massless Majorana fermions at the surface. The vortex physics of topological paired states is also supposed to be rich, due to the presence of gapless one dimensional modes along the vortex cores [@Review3; @Volovik].
The recent point contact spectroscopy measurements on $\mathrm{Cu}_x\mathrm{Bi}_2\mathrm{Se}_3$[@PCSasaki; @PCKirzhner; @PCChen] and $\mathrm{Sn}_{1-x}\mathrm{In}_x\mathrm{Te}$[@ObSasaki], have revealed a zero bias conductance peak (ZBCP), which is consistent with the existence of gapless Majorana surface states. However surface Majorana fermions may also emerge for other possible odd parity superconducting states, which are gapless in the bulk (such states are not described by the $Z$ invariant of class DIII) [@PCSasaki]. The magnetization measurements on $\mathrm{Cu}_x\mathrm{Bi}_2\mathrm{Se}_3$ also point towards an unconventional paired state [@MagDas; @MagBay; @MagKriener]. On the other hand absence of ZBCP in a recent tunneling spectroscopy measurement has been interpreted in terms of a fully gapped, topologically trivial paired state [@ObLevy]. Therefore more experiments are needed to identify the pairing symmetry.
So far, most of the theoretical studies have focused on the nature of the surface states in the presence of bulk topological pairing [@ThSHao; @ThSYamakage; @ThSMichaeli; @ThSHsieh; @ThSChung]. The thermal Hall effect and its connection to gravitational chiral anomaly have been proposed as the appropriate topological response for the detection of the surface Majorana fermions (since charge is not a conserved quantity) in Refs. . On the other hand there are only a few theoretical studies [@QiWitten; @BFHanson] of the bulk electrodynamic properties, which can also provide valuable insight into the nature of the underlying paired state. In Ref. a BF theory augmented by the fermion zero modes have been proposed. In Ref. employing a higher dimensional (4+1)-d regularization, an axion electrodynamics action have been found as the effective field theory for (3+1)-d TSC state. However the importance of Zeeman coupling and the interplay between charge and spin currents have not been considered in these papers. In this work we first consider the simpler case of massless Dirac fermions, and treat the orbital and Zeeman coupling on the same footing. By employing Fujikawa’s chiral rotation technique [@Fujikawa] we derive the effective field theory for the odd parity TSC state, which shows the presence of a mixed electromagnetic and chiral anomaly in the bulk, which becomes operative only in the vortex phase. We also find a combination of axial anomaly (pure electromagnetic + pure chiral anomalies) and mixed anomaly for the surface states.
*Normal state Hamiltonian:* The low energy, long wavelength quasi-particle spectrum of several narrow gap and gapless semiconductors are respectively described by four component massive and massless Dirac equations in three spatial dimensions. In the presence of electromagnetic field, the text-book Dirac Hamiltonian is $$H_N=\int d^3x \bar{\psi}(-i\gamma^j \partial_j+e \gamma^{\mu}\mathcal{V}_\mu + m ) \psi,
\label{eq:1}$$ where Fermi velocity $v$ has been set to unity, $m$ is the Dirac mass (band gap), $e$ is the electron’s charge, and $\mathcal{V}_{\mu}$ is the electromagnetic vector potential. The anticommuting $\gamma$ matrices satisfy $\{\gamma^{\mu},\gamma^{\nu}\}=2 g^{\mu \nu}$, where $g^{\mu \nu}=(1,-1,-1,-1)$ is the metric tensor and $\bar{\psi}=\psi^{\dagger}\gamma^0$. Throughout the paper Greek and Latin indices will respectively correspond to space-time and spatial components of a vector. For simplicity we are ignoring the spatial anisotropy (direction dependent Fermi velocities) inherited from the crystal symmetry. If we choose the four component spinor $\psi^{T}=(c^{+}_{\uparrow}, c^{+}_{\downarrow}, c^{-}_{\uparrow},c^{-}_{\downarrow})$, where $c^{\pm}_{s}$ respectively correspond to the annihilation operators for parity even and odd states, with spin projections $s= \uparrow, \downarrow $, the gamma matrices follow the so-called Dirac representation: $\gamma^0=\eta^3 \otimes \sigma^0$, $\gamma^j=i\eta^2 \otimes \sigma^j$, and $\gamma^5=i\gamma^0 \gamma^1 \gamma^2 \gamma^3=\eta^1 \otimes \sigma^0$, where $\{\gamma^5, \gamma^{\mu}\}=0$. The Hamiltonian $H_N$ is invariant with respect to the parity ($\mathcal{P}$), the time reversal ($\mathcal{T}$) and the charge conjugation ($\mathcal{C}$) transformations, respectively defined by $\mathcal{P} \psi (t,\mathbf{x})\mathcal{P}^{-1}=\gamma_0 \psi(t,-\mathbf{x})$, $\mathcal{T} \psi(t,\mathbf{x}) \mathcal{T}^{-1}=-\gamma_1\gamma_3 \psi(-t,\mathbf{x})$, and $\mathcal{C} \psi(x) \mathcal{C}^{-1}=-i\gamma_2 \psi^{\ast}(x)$. In the absence of gauge field, the massless Dirac Hamiltonian is invariant under the global chiral transformation $\psi \to e^{i(\theta/2)\gamma_5}\psi$, $\bar{\psi}\to \bar{\psi}e^{i(\theta/2) \gamma_5}$. This symmetry is broken by the Dirac mass at the classical level, and by the gauge field through quantum mechanical effects known as chiral anomaly.
Unlike the true relativistic field theory of electrons and positrons, the above Dirac description of the quasi-particles is just an emergent low energy theory. For electrons and positrons, the electromagnetic gauge field only appears in the Hamiltonian through covariant derivative, and this is also tied to the fact that gyromagnetic ratio for such fundamental particles is 2. For quasiparticles of a semi-conductor this is no longer true, and for this reason we need to consider the Zeeman coupling separately. When the high energy bands are integrated out in the presence of the electromagnetic field, the $g$ factors (actually a tensor) of two bands can be different [@LiuZeeman]. For this reason the Zeeman coupling (again ignoring the spatial anisotropy) can be described by $$H_Z=\int d^3x \bar{\psi} (g_+ \gamma^j \gamma^5 B_j + g_- \epsilon^{ijk} \sigma_{ij} B_k) \psi,
\label{eq:2}$$ where $g_{+} \pm g_{-}$ respectively describe the $g$ factors of the parity even and odd bands, and $\mathbf{B}=\nabla \times \mathbf{V}$ is the magnetic field strength. In the above equation we have absorbed the Bohr magneton $\mu_B$ in the definition of $g_{\pm}$. Notice that *the Zeeman term proportional to $g_{+}$ appears as a vector potential for the chiral gauge field*. We have introduced the matrices $\sigma^{jl}=\{\gamma^j, \gamma^l \}/2i$, and the $g_-$ term breaks chiral symmetry and charge conjugation symmetry. When the electromagnetic and the chiral gauge fields are simultaneously present, the chiral anomaly leads to the non-conservation of both chiral and electromagnetic currents (respectively defined by $j^{\mu,5}=\bar{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^5\psi$ and $j^{\mu}=\bar{\psi}\gamma^{\mu}\psi$), which describes a novel interplay between orbital and spin currents. After integrating out the high energy bands we can also obtain different polarizabilities for two bands and this effect can be captured through a term proportional to $\sigma^{0j}E_j$, where $\sigma^{0j}=\{\gamma^0, \gamma^j \}/2i$, and this term also breaks chiral symmetry. If we consider the simple problem of massless fermions and turn off all other chiral symmetry breaking bilinears (e.g., $g_-=0$), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_{\mu }j^{\mu,5}&=&\frac{\epsilon^{\alpha \beta \rho \lambda}}{16 \pi^2} \left (e^2 \mathcal{F}^{V}_{\alpha \beta} \mathcal{F}^{V}_{\rho \lambda} + g_{+}^{2} \mathcal{F}^{A}_{\alpha \beta} \mathcal{F}^{A}_{\rho \lambda}\right), \label{eq:3}\\
\partial_{\mu }j^{\mu}&=&\frac{\epsilon^{\alpha \beta \rho \lambda}}{8 \pi^2} \: eg_{+} \: \mathcal{F}^{V}_{\alpha \beta} \mathcal{F}^{A}_{\rho \lambda} , \label{eq:4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{F}^{V}_{\alpha \beta}$ and $\mathcal{F}^{A}_{\alpha \beta}$ respectively correspond to the flux strength tensors of electromagnetic and axial gauge field. Notice that the non-conservation of electromagnetic current is captured by a *mixed anomaly* term in Eq. \[eq:4\], and rather the modified electromagnetic current $\tilde{j}^{\alpha}=j^{\alpha}-\frac{\epsilon^{\alpha \beta \rho \lambda}}{4 \pi^2}\mathcal{A}_{\beta}\mathcal{F}^{V}_{\rho \lambda}$ will be conserved. For a general chiral gauge field the modification corresponds to *non-dissipative chiral magnetic current and anomalous Hall current*[@Goswami; @QiWeyl]. Since our chiral vector potential is proportional to the physical magnetic field, $\mathcal{A}_0=0$ (temporal gauge condition). A “chiral electric field" will appear only for a time dependent physical magnetic field ($\mathbf{B}$), and a spatially varying $\mathbf{B}$ can only induce a “chiral magnetic field". We also note that a constant magnetic field will correspond to a constant chiral gauge potential, which corresponds to momentum space separation of left and right handed fermions in a Weyl semi-metal [@Goswami; @QiWeyl]. In the following sections we will show that a mixed anomaly can occur even in the superconducting phase, but its effect can only be observed in the mixed phase.
*Pairing symmetries :* In the presence of superconductivity, we choose a Nambu spinor $\Psi^T=(\psi^{\dagger}, \psi^{T}\gamma^5 \mathcal{C})$, and the $8 \times 8$ pairing Hamiltonian operator can be compactly written as $$\hat{H}=\left(\begin{array}{c c}
\hat{h}_{N,1}-\mu \mathbb{1} & \hat{\Delta}\\
\hat{\Delta}^{\dagger} & \hat{h}_{N,2}+\mu \mathbb{1} \end{array} \right)
\label{eq:5}$$ where $\hat{h}_{N,1}=\gamma^0(-i\gamma^j\mathcal{D}_j+m+eA_0\gamma^0)$, $\hat{h}_{N,2}=\gamma^0(i\gamma^j\mathcal{D}_{j}^{\ast}-m -eA_0\gamma^0)$ the covariant derivative $\mathcal{D}_j=(\partial_j+ie\mathcal{A}_j)$ and $\mathcal{A}_j$ is the electromagnetic vector potential. The pairing matrix $\hat{\Delta}$ can be decomposed in terms of sixteen $4 \times 4$ matrices, which complete the Clifford algebra [@Ohsaku]. The explicit form of the generalized pairing matrix is described by $$\hat{\Delta}= \{ \Delta^s \mathbb{1} + \Delta^v_\mu \gamma^\mu + \Delta^p \gamma^5 +\Delta^{a}_{\mu}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^5 +\Delta_{\mu \nu}^{t}\sigma^{\mu \nu} \} ,
\label{eq:6}$$ Under the Lorentz transformations (LT), the pairing bilinears proportional to $\Delta^s$, $\Delta^p$, $\Delta^v_\mu$, $\Delta^{a}_{\mu}$, $\Delta_{\mu \nu}^{t}$ respectively transform as scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, axial vector and antisymmetric tensor. For local pairing (intra-unit cell and momentum independent), the Pauli exclusion principle only allows $\Delta^s$, $\Delta^p$ and $\Delta^v_\mu$. The transformation of the allowed pairings under LT, discrete symmetry operations, chiral transformation, and corresponding quasiparticle spectra (for uniform paired states) are shown in TABLE I.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pairing LT $D_{3d}$ $\mathcal{T}$ $\mathcal{P}$ $\mathcal{U}_{c}$ Spectrum
------------------ -------------------------- ---------- --------------- --------------- ------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Delta^s$ Scalar $A_{1g}$ + + $\times$ $E_\alpha=\pm \left[ \left( \sqrt{\mathbf{k}^2+m^2} - \alpha \mu \right)^{2} + |\Delta^s|^2 \right]^{1/2}$
$\Delta^p$ Pseudoscalar $A_{1u}$ + - $\times$ $E_\alpha=\pm \left[ \mathbf{k}^2 + m^2+\mu^2 |\Delta^p|^2 - 2 \alpha \sqrt{ (\mathbf{k}^2+m^2) \mu^2 + m^2 |\Delta^p|^2} \right]^{1/2}$
$\Delta^{v}_{0}$ 0-th component of vector $A_{1g}$ + + $E_\alpha=\pm \left[ \mathbf{k}^2+m^2+\mu^2 + |\Delta^{v}_{0}|^2 - 2 \alpha \sqrt{(\mathbf{k}^2+m^2) \mu^2 + |\Delta^{v}_{0}|^2 \mathbf{k}^2} \right]^{1/2}$
$\Delta^{v}_{3}$ 3rd component of vector $A_{2u}$ + - $E_\alpha=\pm \left[ \mathbf{k}^2 +m^2 + \mu^2 + | \Delta^{v}_{3} |^2 - 2 \alpha
\sqrt{(\mathbf{k}^2+m^2)\mu^2 + m^2 |\Delta^{v}_{3}|^2 + |k_3 \Delta^{v}_{3}|^2 } \; \right]^{1/2}$
$\Delta^{v}_{1}$ 1st component of vector $E_{u}$ + - $E_\alpha=\pm \left[ \mathbf{k}^2 +m^2 + \mu^2 + | \Delta^{v}_{1} |^2 - 2 \alpha
\sqrt{(\mathbf{k}^2+m^2)\mu^2 + m^2 |\Delta^{v}_{1}|^2 + |k_1 \Delta^{v}_{1}|^2 } \; \right]^{1/2}$
$\Delta^{v}_{2}$ 2nd component of vector $E_{u}$ + - $E_\alpha=\pm \left[ \mathbf{k}^2 +m^2 + \mu^2 + | \Delta^{v}_{2} |^2 - 2 \alpha
\sqrt{(\mathbf{k}^2+m^2)\mu^2 + m^2 |\Delta^{v}_{2}|^2 + |k_2 \Delta^{v}_{2}|^2 } \; \right]^{1/2}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Transformation properties of the allowed local pairing channels under the discrete symmetry operations $\mathcal{P}$, $\mathcal{T}$, chiral transformation $\mathcal{U}_{c}$, and the corresponding quasi-particle spectrum within the mean-field approximation. The distinct branches of quasi-particle spectrum are denoted by $\alpha=\pm 1$, and each branch is two-fold degenerate. In Ref. the symmetries of possible local pairings for $\mathrm{Cu}_x\mathrm{Bi}_2\mathrm{Se}_3$, have been classified according to the representations of point group $D_{3d}$. The relation between the decomposition in Our $(\Delta^s \mathbb{1}, \Delta^v_0 \gamma^0)$, $\Delta^p i \gamma^5$, $\Delta^v_3\gamma^3$, $(\Delta^v_1\gamma^1,\Delta^v_2\gamma^2)$ respectively correspond to $A_{1g}$, $A_{1u}$, $A_{2u}$ and $E_u$ representations of $D_{3d}$.
We also display the corresponding classification according to various representations of $D_{3d}$ point group, which was established in Ref. .
Notice that only topologically trivial pairing $\Delta^s$ is fully gapped for arbitrary values of the band parameters. In contrast the topological odd parity pairing $\Delta^p$, goes through a phase transition at $\mu^2+\Delta^2 = m^2$ (via a Dirac point) to a topologically trivial state. Only when $\mu^2+\Delta^2 > m^2$ we have a nontrivial $Z$ invariant, $N=\mathrm{sgn}(\Delta^p)$ [@ZeroNishida]. Consequently the Majorana surface states can only be found, when this condition is satisfied. For $\mathrm{Cu}_x\mathrm{Bi}_2\mathrm{Se}_3$ and $\mathrm{Sn}_{1-x}\mathrm{In}_x\mathrm{Te}$, the chemical potential lies in the conduction band, this condition is always satisfied. The vector pairing $\Delta_{\mu}^{v}$ are not fully gapped. The space like vectors $\mu=1,2,3$ can have point nodes when $\mu^2+\Delta^2 > m^2$. For example if we consider $j=3$, the nodes will be at $k_z=\pm \sqrt{\mu^2+\Delta^2 - m^2}$. The time like vector pairing exhibits gapless excitations on a three dimensional surface in the momentum space. In the following sections we will only focus on the fully gapped $\Delta^s$ and $\Delta^p$.
*Effective action via chiral rotation:* The derivation of the effective action in the presence of different chiral symmetry breaking perturbations in the particle-hole channel is a challenging task. However we can gain valuable insight by first considering the pairing of massless Dirac fermions in the absence of any chiral symmetry breaking perturbation in the particle-hole channel. In the chiral basis of the four component spinor $\psi^{T}=(c^{R}_{\uparrow}, c^{R}_{\downarrow}, c^{L}_{\uparrow},c^{L}_{\downarrow})$, the massless Dirac Hamiltonian is block diagonal. The annihilation operators corresponding to the right (R) and the left (L) chiralities are respectively the symmetric and the antisymmetric combinations of the annihilation operators of the even and the odd parity bands $c^{R/L}_{s}=(c^{+}_{s}\pm c^{-}_{s})/\sqrt{2}$. In this basis the trivial and topological pairings are respectively described by $\Delta^s(R^{\dagger}i\sigma_2R^{\ast}+ L^{\dagger}i\sigma_2L^{\ast})$ and $\Delta^p(R^{\dagger}i\sigma_2R^{\ast}+ L^{\dagger}i\sigma_2L^{\ast})$, where we have defined the two-component spinors $R^{T}=(c^{R}_{\uparrow}, c^{R}_{\downarrow})$ and $L^T=(c^{L}_{\uparrow},c^{L}_{\downarrow})$. Therefore $\Delta^{s/p}$ do not not mix $R$ and $L$ sectors and we can consider the pairing problem separately in $R$ and $L$ subspaces. The action in the fermion sector can be written as $S=S_R+S_L$, the action in each subspace takes the following compact form, $$\begin{aligned}
S_{a}=\int {d^4 x} \: \bar{\Psi}_{a}\left[i\tilde{\gamma}^{\mu}_{a}\left(\partial_{\mu}+A_{\mu,a} \tilde{\gamma}^{5}_{a}\right)-\Delta e^{i\theta_{a}\tilde{\gamma}^{5}_{a}}\right]\Psi_{a}
\label{eq:7}\end{aligned}$$ where $a=R/L$ denote the chiral subspaces. For the chiral subspaces we have defined two four component Nambu spinors $\Psi_{R}=(R, i\sigma_2 R^{\ast})^{T}$ and $\Psi_{L}=(L, i\sigma_2 L^{\ast})^T$, and two sets of $4\times 4$ gamma matrices $\tilde{\gamma}^{\mu}_{a}$. The explicit forms of these gamma matrices are given by $\tilde{\gamma}^{0}_{R}=\tilde{\gamma}^{0}_{L}=\eta^1 \otimes \sigma^0$, $\tilde{\gamma}^{j}_{R}=-\tilde{\gamma}^{j}_{L}=-i\eta_2 \otimes \sigma^j$, $\tilde{\gamma}^{5}_{R}=\tilde{\gamma}^{5}_{L}=\eta^3 \otimes \sigma^0$. The right and left sectors now have separate gauge fields $A_{\mu, R/L}=e \mathcal{V}_{\mu} \pm g_+ \mathcal{A}_{\nu}$. Also notice that we have allowed two distinct phase angles $\theta_{R/L}$.
In this decoupled chiral Nambu basis, the pairing term appears as a mixture of scalar and pseudoscalar Dirac masses, albeit in the presence of a new chiral gauge field in the Nambu space. This stems from the fact that $\sigma_2 R^{*}$ and $\sigma_2 L^{*}$ respectively transform as left and right chiral spinors. Therefore in each chiral Nambu subspace, the phase of the superconductor appears as the axion angle and the gauge field appears as an axial gauge field. For trivial pairing $\theta_R=\theta_L=\theta$ is the phase corresponding to electromagnetic $U(1)$ symmetry. For the topological pairing $\theta_R=\theta, \ \theta_L= \theta \pm \pi$, where $\theta$ again corresponds to the electromagnetic $U(1)$ phase.
For deriving an effective action of superconducting order parameter by integrating out the fermions, it is a common practice to first absorb the half of the superconducting phase onto the fermion operators, which modifies the gauge field $A_{\mu} \to A_{\mu}-\partial_{\mu}\theta/2 $. In our problem such a phase transformation $\Psi_{a} \to \exp \left( -i/2 \: \theta_{a} \: \tilde{\gamma}_{a}^{5}\right)\Psi_{a}$ constitutes a chiral transformation and a modification of the chiral gauge field. *In this process we should encounter field theory anomalies, which leads to the topological terms in the effective action*. Following Fujikawa we perform the chiral rotation at infinitesimal steps $\Psi_{a} \to \exp \left( -i/2 \: ds \: \theta_{a} \: \tilde{\gamma}_{a}^{5}\right)\Psi_{a}$, and integrate over $s$ from 0 to 1. The topological contribution arises through the Jacobians of the chiral transformation, and are given by $$J_{a}=\exp \bigg [i \theta_{a} \: \int_0^{1} ds \: \lim_{M \to \infty} Tr \bigg \{\tilde{\gamma}^{5}_{a}\exp \left(-\frac{D_{a,s}^{2}}{M^2}\right)\bigg \}\bigg],
\label{eq:8}$$ where the expression for the Dirac kernel is $$D_{a}=i\tilde{\gamma}^{\mu}_{a}\left(\partial_{\mu}+\left \{A_{\mu,a}-\frac{\partial_{\mu}\theta_{a}}{2}\right \} \tilde{\gamma}^{5}_{a}\right)-\Delta e^{i (1-ds)\theta_{a}\tilde{\gamma}^{5}_{a}}\label{eq:9}$$ The topological terms in this procedure is proportional to $Tr[\tilde{\gamma}^{5}_{a}\sigma^{\mu \nu}_{a} \sigma^{\rho \lambda}_{a}]\mathcal{F}_{\mu \nu, a}\mathcal{F}_{\rho \lambda, a}$. Now notice that $$\tilde{\gamma}^{5}_{R}=i\tilde{\gamma}^{0}_{R}\tilde{\gamma}^{1}_{R}\tilde{\gamma}^{2}_{R}\tilde{\gamma}^{3}_{R}, \quad \tilde{\gamma}^{5}_{L}=-i\tilde{\gamma}^{0}_{L}\tilde{\gamma}^{1}_{L}\tilde{\gamma}^{2}_{L}\tilde{\gamma}^{3}_{L}\label{eq:10}$$ and this difference leads to opposite signs for the topological terms obtained from the right and the left sectors. After performing a standard momentum integral and combining the contributions from both sectors we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&&S_{top}=-\frac{\epsilon^{\mu \nu \rho \lambda}}{64 \pi^2} \int {d^4 x}\left( \theta_R \mathcal{F}_{\mu \nu, R} \mathcal{F}_{\rho \lambda, R}-\theta_L \mathcal{F}_{\mu \nu, L} \mathcal{F}_{\rho \lambda, L}\right)\nonumber \\ &=& -\frac{\epsilon^{\mu \nu \rho \lambda}}{64 \pi^2}\int {d^4 x}(\theta_R-\theta_L)\left (e^2\mathcal{F}^{V}_{\mu \nu} \mathcal{F}^{V}_{\rho \lambda} + g_{+}^{2} \mathcal{F}^{A}_{\mu \nu} \mathcal{F}^{A}_{\rho \lambda}\right)\nonumber \\
&&-\frac{\epsilon^{\mu \nu \rho \lambda}}{32 \pi^2}\: eg_{+}\int {d^4 x}(\theta_R+\theta_L)\: \mathcal{F}^{V}_{\mu \nu} \mathcal{F}^{A}_{\rho \lambda} \nonumber \\ \label{eq:11}\end{aligned}$$ which is the main result of this paper.
We first consider topologically trivial superconductor, and using $\theta_R=\theta_L=\theta$ in Eq. \[eq:11\] we obtain, $$\begin{aligned}
S_{top,s}=-\frac{\epsilon^{\mu \nu \rho \lambda}}{16 \pi^2} \: e g_{+} \:\int {d^4 x} \: \theta \: \mathcal{F}^{V}_{\mu \nu} \mathcal{F}^{A}_{\rho \lambda} \label{eq:12}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand for topological odd parity superconductor, we substitute $\theta_R-\theta_L=\pi$ and find
$$\begin{aligned}
S_{top,p}=\int {d^4 x} \bigg[-\frac{\epsilon^{\mu \nu \rho \lambda}}{16 \pi^2} \: e g_{+} \: \theta \: \mathcal{F}^{V}_{\mu \nu} \mathcal{F}^{A}_{\rho \lambda} -\frac{\epsilon^{\mu \nu \rho \lambda} \pi }{64 \pi^2}\bigg (e^2\mathcal{F}^{V}_{\mu \nu} \mathcal{F}^{V}_{\rho \lambda} + g_{+}^{2} \mathcal{F}^{A}_{\mu \nu} \mathcal{F}^{A}_{\rho \lambda}+2eg_{+}\mathcal{F}^{V}_{\mu \nu}\mathcal{F}^{A}_{\rho \lambda}\bigg)\bigg]\nonumber \\ \label{eq:13}\end{aligned}$$
Notice that for massless Dirac fermions, both superconductors have a mixed anomaly present in the bulk. The axion angle $\theta$ for the mixed anomaly is a dynamic phase variable, and will modify the Maxwell’s equations in the bulk. This represents the interplay between charge and spin currents. In addition to the bulk term, the odd parity pairing has an addition anomaly term with constant axion angle $\pi$, which is inoperative inside the bulk. This term only becomes important at the surface, and corresponds to the existence of surface Majorana fermions. The BdG nature of the quasiparticles has contributed by a multiplicative factor of 1/2 to the conventional formula of anomaly. Also notice that mixed anomaly term does contribute to the surface action. If we do not consider the Zeeman term (chiral gauge field), there will be no bulk anomaly, and only surface anomaly term for the electromagnetic gauge field will be present for odd parity pairing. In that case our Eq. \[eq:13\] will simplify to $$S_{top,p}=-\frac{e^2 \pi \epsilon^{\mu \nu \rho \lambda}}{64 \pi^2} \int {d^4 x} \mathcal{F}^{V}_{\mu \nu} \mathcal{F}^{V}_{\rho \lambda}\label{eq:14}$$ which precisely agrees with the topological term derived in Ref. , using (4+1)-dimensional regularization. In the topological insulator where electromagnetic charge is a conserved quantity, the existence of such an axion term in the electrodynamics (with twice the coefficient) corresponds to half-integer quantum Hall effect of the surface Dirac fermions [@AxionHughes]. However in the superconductor electromagnetic gauge symmetry is broken, and electromagnetic charge is not a conserved quantity. Therefore, there will be no surface quantum Hall effect in the present problem.
The conventional terms of the Landau-Ginzburg theory, describing the Meissner effects etc. is obtained by integrating out the transformed fermions, assuming slowly varying chiral supercurrents $(2A_{\mu,\alpha}-\partial_{\mu}\theta_{\alpha})$ and $\Delta(x)$. In the London limit we can neglect the fluctuations of the amplitude $\Delta(x)$, and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&& S_{GL}=\int {d^4 x} \bigg \{\frac{\rho}{2}\bigg[\left(\partial_{\mu}\theta-2e\mathcal{V}_{\mu}\right)^2+4g_{+}^{2}\mathcal{A}_{\mu}^{2}\bigg]+\frac{1}{4}\bigg((\mathcal{F}^{V}_{\mu \nu})^2\nonumber \\&& \hspace{5cm}+(\mathcal{F}^{A}_{\mu \nu})^2\bigg)\bigg \}\label{eq:15},\end{aligned}$$ In the above equation we have also ignored the mismatch between Fermi velocity and speed of light. Now combining $S_{GL}$ with $S_{top}$ we obtain the total effective action for the superconducting order parameter in the London limit. Now taking a derivative of the total action in the bulk with respect to $\mathcal{V}_{\mu}$, we find that the conventional supercurrent $2 e\rho(\partial_{\mu}\theta-2e\mathcal{V}_{\mu})$ is not conserved, when we are in the vortex/mixed phase. It turns out that topological superconductor has fermion zero modes in the vortex core, which provides an additional path for transport, and the mixed anomaly is precisely tied to this effect. Motivated by this we now proceed to explicit computation of fermion zero modes in the dilute vortex limit. Fermion zero modes in the absence of Zeeman coupling have been recently addressed by various authors. However we will account for the general Zeeman coupling and its possible variation due to Meissner screening away from the vortex core in the following section.
*Vortex zero modes of generic Dirac Hamiltonian with odd parity pairing :* We consider a static line vortex along the $z$ direction, and solve the zero mode problem for the planar part. In the absence of Dirac mass, chemical potential, and the Zeeman couplings the planar problem corresponds to two copies of Jackiw-Rossi Hamiltonians, which belongs to class $BDI$ and we obtain $2n$ number of Majorana zero modes, where $n$ is the vorticity [@ZeroJackiw]. In the presence of the additional perturbations mentioned above, the problem belongs to class $D$ and only for odd vorticity we can find $2$ Majorana zero modes [@TeoKane], which is tied to a $Z_2$ index theorem [@Tewari; @Fukui].
Let us consider a particular profile of the electromagnetic gauge potential ${\cal V}_\phi= \frac{1}{2 \lambda^2} r$ if $r<\lambda$, defining the core of the vortex and ${\cal V}_\phi =1/2r$ outside ($r > \lambda$), if one wishes to commit to the spherically symmetric gauge. Then the magnetic field ($B$) is finite and constant, $B=\frac{1}{2 \lambda^2}$ only inside the vortex core, while it vanishes outside. The superconducting order parameter vanishes smoothly inside the core as $r \rightarrow 0$, and satutares at $\Delta_0$ as $r \rightarrow \infty$, otherwise arbitrary. Upon including the Dirac mass ($m_k$), Zeeman couplings ($h_1, h_2$) one set of coupled differential equations of zero energy modes in the plane perpendicular to the applied field read as
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{majorana1}
e^{-i \phi} \left( \partial_z+{\cal V}_\phi \right) \Lambda^{-}_\downarrow + i a (r) \; \Lambda^{+}_\uparrow &+& i \Delta_r e^{-i \phi} \left( \Lambda^{-}_\downarrow\right)^\dagger = 0, \nonumber \\
i e^{i \phi} \left( \partial_{\bar{z}}-{\cal V}_\phi \right)\Lambda^{+}_\uparrow + b (r) \; \Lambda^{-}_\downarrow &+& \Delta_r e^{-i \phi} \left( \Lambda^{+}_\uparrow\right)^\dagger =0,\end{aligned}$$
at finite chemical potential ($\mu$), where $\partial_z=\partial_r - \frac{i}{r} \partial_\phi$, $\partial_{\bar{z}}=\partial^*_z$ and $a(r)=m_k+\mu+h_1(r)$, $b(r)=m_k+h_2(r)-\mu$, and in what follows we set $m_k=m$ (constant). In terms of g-factors, which can in principle be different in two bands, one can write $h_i (r)= g_i B(r)$, where $i=1,2$. Therefore, the Zeeman coupling is only finite inside the vortex core, and vanishes outside. The other set of coupled differential equations for the zero mode is
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{majorana2}
e^{-i \phi} \left( \partial_z+{\cal V}_\phi \right) \Lambda^{+}_\downarrow - i d(r) \; \Lambda^{-}_\uparrow &+& i \Delta_r e^{-i \phi} \left( \Lambda^{+}_\downarrow\right)^\dagger=0, \nonumber \\
(i) e^{i \phi} \left( \partial_{\bar{z}}-{\cal V}_\phi \right)\Lambda^{-}_\uparrow - c(r) \; \Lambda^{+}_\downarrow &+& \Delta_r e^{-i \phi} \left( \Lambda^{-}_\uparrow\right)^\dagger=0,\end{aligned}$$
where $c(r)=m_k-h_1 (r)+\mu,\; d(r)=m_k-h_2 (r)-\mu$. The remaining *four* equations are related to these by Hermitian conjugation.
Two BdG-Majorana modes in Nambu-Dirac basis, defined as $\Psi = \left[ \Psi^\top_p (+ \vec{k}),\Psi^\top_h (-\vec{k}) \right]$, where $\Psi^\top_p(+\vec{k})=\Psi^\top(\vec{k})$ and $\Psi^\top_h(-\vec{k})=\Psi_p(\vec{k})$, otherwise $$\label{4compspinor}
\Psi^\top(\vec{x})= \left[ |\Lambda^+,+\frac{1}{2} \rangle, |\Lambda^-,+\frac{1}{2} \rangle, |\Lambda^+,-\frac{1}{2} \rangle, |\Lambda^-,-\frac{1}{2} \rangle \right](\vec{x}),$$ take the form $$| \Psi^0_1 \rangle ={\cal R}(r) \left(
\begin{array}{c}
g(r) e^{-i \phi}\\ 0 \\ 0 \\ i f(r) \\ i g(r) e^{i \phi}\\ 0 \\ 0 \\ f(r)
\end{array} \right); | \Psi^0_2 \rangle ={\cal R}(r) \left( \begin{array}{c}
0\\ i q(r)\\ p(r) e^{-i \phi}\\ 0\\ 0\\ q(r)\\ i p(r) e^{i \phi}\\ 0 \end{array} \right),$$
where ${\cal R}(r)= \exp{\left(-i \frac{\pi}{4} -\int^r_0 \Delta_{r'} dr' \right)}$. For $r/2 \lambda \ll 1$ $$\label{majorana1-insidecore}
g(r)=c_1 \; I_1 \bigg[ r \sqrt{a b}\bigg], \quad f(r)= c_1 \; \sqrt{\frac{a}{b}} \; I_0 \bigg[ r \sqrt{a b} \bigg],$$ where $I_j$, with $j=0,1$ are the modified Bessel functions of order $j$. On the other hand, deep within the vortex core $$\label{majorana2-insidecore}
q(r)=\tilde{c}_1 \; I_1 \bigg[ r \sqrt{c d}\bigg], \quad p(r)= \tilde{c}_1 \; \sqrt{\frac{d}{c}} \; I_0 \bigg[ r \sqrt{c d} \bigg].$$ Outside the core of the vortex ($r>\lambda$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{majorana1-outsidecore}
g(r)&=&c_2 I_{1/2} \left(r \sqrt{\beta \eta} \right) + c_3 I_{-1/2} \left( r \sqrt{\beta \eta} \right), \nonumber \\
f(r)&=& \sqrt{\frac{\beta}{\eta}} \left[ c_2 I_{-1/2} \left(r \sqrt{\beta \eta} \right) + c_3 I_{1/2} \left( r \sqrt{\beta \eta} \right) \right].\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta=m +\mu$, and $\eta=|m-\mu|$. In the regime, $g(r) \equiv q(r)$ and $f(r) \equiv p(r)$. Two out of three arbitrary constants, for each of the BdG-Majorana solutions can be fixed by equating the value of the functions, and their first derivatives at $r=\lambda$. The remaining constant can be determined from the normalization condition. The modified Bessel functions $I_{\pm 1/2}(\alpha r) \propto e^{\alpha r}/r\alpha$, grow exponential at large distances [@ZeroHerbut; @ZeroTagliacozzo]. Therefore, for normalizable zero energy modes can only be found if the condition $$\mu^2 + \Delta^2_0 \geq m^2,$$ is satisfied. It is worth noticing that the nomalizability of the solutions is independent of the Zeeman couplings.
We now account for the $\partial_3$ and $A_3$ along the vortex line perturbatively. This perturbation reads as ${\cal H}_3= \left( \tau_0 \left( -i \partial_3\right) + \tau_3 A_3 \right)\otimes \gamma^0 \gamma^3$ and keeps the BdG-Majorana sub-space invariant. In this basis ${\cal H}_3$ is purely off diagonal, and takes the form $${\cal H}_3= -v_1 \sigma_2 (i) \left( \partial_3 -i A_3 \right)- v_2 \sigma_1 (i) \left( \partial_3 - \frac{v_1}{v_2} i A_3 \right).\label{1dh}$$
Two parameters $(v_1,v_2)$ of the one dimensional *helical* BdG-Majorana modes depend on the exact profile of the vortex, and other microscopic parameters (Dirac mass, chemical potential etc.). However, in the absence of any Zeeman coupling, i.e. $h_1=h_2=0$, one finds $v_1=v_2$. The above Hamiltonain in Eq. \[1dh\] can be diagonalized in the basis of symmetric and anti-symmetric combinations of $|\Psi^0_1 \rangle$ and $| \Psi^0_2 \rangle$, yielding $${\cal H}_3 \rightarrow - v_1 i \sigma_3 \left( \partial_3 -i A_3 \right).$$ Notice that gaguge field is coupling in conventional way (unlike Nambu space), which reflects the quasiparticle inside the core describes normal state. Since we have both left and right movers (in one dimension) coupled to the electromagnetic field, we do not have any electromagnetic anomaly in one dimension. This justifies that there is no builk anomaly in the absence of Zeeman/chiral gauge field. In the presence of the Zeeman coupling we find the both electromagnetic and chiral gauge field couplings for the one dimensional modes, which leads to the one dimensional version of the chiral anomaly. The presence of the bulk anomaly term is crucial to feed the current to one dimensional world via Callan-Harvey mechanism [@CallanHarvey].
In the absence of the chiral symmetry breaking perturbations (Dirac mass, $g_-$) in the particle hole channel, fermion zero modes are also present for the topologically trivial pairing $\Delta^s$. However these zero modes get removed by such chiral symmetry breaking perturbations [@Nishida]. Therefore we believe the mixed anomaly term will be absent for trivial superconductor under generic conditions. In contrast the zero modes of the topological pairing are robust under generic conditions, and this suggests that mixed anomaly term will be present for topological pairing, even in the presence of generic perturbations. However the coefficient instead of being $e g_{+}$ will have more involved model dependence. In contrast a Dirac mass in the absence of time reversal symmetry breaking perturbations, will modify the surface term by a step function $\Theta(\mu^2+\Delta^2-m^2)$, which is the condition for finding massless surface Majorana fermions. The presence of time reversal symmetry breaking perturbations will induce a gap for the surface Majorana fermions.
*Experimental consequences :* We have found a general effective action for the topological superconducting state, which suggests an intriguing interplay between charge and spin currents. The bulk anomaly terms (proportional to the dynamic phase variable) will have nontrivial effects on the electrodynamics equations in the vortex phase. However these will be appreciable only for time-dependent electromagnetic fields. The derived surface anomaly terms will also play important role in the electrodynamic properties of Josephson junction measurements. The presence of robust fermion zero modes in the dilute vortex limit suggests a *T-linear specific heat* in the mixed state. The anomaly terms in the effective action suggests that such behavior should be present throughout the mixed phase. More detailed derivation of the effective action under generic conditions, and a thorough analysis of the electrodynamics of the mixed state will be presented in a forthcoming publication [@Broy].
P. G. and B. R. were supported at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory by NSF Cooperative Agreement No.DMR-0654118, the State of Florida, and the U. S. Department of Energy.
M. Z. Hassan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**82**]{}, 3045 (2010) and references therein.
M. Z. Hassan and J. E. Moore, Ann. Rev. Cond. Matt. Phys. [**2**]{}, 55 (2011) and references therein.
X. L. Qi and S. C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**83**]{}, 1057 (2011) and references therein.
G. E. Volovik, [*The Universe in a Helium Droplet*]{} (Clarendon Press, 2003).
L. Fu and E. Berg, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 097001 (2010).
A.L. Wray, *et al.*, Nature Phys. [**6**]{}, 855 (2010).
M. Kriener, *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 127004 (2011).
A. L. Wray, *et al.*, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 224516 (2011).
S. Sasaki, *et al.*, arxiv:1208.0059
A. Altland and M. R. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 1142 (1997).
A. P. Schnyder, S. Ryu, A. Furusaki, A. W. W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 195125 (2008).
S. Sasaki, *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. [107]{}, 217001 (2011).
T. Kirzhner, *et al.*, Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 064517 (2012).
X. Chen, *et al.*, arxiv:1210.6054
P. Das, Y. Suzuki, M. Tachiki, K. Kadowaki, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 220513 (2011).
T. V. Bay, *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 057001 (2012).
M. Kriener, *et. al.*, arxiv:1206.6260
N. Levy, *et al.*, arxiv:1211.0267
L. Hao, T. K. Lee, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 134516 (2011).
A. Yamakage, K. Yada, M. Sato, Y. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 180509(R) (2012).
K. Michaeli, L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 187003 (2012).
T. Hsieh, L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 107005 (2012).
S. B. Chung, J. Horowitz, X. L. Qi, arxiv:1208.3928
Z. Wang, X. L. Qi, S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B **84**, 014527 (2011).
S. Ryu, J. E. Moore, A. W. W. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 045104 (2012).
K. Nomura, S. Ryu, A. Furusaki, N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 026802 (2012).
T. H. Hanson, A. Karlhede, M. Sato, N. Jour. Phys. [**14**]{}, 063017 (2012).
X. L. Qi, E. Witten, S. C Zhang, arxiv:1206.1407 (2012).
K. Fujikawa, and H. Suzuki, [*Path integrals and quantum anomalies*]{} (Oxford University Press 2004).
C. X. Liu *et al.*, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 045122 (2010).
P. Goswami, and S. Tewari, arXiv:1210.6352 (2012).
C. X. Liu, P. Ye, X. L. Qi, arXiv:1204.6551 (2012).
T. Ohsaku, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 024512 (2002).
Y. Nishida, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 074004 (2010).
X. L. Qi, T. L. Hughes, and S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B **78**, 195424 (2008).
R. Jackiw and P. Rossi, Nucl. Phys. B [**190**]{}, 681 (1981).
J. C. Y. Teo and C.L. Kane, Phys. Rev. B **82**, 115120 (2010).
S. Tewari, S. Das Sarma, D. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 037001 (2007).
T. Fukui and T. Fujiwara, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 184536 (2010).
I.F. Herbut, C-K. Lu, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 125402 (2010).
A.Tagliacozzo, P. Lucignano, F. Tafuri, Phys. Rev. B [**86**]{}, 045435 (2012).
C. G. Callan and J. A. Harvey, Nucl. Phys. B **250**, 427 (1985).
P. Goswami and B. Roy (to be published).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Many models from a variety of areas involve the computation of an equilibrium or fixed point of some kind. Examples include Nash equilibria in games; market equilibria; computing optimal strategies and the values of competitive games (stochastic and other games); stable configurations of neural networks; analysing basic stochastic models for evolution like branching processes and for language like stochastic context-free grammars; and models that incorporate the basic primitives of probability and recursion like recursive Markov chains. It is not known whether these problems can be solved in polynomial time. There are certain common computational principles underlying different types of equilibria, which are captured by the complexity classes PLS, PPAD, and FIXP. Representative complete problems for these classes are respectively, pure Nash equilibria in games where they are guaranteed to exist, (mixed) Nash equilibria in 2-player normal form games, and (mixed) Nash equilibria in normal form games with 3 (or more) players. This paper reviews the underlying computational principles and the corresponding classes.'
address: 'Department of Computer Science, Columbia University, New York City, NY, USA'
author:
- Mihalis Yannakakis
title: 'Equilibria, Fixed Points, and Complexity Classes'
---
[Mihalis Yannakakis]{}
[^1]
Introduction
============
Many situations involve the computation of an equilibrium or a stable configuration of some sort in a dynamic environment. Sometimes it is the result of individual agents acting on their own noncompetitively but selfishly (e.g., Nash and other economic equilibria), sometimes it is agents acting competitively against each other (and perhaps nature/chance), sometimes the equilibrium is the limit of an iterative process that evolves in some direction until it settles. Often the sought objects can be described mathematically as the fixed points of an equation $x = F(x)$.
Many models and problems from a broad variety of areas are of this nature. Examples include: Nash equilibria in games; market equilibria; computation of optimal strategies and the values of competitive games (stochastic and other games); stable configurations of neural networks; analysis of basic stochastic models for evolution like branching processes, and for language like stochastic context-free grammars; and models that incorporate the basic primitives of probability and recursion like recursive Markov chains. Most of these models and problems have been studied mathematically for a long time, leading to the development of rich theories. Yet, some of their most basic algorithmic questions are still not resolved, in particular it is not known whether they can be solved in polynomial time.
Despite the broad diversity of these problems, there are certain common computational principles that underlie many of these different types of problems, which are captured by the complexity classes PLS, PPAD, and FIXP. In this paper we will review these principles, the corresponding classes, and the types of problems they contain.
All the problems we will discuss are total search problems. Formally, a [*search problem*]{} $\Pi$ has a set of instances, each instance $I$ has a set $Ans(I)$ of acceptable answers; the search problem is [*total*]{} if $Ans(I) \neq \emptyset$ for all instances $I$. As usual, for computational purposes, instances are represented by strings over a fixed alphabet $\Sigma$, and it is assumed that, given a string over $\Sigma$ one can determine in polynomial time if it represents an instance of a problem. The size $|I|$ of an instance is the length of its string representation. Input numbers (such as the payoffs of games, input probabilities of stochastic models, etc.) are assumed to be rationals represented in binary by numerator and denominator. The underlying solution space from which answers are drawn may be finite and discrete, as in combinatorial problems, or it may be infinite and continuous. In the former (the finite) case, solutions are represented also as strings and the problem is: given an instance $I$, compute a solution in $Ans(I)$. In the latter (infinite/continuous) case also, if there are rational-valued solutions (as in Linear Programming for example), then the problem is to compute one of them. In several problems however, the solutions are inherently irrational, and we cannot compute them exactly (in the usual Turing machine-based model of computation and complexity). In these cases we need to specify precisely which information about the solutions is to be computed; this could be for example a yes/no question, such as, does an event in a stochastic model occur almost surely (with probability 1) or does the value of a game exceed a given threshold, or we may want to compute an answer up to a desired precision. In any case, the computational tasks of interest have to be defined precisely, because different tasks can have different complexity.
In this paper we will discuss a variety of equilibria and fixed point problems, and the complexity classes which capture the essential aspects of several types of such problems. We discuss three classes, PLS, PPAD, and FIXP, which capture different types of equilibria. Some representative complete problems for these classes are: for PLS pure Nash equilibria in games where they are guaranteed to exist, for PPAD (mixed) Nash equilibria in 2-player normal form games, and for FIXP (mixed) Nash equilibria in normal form games with 3 (or more) players.
Discrete, Pure Equilibria and the Class PLS
===========================================
Consider the following [*neural network*]{} model [@Ho]: We have an undirected graph $G=(V,E)$ with a positive or negative weight $w(e)$ on each edge $e \in E$ (we can consider missing edges as having weight 0) and a threshold $t(v)$ for each node $v \in V$. A configuration of the network is an assignment of a state $s(v) =+1$ (‘on’) or $-1$ (‘off’) to each node $v \in V$. A node $v$ is [*stable*]{} (or ‘happy’) if $s(v)=1$ and $\sum_u w(v,u) s(u) + t(v) \geq 0$, or $s(v)=-1$ and $\sum_u w(v,u) s(u) + t(v) \leq 0$, i.e. the state of $v$ agrees with the sign of the weighted sum of its neighbors plus the threshold. A configuration is [*stable*]{} if all the nodes are stable. A priori it is not obvious that such a configuration exists; in fact for directed networks there may not exist any. However, every undirected network has at least one (or more) stable configuration [@Ho]. In fact, a dynamic process where in each step one node that is unstable (any one) switches its state, is guaranteed to eventually converge in a finite number of steps to a stable configuration, no matter which unstable node is switched in each step. (It is important that updates be asynchronous, one node at a time; simultaneous updates can lead to oscillations.) To show the existence of a stable configuration and convergence, Hopfield introduced a value function (or ‘potential’ or ‘energy’) on configurations, $p(s)= \sum_{(v,u) \in E} w(v,u) s(v)s(u) + \sum_{v \in V} t(v)s(v)$. If $v$ is an unstable node in configuration $s$, then switching its state results in a configuration $s'$ with strictly higher value $p(s') = p(s) + 2|\sum_u w(v,u) s(u) + t(v)| > p(s)$. Since there is a finite number $(2^{|V|})$ of configurations, the process has to converge to a stable configuration. The [*stable configuration problem*]{} is the following: Given a neural network, compute a stable configuration. This is a total search problem, as there may be one or more stable configurations, and anyone of them is an acceptable output.
Although the stable configuration problem does not call a priori for any optimization, the problem can be viewed equivalently as one of [*local*]{} optimization: compute a configuration $s$ whose value $p(s)$ cannot be increased by switching the state of any single node. Local search is a common, general approach for tackling hard optimization problems. In a combinatorial optimization problem $\Pi$, every instance $I$ has an associated finite set $S(I)$ of solutions, every solution $s \in S(I)$ has a rational value or cost $p_I(s)$ that is to be maximized or minimized. In local search, a solution $s \in
S(I)$ has in addition an associated neighborhood $N_I(s) \subseteq
S(I)$; a solution is locally optimal if it does not have any (strictly) better neighbor, i.e. one with higher value or lower cost. A standard local search algorithm starts from an initial solution, and keeps moving to a better neighbor as long as there is one, until it reaches a local optimum. The complexity class PLS (Polynomial Local Search) was introduced in [@JPY] to capture the inherent complexity of local optima for usual combinatorial problems, where each step of the local search algorithm can be done in polynomial time. Even though each step takes polynomial time, the number of steps can be potentially exponential, and in fact for many problems we do not know how to compute even locally optimal solutions in polynomial time. Formally, a problem $\Pi$ is in PLS if solutions are polynomially bounded in the input size, and there are polynomial-time algorithms for the following tasks: (a) test whether a given string $I$ is an instance of $\Pi$ and if so compute a (initial) solution in $S(I)$, (b) given $I,s$, test whether $s \in S(I)$ and if so compute its value $p_I(s)$, (c) given $I,s$, test whether $s$ is a local optimum and if not, compute a better neighbor $s' \in N_I(s)$. Notions of PLS reduction and completeness were introduced to relate the problems. A number of well-studied combinatorial optimization problems (e.g. Graph Partitioning, TSP, Max Cut, Max Sat etc.) with common neighborhood structures (both simple and sophisticated) have been shown to be PLS-complete by many researchers, and thus locally optimal solutions can be computed efficiently for anyone of them iff they can be computed for all PLS problems. For a detailed survey and bibliography see [@Ya2]. In particular, the stable configuration problem is PLS-complete (and is complete even if all thresholds are 0 and all weights are negative, i.e. all connections are repulsive) [@SY].
It is worth stressing several points: 1. The search problem asks to compute any local optimum, not a specific one like the best, which is often NP-hard. 2. Given an instance $I$, we can always guess a solution $s$, and verify in polynomial time that it is indeed a solution ($s \in S(I)$) and it is locally optimal. Hence PLS is somewhere between P and TFNP (total search problems in NP). Such problems cannot be NP-hard (under Cook reductions) unless NP=coNP. 3. We are interested in the inherent complexity of the search probleme itself [*by any algorithm whatsoever*]{}, not necessarily the standard local search algorithm, which often has exponential running time. For example, Linear Programming can be viewed as a local search problem (where local optima= global optima) with Simplex as the local search algorithm; we know that Simplex under many pivoting rules is exponential, yet the problem itself can be solved in polynomial time by completely different methods (Ellipsoid, Karmakar). In fact, many common local search problems are complete under a type of [*tight*]{} PLS-reduction which allows us to conclude that the corresponding standard local search algorithm is exponential. For example, in the neural network model, the dynamic process where unstable nodes switch iteratively their state until the network stabilizes takes for some networks and for some (in fact for most) initial configurations exponential time to converge, no matter which unstable node is switched in each step. Furthermore, the computational problem: given a network and initial configuration compute a stable configuration (anyone) that can result from this process is a PSPACE-complete problem.
Another type of equilibrium problems that can be placed in PLS concerns finding pure Nash equlibria for games where they are guaranteed to exist. A (finite) game has a finite set $k$ of players, each player $i =1,\ldots,k$, has a finite set $S_i$ of pure strategies and a payoff (utility) function $U_i$ on the product strategy space $S = \Pi_i S_i$; we assume for computational purposes that $U_i$ takes rational values. A pure strategy profile $s$ is a member of $S$, i.e. a choice of a pure strategy $s_i \in S_i$ for each player. It is a pure Nash equilibrium if no player can improve his payoff by switching unilaterally to another pure strategy; that is, if $( s_{-i},s'_i)$ denotes the profile where player $i$ plays strategy $s'_i \in S_i$ and the other players play the same strategy as in $s$, then $U_i(s) \geq U_i(s_{-i},s'_i)$ for every $i$ and every $s'_i \in S_i$. Not every game has a pure Nash equilibrium. A [*mixed strategy*]{} for player $i$ is a probability distribution on $S_i$. Letting $M_i$ denote the set of mixed strategies for player $i$, the set of mixed strategy profiles is their product $M = \Pi_i M_i$; i.e., a mixed strategy profile is a non-negative vector $x$ of length $\sum_i |S_i|$ (i.e. its entries are indexed by all the players’ pure strategies) that is a probability distribution on the set of pure strategies of each player. The (expected) payoff $U_i(x)$ of $x$ for player $i$ is $\sum x_{1,j_1} \ldots x_{k,j_k} U_i(j_1,\ldots,j_k)$ where the sum is over all tuples $(j_1,\ldots,j_k)$ such that $j_1 \in S_1, \ldots, j_k \in S_k$, and $x_{i,j}$ is the entry of $x$ defining the probability with which player $i$ plays strategy $j$. A (mixed) [*Nash equilibrium*]{} (NE) is a strategy profile $x^*$ such that no player can increase its payoff by switching to another strategy unilaterally. Every finite game has at least one Nash equilibrium [@Na].
For example, a neural network can be viewed as a game with one player for each node, each player has two pure strategies $+1, -1$ (corresponding to the two states) and its payoff function has two values 1 (happy) and 0 (unhappy) depending on its state and that of its adjacent nodes. The stable configurations of the network are exactly the pure Nash equilibria of the game. This game is a case of a [*graphical game*]{}: players correspond to nodes of a graph and the payoff function of a player depends only on its own strategy and that of its neighbors. General graphical games may not have pure Nash equilibria. For an overview of graphical games see [@Ke].
There is a class of games, [*congestion games*]{}, in which there is always a pure equilibrium. In a congestion game, there are $k$ players, a finite set $R$ of resources, the pure strategy set $S_i \subseteq 2^R$ of each player is a family of subsets of the resources, each resource $r \in R$ has an associated cost function $d_r: \{0,\ldots,k \} \rightarrow Z$. If $s=(s_1,\ldots,s_k)$ is a pure strategy profile, the congestion $n_r(s)$ of a resource $r$ is the number of players whose strategy contains $r$; the cost (negative payoff) of a player $i$ is $\sum_{r \in s_i} d_r(n_r(s))$. Rosenthal showed that every congestion game has a pure equilibrium [@Ro]. In fact, the iterative process where in each step, if the current pure strategy profile is not at equilibrium, a player with a suboptimal strategy switches to a strategy with a lower cost (while other players keep the same strategy) does not repeat any profile and thus converges in a finite number of steps to an equilibrium. The proof is by introducing a potential function $p(s) = \sum_{r \in R} \sum_{i=1}^{n_r(s)} d_r(i)$ and showing that switching the strategy of a player to a lower cost strategy results in a reduction of the potential function by the same amount. Thus, the pure equilibria are exactly the local optima of the potential function $p(s)$ with respect to the neighborhood that switches the strategy of a single player. Computing a pure equilibrium is a local search problem, and it is in PLS provided that the costs functions $d_r$ of the resources are polynomial time computable, and the strategy sets $S_i$ are given explicitly or at least one can determine efficiently whether a player can improve his strategy for a given profile. Furthermore, Fabrikant et al. [@FPT] showed that the problem is PLS-complete. They showed that it is complete even in the case of [*network congestion games*]{}, where the resources are the edges of a given directed graph, each player $i$ has an associated source $s_i$ and target node $t_i$ and its set $S_i$ of pure strategies is the set of $s_i - t_i$ paths; the cost function $d_r$ of each edge $r$ represents the delay as a function of the paths that use the edge, and completeness holds even for linear delay functions [@ARV]. As with other PLS-complete problems, a consequence of the reductions, which are tight, is that the iterative local improvement algorithm can take exponential time to converge. For more information on congestion games see [@Vo].
There are several other games which are in PLS and not known to be in P, and which are not known (and not believed to be) PLS-complete. These are not one-shot games, but they are dynamic games played iteratively over time (like chess, backgammon etc.). There are two main types of payoffs for the players in such games: in one type, the payoff of a history is an aggregation of rewards obtained in the individual steps of the history combined via some aggregation function, such as average reward per step or a discounted sum of the rewards; in the other type, the payoff obtained depends on the properties of the history. We will discuss three such games in this section, and some more in the following sections.
A [*simple stochastic game*]{} [@Co] is a 2-player game played on a directed graph $G=(V,E)$ whose nodes represent the positions of the game, and the edges represent the possible moves. The sinks are labelled 1 or 2 and the nonsink nodes are partitioned into three sets, $V_r$ (random nodes), $V_1$ (max or player 1 nodes), $V_2$ (min or player 2 nodes); the edges $(u,v)$ out of each random node $u$ are labelled with probabilities $p_{uv}$ (assumed to be rational for computational puposes) that sum to 1. Play starts at some initial node (position) and then moves in each step along the edges of the graph; at a random node the edge is chosen randomly, at a node of $V_1$ it is chosen by player 1, and at a node of $V_2$ it is chosen by player 2. If the play reaches a sink labelled 1, then player 1 is the winner, while if it reaches a sink labelled 2 or it goes on forever, then player 2 is the winner. The goal of player 1 is to maximize her probability of winning, and the goal of player 2 is to minimize it (i.e. maximize his own winning probability). These are zero-sum games (what one player wins the other loses). For every starting node $s$ there is a well-defined value $x_s$ of the game, which is the probability that player 1 wins if they both play optimally. Although the players are allowed to use randomization in each step and have their choice depend on their entire history, it is known that there are stationary, pure (deterministic) optimal strategies for both players. Such a strategy $\sigma_i$ for player $i=1,2$ is simply a choice of an outgoing edge (a successor) for each node in $V_i$, thus there is a finite number of such pure strategies. For every pure strategy profile $(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ for the two players, the game reduces to a Markov chain and the values $x_s(\sigma_1,\sigma_2)$ can be computed by solving a linear system of equations. If the edge probabilities are rational then the optimal values $x_s$ are also rational, of bit complexity polynomial in the input size. If there are only two of the three types of nodes in the graph, then the optimal strategies and the values $x_s$ can be computed in polynomial time. For example, if there is no player 2, then the game becomes a Markov decision process with the goal of maximizing the probability of reaching a sink labelled 1, which can be optimized by Linear Programming. When we have all three types of nodes, the decision problem $x_s \geq 1/2 ?$ (does player 1 win with probability at least 1/2 starting from position $s$) is in $NP \cap coNP$ (in fact in $UP \cap coUP$), and it is a well-known open problem whether it is in P [@Co]. Two (pure) strategies $\sigma_1, \sigma_2$ of the two players form an [*equilibrium*]{} if $\sigma_1$ is a best response of player 1 to the strategy $\sigma_2$ of player 2 (i.e. $\sigma_1$ is a maximizing strategy in the Markov decision process obtained when the strategy of player 2 is fixed to $\sigma_2$), and vice-versa, $\sigma_2$ is a best response of player 2 to $\sigma_1$. The equilibria are precisely the optimal strategy pairs. The problem can be viewed as a local search problem in PLS if we take the point of view of one player, say player 1: the solution set is the set of pure strategies of player 1, the value of a strategy $\sigma_1$ is $\sum_{s \in V} x_s(\sigma_1, \sigma_2)$ where $\sigma_2$ is a best response of player 2 to $\sigma_1$, and the neighbors of $\sigma_1$ are the strategies obtained by switching the choice of a node in $V_1$. The locally optimal solutions are the (globally) optimal strategies of player 1.
A [*mean payoff*]{} game [@EM] is a non-stochastic 2-player game played on a directed graph $G=(V,E)$ with no sinks, whose nodes are partitioned into two sets $V_1, V_2$ and whose edges are labelled by (rational) rewards $r(e), e \in E$. As above, play starts at a node and moves along the edges, where player 1 chooses the next edge for nodes in $V_1$ and player 2 for nodes in $V_2$ (there are no random nodes here), and play goes on forever. The payoff to player 1 from player 2 of a history using the sequence of edges $e_1, e_2, \dots$ is the average reward per step, $\lim\sup_{n \rightarrow \infty} (\sum_{j=1}^n r(e_j))/n$. Again there are optimal pure stationary strategies $\sigma_1, \sigma_2$ for the players, and these form a path followed by a cycle $C$; the payoff (value of the game) is the ratio $\sum_{e \in C} r(e)/|C|$ and is rational of polynomial bit complexity. As shown in [@ZP], the optimal values and optimal strategies can be computed in pseudopolynomial time (i.e. polynomial time for unary rewards); furthermore the problem can be reduced to simple stochastic games, it is thus in PLS and the decision problem is in $UP \cap coUP$, but it is open whether it is in P.
A still simpler, nonstochastic 2-player game, called [*parity game*]{} [@EJ] has been studied extensively in the verification area; it is an important theoretical question in this area whether this game can be solved in polynomial time. A parity game is played again on a directed graph $G$ whose nodes are partitioned into two sets $V_1$, $V_2$ and whose edges are labelled by positive integers. A history is winning for player 1 (respectively player 2) if the maximum label that occurs infinitely often in the history is odd (resp. even). In this game, one of the two players has a pure optimal strategy that wins on every history that results against every strategy of the other player. Determining who the winner of the game is (and a winning strategy) reduces to the decision problem for mean payoff games and in turn to simple stochastic games [@Pu; @Jur].
Fixed Points
============
Nash’s theorem asserts that every finite game $\Gamma$ has a (generally, mixed) equilibrium. Nash proved his theorem in [@Na] using Brouwer’s fixed point theorem: every continuous function $F$ from a compact convex body to itself has a fixed point, i.e. a point $x$ such that $x=F(x)$. Specifically, given a finite game $\Gamma$ with $k$ players $i=1,\ldots,k$, a finite set $S_i$ of pure strategies and a payoff function $U_i$ for each player, a mixed strategy profile is a vector $x=(x_{ij}| i=1,\dots,k; j =1,\ldots,|S_i|)$, which lies on the product $\Delta$ of the $k$ unit simplexes $\Delta_i= \{ y \in R ^{|S_i|} | \sum_{j=1}^{|S_i|} y_j =1; y \geq 0 \}$. Nash defined the following function from $\Delta$ to itself: $ F_\Gamma(x)_{(i,j)} \doteq \frac{x_{i,j} + \max \{ 0, g_{i,j}(x)\}}
{1 + \sum^{|S_i|}_{l=1} \max \{ 0, g_{i,l}(x)\}}$, where $g_{i,j}(x)$ is the (positive or negative) “gain” in payoff of player $i$ if he switches to pure strategy $j$ while the other players continue to play according to $x$; $g_{i,j}(x)$ is a (multivariate) polynomial in $x$. Nash showed that the fixed points of $F_\Gamma$ are precisely the equilibria of the game $\Gamma$. There are several alternative proofs of Nash’s theorem, all using Brouwer’s theorem (with different functions $F$) or the related Kakutani’s theorem (for fixed points of multivalued maps). Note that the underlying solution space here, $\Delta$, is continuous, not discrete and finite. Furthermore, even if the payoff functions of the game are rational-valued, for 3 or more players it may be the case that all equilibria are irrational.
Market equilibria is another important application of fixed point theorems. Consider the following exchange model [@Sc2]. We have $m$ agents and $n$ commodities. The agents come to the market with an initial supply of commodities, which they exchange for their prefered ones; each agent sells his supply at the prevailing prices, and buys his preferred bundle of commodities. For each vector $p$ of prices for the commodities, each agent $\ell$ has an (positive or negative) ‘excess demand’ (=demand-supply) $g^\ell_i(p)$ for each commodity $i$. Standard assumptions are that the functions $g^\ell_i(p)$ (i) are homogeneous of degree 0, thus the price vectors may be normalized to lie on the unit simplex $\Delta_n$, (ii) they satisfy Walras’ law $\sum_{i=1}^n p_i g^\ell_i(p) = 0$, (iii) they are continuous on the unit simplex. Let $g_i(p) = \sum_\ell g^\ell_i(p)$ be the (total) market excess demand for each commodity $i$. The functions $g_i(p)$ satisfy the same constraints. A vector $p$ of prices is an [*equilibrium*]{} if $g_i(p) \leq 0$ for all $i$ (demand does not exceed supply), with equality for all commodities $i$ that have $p_i >0$. Brouwer’s theorem can be used to show the existence of equilibria. Namely, the equilibria are the fixed points of the function $F: \Delta_n \mapsto
\Delta_n$, defined by the formula $F_i(p) = \frac{p_i +
\max(0,g_i(p))}{1+\sum_{j=1}^n \max(0,g_j(p))}$. In fact, the equilibrium existence theorem can be conversely used to show Brouwer’s theorem: from a Brouwer function one can construct an economy whose equilibria correspond to the fixed points of the function [@Uz]. In the classical Arrow-Debreu market model [@AD], the user preferences for the commodities are modeled by utility functions, which in turn induce the excess demand functions (or correspondences, i.e. multivalued maps), and more generally the model includes also production. Under suitable conditions, the existence of equilibria is derived again using a fixed point theorem (Kakutani in [@AD], or Brouwer in alternative proofs [@Ge]). As shown in a line of work by Sonnenschein, Mantel, Debreu and others (see e.g. [@De]), essentially any function satisfying the standard conditions can arise as the excess demand function in a market for suitably defined utility functions for the users . Thus, there is a tight connection between fixed points of general functions and market equilibria.
A number of other problems from various domains can be cast as fixed point computation problems, i.e., every instance $I$ of a problem is associated with a function $F_I$ over some domain so that the sought objects $Ans(I)$ are fixed points of $F_I$; in some cases, we may only want a specific fixed point of the function. We will mention several more examples in this section. Recall the simple stochastic game from the last section. The vector $x= (x_s | s \in V)$ of winning probabilities for Player 1 satisfies the following system of equations $x=F(x)$, with one equation for each node $s$: if $s$ is a sink labelled 1 (respectively 2) then $x_s =1$ (resp. $x_s =0$); if $s \in V_r$ then $x_s = \sum_{(s,v) \in E} p_{sv} x_v$; if $s \in V_1$ then $x_s = \max \{x_v | (s,v) \in E \}$; if $s \in V_2$ then $x_s = \min \{x_v | (s,v) \in E \}$. In general there may be multiple solutions, however the system can be preprocessed so that there is a unique solution in the unit cube $C_n = \{x | 0 \leq x_s \leq 1, \forall s \in V \}$.
Stochastic games were originally introduced by Shapley in [@Sh] in a more general form, where players can move simultaneously. As shown in [@Co], simple stochastic games can be reduced to Shapley’s game. In [*Shapley’s game*]{} there is a finite set $V$ of states, each state $u$ has an associated one-shot zero-sum finite game with a reward (payoff) matrix $A_u$ whose rows (resp. columns) correspond to the actions (pure strategies) of Player 1 (resp. 2). If the play is in state $u$ and the players choose actions $i,j$ then Player 1 receives reward $A_u[i,j]$ from Player 2, the game stops with probability $q_{ij}^u >0$, and it transitions to state $v$ with probability $p_{ij}^{uv}$, where $q_{ij}^u + \sum_v p_{ij}^{uv}=1$. Since there is at least positive probability $q= \min\{ q_{ij}^u | u,i,j \} >0$ of stopping in each step, the game stops a.s. in a finite number of steps. (Another standard equivalent formulation is as a discounted game, where the game does not stop but future rewards are discounted by a factor $1-q$ per step). The goal of Player 1 is to maximize (and of Player 2 to minimize) the total expected reward, which is the value of the game. We want to compute the vector $x=(x_u | u \in V)$ of game values for the different starting states $u$. As usual all rewards and probabilities are assumed to be rationals for computational purposes. The values in general may be irrational now however. The vector $x$ satisfies a fixed point set of equations $x=F(x)$, as follows. For each state $u$, let $B_u(x)$ be the matrix, indexed by the actions of the players, whose $i,j$ entry is $A_u[i,j] + \sum_v p_{ij}^{uv} x_v$, and let $Val(B_u(x))$ be the value of the one-shot zero-sum game with payoff matrix $B_u(x)$. Then $x=F(x)$ where $F_u(x)=Val(B_u(x)),~u\in V$. The function $F$ is a Banach function (a contraction map) under the $L_{\infty}$ norm with contraction factor $1-q$, and thus it has a unique fixed point, the vector of values of the game.
[*Branching processes*]{} are a basic model of stochastic evolution, introduced first in the single type case by Galton and Watson in the 19th century to study population dynamics, and extended later to the multitype case by Kolmogorov and Sevastyanov, motivated by biology. A branching process has a finite set $T$ of $n$ types, for each type $i \in T$ there is a finite set of ‘reproduction’ rules of the form $i \stackrel{p_{ij}}{\rightarrow} v_{ij}, j=1,\ldots,m_i$, where $p_{ij} \in [0,1]$ is the probability of the rule (thus, $\sum_{j=1}^{m_i} p_{ij}=1)$ and $v_{ij} \in \nat^n$ is a vector whose components specify the number of offsprings of each type that an entity of type $i$ produces in the next generation. Starting from an initial population, the process evolves from one generation to the next according to the probabilistic reporuction rules. The basic quantity of interest is the probability $x_i$ of extinction of each type: the probability that if we start with one individual of type $i$, the process will eventually die. These can be used to compute the extinction probability for any initial population and are the basic for more detailed statistics of the process. As usual, we assume that the probabilities of the rules are rational. However the extinction probabilities are in general irrational. The vector $x$ satisfies a set of fixed point equations $x=F(x)$, where $F_i(x)$ is the polynomial $\sum_{j=1}^{m_i} p_{ij} \Pi_{k=1}^n (x_k)^{v_{ij}[k]}$. Note that $F_i(x)$ has positive coefficients, thus $F$ is a monotone operator on $\real^n_{\geq 0}$ and thus has a Least Fixed Point (LFP); the LFP is precisely the vector of extinction probabilities of the branching process. For more information on the theory of branching processes and their applications see [@Ha; @HJV].
[*Stochastic context-free grammars*]{} (SCFG) are context-free grammars where the production rules have associated probabilities. They have been studied extensively in Natural Language Processing where they are an important model [@MS], and have been used also in biological sequence analysis. A basic quantity of interest is the probability of the language generated by a SCFG; again this may be an irrational number even if all the probabilities of the production rules are rational. The analysis of SCFG’s is closely related to that of branching processes.
A model that encompasses and generalizes both of branching processes and SCFG’s in a certain precise sense, is the [*Recursive Markov chains*]{} (RMC) model [@EY1] and the equivalent model of [*Probabilistic Pushdown machines*]{} [@EKM]. Informally, a RMC is a collection of Markov chains that can call each other in a potentially recursive manner like recursive procedures. The basic quantities of interest are the termination probabilities. These probabilities obey again a system of fixed point equations $x=F(x)$, where $F$ is a vector of polynomials with positive coefficients; the least fixed point of the system gives the termination probabilities of the RMC. Generalization to a setting where the dynamics are not completely probabilistic but can be controlled by one or more players leads to [*recursive Markov decision processes and games*]{} [@EY2; @EY3; @EY5]. For example, we may have a branching process, where the reproduction can be influenced by players who want to bias the process towards extinction or survival. This results in fixed point systems of equations involving monotone polynomials and the min and max operators.
All of the above problems are total (single-valued or multi-valued) search problems, in which the underlying solution space is continuous. In all of these problems we would ideally like to compute exactly the quantities of interest if possible (if they are rational), and otherwise, we would like to bound them and answer decision questions about them (eg. is the value of a stochastic game $\geq 1/2$?, does a RMC terminate with probability 1?) or to approximate them within desired precision, i.e. compute a solution $x$ that is within $\epsilon$ of an/the answer $x^*$ to the search problem (eg., approximate within additive error $\epsilon$ the extinction probabilities of a branching process, or compute a mixed strategy profile for a game that is within $\epsilon$ of a Nash equilibrium). In the approximation problem we would like ideally polynomial time in the size of the input and in $\log(1/\epsilon)$ (the number of bits of precision). We refer to the approximation of an answer to a search problem as above as [*strong*]{} approximation (or the ‘near’ problem) to distinguish it from another notion of approximation, which we call the [*weak*]{} approximation (or the ‘almost’ problem) that is specific to a fixed point formulation of a search problem via a function $F$: a weak $\epsilon$-approximation is a point $x$ such that $|x-F(x)| \leq \epsilon$ (say in the $L_{\infty}$ norm). Note that a search problem may be expressible in different ways as a fixed point problem using different functions $F$, and the notion of weak approximation may depend on the function that is used; the strong approximation notion is intrinsic to the search problem itself (does not depend on $F$). For many common fixed point problems (formally, for polynomially continuous functions [@EY4]), including all of the above problems, weak approximation reduces to strong, i.e., given instance $I$ and (rational) $\epsilon >0$, we can define a (rational) $\delta >0$ of bit-size polynomial in that of $\epsilon$ and in $|I|$ such that every (strong) $\delta$-approximation $x$ to an answer to the search problem (i.e., approximation to a fixed point of the function $F_I$ corresponding to the instance $I$) is a weak $\epsilon$-approximate fixed point (i.e., satisfies $|x-F_I(x)| \leq \epsilon$). The converse relation does not hold in general; in particular, it does not hold for Nash equilibria and the Nash function $F_{\Gamma}$.
We discuss briefly now algorithms for such fixed point problems. For a Banach function $F_I$ we can start at any point $x_0$, and apply repeatedly $F_I$. The process will converge to the unique fixed point. If the contraction factor $1-q$ is a constant $<1 $, then convergence is polynomial, but if the margin $q$ from 1 is very small, inverse exponential in the size of the input $I$ (as is generally the case, for example in Shapley’s game), then convergence is slow.
For a monotone function $F_I$ for which we want to compute the least fixed point, as in many of the examples above (stochastic games, branching processes, RMC etc.), we can start from $x_0=0$ (which is lower than the LFP) and apply repeatedly $F_I$; the process will converge to the desired LFP, but again convergence is generally slow. Note that for many of these problems, obtaining a weak $\epsilon$-approximation for $\epsilon$ constant or even inverse polynomial, $|I|^{-c}$ is easy: for example, in a simple stochastic game or a branching process, the vector $x$ is bounded from above by the all-1 vector and $F_I^k(0), k=0,1,2,\ldots$ increases monotonically with $k$, so after at most $n/\epsilon$ iterations we will get a weak $\epsilon$-approximate fixed point $x$. However, such a point $x$ is of no use in estimating the actual values or probabilities that we want to compute. Approximating the value of a simple stochastic game even within additive error 1/2 is an open problem.
For general Brouwer functions $F$ we cannot simply apply iteratively $F$ from some starting point $x_0$ and hope to converge to a fixed point. There is extensive algorithmic work on the approximate computation of Brouwer fixed points, starting with Scarf’s fundamental algorithm [@Sc1], The standard proof of Brouwer’s theorem involves a combinatorial lemma, Sperner’s lemma, combined with a (generally nonconstructive) compactness argument. Scarf’s algorithm solves constructively Sperner’s problem, and computes a weak $\epsilon$-approximate fixed point for the function. Briefly, it works as follows. Assume wlog that the domain is the unit simplex $\Delta_n =\{ x \geq 0 | \sum_i x_i=1 \}$, and consider a simplicial subdivision of $\Delta_n$ into simplices of sufficiently small diameter $\delta$, so that $|x-y| \leq \delta$ implies $|F(x) - F(y)| \leq \epsilon /n$. Label (“color”) each vertex $v$ of the subdivision by an index $i=1,\ldots,n$ such that $v_i > F_i(v)$; if $v$ is not a fixed point there is at least one such index, if $v$ is a fixed point then label $v$ with say $\arg_i \max(v_i)$. Note that the unit vectors $e_i$ at the $n$ corners of the simplex $\Delta_n$ are labelled $i$, and all vertices on the facet $x_j=0$ are labelled with an index $\neq j$. Sperner’s lemma implies then that the subdivision has at least one panchromatic simplex, i.e. a small simplex $S$ whose vertices have distinct labels. From the definition of the labels and the choice of $\delta$ it follows that any point $x \in S$ satisfies $|F(x) - x| \leq \epsilon$. Scarf’s algorithm starts with a suitable subdivision and a boundary simplex whose vertices have $n-1$ distinct indices (all except one), and then keeps moving to an adjacent simplex through the face with the $n-1$ indices; the process cannot repeat any simplex of the subdivision, so it will end up at a panchromatic simplex $S$. Note that $S$ may not contain any actual fixed points, and in fact may be located far from all of them, but any point $x$ of $S$ is a weak $\epsilon$-approximation. If we take finer and finer subdivisions letting the diameter $\delta$ go down to 0, then the resulting sequence of weakly approximate fixed points must contain (by compactness) a subsequence that converges to a point, which must be a fixed point; this latter part however is nonconstructive in general.
There are several other subsequent methods for computing (approximate) fixed points, e.g. Newton-based, and homotopy methods (some of these assume differentiability and use also the derivatives of the function). Scarf’s algorithm, as well other general-purpose algorithms, treat the function $F$ as a black box. Such black box algorithms must take exponential time in the worst case to compute a weak approximation [@HPV]. Furthermore, for strong approximation no finite amount of time is enough in the black box model [@Si], and there are also noncomputability results for computing equilibria and fixed points for a model where the function is given via a Turing machine [@Ko; @RW]. However, the restriction to black box access is a severe one, and the results do not mean that any of the specific problems we want to solve (for example, Nash equilibria) is necessarily hard.
Rational equilibria, Piecewise Linear Functions and the Class PPAD
==================================================================
Consider a 2-player finite game, with the payoffs given explicitly in terms of the two payoff matrices $A_1, A_2$ of the two players (i.e., the game is presented in [*normal form*]{}). Computing a specific Nash equilibrium, such as one that maximizes the payoff to one of the players, or to all the players, is NP-hard [@GZ]. However, the search problem that asks for [*any*]{} Nash equilibrium is a different, ‘easier’ problem, and is unlikely to be NP-hard.
The 2-player case of the Nash equilibrium problem can be viewed either as a continuous or as a discrete problem, like Linear Programming: We can consider LP either as having a continuous solution space, namely all the real-valued points in the feasible polyhedron, or as having a discrete solution space, namely the vertices of the polyhedron or the feasible bases. Similarly, for 2-player games which correspond to a Linear Complementarity problem. A mixed strategy profile is a Nash equilibrium iff every pure strategy of each player is either at 0 level (not in the support) or is a best response to the strategy of the other player. Assumming the game is nondegenerate (we can always ensure this by a small perturbation) the supports of the mixed strategies determine uniquely the equilibrium: we can set up and solve a linear system of equations which equate the payoffs of the pure strategies in the support of each player, and check that the solution satisfies the appropriate inequalities for the pure strategies that are not in the supports. One consequence of this is that if the payoffs are rational then there are rational equilibria, of polynomial bit complexity in the input size, and they can be computed exactly. A second consequence is that Nash’s theorem in this case can be proved directly, without resorting to a fixed point theorem, and algorithmically, namely by the Lemke-Howson algorithm [@LH]. The algorithm has similar flavor to Scarf’s algorithm for fixed points. Mixed profiles can be labelled (‘colored’) by the set of pure strategies that are not in the support or that are best responses to the other player’s strategy. The equilibria are the mixed profiles that are panchromatic, i.e., labeled with all the pure strategies of both players. Briefly, the algorithm starts from an artificial point that has all the colors except one, and then follows a path through a sequence of LP-like pivots, until it arrives at a panchromatic point (profile), which must be an equilibrium; the algorithm cannot repeat any point, because at any point there are only two possible pivots, one forward and one backward, and there is a finite number of points (supports) so it terminates. It is known that the algorithm takes exponential time in the worst case [@SS].
Papadimitriou defined in [@Pa] a complexity class, PPAD, that captures the basic principles of these path-following algorithms: There is a finite number of candidate solutions, and an underlying directed graph of moves between the solutions where each solution has at most one forward and one backward move, i.e., the graph consists of a set of directed paths, cycles and isolated nodes; a source of one path is an artificial starting solution, and every other endpoint (source or sink) of every path is an answer to the problem (eg., an equilibrium). Formally, a search problem $\Pi$ is in PPAD if each instance $I$ has a set $S(I)$ of solutions which are (strings) polynomially bounded in the input size $|I|$, and there are polynomial-time algorithms for the following tasks: (a) test whether a given string $I$ is an instance of $\Pi$ and if so compute a initial solution $s_0$ in $S(I)$, (b) given $I,s$, test whether $s \in S(I)$ and if so compute a successor $succ_I(s) \in S(I)$ and a predecessor $pred_I(s) \in S(I)$, such that $pred_I(s_0) = s_0$, $succ_I(s_0) \neq s_0$, and $pred_I(succ_I(s_0)) = s_0$. The $pred$ and $succ$ functions induce a directed graph $G=(S(I),E)$, where $E= \{ (u,v) | u \neq v, succ_I(u)=v, pred_I(v)=u \}$, and the answer set to the instance $I$ of the search problem, $Ans(I)$, is the set of nodes of $G$, other than $s_0$ that have indegree + outdegree = 1, i.e., are endpoints of the paths; note that $Ans(I) \neq \emptyset$ because there must be at least one more endpoint besides $s_0$. As is customary, the class is closed under polynomial-time reduction, i.e., if a search problem $\Pi'$ reduces to a problem $\Pi$ that satisfies the above definition, then $\Pi'$ is considered also to belong to PPAD. Papadimitriou defined two other variants of this class in [@Pa], PPA in which the underlying graph is undirected, and PPADS in which the graph is directed and the answer set consists only of the sinks of the paths. However, PPAD is the more interesting and richer of these classes in terms of natural problems.
The class PPAD lies somewhere between P and TFNP: all search problems in PPAD are total, and furthermore, for a given instance $I$, we can guess a solution $s$ and verify that it is an answer. Thus, as in the case of PLS, problems in PPAD cannot be NP-hard unless NP=coNP.
By virtue of the Lemke-Howson algorithm, the Nash equilibrium problem for 2-player (normal form) games is in PPAD. For 3 or more players we cannot say that the Nash problem is in PPAD; for one thing the equilibria are irrational. But the following approximate $\epsilon$-Nash version is in PPAD [@DGP]. An $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium of a game is a (mixed) strategy profile such that no player can improve its payoff by more than $\epsilon$ by switching unilaterally to another strategy. (Note, this is not the same as being $\epsilon$-close to a Nash equilibrium.) The $\epsilon$-Nash problem is: given a normal form game $\Gamma$ (with rational payoffs) and a rational $\epsilon >0$, compute an $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium of $\Gamma$. (Note that $\epsilon$ is given as usual in binary, so polynomial time means polynomial in $|\Gamma|$ and $log(1/\epsilon)$.) The complexity of the Nash problem was one of the main motivations for the original introduction of PPAD. A recent sequence of papers culminated in showing that the Nash equilibrium problem for 2-player games is PPAD-complete [@DGP; @CD1], that is, if the problem can be solved in polynomial time, then so can all the problems in PPAD. Furthermore, even the $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium problem for $\epsilon$ inverse polynomial, i.e. even with $\epsilon$ given in unary, is also PPAD-complete for 2-player games [@CDT]. For all constant $\epsilon$, an $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium can be computed in quasipolynomial time [@LMM].
Another basic PPAD-complete problem is (a formalization of) the Sperner problem. The 2D case concerns the unit simplex (triangle) $\Delta_3$ and its simplicial subdivision (i.e., triangulation) with vertices $v=(i_1/n,i_2/n,i_3/n)$ with $i_1+i_2+i_3=n$. The 2D Sperner problem is as follows. The input consists of a number $n$ in binary and a Boolean circuit which takes as input three natural numbers $i_1, i_2, i_3$ with $i_1+i_2+i_3=n$ and outputs a color $c \in \{1,2,3\}$, with the restriction that $i_c \neq 0$. The problem is to find a trichromatic triangle, i.e. three vertices (triples) with pairwise distances $1/n$ that have distinct colors. The problem is in PPAD by Scarf’s algorithm. The 3D Sperner problem was shown PPAD-complete in [@Pa], and the 2D case was shown complete in [@CD2].
The original paper showed PPAD-completeness also for a discretized version of Brouwer and related theorems (Kakutani, Borsuk-Ulam) in the style of the Sperner problem: a Brouwer function in 3D is given in terms of a binary number $n$ (the resolution of a regular grid subdivision of the unit 3-cube) and a Boolean circuit that takes as input three natural numbers $i_1,i_2,i_3$ between 0 and $n$ and outputs the value of the function at the point $(i_1/n,i_2/n,i_3/n)$. The function is then linearly interpolated in the rest of the unit cube according to a standard simplicial subdivision with the grid points as vertices. The paper showed also completeness for a discretized version of the market equilibrium problem for an exchange economy.
In [@CSVY] Codenoti et al. show PPAD-completeness of the price equilibrium for a restricted case of Leontief exchange economies, i.e. economies in which each agent $i$ wants commodities in proportion to a specified (nonnegative) vector $(a_{i1},\ldots,a_{ik})$; that is, the utility function of agent $i$ is $u_i(x) = \min\{x_{ij}/a_{ij}| j=1,\ldots,k; a_{ij} \neq 0\}$. In general, such economies may not have an equilibrium, and it is NP-hard to determine if there is one [@CSVY]. However, a restricted subclass of Leontief economies has equilibria and is equivalent to the Nash equilibrium problem for 2-player games. This restricted Leontief class is as follows: the agents are partitioned into two groups, every agent brings one distinct commodity to the market, and agents in the first group want commodities only of agents in the second group and vice-versa.
The class PPAD cannot capture of course general Brouwer functions since many of them have irrational fixed points as we saw in the last section. (We could discretize such a function, but then the resulting approximating function has new fixed points, which may have no relation and can be very far from the fixed points of the original function.) However there is a natural class of functions that are guaranteed to have rational fixed points, which are in PPAD and in a sense characterize the class [@EY4]. Consider the search problem $\Pi$ of computing a fixed point for a family of Brouwer functions ${\mathcal F}= \{F_I | I$ an instance of $\Pi \}$. We say that $\Pi$ is a [*polynomial piecewise linear*]{} problem if the following hold: For each instance $I$, the domain is divided by hyperplanes into polyhedral cells, the function $F_I$ is linear in each cell and is of course continuous over the whole domain. The coefficients of the function in each cell and of the dividing hyperplanes are rationals of size bounded by a polynomial in $|I|$. These are not given explicitly in the input, in fact there may be exponentially many dividing hyperplanes and cells. Rather, there is an oracle algorithm that runs in time polynomial in $|I|$ which generates a sequence of queries of the form $ax \leq b?$ adaptively (i.e., the next query depends on $I$ and the sequence of previous answers), and at the end either outputs ‘No’ (i.e., $x$ is not in the domain) or identifies the cell of $x$ and outputs the coefficients $c,c'$ of the function $F_I(x) =cx+c'$. As shown in [@EY4], all polynomial piecewise linear problems are in PPAD (they all have rational fixed points of polynomial size). Examples include the simple stochastic games, the discretized Brouwer functions obtained from linear interpolation on a grid, and the Nash equilibrium problem for 2-player games (Nash’s function in nonlinear even for 2 players, but there is another piecewise linear function whose fixed points are also exactly the Nash equilibria).
The class PPAD captures also the approximation in the weak (‘almost’) sense for a broad class of Brouwer functions, and in some cases also the strong approximation (‘near’) problem [@EY4]. Consider a family of functions ${\mathcal{F}}= \{F_I\}$. We say ${\mathcal F}$ is [*polynomially computable*]{} if for every instance $I$ and rational vector $x$ in the domain, the image $F_I(x)$ is rational and can be computed in time polynomial in the size of $I$ and of $x$. ${\mathcal F}$ is called [*polynomially continuous*]{} if there is a polynomial $q(z_1,z_2)$ such that for all instances $I$ and all rational $\epsilon >0$, there is a rational $\delta > 0$ such that $size(\delta)
\leq q(|I|,size(\epsilon))$ and such that for all $x, y \in D_I$, $| x - y | < \delta \ \Rightarrow \ |F_I(x)-F_I(y)| < \epsilon$. If ${\mathcal F}$ is polynomially computable and polynomially continuous, then the weak approximation problem (given instance $I$ and rational $\epsilon > 0$, compute a weakly $\epsilon$-approximate fixed point of $F_I$) is in PPAD by virtue of Scarf’s algorithm. Furthermore, if the functions $F_I$ happen to be also contracting with contraction rate $< 1- 2^{-poly(|I|)}$, then strong approximation reduces to weak approximation, and the strong approximation problem (given $I, \epsilon$, compute a point $x$ that is within $\epsilon$ of some fixed point $x^*$ of $F_I$) is also in PPAD; Shapley’s problem is an example that satisfies this condition. Moreover, if in addition the functions $F_I$ have rational fixed points of polynomial size, then strongly $\epsilon$-approximate fixed points with small enough $\epsilon$ can be rounded to get exact fixed points, and thus the exact problem is in PPAD; simple stochastic games, perturbed with a small discount [@Co], are such an example.
Irrational Equilibria, Nonlinear Functions, and the Class FIXP
==============================================================
Games with 3 or more players are quite different from 2-player games: Nash equilibria are generally irrational; knowing the support of an equilibrium does not help us much, and there may be many different such equilibria. There are many search problems as we saw in Section 3, and in particular many problems that can be cast in a fixed point framework, where the objects that we want to compute (the answers) are irrational. Of course we cannot compute them exactly in the usual Turing machine model of computation. One can consider the exact computation and the complexity of such search problems in a real model of computation [@BCSS]. In the usual (discrete) Turing model of computation and complexity, we have to state carefully and precisely what is the (finite) information about the solution that we want to compute, as the nature of the desired information can actually affect the complexity of the problem, i.e., some things may be easier to compute than others. That is, from a search problem $\Pi$ with a continuous solution space, another search problem $\Pi'$ is derived with a discrete space. Several types of information are potentially of interest, leading to different problems $\Pi'$.
Consider for example Shapley’s stochastic game. Some relevant questions about the value of the game are the following: (i) [*Decision problem*]{}: Given game $\Gamma$ and rational $r$, is the value of the game $\geq r$?, (ii) [*Partial computation*]{}: Given $\Gamma$, integer $k$, compute the $k$ most significant bits of the value, (iii) [*Approximation*]{}: Given $\Gamma$, rational $\epsilon>0$, compute an $\epsilon$ approximation to the value. Similar questions can be posed about the optimal strategies of the players. The value of a game is a problem with a unique answer; for multivalued search problems (e.g., optimal strategy, Nash equilibrium etc.) care must be taken in the statement of the discrete problems (e.g., the decision problem) so that it does not become harder than the search problem itself; in general, the requirement in the multivalued case is that the response returned for the discrete problem should be valid for some answer to the continuous search problem. As we said in the previous section, the approximation problem for the value of Shapley’s game is in PPAD (and it is open whether it is P). The decision (and partial computation) problem however seems to be harder and it is not at all clear that it is even in NP; in fact showing that it is in NP would answer a well-known longstanding open problem. The same applies to many other problems. The best upper bound we know for the decision (and partial computation) problem for Shapley’s games and for many of the other fixed point problems listed in Section 3 (eg., branching processes, RMCs etc) is PSPACE.
The [*Square Root Sum*]{} problem ( for short) is the following problem: given positive integers $d_1,\ldots,d_n $ and $k $, decide whether $\sum^n_{i=1} \sqrt{d_i} \leq k$. This problem arises often for example in geometric computations, where the square root sum represents the sum of Euclidean distances between given pairs of points with integer (or rational) coordinates; for example, determining whether the length of a specific spanning tree, or a TSP tour of given points on the plane is bounded by a given threshold $k$ amounts to answering such a problem. This problem is solvable in PSPACE, but it has been a major open problem since the 1970’s (see, e.g., [@GGJ; @Ti]) whether it is solvable even in NP (or better yet, in P). A related, and in a sense more powerful and fundamental, problem is the [ *problem*]{}: given a division-free straight-line program, or equivalently, an arithmetic circuit with operations $+, -, *$ and inputs 0 and 1, and a designated output gate, determine whether the integer $N$ that is the output of the circuit is positive. The importance of this problem was highlighted in [@Al+], which showed that it is the key problem in understanding the computational power of the Blum-Shub-Smale model of real computation [@BCSS] using rational numbers as constants, in which all operations on rationals take unit time, no matter their size; importantly, integer division (the floor function) is not allowed (unit cost models with integer division or logical bit operations can solve in polynomial time all PSPACE problems, see e.g. [@EB] for an overview of machine models and references). This is a powerful model in which the problem can be decided in polynomial time [@Ti]). Allender et al. [@Al+] showed that the set of discrete decision problems that can be solved in P-time in this model is equal to $P^{{{\tt{PosSLP}}}{}}$, i.e. problems solvable in P using a subroutine for . They showed also that and lie in the Counting Hierarchy (a hierarchy above PP).
The problem can be reduced to the decision version of many problems: the Shapley problem [@EY4], concurrent reachability games [@EY3], branching processes, Recursive Markov chains [@EY1], Nash equilibria for 3 or more players [@EY4]. The problem reduces also to several of these. Hence placing any of these problems in NP would imply the same for and/or . Furthermore, for several problems, the approximation of the desired objects is also at least as hard. In particular, approximating the termination probability of a Recursive Markov chain within any constant additive error $< 1$ is at least as hard as the and the problems [@EY4].
A similar result holds for the approximation of Nash equilibria in games with 3 or more players. Suppose we want to estimate the probability with which a particular pure strategy, say strategy 1 of player 1, is played in a Nash equilibrium (any one); obviously, the value 1/2 estimates it trivially with error $\leq 1/2$. Guaranteeing a constant error $< 1/2$ is at least as hard as the and the problems [@EY4], i.e. it is hard to tell whether the strategy will be played with probability very close to 0 or 1.
The constructions illustrate also the difference between strong and weak approximate fixed points generally, and for specific problems in particular. Recall that for RMCs we can compute very easily a weak $\epsilon$-approximate fixed point for any constant $\epsilon >0$; however it is apparently much harder to obtain a strong approximation, i.e. approximate the actual probabilities within any nontrivial constant. In the RMC case the weak approximation is irrelevant. However, in the case of Nash equilibria, the weak approximation of Nash’s function is also very natural and meaningful: it is essentially equivalent to the notion of $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium (there is a small polynomial change in $\epsilon$ in each direction). For every game $\Gamma$ and $\epsilon >0$, we can choose a $\delta$ of bit-size polynomial in the size of $\Gamma$ and $\epsilon$ so that every strategy profile that is within distance $\delta$ of a Nash equilibrium is $\epsilon$-Nash (i.e. all strongly approximate points are also weakly approximate with a ‘small’ change in $\epsilon$). However, the converse is not true: For every $n$ there is a 3-player game of size $O(n)$, with an $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium, $x'$, where $\epsilon = 1/2^{2^{\Omega(n)}}$, such that $x'$ has distance $1- 2^{-poly}$ (i.e., almost 1) from every Nash equilibrium [@EY4].
For 2-player games, as we said there is a direct, algorithmic proof of the existence of Nash equilibria (by the Lemke-Howson algorithm). But for 3 and more players, the only proofs known are through a fixpoint theorem (and there are several proofs known using different Brouwer functions or Kakutani’s theorem). In [@EY4] we defined a class of search problems, FIXP, that can be cast as fixed point problems of functions that use the usual algebraic operations and max, min, like Nash’s function, and the other functions for the problems discussed in Section 3. Specifically, FIXP is the class of search problems $\Pi$, such that there is a polynomial-time algorithm which, given an instance $I$, constructs an algebraic circuit (straight-line program) $C_I$ over the basis $\{+,*,-,/,\max,\min \}$, with rational constants, that defines a continuous function $F_I$ from a domain to itself (for simplicity, standardized to be the unit cube, other domains can be embedded into it), with the property that $Ans_{\Pi}(I)$ is the set of fixed points of $F_I$. The class is closed as usual under reductions. In the usual case of discrete search problems, a reduction from problem $A$ to problem $B$ consists of two polynomial-time computable functions, a function $f$ that maps instances $I$ of $A$ to instances $f(I)$ of $B$, and a second function $g$ that maps solutions $y$ of the instance $f(I)$ of $B$ to solutions $x$ of the instance $I$ of $A$. The difference here is that the solutions are real-valued, not discrete, so we have to specify what kind of functions $g$ are allowed. It is sufficient to restrict the reverse function $g$ to have a particularly simple form: a separable linear transformation with polynomial-time computable rational coefficients; that is, $x=g(y)$, where each $g_i(y)$ is of the form $a_i y_j +b_i$ for some $j$, where $a_i, b_i$ are rationals computable from $I$ in polynomial time. Examples of problems in FIXP include: Nash equilibrium for normal form games with any number of players, price equilibrium in exchange economies with excess demand functions given by algebraic formulas or circuits, the value (and optimal strategies) for Shapley’s stochastic games, extinction probabilitites of branching processes, and probability of languages generated by stochastic context-free grammars.
FIXP is a class of search problems with continuous solution spaces, and corresponding to each such problem $\Pi$, there are the associated discrete problems: decision, approximation etc. All the accociated discrete problems can be expressed in the existential theory of the reals, and thus, using decision procedures for this theory [@Ca; @Re], it follows that they are all in PSPACE. As we mentioned, many of these problems are at least as hard as the and the problems, for which the current best upper bounds are barely below PSPACE. On the other hand, we do not know of any lower bounds, so in principle they could all be in P (though this is very doubtful). The Nash equilibrium problem for 3 players is complete for FIXP; it is complete in all senses, e.g., its approximation problem is as hard as the approximation of any other FIXP problem, the decision problem is at least as hard as the decision problem for any problem in FIXP, etc. [@EY4]. The price equilibrium problem for algebraic excess demand functions is another complete problem.
A consequence of the completeness results is that the class FIXP stays the same under several variations. For example, using formulas instead of circuits in the representation of the functions does not affect the class (because Nash’s function is given by a formula). Also, FIXP stays the same if we use circuits over $\{+,*, \max \}$ and rational constants (i.e., no division), because there is another function whose fixed points are also the Nash equilibria, and which can be implemented without division [@EY4].
Of course FIXP contains PPAD, since it contains its complete problems, for example 2-player Nash. Actually, the piecewise linear fragment of FIXP corresponds exactly to PPAD. Let [*Linear-FIXP*]{} be the class of problems that can be expressed as (reduced to) exact fixed point problems for functions given by algebraic circuits using $\{+,-,\max,\min\}$ (equivalently, {+,max}) and multiplication with rational constants only; no division or multiplications of two gates/inputs is allowed. Then Linear-FIXP is equal to PPAD.
In several problems, we want a particular fixed point of a system $x=F(x)$, not just any one. In particular, in several of the probems discussed in Section 3 for example, the function $F$ is a monotone operator and we want a Least Fixed Point. To place such a problem in FIXP, one has to restrict the domain in a suitable, but polynomial, way so that only the desired fixed point is left in the domain. For some problems, we know how to do this (for example, extinction probabilities of branching processes), but for others (e.g. recursive Markov chains) it is not clear that this can be done in polynomial time. In any case, the paradigm of a LFP of a monotone operator is one that appears in many common settings, and which deserves its own separate treatment.
Conclusions
===========
Many problems, from a broad, diverse range of areas, involve the computation of an equilibrium or fixed point of some kind. There is a long line of research (both mathematical and algorithmic) in each of these areas, but for many of these basic problems we still do not have polynomial time algorithms, nor do we have hard evidence of intractability (such as NP-hardness). We reviewed a number of such problems here, and we discussed three complexity classes, PLS, PPAD and FIXP, that capture essential aspects of several types of such problems. The classes PLS and PPAD lie somewhere between P and TFNP (total search problems in NP), and FIXP (more precisely, the associated discrete problems) lie between P and PSPACE. These, and the obvious containment PPAD $\subseteq$ FIXP, are the only relationships we currently know between these classes and the other standard complexity classes. It would be very interesting and important to improve on this state of knowledge. Furthermore, there are several important problems that are in these classes, but are not (known to be) complete, so it is possible that one can make progress on them, without resolving the relation of the classes themselves.
[Kos97]{}
H. Ackermann, H. Roglin, B. Vocking. On the impact of combinatorial structure on congestion games. , 2006.
E. Allender, P. Bürgisser, J. Kjeldgaard-Pedersen, and P. B. Miltersen. On the complexity of numerical analysis. , 2006.
K.J. Arrow, G. Debreu. Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. , 22, pp. 265-290, 1954.
R. M. Anderson. “Almost" implies “Near". [*Trans. Am. Math. Soc.*]{}, 296, pp. 229-237, 1986.
R.J. Aumann, S. Hart (eds.). , vol. 3, North-Holland, 2002.
L. Blum, F. Cucker, M. Shub, and S. Smale. . Springer-Verlag, 1998.
J. Canny. Some algebraic and geometric computations in [PSPACE]{}. , pp. 460–467, 1988.
X. Chen and X. Deng. Settling the complexity of two-player [Nash]{} equilibrium. , pp. 261–272, 2006.
X. Chen, X. Deng. On the complexity of 2d discrete fixed point problem. [*Proc. ICALP*]{}, pp. 489-599, 2006.
X. Chen, X. Deng. On algorithms for discrete and approximate Brouwer fixed points. [*Proc. ACM STOC*]{}, pp. 323-330, 2005.
X. Chen, X. Deng, and S. H. Teng. Computing [Nash]{} equilibria: approximation and smoothed complexity. , pp. 603–612, 2006.
B. Codenotti, A. Saberi, K. Varadarajan, Y. Ye. Leontieff economies encode nonzero sum two-player games. , pp. 659-667, 2006.
A. Condon. The complexity of stochastic games. , 96(2):203–224, 1992.
C. Daskalakis, A. Fabrikant, and C. Papadimitriou. The game world is flat: The complexity of Nash equilibria in succinct games. , 2006.
C. Daskalakis, P. Goldberg, and C. Papadimitriou. The complexity of computing a [Nash]{} equilibrium. , pp. 71–78, 2006.
L. de Alfaro, T. A. Henzinger, O. Kupferman. Concurrent reachability games. [*Proc. IEEE FOCS*]{}, pp. 564-575, 1998.
G. Debreu. Excess demand functions. 1, pp. 15-21, 1974.
A. Ehrenfeucht, J. Mycielski. Positional strategies for mean payoff games. [*Intl. J. Game Theory*]{}, 8, pp. 109-113, 1979.
P. van Emde Boas. Machine models and simulations. In [*Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science*]{}, vol. A, J. van Leeuwen ed., MIT Press, pp. 1–66, 1990.
E. A. Emerson, C. Jutla. Tree automata, $\mu$-calculus and determinacy. [*Proc. IEEE FOCS*]{}, pp. 368-377, 1991.
J. Esparza, A. Kučera, and R. Mayr. Model checking probabilistic pushdown automata. , 2004.
K. Etessami and M. Yannakakis. Recursive Markov chains, stochastic grammars, and monotone systems of non-linear equations. , 2005. (Full expanded version available from <http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/kousha>).
K. Etessami and M. Yannakakis. Recursive Markov decision processes and recursive stochastic games. , 2005.
K. Etessami and M. Yannakakis. Efficient qualitative analysis of classes of recursive Markov decision processes and simple stochastic games. , Springer, 2006.
K. Etessami and M. Yannakakis. Recursive concurrent stochastic games. [*Proc. 33rd ICALP*]{}, 2006.
K. Etessami and M. Yannakakis. On the complexity of Nash equilibria and other fixed points. [*Proc. IEEE FOCS*]{}, 2007.
A. Fabrikant, C.H. Papadimitriou, K. Talwar. The complexity of pure Nash equilibria. , pp. 604-612, 2004.
M. R. Garey, R. L. Graham, and D. S. Johnson. Some [NP]{}-complete geometric problems. , pp. 10–22, 1976.
J. Geanakoplos. and [Walras]{} equilibrium via [Brouwer]{}. , 21:585–603, 2003.
I. Gilboa and E. Zemel. and correlated equilibria: some complexity considerations. , 1:80–93, 1989.
P. Haccou, P. Jagers, V. A Vatutin. . Cambridge U. Press, 2005.
T. E. Harris. . Springer-Verlag, 1963.
M. D. Hirsch, C. H. Papadimitriou, S. A. Vavasis. Exponential lower bounds for finding Brouwer fixed points. [*J. Complexity*]{}, 5, pp. 379-416, 1989.
J. J. Hopfield. Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities. 79, pp. 2554-2558, 1982.
D. S. Johnson. The NP-completeness column: Finding needles in haystacks. 3, 2007.
D. S. Johnson, C. H. Papadimitriou, M. Yannakakis. How easy is local search? , 37, pp. 79-100, 1988.
B. Juba. On the hardness of simple stochastic games. Master’s thesis, CMU, 2005.
M. Jurdzinski. Deciding the winner in parity games is in UP$\cap$coUP. 68, pp. 119-124, 1998.
M. Kearns. Graphical games. In [@NRTV], pp. 159–180, 2007.
K.-I. Ko. Computational complexity of fixpoints and intersection points. , 11, pp. 265-292, 1995.
A. N. Kolmogorov and B. A. Sevastyanov. The calculation of final probabilities for branching random processes. , 56:783–786, 1947. (Russian).
C. Lemke, J. Howson. Equilibrium points of bimatrix games. [*J. SIAM*]{}, pp. 413-423, 1964.
R.J. Lipton, E. Markakis, A. Mehta. Playing large games using simple strategies. [*Proc. ACM Conf. Elec. Comm.*]{}, 36-41, 2003.
R.J. Lipton, E. Markakis. Nash equilibria via polynomial equations. [*Proc. LATIN*]{}, 2004.
C. Manning and H. Schütze. . MIT Press, 1999.
J. Nash. Non-cooperative games. , 54:289–295, 1951.
A. Neyman and S. Sorin, eds. . Kluwer, 2003.
N. Nisan, T. Roughgarden, E. Tardos, V. Vazirani. . Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007.
C. Papadimitriou. On the complexity of the parity argument and other inefficient proofs of existence. , 48(3):498–532, 1994.
C. Papadimitriou. The complexity of finding Nash equilibria. In [@NRTV], pp. 29-52, 2007.
A. Puri. Theory of hybrid systems and discrete event systems. PhD Thesis, UC Berkeley, 1995.
J. Renegar. On the computational complexity and geometry of the first-order theory of the reals, parts [I-III]{}. , 13(3):255–352, 1992.
M. Richter, K.-C. Wong. Non-computability of competitive equilibrium. , 14, pp. 1-27, 1999.
R. W. Rosenthal. A class of games possessing pure-strategy Nash equilibria. 2, pp. 65-67, 1973.
R. Savani, B. von Stengel. Hard to solve bimatrix games. 74, pp. 397-429, 2006.
H. Scarf. The approximation of fixed points of a continuous mapping. , 15:1328–1343, 1967.
H. Scarf. . Yale University Press, 1973.
A. Schaffer, M. Yannakakis. Simple Local Search Problems that are Hard to Solve. [*SIAM J. Comp.*]{}, 20, pp. 56-87, 1991.
L.S. Shapley. Stochastic games. , 39:1095–1100, 1953.
K. Sikorski. [*Optimal solution of nonlinear equations*]{}, Oxford Univ. Press, 2001.
B. von Stengel. Computing equilibria for two-person games. In [@AH], pp. 1723-1759, 2002.
P. Tiwari. A problem that is easier to solve on the unit-cost algebraic RAM. , pp. 393–397, 1992.
H. Uzawa. Walras’ existence theorem and Brouwer’s fixpoint theorem. [*Econ. Stud. Quart.*]{}, 13, pp. 59-62, 1962.
B. Vöcking. Congestion Games: Optimization in Competition. , pp. 9-20, 2006.
M. Yannakakis. The analysis of local search problems and their heuristics. [*Proc. STACS*]{}, pp. 298-311, 1990.
M. Yannakakis. Computational complexity of local search. In [*Local Search in Combinatorial Optimization*]{}, E.H.L. Aarts, J.K. Lenstra eds., John Wiley, 1997.
U. Zwick, M. S. Paterson. The complexity of mean payoff games on graphs. [*Theoretical Computer Science*]{}, 158, pp. 343-359, 1996.
[^1]: Work supported by NSF Grant CCF-0728736.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '**[Abstract:]{}** Cosmological fluids with a Generalized Equation of State (GEoS) are here considered, whose corresponding EoS parameter $\omega$ describes a fluid with phantom behavior, namely $\omega<-1$, but leading to universes free of singularities at any past or future, finite time. Thus avoiding, in particular, the Big Bang and the Big Rip singularities, the last one considered to be typical in phantom fluid models. More specifically, such GEoS fluid cosmologies lead to regular Little Rip universes. A remarkable new property of these solutions is proven here, namely that they avoid the initial singularity at early times; therefore, they are able to describe emergent universes. Solutions of this kind had been studied previously, but only either as late time or as early time solutions; never as solutions covering both epochs simultaneously. Appropriate conditions are proposed here that relate the Little Rip cosmologies with the initial regular universe, for the future and past regimes, respectively. This is done by taking as starting point the conditions under which a given scale factor corresponds to a Little Rip universe.'
author:
- 'F. Contreras'
- 'N. Cruz'
- 'E. Elizalde'
- 'E. González'
- 'S. D. Odintsov'
title: Linking little rip cosmologies with regular early universes
---
Introduction
============
Current cosmological observations have established that the expansion of the Universe is going through a late time accelerated phase. In the framework of general relativity, this acceleration could be produced by an exotic fluid, called dark energy, which necessarily has a negative pressure causing an overall repulsive behavior of gravity at large cosmological scales (see, e.g, [@KhurshudyanR] - [@OdintsovR] for some reviews). Another issue that emerges from the cosmological data is that the EoS of this fluid may be represented in the very simple form $\omega=P/\rho$ (although more complicated EoS are sometimes considered in the literature), where $\omega$ lies very close to $-1$, most probably being below $-1$. For example, the last Planck results yield $\omega=-1.03\pm 0.03$ for a constant $\omega$ model and assuming a flat universe [@Planck]. On the other hand, the nine years of WMAP survey in combination with CMB+BAO+$H_{0}$ measurements for the flat space case give $\omega=-1.073^{+0.090}_{-0.089}$, which in combination with SNe data yields $\omega=-1.084\pm 0.063$ [@WMAP]. Furthermore, A. Rest *et al.* [@Rest], using the $1.5$ year measurements of the Pan-STARRS1 project combined with BAO+CMB(Planck)+$H_{0}$ and assuming a flat universe, have found the value $\omega=-1.166^{+0.072}_{-0.069}$, which is inconsistent with the value of $-1$ at the $2.3\sigma$ level. These results are indicating that a phantom behavior of the dark energy component cannot be ruled out from current cosmological data, rather on the contrary (see [@Singh] - [@Jassal]). As a consequence, if this possibility is taken seriously, an effective approach to describe phantom EoS is the inclusion of Generalized Equations of State (GEoS).
The study of GEoS for the main fluid component of the universe has already some history. They were inspired, to the best of our knowledge, in the particular behavior of Friedmann models in inflationary scenarios. In order to extend the range of known inflationary behaviors, Barrow [@Barrow] assumed that the matter stress has a pressure $p$ and density $\rho$ that are related by the following model EoS $$P(\rho)=-\rho-B\rho^{\lambda},
\label{1}$$ where $B$ and $\lambda$ are both constant, with $B\neq 0$. The standard EoS of a perfect fluid, $p=(B-1)\rho$, is recovered when $\lambda=1$. A variation of Eq. (\[1\]) was discussed by Mukherjee *et al* [@Mukherjee], who considered the form $$P(\rho)=A\rho-B\rho^{1/2},
\label{2}$$ the case with $A=-1$, as well as other more general EoS fluids, having been studied in [@Odintsov] and [@Stefancic]. In these works, cosmological solutions of dark energy models with generalized fluids were analyzed, focusing in the future expansion of the universe. A late time behavior of a universe filled with a phantom dark energy component with an EoS given by Eq. (\[1\]) was investigated in [@Paul] and [@Paul1], where the allowed values of the parameters $A$ and $B$ were constrained using $H(z)-z$ data, a model independent BAO peak parameter, and a cosmic parameter (WMAP7 data). It is interesting to note that cosmological solutions of GEoS, in particular the GEoS in (\[1\]) and (\[2\]), have been investigated in order to describe both the behavior of the very early and very late universe regimes. Nevertheless, the very remarkable fact was nowhere pointed out, that solutions without a future singularity, such as little rip solutions, can also represent in the past perfectly regular solutions, corresponding to emergent or bouncing universes, and vice-versa. Furthermore, such effective fluid description is typical for modified gravity [@Odintsov1].
The main aim of this paper is to prove that some solutions, which until now have been discussed as late-time solutions or as early-time solutions, exclusively, but never as a solution in both regimes, can in fact give rise to perfectly valid solutions in both regions, not developing singularities in the past neither at any finite future time. We obtain also the mathematical conditions required for a cosmological solution in order to avoid both past and future singularities. In particular, we will exhibit exact solutions, previously found in the literature for late or for early times only, and which indeed fulfill these conditions. They will be proven to be regular at every time, except in the strict limit $t\rightarrow\infty$
The outline of the paper is as follows. In Section II we obtain the conditions to be satisfied in order to have solutions with a little rip behavior at late time and a regular behavior at earlier times. In Section III we discuss some solutions found in previous investigations, either as little rip solutions or as early-time regular solutions, under this new perspective and with a corresponding singularity analysis. We show how these solutions fulfill the conditions encountered in Section II and, consequently, how they can be extended to the future, or to the past (depending on the studied case). In other words, they can be promoted to cosmological solutions without singularities of any sort, neither in the past nor in the reachable future. In Sections IV and V, we constraint the free parameters of the models analyzed in Section III with the supernova Ia data from JLA, and we compare them to each other and with $\Lambda$CDM. Section VI is devoted to conclusions and to a final discussion of the new perspectives opened by these findings. Units where $8\pi G=c=1$ will be used throughout this work.
Conditions for little-rip and regular early-time universes
==========================================================
We will here obtain the conditions to be fulfilled by the scale factor $a(t)$ in order to avoid the initial singularity and late time singularities of the Big Rip type. With this in mind, we must first understand in detail the evolution of the behavior of the scale factor. To this end, we take advantage of the proof that appears, in much detail, in App. $A$, and which demonstrates that when the flat FLRW metric is considered with only one dominant fluid and an EoS with a parameter of state $\omega<-1/3$, then the only universes without singularities are those of the Bouncing and of the Emergent types.
Both the Bouncing and the Emergent universes need the scale factor $a(t)$ to behave as a convex or strictly convex function. This condition is obtained by imposing $\omega$ to satisfy $\omega<-1/3$. The difference between considering the conditions $\omega<-1$ and $\omega<-1/3$ lies in the possibility to have Big Rip type singularities in the future, because if $-1/3>\omega>-1$ then the Hubble parameter $H$ is a decreasing function and therefore the Big Rip phenomenon does not occur. Identically, in the presence of quintessence, singularities of the Big Rip type do not exist. However, as is well known, in presence of phantom matter it is indeed possible to have this type of singularities.
In what follows, we will first recall the results previously found concerning the situations that lead to Little Rip models. Secondly, we will analyze the conditions in order to avoid past and future singularities, namely initial singularities and Big Rip ones. We will then proceed to match both constraints and to obtain the general conditions that lead to regular universes. Finally, we will study the behavior of the EoS parameter $\omega$ when the density $\rho$ is equal to zero in the Bouncing models.
Conditions for a Little Rip
---------------------------
The conditions under which a dark energy density that increases with time, with EoS parameter $\omega<-1$, is able to avoid, in fact, a finite-time future singularity, were discussed in [@Frampton]. Below there is a summary of the main conditions found.
Assuming that $a(t)$ can be written in the form $$a(t)=e^{f(t)},
\label{4}$$ the condition for this scale factor to be a non singular function for all $t$ is translated into a non singular function $f(t)$ (although this last could still tend to $-\infty$, as is rigorously stated in App. A). Then, the conditions $\omega<-1$ and $\rho>0$ lead to $d\rho/da>0$, which for $f(t)$ implies the following restriction $$\ddot{f}>0.
\label{5}$$ Thus, all Little Rip models with $\omega<-1$ are described by a scale factor given by an equation of the form (\[4\]), with a non singular function $f$ satisfying Eq. (\[5\]). In [@Frampton] the conditions were also considered for the case of a Little Rip singularity, when both the EoS and the density as a function of the scale factor $\rho(a)$ are specified, but in our case we will only need to use the scale factor, $a(t)$.
It is important to mention that, also in [@Frampton], it was found that the above little rip solutions are consistent with the $\Lambda$CDM bounds, i. e., compliance with the supernovae data force the Little Rip model into a region of parameter space in which the model resembles $\Lambda$CDM.
Conditions for Regular Universes
--------------------------------
In this subsection we will find the conditions for a universe that is regular at both early and late times. The conditions for a Little Rip only consider future times, while for those here we need, in addition, the early time conditions. Early singularities show up when the scale factor satisfies $a(t_{0})=0$, $a\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow t_{0}}-\infty$, or $a\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow -\infty}0$, at some specific time $t=t_{0}$. Considering the early singularities and the convexity of the scale factor $a(t)$, it becomes possible to modify Eq. (\[4\]) through a non-negative constant in such a way that the conditions for a Little Rip are included in the general conditions for a regular universe to exist at all values of $t$. Inspired in the Little Rip Eq. (\[4\]), let us consider the following scale factor $$a(t)=\exp (g(t))+s,
\label{adem}$$ where $g$ is chosen as a non singular function, in order to avoid both a singularity of the type $a\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow \pm t_{0}}\infty$ and one of the type $a(t_{0})=0$, and $s$ is a non-negative constant, in order to avoid singularities of the kind $a\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow -\infty}0$. If $g\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow -\infty}-\infty$, then it is necessary to consider $s >0$ in order to get a universe with a minimum spatial size. In the other case, namely when the function $g(t)$ does not converge to $-\infty $, it is not necessary to consider a positive constant $s$, and it is allowed that $s$ may take the value zero. Therefore, Eq. (\[adem\]) represents a scale factor that avoids both types of singularities: the initial singularity and the late-time, Big Rip one.
It is compulsory to study now how the condition $\omega<-1$ leads to the corresponding conditions upon $g$ and $s$. In what follows, we will just consider a flat space in the FLRW metric. Let us start from the Friedmann equations $$\left(\dfrac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^{2}=\dfrac{\rho}{3},
\label{Fr1}$$ $$\dfrac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\dfrac{1}{6}\left(\rho+3P\right),
\label{Fr2}$$ $$P=-2\dfrac{\ddot{a}}{a}-\left(\dfrac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^{2},
\label{Fr3}$$ the conservation equation $$\dot{\rho }=-3\left(\dfrac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)\left(\rho+P\right),
\label{ct}$$ and the one for the EoS parameter $\omega$, $$\omega=\dfrac{P}{\rho}.
\label{parestado}$$ In the case that there exists a point $t_{0}$ such that $P(t_{0})=\rho(t_{0})=0$, then the value of $\omega (t)$ at $t=t_{0}$ will be given by the following limit $$\omega (t_{0})=\lim_{t\rightarrow t_{0}}{\frac{P(t)}{\rho(t)}}.$$ In this way, using the restriction $\omega<-1$ and Eq. (\[ct\]), we get that $$\dfrac{d\rho}{da}=-\dfrac{3\rho}{a}(\omega+1)>0,\quad\text{for}\quad\rho\neq 0.
\label{drhoa}$$ Since the only possible models are Bouncing or Emergent universes, then from Eq. (\[Fr1\]) one can see that $\rho$ reaches the value $0$ only at the bounce time $t_{b}$, in the Bouncing model. In the case of the Emergent universe, the scale factor is always growing. In this way, using Eqs. (\[Fr1\]), (\[Fr3\]) and (\[parestado\]), it becomes possible to rewrite Eq. (\[drhoa\]), for the case $\rho(t_{b})=0$ as $$\begin{split}
&\dfrac{d\rho}{da}(t_{b})=\lim_{t\rightarrow t_{b}}-\dfrac{3\rho(t)}{a(t)}(\omega(t)+1) \\
& =\lim_{t\rightarrow t_{b}}-\dfrac{3}{a(t)}\left[3\left(\dfrac{\dot{a}(t)}{a(t)}\right)^{2}\right]\times \\
& \left(\left[-\dfrac{1}{3}-\dfrac{2}{3}\dfrac{a(t)\ddot{a}(t)}{\dot{a}(t)^{2}}\right]+1\right) \\
& =6\dfrac{\ddot{a}(t_{b})}{a(t_{b})^{2}}.
\end{split}$$ Thus, the condition $\dfrac{d\rho}{da}>0$ must be fulfilled at all times except for the bouncing model if $\ddot{a}(t_{b})=0$. Therefore, in this case the inequality (\[drhoa\]) becomes an equality at the bounce time $t=t_{b}$. Using Eq. (\[adem\]) in Eq. (\[Fr1\]), we see that $\rho$ can be expressed as $$\rho=3(\dot{a}/a)^{2}=3\left(\dfrac{\dot{g}e^{g}}{e^{g}+s}\right)^{2}.$$ As a consequence, the condition $\dfrac{d\rho}{da}>0$ leads to $$\dfrac{d\rho}{da}=6\dfrac{\left[\ddot{g}e^{2g}+\ddot{g}e^{g}s+\dot{g}^{2}e^{g}s\right]}{\left(e^{g}+s \right)^{3}}> 0,
\label{drhoa2}$$ and, finally, we have from Eqs. (\[drhoa\]) and (\[drhoa2\]) that $\omega<-1$ if and only if $$e^{g}\ddot{g}+\ddot{g}s+\dot{g}^{2}s>0,
\label{constraintat}$$ at all times, except for the time $t_{b}$ in the Bouncing model if $\ddot{a}(t_{b})=0$, in which case the inequality changes into an equality at the bounce time $t=t_{b}$. It is to be noted that the functions $a(t)$ in Eqs. (\[4\]) and (\[adem\]) are very similar except for the constant $s$. Therefore, if $s=0$, the conditions for a Little Rip universe, and for one that is non-singular in the past, are the same as those obtained in Eq. (\[constraintat\]) for $s=0$. This is the case in most of the situations considered. Generally, it is easier to represent $a(t)$ in terms of the function $g(t)$ only, after having taken the constant $s=0$.
In summary, the conditions for a universe that is regular at all finite times with $s=0$ are $$\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
\ddot{g}(t)>0, & t\neq t_{b},\\ \\
\ddot{g}(t)\ge 0, & t= t_{b}.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{crit1}$$ In the other case, when the constant $s>0$, the conditions for getting a regular universe are $$\left\{ \begin{array}{cc}
G(t) >0, & t\neq t_{b},\\ \\
G(t) \ge 0, & t= t_{b}, \\ \\
\end{array}
\right.
\label{crit2}$$ where $G(t)=e^{g(t)}\ddot{g}(t)+\ddot{g}(t)s+\dot{g}(t)^{2}s$. The relation between the function $f$ in Eq. (\[4\]) and the function $g$ with the constant $s$ of Eq. (\[adem\]), yields $$g(t)=\ln \left( \exp(f(t))-s \right).$$
Let us now analyze in detail what happens with the EoS parameter $\omega $ when $\rho =0$.
Criterion for Bouncing universes
--------------------------------
Let us suppose that we have a Bouncing universe dominated by a Phantom fluid with $\omega(t)<-1$. Moreover, assume that, at the time of the bounce, $t=t_{b}$, the relation $P(t_{b})\neq 0$ is satisfied. Then, using Eq. (\[parestado\]), we obtain that $\omega(t_{b})=-\infty $. Now, if $P(t_{b})=0$, then Eq. (\[Fr3\]) leads to $\ddot{a}(t_{b})=0$. Furthermore, from Eqs. (\[Fr1\]), (\[Fr3\]) and (\[parestado\]), it comes out that $\omega(t)$ is given by $$\omega(t)=\lim_{s\rightarrow t}-\dfrac{2}{3}\dfrac{a(s)\ddot{a}(s)}{\dot{a}\left(s\right)^{2}}-\dfrac{1}{3}.
\label{omeli}$$
To know the value of $\omega(t_{b})$, a property that is considered in App. $B$ is used, which implies that if $f$ is an analytic function at $t_{0}$ such that $f(t_{0})=\dot{f}(t_{0})=0$, then $\lim_{t\rightarrow t_{0}}\left|\dfrac{\dot{f}(t)}{f(t)}\right|=\infty $. Considering $\dot{a}$ as $f$ in the property of App. $B$, and using $\ddot{a}\geq 0$ in Eq. (\[omeli\]), one reaches the conclusion that the behavior of $\omega $ in $t=t_{b}$ is given by $$\omega(t_{b})=-\infty.$$ This result not only says what happens with the EoS parameter $\omega $ at the time of the bounce, but also, and even more important, whether the scale factor represent a bouncing or an emergent model. The latter is because, when the scale factor $a$ represent an emergent universe, then the EoS parameter $\omega$ is a regular function. Therefore, if at the time of the bounce, $t_{b}$, $\omega $ satisfies $\omega(t_{b})=-\infty $, then the model is certainly a bouncing solution.
We conclude this section with an example that clearly illustrates this feature. Consider the following scale factor and its associated EoS parameter $$\begin{array}{l}
a(t)=e^{t}\left[ 1+e^{-2t}\right], \\ \\
\omega(t)=-1-\dfrac{8e^{-2t}}{3(1-e^{-2t})^{2}}.
\end{array}$$ This solution represents a Bouncing universe without singularities and with $\omega<-1$; nevertheless, there exists a point such that $\omega(t_{b})=-\infty$.
Regular solutions of the GEoS
=============================
In what follows, we will consider cosmological Bouncing and Emergent solutions for a universe filled up with one exotic fluid, already studied before, and we will prove how these solutions satisfy the conditions indicated in Section II. Moreover, we show at the end of the section a figure that illustrates the initial regularity of the following five models.
First solution
--------------
To start, we restrict the GEoS of the fluid to a particular case of the general form given in Eq. (\[1\]) $$P(\rho)=-\rho-B\rho^{1/2}.
\label{7}$$ The solution for the this GEoS with $B>0$ was first obtained in [@Barrow] and was analyzed in [@Cruz] as a regular solution at early time. The late behavior of this EoS yields a scale factor as a function of the cosmic time, given by $$\begin{split}
a(t) & =a_{0}\exp\left(-\frac{2\rho_{0}^{1/2}}{3B}\right)\times \\
& \exp\left[\frac{2\rho_{0}^{1/2}}{3B}\exp\left(\frac{B\sqrt{3}}{2}(t-t_{0})\right)\right].
\end{split}
\label{13}$$ It is necessary to mention that the double exponential behavior of this solution was previously found for a bulk viscous source in presence of an effective cosmological constant [@Barrow1]. This is a consequence of the inclusion of bulk viscosity in the Eckart theory, which leads to a viscous pressure $\Pi$ of the type $-3\xi H$, where $\xi$ is usually assumed to have the form $\xi=\xi_{0}\rho^{\delta}$. In this solution, the asymptotic behavior of the scale factor is $a\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow\infty}\infty$, and $a\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow-\infty}a_{0}\exp\left(-\frac{2\rho_{0}^{1/2}}{3B}\right)$. The Hubble parameter is given by $$H(t)=\frac{\rho_{0}^{1/2}}{\sqrt{3}}\exp\left[\frac{B\sqrt{3}}{2}(t-t_{0})\right],
\label{20}$$ where the above expression indicates that $H$ is a positive function, with asymptotic behavior described by $H\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow\infty}\infty$ and, $H\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow-\infty}0$.
In Fig.\[a-1\] we show a comparison for the scale factor of this model with $\Lambda$CDM, using the last Planck results [@Planck]. It is important to mention that when the parameter $B$ is close to $0$, the solution is reduced to $\Lambda$CDM for late times, as can be seen in Eq.(\[7\]). In Fig.\[atot\] we show the behavior of this solution at early times.
![\[a-1\]Plot of the scale factor as a function of $H_{0}t$ for $\Lambda$CDM and the first solution, using the last Planck result. For the first solution the initial condition $a_{0}=a_{\Lambda CDM}(3/H_{0})$ was used.](a-1){width="19pc"}
### Emergent and Little Rip solution
As it was discussed in [@Frampton] and briefly in Sect. II.A here, the solution given in Eq. (\[13\]) can be written under the form $a=e^{f(t)}$, where in order to avoid the Big Rip, the function $f(t)$ must satisfy the condition $\ddot{f}(t)>0$. Owing to the fact that the minimum value of $a(t)$ is $a_{min}=a_{0}\exp\left(-\dfrac{2\rho_{0}^{1/2}}{3B}\right)>0$, it is possible to use Eq. (\[adem\]) taking $s =0$. In such case, the function $g(t)$ is equal to the function $f(t)$, and it can be represented by $$\begin{array}{lc}
g(t)=&\dfrac{2\rho_{0}^{1/2}}{3B}\exp\left(\dfrac{B\sqrt{3}}{2}(t-t_{0})\right)\\
&+\ln (a_{0})-\dfrac{2\rho_{0}^{1/2}}{3B}.
\end{array}$$ Its second derivative, $\ddot{g}(t)$, reads $$\ddot{g}(t)=\dfrac{B\rho_{0}^{1/2}}{2}\exp\left(\dfrac{B\sqrt{3}}{2}(t-t_{0})\right),$$ from where it is concluded that $\ddot{g}>0$. Therefore, using Eq. (\[crit1\]), it turns out that this scale factor leads to an Emergent regular universe dominated by a Phantom fluid. In order to check this fact, it is possible to study the behavior of the EoS parameter $\omega(t)$. Using Eq. (\[13\]) in Eq. (\[omeli\]), we get that $\omega(t)$ is given by $$\omega (t)=-1-\dfrac{B\exp \left[ -\dfrac{1}{2}B\sqrt{3}(t-t_{0}) \right]}{\rho _{0}^{1/2}}.$$ The above equation shows that $\omega<-1$ for all finite time, and that the scale factor represents an Emergent universe, because $\omega(t)$ is a regular function. Thus, it always has a phantom behavior and also a de Sitter like expansion at infinite future time.
![\[w-1\]Plot of the parameter of state as a function of $H_{0}t$. Both curves are for $\rho_{0}=1$ and $t_{0}=0$. The values of the free parameters have been chosen, only to clearly expose the behavior of the parameter of state.](w-1){width="19pc"}
Second solution
---------------
In the introduction we already mentioned that Mukherjee *et al.* took the GEoS given by Eq.(\[2\]) and found for $A>-1$ and $B>0$ a scale factor of the form $$a(t)=a_{i}\left(\beta+e^{\alpha t}\right)^{\gamma},
\label{amuk}$$
where $a_{i}$ and $\beta$ are positive constants, $\alpha=B\sqrt{3}/2>0$, and $\gamma=2/3(A+1)$.
The Hubble parameter is given by Eq. (\[amuk\]), as $$H(t)=\frac{\alpha\gamma e^{\alpha t}}{\beta+e^{\alpha t}}.
\label{28}$$
From these solutions it is not difficult to see that $a\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow\infty}\infty$, $a\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow-\infty}a_{i}\beta^{\gamma}$, $H\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow-\infty}0$, and $H\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow\infty}\alpha \gamma$.
In Fig.\[a-2\] we show a comparison for the scale factor of this model with $\Lambda$CDM. When the parameter $A$ is close to $-1$ and $B$ is close to $0$, the solution is reduced to $\Lambda$CDM for late times, as can be seen in Eq.(\[2\]). In Fig.\[atot\] we show the behavior of this solution at early times
![\[a-2\]Plot of the scale factor as a function of $H_{0}t$ for $\Lambda$CDM and the second solution. For the second solution the initial condition $a_{0}=a_{LCDM}(3/H_{0})$ was used.](a-2){width="19pc"}
### Emergent and Little Rip solution
Owing to the fact that $H$ is always positive during the cosmic evolution, it is quite straightforward to see that, for $t\rightarrow\infty$, the solution behaves asymptotically as a de Sitter universe, with $H=\textup{const.}$, and that no future singularity exists. The minimum value of $a(t)$ is $a_{min}=a_{i}\beta ^{\gamma}$ and it is reached in the limit $t\rightarrow -\infty $. Therefore, we can use Eq. (\[adem\]), taking $s =0$, and obtain that the function $g(t)$ (which is now equal to the function $f(t)$), is given by $$g(t)=\ln(a_{i})+\gamma\ln(\beta +e^{\alpha t}),$$ while $\ddot{g}(t)$ reads $$\ddot{g}(t)=\dfrac{\gamma \beta \alpha^{2}e^{\alpha t}}{\left(\beta +e^{\alpha t}\right)^2}.$$ The above equation leads to the condition $\ddot{g}>0$. Therefore, using Eq. (\[crit1\]) one gets that this scale factor leads to an Emergent regular universe dominated by a phantom fluid. In order to check this, it is possible to study the behavior of the EoS parameter $\omega (t) $. Using Eq. (\[amuk\]) in Eq. (\[omeli\]), it turns out that $$\omega (t)= -1-\dfrac{2\beta e^{-\alpha t}}{3\gamma}.$$ The above equation shows that, in fact, $\omega <-1$ for all time and that the scale factor represents an Emergent universe, because $\omega (t)$ is a regular function.
![\[w-2\]Plot of the parameter of state as a function of $H_{0}t$. Both curves are for $\beta=1$. The values of the free parameters have been chosen, only to clearly expose the behavior of the parameter of state.](w-2){width="19pc"}
Third solution
--------------
A cosmological inhomogeneous GEoS of the form $$P(\rho)=-\rho-f(\rho)-\xi(H),
\label{31}$$ was introduced in [@Brevik] (for general review of viscous cosmology see [@Brevik1]). The function $f(\rho)$ is an arbitrary one and $\xi(H)$ is a general function of $H$ related to the effective pressure for a fluid with viscosity. In the simple case $\xi(H)=\xi_{0}=$const., and taking $f(\rho)=B\rho^{1/2}$, the GEoS becomes $$P(\rho)=-\rho-B\rho^{1/2}-\xi.
\label{eevis2}$$
For a flat universe, an exact solution was found in [@Brevik] in terms of the energy density as a function of time. Using this expression, it is now quite straightforward to see that an infinite time is needed to reach an infinite energy density, which correspond to a Little Rip under viscous conditions. As we are interested in exploring the behavior of this solution in more detail, we will integrate Friedmann’s equations in order to find the explicit form of the scale factor as a function of the cosmic time. Using the GEoS given in Eq. (\[eevis2\]) in the continuity equation, Eq. (\[ct\]), and integrating using the initial conditions, $a(t=t_{0})=a_{0}$ and $\rho(t=t_{0})=\rho_{0}$, we obtain $$\begin{split}
a(\rho)= & a_{0}\left(\frac{B\rho_{0}^{1/2}+\xi}{B\rho^{1/2}+\xi}
\right)^{\frac{2\xi}{3B^{2}}}\times \\
& \exp\left[\frac{2}{3B}\left(\rho^{1/2}-\rho_{0}^{1/2}\right)\right].
\end{split}
\label{33}$$
From Eqs. (\[eevis2\]), (\[Fr1\]) and (\[ct\]) with the same initial conditions as for the scale factor, we obtain the energy density as a function of the cosmic time, as $$\rho(t)^{1/2}=\frac{\exp\left[\frac{B\sqrt{3}}{2}(t-t_{0})\right]\eta-\xi}{B},
\label{34}$$ where $\eta=B\rho_{0}^{1/2}+\xi$, which allows us to introduce in Eq. (\[33\]) the scale factor as a function of time $$\begin{aligned}
a(t)= & \exp\left\{\frac{2}{3B^{2}}\left[\exp\left(\frac{B\sqrt{3}}{2}(t-t_{0})\right)\eta-\eta\right]\right\} \\
& \times a_{0}\exp\left[-\frac{\xi\sqrt{3}}{3B}(t-t_{0})\right],
\label{35}
\end{aligned}$$ and a Hubble parameter $$H(t)=\frac{\eta}{B\sqrt{3}}\exp\left[\frac{B\sqrt{3}}{2}(t-t_{0})\right]-\frac{\xi}{B\sqrt{3}}.
\label{36}$$ From Eqs. (\[35\]) and (\[36\]) it is possible to compute the asymptotic behavior of $a$ and $H$ as $a\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow\infty}\infty$, $a\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow-\infty}\infty$, $H\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow\infty}\infty$, and $H\xrightarrow{t\rightarrow-\infty}-\frac{\xi}{B\sqrt{3}}$.
In Fig.\[a-3\] we show a comparison for the scale factor of this model with $\Lambda$CDM. When the parameters $B$ and $\xi$ are close to $0$, the solution is reduced to $\Lambda$CDM for late, as can be seen in Eq.(\[eevis2\]). In Fig.\[atot\] we show the behavior of this solution at early times.
![\[a-3\]Plot of the scale factor as a function of $H_{0}t$ for $\Lambda$CDM and the third solution. For the third solution the initial condition $a_{0}=a_{LCDM}(3/H_{0})$ was used.](a-3){width="19pc"}
### Bouncing and Little Rip solution
As it was pointed out in [@Brevik], this solution leads to a Little Rip for late times, which is straightforward to see from Eqs. (\[35\]) and (\[36\]). In order to check our previous theorem, it is needed that the function $f(t)$ satisfies $\ddot{f}(t)>$, where $f(t)$ is given by $a=e^{f(t)}$. The minimum value of $a(t)$ is obtained from Eq. (\[35\]), as $a_{min}=a_{0}\left(\frac{\xi}{\eta}\right)^{-\frac{2\xi}{3B^{2}}}\exp\left(-\frac{2\rho_{0}^{1/2}}{3B}\right)$ when $t\rightarrow t_{b}=t_{0}+\frac{2}{B\sqrt{3}}\ln\left(\frac{\xi}{\eta}\right) $. Thus, we can use Eq.(\[adem\]) considering $s =0$. In this case, we obtain that the function $g(t)$ (here again $g=f$) is given by $$\begin{array}{ll}
g(t)=&\ln (a_{0})-\dfrac{\xi \sqrt{3}}{3B}(t-t_{0}) -\dfrac{2\eta}{3B^{2}} \\ \\
& + \dfrac{2\eta}{3B^{2}} \exp( \dfrac{B\sqrt{3}}{2}(t-t_{0})),
\end{array}$$ and $\ddot{g}(t)$ reads $$\ddot{g}(t)=\dfrac{\eta}{2}\exp \left[ \dfrac{B\sqrt{3}}{2}(t-t_{0})\right],$$ where from it is clear that $\ddot{g}>0$. Therefore, using Eq. (\[crit1\]) the result is that this scale factor leads to a bouncing regular universe dominated by a phantom fluid. As this scale factor represents a bouncing universe with an EoS parameter $\omega<-1$, it is possible to use the above criterion for a bouncing universe, what exhibits that this effective EoS parameter $\omega$ reaches the value of $-\infty $ at the time of bounce $t=t_{b}$. Indeed, using Eq. (\[35\]) in Eq. (\[omeli\]), the effective $\omega(t)$ is obtained as $$\omega(t)=-1-\dfrac{B^{2}\exp\left[\dfrac{B\sqrt{3}}{2}(t-t_{0})
\right]}{\left(\eta\exp\left[\dfrac{B\sqrt{3}}{2}(t-t_{0})\right]-\xi\right)^{2}},$$ where it is shown that $\omega <-1$ for all time and that the scale factor represents a bouncing universe, owing to the fact that $\omega (t_{b})=-\infty$.
![Plot of the parameter of state as a function of $H_{0}t$. Both curves are for $\rho_{0}=1$ and $t_{0}=0$. The values of the free parameters have been chosen, only to clearly expose the behavior of the parameter of state.[]{data-label="w-3"}](w-3){width="19pc"}
Fourth solution
---------------
A scale factor with exponential behavior was studied in [@Myrzakulov], with the exact form $$a(t)=a_{0}e^{\alpha (t-t_{0})^{2n}},
\label{a1Myr}$$
and Hubble parameter $$H(t)=2n\alpha(t-t_{0})^{2n-1}.
\label{H4}$$ Here $a_{0}$ and $\alpha $ are positive constants, and $n$ a non-zero natural number, which affects the features of the bouncing. When $n<1/2$ or $n$ is a positive non-natural number, the bounce is changed into a finite-time singularity, occurring at $t = t_{0}$, or into an Emergent universe, with $a=0$ for $t\rightarrow -\infty $.
In Fig.\[a-4\] we show a comparison for the scale factor of this model with $\Lambda$CDM. When the parameter $\alpha$ is close to $H_{0}$ and $n$ is close to $0.5$, the solution is reduced to $\Lambda$CDM for late times, as can be seen in Eq.(\[H4\]). In Fig.\[atot\] we show the behavior of this solution at early times.
![\[a-4\]Plot of the scale factor as a function of $H_{0}t$ for $\Lambda$CDM and the fourth solution. For the fourth solution the initial condition $a_{0}=a_{LCDM}(3/H_{0})$ was used.](a-4){width="19pc"}
### Bouncing and Little Rip solution
Eq. (\[a1Myr\]) exhibits a scale factor $a(t)$ that corresponds to a Little Rip universe for late times, when $n$ is a positive natural number. To check this behavior, just as it was done before, it is necessary that the function $f(t)$ fulfills the condition $\ddot{f}(t)>0$, where $f(t)$ is given by the relation $a=e^{f(t)}$. The time of bounce is reached at $t=t_{b}=t_{0}$, with a scale factor taking the value of $a(t_{0})=a_{b}=a_{0}$. With this scale factor, it is possible to study when the EoS parameter satisfies $\omega <-1$, and its behavior in the vicinity of the bounce point $t_{0}$. Since the constant $a_{0}>0$, it is possible to represent the scale factor (\[a1Myr\]) by Eq. (\[adem\]) with $s=0$. In this case, one gets that the function $g$ (here $g=f$) is given by $$g(t)=\ln{(a_{0})}+\alpha(t-t_{0})^{2n}, \quad n\in \mathbb{N}.$$
The regularity of $g$ and its derivatives comes from the fact that $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Now, the function $\ddot{g}(t)$ reads $$\ddot{g}(t)=\alpha 2n(2n-1)(t-t_{0})^{2(n-1)}, \quad n\in \mathbb{N}.$$ The above equation reveals that $\ddot{g}>0\quad\forall n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $t\in\mathbb{R}$. Therefore, the EoS parameter $\omega$ satisfies $\omega<-1$. Indeed, using Eq. (\[a1Myr\]) in Eq. (\[omeli\]), we conclude that $$\omega (t)=-1-\dfrac{(2n-1)}{3n\alpha (t-t_{0})^{2n}}.$$ This equation corresponds to $\omega<-1$ for all times, and the scale factor represents a bouncing universe, due to the fact that $\omega =-\infty $ at $t=t_{b}=t_{0}$.
![\[w-4\]Plot of the parameter of state as a function of $H_{0}t$. Both curves are for $t_{0}=0$. The values of the free parameters have been chosen, only to clearly expose the behavior of the parameter of state.](w-4){width="19pc"}
Fifth solution
--------------
A power-law behavior for the scale factor was also studied in [@Myrzakulov], yielding in this case the exact form $$a(t)=a_{0}+\alpha(t-t_{0})^{2n},
\label{a2Myr}$$
![\[a-5\]Plot of the scale factor as a function of $H_{0}t$ for $\Lambda$CDM and the fifth solution. For the fifth solution the initial condition $a_{0}=a_{LCDM}(3/H_{0})$ was used.](a-5){width="19pc"}
and a Hubble parameter $$H(t)=\dfrac{2n\alpha(t-t_{0})^{2n-1}}{a_{0}+\alpha(t-t_{0})^{2n}},$$ where $a_{0}$ and $\alpha $ are positive constants, and $n$ is a positive natural number.
In Fig.\[a-5\] we show a comparison for the scale factor of this model with $\Lambda$CDM. In this case the scale factor of the model cannot be matched with $\Lambda$CDM at late late times because this solution is a polynomial function, while in $\Lambda$CDM model the scale factor at late times is an exponential function. In Fig.\[atot\] we show the behavior of this solution at early times.
### Bouncing and Little Rip solution
Eq. (\[a2Myr\]) shows a scale factor $a(t)$ that corresponds to a bouncing regular universe. Now, we are going to check the Little Rip behavior from the condition $\ddot{f}(t)>0$. The time of bounce is reached at $t=t_{b}=t_{0}$, with a scale factor taking the value of $a(t_{0})=a_{b}=a_{0}$. With this scale factor, it is possible to study when $\omega <-1$ and the behavior of $\omega $ in the vicinity of the bounce point $t_{0}$. As $a_{0}>0$, it is possible to represent the scale factor (\[a2Myr\]) by Eq. (\[adem\]) with $s=0$. Thus, the function $g$ (again $g=f$) is obtained as $$g(t)= \ln\left(a_{0}+\alpha(t-t_{0})^{2n}\right),$$ and the function $\ddot{g}(t)$ can also be calculated for the above equation, and has the following form
![\[w-5\]Plot of the parameter of state as a function of $H_{0}t$. Both curves are for $a_{0}=1$ and $t_{0}=0$. The values of the free parameters have been chosen, only to clearly expose the behavior of the parameter of state.](w-5){width="19pc"}
$$\ddot{g}(t)=\dfrac{2\alpha(t-t_{0})^{2n-1}[a_{0}(2n-1)-
\alpha(t-t_{0})^{2n}]}{\left[a_{0}+\alpha(t-t_{0})^{2n}\right]^{2}}.$$
In this case, the sign of the function $\ddot{g}$ depends of the value of $a_{0}$. This is due to the fact that the domain where $\omega<-1$ depends on the value of $a_{0}$. Using the above equation, one gets that $\ddot{f}(t)>0$ for $t\in ( t_{0}-t_{s},t_{0}+t_{s})$, with $t_{s}=\left[ (2n-1)a_{0}/\alpha\right]^{1/2n}$. Therefore, $\omega<-1$ if $t\in ( t_{0}-t_{s},t_{0}+t_{s})$. It is possible to check this result by using Eq. (\[omeli\]) in order to obtain $\omega(t)$, with the result $$\omega(t)=-1-\dfrac{a_{0}(2n-1)-\alpha(t-t_{0})^{2n}}{3\alpha n(t-t_{0})^{2n}}.$$ We see that the EoS parameter $\omega $ at the time of bounce is $\omega(t_{0})=-\infty$. Moreover, $\omega<-1$ for $t\in (t_{0}-t_{s},t_{0}+t_{s})$, as is clear from the previous expressions.
![\[atot\]Plot of the scale factors of these five models. The value of the free parameters has been chosen only to clearly expose the behavior of these scale factors.](atot){width="19pc"}
Constraining the models to supernova IA data
============================================
Now we shall constraint the respective free parameters of the first three Little Rip models studied in the above section with the observational supernova Ia (SNe Ia) data. We do not constrain the fourth and fifth solutions, because these solutions are set by hand and do not have any relevant physics behing, like an equation of state that originates them. These solutions are being considered in this paper only as explicit proofs of the linking between the two domains, as discovered here. To impose the constraint, we use here the *Joint Light curve Analysis* (JLA) sample (see [@Betoule]), which contains 740 SNe up to redshift $z\backsimeq 1.3$, coming from nine different surveys.
The theoretical distance modulus of SNe is defined as $$\mu_{th}\left(z,\vec{p}\right)=5\log_{10}{\left[\frac{d_{L}\left(z,\vec{p}\right)}{Mpc}\right]}+25, \label{mutheo}$$ where the vector $\vec{p}$ collects the parameters, i.e., it is built with the free parameters of each theoretical model, and $d_{L}$ is the luminosity distance, given by $$d_{L}\left(z,\vec{p}\right)=\frac{c\left(1+z\right)}{H_{0}}\int_{0}^{z}{\dfrac{dz'}{E\left(z',\vec{p}\right)}}, \label{lumdistance}$$ where $c$ is the speed of light given in units of $km/s$, $H_{0}$ is the current Hubble parameter for which we consider the fixed fiducial value of $70[km\: s^{-1}/Mpc]$ and $E\left(z,\vec{p}\right)$ is defined by $$H\left(z,\vec{p}\right)=H_{0}E\left(z,\vec{p}\right). \label{defofE}$$
On the other hand, in the JLA sample the distance estimator used assumes that supernovae with identical color, shape and galactic environment have on average the same intrinsic luminosity for all redshift. This hypothesis is quantified by a linear model as $$\mu=m_{b}^{*}-\left(M_{B}-\alpha\times X_{1}+\beta\times C\right), \label{muobserv}$$ where $m_{b}^{*}$ correspond to the observed peak magnitude in rest frame $B$ band, $X_{1}$ is the stretch parameter, $C$ is the color parameter and $M_{B}$, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are nuisance parameters in the distance estimate. So, these last three parameters have to be computed and marginalized simultaneously with the free parameters present in the vector $\vec{p}$.
To compute the best-fit parameters we use the Affine Invariant Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method [@Goodman], implemented in the pure-Phyton code *emcee* [@Foreman] with a likelihood given by the following Gaussian distribution $$\mathcal{L}=\mathcal{N}e^{-\chi^{2}/2}, \label{likelihood}$$ where $\mathcal{N}$ is a normalization constant. Following [@Betoule], the distance estimate of Eq.(\[muobserv\]) can be written in matrix notation, by forming a matrix $\mathbf{A}$ such that $$\bm\mu=\mathbf{A}\bm\eta-\mathbf{M_{B}}, \label{mumatrix}$$ where $$\bm\eta=\left(\left(m_{b,1}^{*}, X_{1,1}, C_{1}\right),\ldots ,\left(m_{b,n}^{*}, X_{1,n}, C_{n}\right) \right), \label{etavector}$$ $$\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{A_{0}}+\alpha\mathbf{A_{1}}-\beta\mathbf{A_{2}}, \; \textup{with} \; \left(\mathbf{A_{k}}\right)_{i,j}=\delta_{3,j+k}, \label{Amatrix}$$ are the $n$-dimensional vector and the $n\times n$ matrix respectively, with $n=740$ the number of SNe samples. Also, the JLA sample provides a covariance matrix $\mathbf{C}$, which encodes the statistical and systematic uncertainties. Hence, the $\chi^{2}$ function of Eq.(\[likelihood\]) has the form $$\chi^{2}=\left(\bm\mu\left(\vec{p}_{J}\right)-\bm\mu_{th}\left(z,\vec{p}\right)\right)^{\dagger}\mathbf{C}^{-1}\left(\bm\mu\left(\vec{p}_{J}\right)-\bm\mu_{th}\left(z,\vec{p}\right)\right), \label{defofchi}$$ where $\vec{p}_{J}=\left(M_{B},\alpha,\beta\right)$. This is the expression for $\chi^{2}$ that we will use in our MCMC analyses, a function that will be minimized in order to compute the best-fit values and confidence intervals. In this procedure, we use for the vector parameters $\vec{p}_{J}$ the following priors: $-20<M_{b}<-18$, $0<\alpha<1$ and $0<\beta<5$.
It is necessary to emphasize that the corresponding scale factor of each solution is only valid when the matter density can be neglect in comparison to the dark energy one. So, for the fit we use Eqs.(\[Fr1\]) and (\[defofE\]), adding the usual matter component, thus $$E(z,\vec{p})=\sqrt{\frac{\rho_{m}}{3H_{0}^{2}}+\frac{\rho_{DE}}{3H_{0}^{2}}}, \label{Eforfit}$$ where $\rho_{m}/3H_{0}^{2}$ is the matter component, given by the expression $$\frac{\rho_{m}}{3H_{0}^{2}}=\Omega_{m}\left(1+z\right)^{3}, \label{rhomatter}$$ and $\rho_{DE}/3H_{0}^{2}$ is the dark energy component, which depends of each model, as follows:
**i)** Considering the relation between the scale factor $a$ and the redshift $z$, given by the expression $a=\left(1+z\right)^{-1}$, then the conservation equation (\[ct\]) can be written as $$\dfrac{d\rho}{dz}-\frac{3}{\left(1+z\right)}\left(\rho+P\right)=0. \label{ctredshift}$$
**ii)** For the first solution, we consider the equation of state (\[7\]) in order to solve the first-order differential equation (\[ctredshift\]) with the initial condition $\rho(z=0)=\rho_{0}$, obtaining the following expression $$\rho(z)=\left[\rho_{0}^{1/2}-\frac{3B}{2}\ln{\left(1+z\right)} \right]^{2}. \label{rhofirst}$$ Thus, if we consider that $\rho(z)=\rho_{DE}(z)$, then the dark energy component of Eq.(\[Eforfit\]) is given by $$\frac{\rho_{DE}(z)}{3H_{0}^{2}}=\left[\left(1-\Omega_{m}\right)^{1/2}-\hat{B}\ln{\left(1+z\right)} \right]^{2}, \label{rhoDEfirst}$$ where we have introduced the dimensionless constants $$\hat{B}=\frac{\sqrt{3}B}{2H_{0}} \;\; \textup{and} \;\; \Omega_{DE}=\frac{\rho_{0}}{3H_{0}^{2}}. \label{constantfirst}$$ In Eq(\[rhoDEfirst\]) the constraint $\Omega_{m}+\Omega_{DE}=1$ was used, therefore the vector parameters of this model is $\vec{p}=\left(\Omega_{m},\hat{B}\right)$ for which we use the priors: $0<\Omega_{m}<1$ and $0<\hat{B}<1$.
**iii)** For the second solution, the expression for the energy density, using the equation of state (\[2\]) with $A>-1$ and $B>0$, is given by $$\begin{split}
& \rho(z)=\frac{1}{\left(1+A\right)^{2}}\times \\
& \left\{\left[\left(1+A\right)\rho_{0}^{1/2}-B\right]\left(1+z\right)^{3(1+A)/2}+B\right\}^{2}. \label{rhosecond}
\end{split}$$ Thus, the dark energy component of Eq.(\[Eforfit\]) reads $$\begin{split}
& \frac{\rho_{DE}(z)}{3H_{0}^{2}}=\frac{1}{\left(1+A\right)^{2}}\times \\
& \left\{\left[\left(1+A\right)\left(1-\Omega_{m}\right)^{1/2}-\hat{B}\right]\left(1+z\right)^{3(1+A)/2}+\hat{B}\right\}^{2}, \label{rhoDEsecond}
\end{split}$$ where we define the dimensionless constants (observe that $A$ is already dimensionless) $$\hat{B}=\frac{B}{\sqrt{3}H_{0}} \;\; \textup{and} \;\; \Omega_{DE}=\frac{\rho_{0}}{3H_{0}^{2}}. \label{constantsecond}$$ Again, the constraint $\Omega_{m}+\Omega_{DE}=1$ was used, therefore the vector parameters of this model are $\vec{p}=\left(\Omega_{m},A,\hat{B}\right)$ for which we used the priors: $0<\Omega_{m}<1$, $-1<A<1$ and $0<\hat{B}<1$.
**iv)** For the third solution, it is not possible to obtain an analytic expression for the energy density as a function of the redshift, because Eq.(\[33\]) is not an injective function. Therefore, in this case, and for simplicity, we have used Eqs. (\[34\]) and (\[35\]) in order to obtain numerically $\rho$ as a function of $a$ and, consequently, as a function of $z$. As initial condition, we used $t_{0}=0$, $a(t=0)=1$, and we have defined the following dimensionless constants $$\hat{B}=\frac{\sqrt{3}B}{H_{0}}, \;\; \hat{\xi}=\frac{\xi}{H_{0}^{2}} \;\; \textup{and} \;\; \Omega_{DE}=\frac{\rho_{0}}{3H_{0}^{2}}. \label{constantthird}$$ Again, the constraint $\Omega_{m}+\Omega_{DE}=1$ was employed, so that the vector with the parameters of this model reads $\vec{p}=\left(\Omega_{m},\hat{B},\hat{\xi}\right)$, for which we used the priors: $0<\Omega_{m}<1$, $0<\hat{B}<1$ and $0<\hat{\xi}<1$. It is important to mention that, for some values of $\Omega_{m}$, $\hat{B}$ and $\hat{\xi}$, the bouncing could occur near $z=0$, i. e. at present time. Therefore, we need to impose the physical requirement that the bounce occurs for, at least, $z>1.4$. This last condition actually eliminates the double value behavior of the solution at the redshift coming from the JLA sample.
Results and discussion
======================
----------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------ --------- ---------
$\chi^{2}_{min}$ AIC BIC
$\Lambda$CDM $0.292_{-0.032}^{+0.035}$ $-19.076_{-0.021}^{+0.022}$ $0.137_{-0.006}^{+0.006}$ $3.108_{-0.081}^{+0.083}$ $692.1$ $700.1$ $718.5$
First solution $0.347_{-0.049}^{+0.062}$ $0.18_{-0.13}^{+0.23}$ $-19.082_{-0.022}^{+0.021}$ $0.137_{-0.007}^{+0.007}$ $3.11_{-0.08}^{+0.08}$ $693.1$ $703.1$ $726.1$
Second solution $0.21_{-0.13}^{+0.13}$ $-0.307_{-0.365}^{+0.362}$ $0.503_{-0.326}^{+0.334}$ $-19.068_{-0.023}^{+0.022}$ $0.136_{-0.006}^{+0.006}$ $3.104_{-0.078}^{+0.081}$ $692.1$ $704.1$ $731.7$
Third solution $0.372_{-0.052}^{+0.047}$ $0.249_{-0.178}^{+0.317}$ $0.165_{-0.119}^{+0.203}$ $-19.083_{-0.022}^{+0.022}$ $0.137_{-0.006}^{+0.006}$ $3.112_{-0.077}^{+0.077}$ $693.8$ $705.8$ $733.4$
----------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------ --------- ---------
All our solutions will be compared with the $\Lambda$CDM model, whose respective $E(z,\vec{p})$ is given by $$E_{\Lambda CDM}(z,\vec{p})=\sqrt{\Omega_{m}\left(1+z\right)^{3}+\Omega_{\Lambda}}, \label{ELambdaCDM}$$ where $\Omega_{\Lambda}=1-\Omega_{m}$, i.e. the vector of parameters of this model is again given by $\vec{p}=(\Omega_{m})$. In order to compare the goodness of the fits, we will use the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), which is defined as $$AIC=2k-2\ln{\left(\mathcal{L}_{max}\right)}, \label{AIC}$$ where $\mathcal{L}_{max}$ is the maximum value of the likelihood function, calculated for the best fit parameters, $n$ is again the number of SNe sample and $k$ the number of free parameters of the model. In addition, we also calculate the Bayesian Criterion Information, defined as $$BIC= k\ln{\left(n\right)}-2\ln{\left(\mathcal{L}_{max}\right)}. \label{BIC}$$ Both the AIC and BIC criteria try to solve the problem of maximizing the likelihood function by adding free parameters, resulting in overfitting. To resolve this problem both criteria introduce a penalization that depends on the total number of free parameters of our model, which is higher in the BIC case that in the AIC case, because the penalization in the first one depends on the natural logarithm of the total observational data. The model favored by observations, as compared to the other, corresponds to the one with the smallest value of AIC/BIC. Hence, we focused our analysis on the BIC criterion, where in general a difference of $2-6$ in BIC between the two models is considered as an evidence against the model with the higher BIC, a difference of $6-10$ in BIC is already a strong evidence, and a difference $>10$ in BIC is definitely a very strong evidence.
The best fit values for each model as well as the goodness of fit criterion are show in Table \[Table I\]. In Figs. \[trianglelcdm\]-\[triangle3\] we depict the joint credible regions of the $\Lambda$CDM model and the first three Little Rip solutions studied here, for combinations of their respective vectors of parameters $\vec{p}$ and $\vec{p}_{J}$.
As we can see in Table \[Table I\], the $\Lambda$CDM model and the three solutions that we have tested exhibit a very similar goodness of fit, as given by the value of $\chi_{min}^{2}$. Even more, the second solution has exactly the same value of $\chi_{min}^{2}$ than the $\Lambda$CDM model, and the first and second solution differ only in $1$ and $1.7$, respectively, in the value of $\chi_{min}^{2}$, in relation with the $\Lambda$CDM model. But, the AIC criterion does show us that, statistically, the $\Lambda$CDM model is the best one, because it has the minimum value for $AIC$. Even more, the difference in the AIC between the $\Lambda$CDM and the second solution is $4$, i. e., these two models fit well the supernovae data but the first one is in fact better than the second. The BIC criterion leads to this conclusion more clearly. Again, the lowest value of BIC correspond to the $\Lambda$CDM model, followed by the first solution, whose value of BIC differs from the one for $\Lambda$CDM in $7.6$. Thus, in this case we have strong evidence against the first solution. For the second and third solutions, we have a very strong evidence against them.
The important point here is that the three solutions tested above have higher values in the AIC/BIC tests than the $\Lambda$CDM one, because they have more free parameters. But, these extra free parameters are added only in order to obtain a phantom dark energy and not for improving the fit with the supernova data. Thus, we conclude that these three models, which represent a phantom dark energy with a Little Rip behavior at late time and regular behavior at early time, do fit well the supernova data. Even more, in Fig.(\[Dmu\]) we see that these three models just differ very slightly from the $\Lambda$CDM model, albeit in essence they are actually very different.
Finally, if we focuss on the values of $\Omega_{m}$ for the first and third solutions, we observe that these values remain in the acceptance region for the value $\Omega_{m}=0.315\pm 0.007$ given by the latest Planck [@Planck] survey data; but they can reach values of $0.4$ and more. A possible explanation of this fact is that the free parameters added to the cosmological constant (in these two cases the EoS is a deviation to the phantom region of the cosmological constant) allow to obtain an accelerated universe at present time with a lower value of the dark energy component (see, for example, [@Gonzalez]).
![\[Dmu\]Plot of the distance modulus for $\Lambda$CDM model subtracted from the distance modulus for the first solution (line), second solution (dashed) and the third solution (dashed-dotted). By definition the $\Lambda$CDM model is represented by $\Delta\mu =0$.](Dmu){width="20pc"}
Conclusions and final remarks
=============================
We have shown in this paper that some previously considered cosmological solutions for a flat universe filled with a GEoS with a phantom behavior can actually yield regular solutions at late times, avoiding Big Rip singularities and fitting well the supernova data, what makes of them viable models at late times. Additionally, they can also give rise to early time regular solutions, like emergent or bouncing universes, without an initial singularity. In other words, these solutions are regular ones for all time, except at the (unreachable) asymptotic limit $t\rightarrow\infty$, provided some very reasonable conditions are fulfilled.
We have also proved that, for the bouncing models of flat FLRW metric in a phantom regime, the EoS parameter $\omega$ associated to the EoS converges to minus infinity at the time of the bounce, namely that $\omega\left(t_{b}\right)=-\infty$. This means that, although the bouncing universes are regular solutions for the flat FLRW universe, their EoS parameter cannot be defined at the time of bounce as a function of the cosmological time.
The condition to avoid Big Rip solutions was found in [@Frampton]. We have here extended this criteria in order to find the conditions that allow to avoid the initial singularity and the late time singularity of Big Rip type simultaneously. This is a most remarkable result. We have shown that in a flat space dominated by a fluid given by a GEoS with an EoS parameter $\omega<-1$ in the FLRW metric, only the Bouncing and Emergent universes are free from singularities, and that all solutions with a scale factor that can be written in the form $e^{g(t)}+s$ will represent Regular and Little Rip Universes if and only if $g(t)$ satisfies the conditions (\[crit1\]) for $s=0$ and (\[crit2\]) for $s>0$.
Using those conditions, we have investigated five different solutions, which had been previously discussed in the literature, but always in the context of either their late-time or early-time behavior only, never in both domains consistently. The link that can be established, by means of the above conditions, between the regular solutions occurring at early and late times, respectively, has proven to be very powerful in extending the procedure to get regular solutions valid in both regions, simultaneously. The final result has been, in each case, to produce new cosmological solutions that are non-singular for all finite time, a considerable extension of the family of regular solutions that had been found previously in the literature.
It is worth mentioning that the phantom behavior of all the solutions considered is a key feature of the method; indeed, this allows to establish the link found here. The result, from the physical point of view, is that we now have a well grounded theoretical model, which explains the phantom behavior consistently, and which opens the possibility for a solid description of the early and late time stages of the universe in a consistent way, without singularities. If the results of the latest astronomical surveys, which point towards a phantom cosmology, are confirmed by more precise observations, the importance of the theoretical models here obtained might be paramount.
This work was supported by CONICYT through Grant FONDECYT N$^{\circ}$Y 1110840 (N.C.) and CONICYT-PCHA/Doctorado Nacional/2016-21160331 (E.G.). EE and SDO are partially supported by MINECO (Spain), Project FIS2016-76363-P, by AGAUR (Generalitat de Catalunya), Project 2017SGR247, and by the CPAN Consolider Ingenio Project. EE was partially supported by the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics at Kyoto University, where part of this work was done during the workshop YITP-T-17-02 “Gravity and Cosmology 2018”. E. G. and N. C. acknowledge Dr. Arturo Avelino from Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, for his help in understanding the supernova data fit.
Proof of non-singularity for $\omega <-1/3$
===========================================
In this Appendix we prove that in a flat space dominated by a fluid, with EoS parameter $\omega <-1/3$, in the FLRW metric, the only models without singularities are the Bouncing and the Emergent ones.
The definition of the EoS parameter $\omega $ in Eq. (\[parestado\]) is used not to discard the case $P(t_{b})=\rho(t_{b})=0$. Furthermore, $\omega$ is required to be defined for all time, except perhaps at a point where it tends to $-\infty $. In this way, it is not allowed that $\rho$ can be zero in a whole interval, even if $P$ is also zero. The next example illustrates a function $\omega(t)$ that is not well defined for all $t$. Consider an emergent solution with smooth functions $\rho$, $P$ and $a$, obtained from a scale factor as an Ansatz. The behavior of the scale factor is constant for $t\leq 0$ and exponential for $t>0$, with $\omega<-1$ for $t>0$. This behavior is represented in Fig. \[Ej\].a.
As we can see, this model is an emergent universe of the Little Rip type, where $a$, $\rho$ and $P$ are of class $C^{\infty}$ and the scale factor is a convex function, thus $\ddot{a}\geq 0$. In this case, $\omega<-1$ for all $t>0$, but it is not defined for values $t\leq 0$, since $P(t)=\rho(t)=0$ for $t\leq 0$. Thus, $\rho $ cannot be $0$ in a whole interval (and therefore neither $\dot{a}$). Furthermore, if we demand that $\rho\in C^{\infty }$, then the set of points $T$ such that $\rho(t)=0$ must be numerable and the adherence of any subset $T_{i}$ of this cannot be equal to the interval $[x,y]$, for any $x,y\in \mathbb{R}$. Otherwise, there would be intervals in which the function $\rho$ would jump from the points where it is nonzero to zero discontinuously. Therefore, at most a numerable amount of points $t_{n}$ may be considered such that $\rho (t_{n})=0$.
The next is an example that yields the existence of functions $\rho(t)$ with a numerable infinite quantity of points where $\rho(t)=0$, with $\omega$ well defined at all points, and with the function $\rho \in C^{\infty}$. This is a valid solution of the Friedmann equations and one that avoids any kind of singularity, yielding an $\omega$ well defined for all time, but one that does not satisfy the condition $\omega<-1/3$. Consider the energy density as an increasing oscillating function for $t>0$ and with exponential behavior for $t<0$, with $\rho (0)=0$. This behavior is represented in Fig. \[Ej\].b. Without further difficulties, it is possible to see that, then, $\omega $ is well defined at all points, and that $\omega<-1/3$ in some piece of each cycle.
After the above preamble, let us continue with the proof. Suppose $\omega<-\frac{1}{3}$, and that the set of points $T$ is such that $\rho(t)=0$ is numerable, and the adherence of any subset $T_{i}$ of $T$ is not equal to the interval $[x,y]$ for any $x,y\in \mathbb{R}$. Then, there exits at most one point $t$ such that $\rho(t)=0$. Indeed, suppose there would be a pair of points $t_{a}<t_{b}$ with $\rho(t_{a})=\rho(t_{b})=0$. By hypothesis, it is possible to consider that in the interval $I=(t_{a},t_{b})$ there is no other point fulfilling the condition $\rho(t)=0$. As $\rho$ is defined to be non-negative ($\rho=3H^{2}$) and $\omega <-\frac{1}{3}$, then $\ddot{a}(t)>0$, for any point in $I$, since $\rho+3P=\rho(1+3\omega )<0$. Then, the function $\dot{a}$ is strictly increasing in $I$. On the other hand, $\rho(t_{a})=0$ so that $\dot{a}(t_{a})=0$. Thus, since $\dot{a}$ is strictly increasing, it turns out that $\dot{a}(t_{a})<\dot{a}(t_{b})$, therefore $\dot{a}(t_{b})>0$, and then $\rho (t_{b})>0$. But this is a contradiction, because it is supposed that $\rho (t_{b})=0$. As a consequence, not more than one point $t$ can exist such that $\rho (t)=0$.
Finally, if $\rho$ is equal to $0$ at most at one point, then $H$ is also equal to $0$ at most in that point, and therefore, $\dot{a}$ too. This last fact and the convexity of $a$ imply that the only valid models of the Friedmann equation that avoid the initial singularity are the Bouncing and Emergent models.
Proof of the criterion for Bouncing universes
=============================================
In this Appendix we will prove a property that is used in Sect. II.C.
If $f$ is an analytic function at $t_{0}$ such that $f(t_{0})=\dot{f}(t_{0})=0$, then $\lim _{t\rightarrow t_{0}} \left|\dfrac{\dot{f}(t)}{f(t)}\right|= \infty $. Indeed, without loss of generality, it is possible to consider $t_{0}=0$, since it is enough to define $g(t)=f(t+t_{0})$. Now, as $f$ and $\dot{f}$ are analytic functions, it is possible to represent them in terms of their Maclaurin series, namely $$\begin{array}{l}
f(t)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\alpha _{n}t^{n},\\ \\
\dot{f}(t)=\sum _{n=0}^{\infty}\alpha _{n+1}(n+1)t^{n}.
\end{array}$$ Let $m\in\mathbb{N}$ be the first integer such that $\alpha_{m}\neq 0$. By assumption, $f(0)=\dot{f}(0)=0$, therefore $m\geq 2$. Then the Maclaurin series of $f$ and $\dot{f}$ are represented by $$\begin{array}{l}
f(t)=t^{m}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\alpha _{n+m}t^{n},\\ \\
\dot{f}(t)=t^{m-1}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty}\alpha _{m+n}(m+n)t^{n},
\end{array}$$ respectively. Finally, applying the limit to $\left|\frac{\dot{f}}{f}\right|$, we reach the announced conclusion, namely that
$$\lim _{t\rightarrow 0}\left|\dfrac{\dot{f}(t)}{f(t)}\right|=\lim _{t\rightarrow 0} \left|\dfrac{t^{m-1}\sum _{n=0}^{\infty}\alpha _{m+n}(m+n)t^{n}}{t^{m}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty }\alpha _{n+m}t^{n}}\right|= \lim _{t\rightarrow 0} \dfrac{1}{|t|}\dfrac{m|\alpha _{m}|}{|\alpha_{m}|}=\lim _{t\rightarrow 0} \dfrac{m}{|t|}=\infty.$$
[999]{} M. Khurshudyan, Symmetry **8**, 110 (2016). V. Sahni, Lect. Notes Phys. **653**, 141 (2004). K. Bamba, S. Capozziello, S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Astrophys. Space Sci. **342**, 155 (2012). N. Aghanim *et al.* \[Planck Collaboration\], “Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters”, arXiv:1807.06209 \[astro-ph.CO\] (2018). G. Hinshaw *et al.* (WMAP Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Suppl. **208**, 19 (2013). A. Rest *et al.*, Astrophys. J. **795**, 44 (2014). P. Singh, M. Sami and N. Dadhich, Phys. Rev. D **68**, 023522 (2003). S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B **562**, 147 (2003). S. Nesseris and L. Perivolaropoulos, JCAP **0701**, 018 (2007). H. K. Jassal, J. S. Bagla and T. Padmanabhan, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. **405**, 2639 (2010). J. D. Barrow, Phys. Lett. B **235**, 40 (1990). S. Mukherjee, B. C. Paul, N. K. Dadhich, S. D. Maharaj and A. Beesham, Class. Quantum Grav. **23**, 6927 (2006). S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D **71**, 063004 (2005); S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D **72**, 023003 (2005); A. Astashenok, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and A. Yurov, Phys. lett. B **709**, 396 (2012). H. Stefancic, Phys. Rev. D **71**, 084024 (2005). B. C. Paul, P. Thakur and S. Ghose, Mont. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**407**]{}, 415 (2010). B. C. Paul, P. Thakur and S. Ghose, Mont. Not. R. Astron. Soc. [**413**]{}, 686 (2011). S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. **04**, 115 (2007). P. H. Frampton, K. J. Ludwick and R. J. Scherrer, Phys. Rev. D **84**, 063003 (2011); P. H. Frampton, K. J. Ludwick, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and R. J. Scherrer, Phys. Lett. B **708**, 204 (2012). F. Contreras, N. Cruz and E. González, J. Phys, Conf. Ser. **720**, no.1. 012014 (2016). N. Suzuki, *et. al.* (The Supernova Cosmology Project), APJ **746**, 85 (2012) J. D. Barrow, Nucl. Phys. B **310**, 743 (1988). S. Capozziello, V. F. Cardone, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D **73**, 043512 (2006); I. Brevik, E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri and S.D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D **84**, 103508 (2011). I. Brevik, $\slashed{O}$. Gr$\slashed{o}$n, J. de Haro, S. D. Odintsov and E. N. saridakis, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D **26**, 1730024 (2017). R. Myrzakulov and L. Sebastiani, Astrophys. Space Sci. **352**, 281 (2014). M. Betoule *et al.*, Astron. Astrophys. **58**, A22 (2014). J. Goodman and J. Weare, Communications in Applied Mathematics and Computational Science **5**, no.1. 65 (2010). D. Foreman-Mackey, D. Hogg, D. Lang and J. Goodman, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific **125**, No.925. 306 (2013). N. Cruz, E. González, S. Lepe and D. Saez-Chillon Gomez, arXiv:1807.10729\[gr-qc\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prove weak existence of Euler equation (or Navier-Stokes equation) perturbed by a multiplicative noise on bounded domains of $\mathbb R^2$ with Dirichlet boundary conditions and with periodic boundary conditions. Solutions are $H^1$ regular. The equations are of transport type.'
address: '[*Ana Bela Cruzeiro:*]{} [GFMUL and Dep. Matemática IST, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal ]{}[*Email:* ]{}[[email protected]]{} $\mbox{ }$.'
author:
- Ana Bela Cruzeiro
- Iván Torrecilla
title: |
On a 2D stochastic Euler equation of transport type:\
existence and geometric formulation
---
Introduction
============
We consider a stochastic partial differential equation which can be regarded as a random perturbation of the Euler as well as the Navier-Stokes equation on a two-dimensional bounded domain where we consider Dirichlet boundary conditions (or periodic boundary conditions).
The noise is chosen in a natural way: the equations model the transport of an initial velocity and an initial random dispersion along the Lagrangian flow. It is therefore a direct generalization of the deterministic transport equations.
In the second section we formulate the problem and state the weak existence of the stochastic p.d.e. in the space $H^1$. We define in section 3 the finite-dimensional approximations of the solution and complete the proof in section 4.
This linear part of this equation is actually a stochastic parallel transport over Brownian paths and, as such, can be characterized in terms of the geometry defined by the $L^2$ metric in the space of measure-preserving diffeomorphisms of the underlying two-dimensional domain.
Section 5 is devoted to the periodic boundary conditions case. We explain the geometric formulation of our equations in the last section.
Euler equation perturbed by a multiplicative noise
==================================================
We consider the following stochastic Euler equation in dimension 2: $$\label{Euler:str:eq}
\left\{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.8}
\begin{array}{ll}
d u(t,\theta)=-(u(t,\theta) \cdot\nabla )u(t,\theta)\,dt-\nabla p (t, \theta )\,dt+ \sum_{l=1}^2\partial_l u(t,\theta) \circ dB^l(t) &\text{ in }]0,T[ \times \Theta , \\
{\rm div}\, u(t,\theta)=0 &\text{ in }]0,T[ \times \Theta , \\
u(t,\theta)=0 &\text{ on } ]0,T[ \times \Gamma,\\
u(0,\theta)=u_0(\theta) &\text{ in } \Theta,
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\nabla$ denotes the gradient, ${\rm div}\, u = \sum_{i=1}^2 \partial_i u^i$. We suppose that $\Theta$ is a bounded simply connected domain in $\mathbb{R}^2$, $\Gamma=\partial \Theta$ is sufficiently regular. The term $ \sum_{l=1}^2\partial_l u(t,\theta) \circ dB^l(t)$ is considered as a stochastic perturbation of the deterministic equation where $B=(B^1,B^2)$ is a $2$-dimensional Brownian motion in a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ and the differential is taken in the Stratonovich sense. The term $p$ corresponds to the pressure. Since we are going to consider solutions of this equation in the weak sense it will not be mathematically relevant and we shall not write it, starting from the next section.
Without noise the equation reduces to the usual deterministic Euler equation which is well known to describe the transport of an initial velocity along the corresponding Lagrangian flow (the transport being considered with respect to the derivative, the canonical connection in a flat space). We are therefore studying a transport type stochastic system, where not only an initial velocity but also a noise is transported along the underlying flow.
We use the relation between Stratonovich and Itô differentials, namely
$$\partial_l u(t,\theta) \circ dB^l (t) = \partial_l u(t,\theta) dB^l (t) +\frac{1}{2} d(\partial_l u(t,\theta)).
dB^l (t)$$
Since the Itô differential of the martingale part of the process $\partial_l u(t,\theta)$ is given by $\sum_{j=1}^2 \partial_j \partial_l u (t,\theta ) d B^j (t)$, we obtain
$$\partial_l u(t,\theta) \circ dB^l (t) = \partial_l u(t,\theta) dB^l (t) +\frac{1}{2} \partial^2_l u(t,\theta)
dt$$ and the equivalent form of equation Equation (\[Euler:str:eq\]):
$$\label{Euler:ito:eq}
\left\{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.8}
\begin{array}{ll}
d u(t,\theta)=\left\{\frac{1}{2}\,\Delta u(t,\theta)-(u(t,\theta) \cdot\nabla )u(t,\theta)\right\}\,dt
-\nabla p (t, \theta )\,dt\\\hspace{6cm}+ \sum_{l=1}^2\partial_l u(t,\theta)\, dB^l(t) &\text{ in }]0,T[ \times \Theta , \\
{\rm div}\, u(t,\theta)=0 &\text{ in }]0,T[ \times \Theta , \\
u(t,\theta)=0 &\text{ on }]0,T[ \times \Gamma\\
u(0,\theta)=u_0(\theta) &\text{ in } \Theta,
\end{array}
\right.$$
where $\Delta$ denotes the Laplacian. Observe that Equation (\[Euler:ito:eq\]) is a stochastic Navier-Stokes equation in dimension 2. In addition, we can view $B$ as a cylindrical Wiener process in $\mathbb{R}^2$. In fact, we could think Equation (\[Euler:ito:eq\]) as a particular case of Equation $(1.1)$ in [@Mi09] with $$\begin{aligned}
&\{a^{ij}\}_{1\leq i,j \leq 2}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1/2 & 0 \\
0 & 1/2 \\
\end{array}
\right),
\\
&\sigma^1=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
\end{array}
\right),\quad\sigma^2=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right)
\\
&p=\tilde p=f^j=g^j=0,\quad j=1,2.\end{aligned}$$ However, in our case, $a^{ij}-1/2 \sigma^i\cdot\sigma^j=0$, for all $1\leq i,j\leq 2$, that is, this matrix is not uniformly nondegenerated. Thus, we cannot apply directly Mikulevicius’ results [@Mi09] (see also [@MiRo05]) on the existence and uniqueness of solution to Equation (\[Euler:ito:eq\]).
The usual methods to prove existence and uniqueness of perturbed Navier-Stokes equations (c.f. for example [@Sch91]) do not hold here since the noise we consider, although natural from a physical point of view, is not regular enough nor bounded.
We introduce the basic spaces in this note: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{V}&=\left\{v\in [\mathcal{C}_0^\infty(\Theta)]^2,\,{\rm div}\,v=0\right\}\\
H&=\text{the closure of $\mathcal{V}$ in $[L^2(\Theta)]^2$},\\
V&=\text{the closure of $\mathcal{V}$ in $[H^1_0(\Theta)]^2$}.\end{aligned}$$ The space $H$ is equipped with the scalar product $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle_0$ and associated norm $\|\cdot\|_0$ induced by $[L^2(\Theta)]^2$; the space $V$ is a Hilbert space with the scalar product $$\begin{aligned}
\langle u,v\rangle_1 =\sum_{i=1}^2 \langle \partial_i u,\partial_i v\rangle_0,\end{aligned}$$ and associated norm $\|\cdot\|_1$. Note that this norm is equivalent to the $[H^1(\Theta)]^2$-norm by Poincaré’s inequality. The space $V$ is contained in $H$, is dense in $H$, and the injection is continuous. Let $H'$ and $V'$ denote the dual space of $H$ and $V$, respectively. We have the dense, continuous embedding $$V\hookrightarrow H = H'\hookrightarrow V'.$$
The main result is the following existence result for the solution to Equation (\[Euler:ito:eq\]):
\[Main-result\] Let $u_0\in V$. Then there exist a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ with a right-continuous filtration $\mathbb{F}=\{\mathcal{F}_t\}$ of $\sigma$-algebras, a real 2-dimensional Brownian motion $B_t$, and an $[L^2(\Theta)]^2$-valued weakly continuous pathwise unique $\mathbb{F}$-adapted process $u(t)$ such that $$\sup_{0\leq t \leq T}\hbox {ess sup}_{\Omega}\|u(t)\|_0^2=:\mathcal{K}<+\infty ,$$
$$\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\| u(t)\|_1^2=:\mathcal{K}'<\infty$$ and (\[Euler:ito:eq\]) holds. In addition, $u(t)$ is strongly continuous in $t$.
To prove Theorem \[Main-result\] we shall follow the methods in [@MiRo05] and [@Mi09].
Faedo-Galerkin approximations {#section:approximations}
=============================
Following the arguments of Chapter III in [@Te01], we consider the weak formulation of Equation (\[Euler:ito:eq\]), namely: $$\label{Euler:ito:eqweak}
\left\{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.8}
\begin{array}{l}
d \langle u(t),v\rangle=-\left\{\frac{1}{2}\,\langle u(t),v\rangle_1+\langle (u(t) \cdot\nabla )u(t),v\rangle_0\right\}\,dt\\\hspace{8cm}+ \sum_{l=1}^2\langle\partial_l u(t),v\rangle_0 \,dB^l(t) \\
u(0)=u_0
\end{array}
\right.$$ for all $v\in V$. Notice that Equation (\[Euler:ito:eqweak\]) is equivalent to the following stochastic evolution equation in $V'$ $$\label{Euler:ito:eqevol}
\left\{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.8}
\begin{array}{l}
d u(t)=-\left\{\frac{1}{2}\,\mathcal{A}u(t)+\mathcal{B}u(t)\right\}\,dt+ \sum_{l=1}^2\partial_l u(t)\,dB^l(t) \\
u(0)=u_0
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are defined as $$\langle \mathcal{A} u,v \rangle=\langle u,v \rangle_1, \quad
\langle \mathcal{B} u,v \rangle=\langle (u\cdot \nabla) u,v \rangle_0,$$ for all $u,v\in V$.
It is well known that there exists an orthonormal basis of smooth functions $\{e_j\}$ for $H$, that is also orthogonal for $V$. In addition, this basis verifies $$\langle e_j,e_k\rangle_1=\lambda_j \langle e_j,e_k\rangle_0,$$ ${\rm div}\,e_j=0$ in $\Theta$ and $e_j=0$ on $\Gamma$, for all $j$, where $\lambda_j>0$ and $\lambda_j\rightarrow +\infty$ when $j\rightarrow +\infty$. For each $n$ we define an approximate solution $u_n$ of (\[Euler:ito:eqweak\]) as follows: $$u_n(t)=\sum_{i=1}^n g_n^i(t)e_i$$ and $$\label{Euler:ito:eqapprox}
\left\{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.8}
\begin{array}{l}
d \langle u_n(t),e_j\rangle=-\left\{\frac{1}{2} \langle u_n(t),e_j\rangle_1+\langle (u_n(t) \cdot\nabla )u_n(t),e_j\rangle_0\right\}\,dt\\\hspace{8cm}+ \sum_{l=1}^2\langle\partial_l u_n(t) ,e_j\rangle_0\,dB^l(t) \\
u_n(0)=u_{0n},
\end{array}
\right.$$ for $t\in [0,T]$, $j=1,\ldots,n$, where $u_{0n}$ is the orthogonal projection in $H$ of $u_0$ onto the space $H_n:={\rm span}\,\{e_1,\ldots,e_n\}$, that is, $u_{0n}=\sum_{i=1}^n \langle u_0,e_j\rangle_0 e_j$. The equations (\[Euler:ito:eqapprox\]) form a stochastic differential equation system for the functions $g_n^1,\ldots,g_n^n$: $$\label{Euler:ito:sde}
\left\{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.8}
\begin{array}{l}
d g_n^j(t)=-\left\{\frac{\lambda_j}{2}g_n^j(t)+\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{k=1,k\neq j}^n\langle (e_i\cdot\nabla) e_k,e_j\rangle_0 g_n^i(t)g_n^k(t)
\right\}\,dt\\\hspace{7cm}+ \sum_{l=1}^2\sum_{i=1}^n\langle\partial_l e_i,e_j\rangle_0 g_n^i(t) \,dB^l(t) \\
g_n^j(0)=\langle u_0,e_j\rangle_0,
\end{array}
\right.$$ Notice that the system $(\ref{Euler:ito:sde})$ has a unique strong solution in $\mathcal{C}([0,T];\mathbb{R})$ because its coefficients are defined by locally Lipschitz functions and the functions $\{e_k \}$ are smooth and bounded in the domain $\Theta$. Thus, $u_n\in\mathcal{C}([0,T];H_n)$.
Let us obtain a priori estimates for $u_n$ which are independent on $n$.
\[apriori-estimates\] Let $u_0\in V$. Then for each $T>0$ $$\label{est1}
\sup_n \,\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\|u_n(t)\|_0^2\leq \|u_0\|_0^2,$$ with probability $1$, and $$\label{est2}
\sup_n\,\mathbb{E}\|u_n(t)\|_1^2\leq \|u_0\|_1^2$$ for any $t\in [0,T]$.
Applying Itô’s formula (see for instance Theorem 4.3. in [@BP01]) to $u_n$ in the evolution formulation (\[Euler:ito:eqevol\]) and to $\nabla u_n$, respectively, and taking in account the identities $$\langle (u\cdot \nabla)v,v\rangle_0=0, \quad \langle \nabla[(u\cdot \nabla)u],\nabla u\rangle_0=0,$$ that hold for all $u,v\in V$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|u_n(t)\|_0^2&=\|u_{0n}\|_0^2-2\int_0^t\left\langle \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{A}u_n(s),u_n(s)\right\rangle\,ds-2\int_0^t\left\langle \mathcal{B}u_n(s),u_n(s)\right\rangle\,ds\\
&\quad+2 \sum_{l=1}^2\int_0^t\left \langle \partial_l u_n(s),u_n(s)\right \rangle_0\,dB^l(s)+\int_0^t \|u_n(s)\|_1^2\,ds\\
&=\|u_{0n}\|_0^2-\int_0^t\left\langle u_n(s),u_n(s)\right\rangle_1\,ds-2\int_0^t\left\langle (u_n(s)\cdot \nabla)u_n(s),u_n(s)\right\rangle_0\,ds\\
&\quad+ \sum_{l=1}^2\int_0^t\left(\int_\Theta \partial_l \left(\sum_{i=1}^2 \left(u^i_n(s,\theta)\right)^2 \right)\,d\theta\right)\,dB^l(s)
+\int_0^t \|u_n(s)\|_1^2\,ds\\
&=\|u_{0n}\|_0^2+ \sum_{l=1}^2\int_0^t\left(\int_\Gamma \eta^l \left(\sum_{i=1}^2 \left(u^i_n(s,\theta)\right)^2 \right)\,d\mathcal{S}\right)\,dB^l(s)=\|u_{0n}\|_0^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta=(\eta^1,\eta^2)$ denotes the unit exterior normal vector, and $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla u_n(t)\|_0^2&=\|\nabla u_{0n}\|_0^2-2\int_0^t\left\langle \frac{1}{2}\nabla[\mathcal{A} u_n(s)],\nabla u_n(s)\right\rangle\,ds\\
&\quad-2\int_0^t\left\langle \nabla[\mathcal{B}u_n(s)],\nabla u_n(s)\right\rangle\,ds+2 \sum_{l=1}^2\int_0^t\left \langle \nabla\partial_l u_n(s),\nabla u_n(s)\right \rangle_0\,dB^l(s)\\
&\quad+\int_0^t \sum_{j,l=1}^2\|\partial_j\partial_l u_n(s)\|_0^2\,ds\\
&=\|\nabla u_{0n}\|_0^2-\int_0^t \sum_{j,l=1}^2\|\partial_j\partial_l u_n(s)\|_0^2\,ds\\
&\quad-2\int_0^t\left\langle \nabla[(u_n(s)\cdot\nabla) u_n(s)],\nabla u_n(s)\right\rangle_0\,ds\\
&\quad-2 \sum_{l=1}^2\int_0^t\left \langle \partial_l u_n(s),{\rm div}[\nabla u_n(s)]\right \rangle_0\,dB^l(s)\\
&\quad+\int_0^t \sum_{j,l=1}^2\|\partial_j\partial_l u_n(s)\|_0^2\,ds\\
&=\|\nabla u_{0n}\|_0^2-2 \sum_{l=1}^2\int_0^t\left \langle \partial_l u_n(s),\Delta u_n(s)\right \rangle_0\,dB^l(s).\end{aligned}$$
To sum up, $$\begin{aligned}
\|u_n(t)\|_0^2&=\|u_{0n}\|_0^2,\\
\|u_n(t)\|_1^2&=\| u_{0n}\|_1^2-2 \sum_{l=1}^2\int_0^t\left \langle \partial_l u_n(s),\Delta u_n(s)\right \rangle_0\,dB^l(s).\end{aligned}$$
Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\hbox {ess sup}_{\Omega}\|u_n(t)\|_0^2\leq \|u_0\|_0^2, \quad
\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\|u_n(t)\|_1^2=\|u_{0n}\|_1^2\leq \|u_0\|_1^2.\end{aligned}$$
This finishes the proof of this lemma.
Existence of weak solutions {#section:existence}
===========================
For each $n$, the solution $u_n$ of (\[Euler:ito:eqapprox\]) induces a measure $\mathbb{P}^n$ on a trajectory space determined by the estimates of Lemma \[apriori-estimates\].
For $\kappa\in]-\infty,\infty[$, write $\Lambda^\kappa=\Lambda^\kappa_\theta=\left(1-\Delta\right)^{\kappa/2}$ and define the space $[H^\kappa(\mathbb{R}^2)]^2$ as the space of generalized functions $v$ with the finite norm $\|v\|_\kappa=\|\Lambda^\kappa v\|_0$. The spaces $H^\kappa(\mathbb{R}^2)$ are a particular case of Bessel potential spaces $W^{\kappa,p}(\mathbb{R}^2)$ with $p=2$. Notice also that if $\kappa>0$ these spaces are known as fractional order Sobolev spaces, and if $\kappa$ is a non-negative integer, they are Sobolev spaces. For a smooth bounded domain $G\subset \mathbb{R}^2$, we denote $[H^{\kappa}(G)]^2$ the space of all generalized functions $v$ on $G$ that can be extended to a generalized functions in $[H^{\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^2)]^2$ with the norm $$\|u\|_\kappa=\inf \left\{\|\tilde{v}\|_\kappa:\,\tilde{v}\in[H^{\kappa}(\mathbb{R}^2)]^2,\,\tilde{v}=v\text{ a.e. in }G \right\}.$$ The duality between $[H^{\kappa}(G)]^2$ and $[H^{-\kappa}(G)]^2$, $k\in ]-\infty,\infty[$, is defined by $$\langle \phi, \psi \rangle=\langle \Lambda^\kappa \phi, \Lambda^{-\kappa}\psi \rangle_0,$$ for any $\phi \in [H^{\kappa}(G)]^2$, $\psi \in [H^{-\kappa}(G)]^2$.
Fix $\mathcal{U}=[H^{\kappa}(\Theta)]^2$, $\kappa>2$. Denote by $\mathcal{U}'$ its dual space with a topology defined by the seminorm $$\|\varphi\|_{\mathcal{U}'}=\sup\{|\varphi(v)|:\,v\in \mathcal{C}_0^\infty(\Theta),\,\|v\|_{\kappa}\leq 1\}.$$
\[compact-embed\] The embedding $L^2(\Theta)\rightarrow \mathcal{U}'$ is compact.
See the proof of Lemma 2.6 in [@MiRo05].
Let $\mathcal{X}_1=\mathcal{C}\left([0,T],\mathcal{U}'\right)$ be the set of $\mathcal{U}'$-valued trajectories with the topology $\mathcal{T}_1$ of the uniform convergence on $[0,T]$. Let $\mathcal{X}_2=\mathcal{C}\left([0,T],[L^2_w(\Theta)]^2\right)$ be the set of $[L^2(\Theta)]^2$-valued weakly continuous functions with the topology $\mathcal{T}_2$ of the uniform weak convergence on $[0,T]$. Let $\mathcal{X}_3=L^2_w\left(0,T;[H^1(\Theta)]^2\right)$ be the set of $[H^1(\Theta)]^2$-valued square integrable functions on $[0,T]$ with a topology $\mathcal{T}_3$ of weak convergence on finite intervals. Finally consider $\mathcal{X}_4=L^2\left(0,T; [L^2(\Theta)]^2\right)$ with the topology $\mathcal{T}_4$ associated with the norm of this space.
\[compact-rel\] Let $\mathcal{X}=\cap_{i=1}^4\mathcal{X}_i$ and $\mathcal{T}$ be the supremum of the corresponding topologies. Then $K\subset \mathcal{X}$ is relatively compact with respect to $\mathcal{T}$ if the following conditions hold:
- $\sup_{\varphi\in K}\sup_{0\leq r\leq T}\|\varphi(r)\|_0< \infty$,
- $\sup_{\varphi\in K}\int_0^T \|\varphi(s)\|_1^2\,ds<\infty$,
- $\lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0}\sup_{\varphi}\sup_{|t-s|\leq \delta,0\leq s,t\leq T}\|\varphi(t)-\varphi(s)\|_{\mathcal{U}'}=0$.
See the proof of Lemma 2.7 in [@MiRo05].
Denote $u$ the canonical process in $\mathcal{X}$: $u(t)=u(t,w)=w(t)=w(t,\theta)$, $w\in \mathcal{X}$. Let $\mathcal{D}_t=\sigma\left\{u(s), s\leq t\right\}$, $\mathbb{D}=\left\{\mathcal{D}_{t+}\right\}_{0\leq t\leq T}$, $\mathcal{D}=\mathcal{D}_T$. For each $n$, the approximation $u_n$ (satisfying (\[est1\]), (\[est2\])) defines a measure $\mathbb{P}^n$ on $(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{D})$.
\[cor:compact-rel\] The set $\{\mathbb{P}^n,\,n\geq 1\}$ is relatively weakly compact on $(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{T})$.
The proof is obtained by following the arguments used in the proof of Corollary 2.8 in [@MiRo05] (see also Corollary 3.4 in [@Mi09]) and our a priori estimates $(\ref{est1})$ and $(\ref{est2})$, together with Lemmas \[operator-estimates\], \[compact-embed\] and \[compact-rel\].
\[operator-estimates\] There exists a constant $C$ independent of $n$ such that for all $u\in V$, $$\begin{aligned}
\|\mathcal{A}u\|_{-1}\leq C\|u\|_{1},\quad \sum_{l=1}^2\|\partial_l u\|_{-1}\leq C \|u\|_0,\quad \|\mathcal{B}u\|_{-\kappa}\leq C\|u\|_{0}^2.\end{aligned}$$
$\|\mathcal{A}u\|_{-1}\leq C\|u\|_{1}$ holds by definition of the operator $\mathcal{A}$.
For any $v\in V$ we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\sum_{l=1}^2 \langle \partial_l u,v \rangle \right|=\left|-\sum_{l=1}^2 \langle u,\partial_l v \rangle \right|=\left|\sum_{l=1}^2 \langle u,\partial_l v \rangle_0 \right|\leq \|u\|_0\|v\|_1.\end{aligned}$$
For any $v\in [\mathcal{C}^\infty_0(\Theta)]^2$, applying integration by parts and Sobolev’s embedding theorem, $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\langle\mathcal{B}u,v\rangle\right|=\left|\langle (u\cdot \nabla) u,v\rangle\right|=\left|-\langle (u\cdot \nabla) v,u\rangle\right|\leq \underset{\theta \in \Theta}{\sup}\left\{\left|\nabla v(\theta)\right|\right\}\|u\|_0^2\leq C\|v\|_{\kappa}|\|u\|_0^2.\end{aligned}$$
Now we shall identify $\mathbb{P}^n$ to a solution of a martingale problem. Let us give the definition of our martingale problem.
For any $v\in\mathcal{C}_0^\infty(\Theta)$, we denote $$\varphi^v(u(s))=i\left\langle -\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{A}u(s)-\mathcal{B}u(s),v\right\rangle-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{l=1}^2\langle \partial_l u(s),v\rangle^2,$$ where $i^2=-1$. We recall that $\langle \cdot, \cdot\rangle$ denotes the duality between $[H^\kappa(\Theta)]^2$ and $[H^{-\kappa}(\Theta)]^2$. However, observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{A}u(s),v\right\rangle &=\frac{1}{2}\left\langle \nabla u(s),\nabla v\right\rangle_0\\
\left\langle \mathcal{B}u(s),v\right\rangle &=\left\langle (u(s)\cdot \nabla)u(s),v \right\rangle_0=-\left\langle (u(s)\cdot \nabla)v,u(s) \right\rangle_0\\
\left\langle \partial_l u(s),v\right\rangle &=\left\langle \partial_l u(s),v\right\rangle_0.\end{aligned}$$
\[def:martigale-problem\] We say a probability measure $\mathbb{P}$ on $\mathcal{X}$ is a solution of the martingale problem $\left(u_0,-\frac{1}{2}\,\mathcal{A}-\mathcal{B},\mathcal{E}\right)$, where $\mathcal{E}u\doteq \left(\begin{array}{cc}
\partial_1 u & \partial_2 u
\end{array}\right)$, if for each $v\in\mathcal{C}_0^\infty(\Theta)$, $$L_t^v\doteq\exp\left\{i\langle u(t),v\rangle\right\}-\int_0^t \exp\left\{i\langle u(s),v\rangle\right\}\varphi^v(u(s))\,ds\in\mathcal{M}_{loc}^c\left(\mathbb{D},\mathbb{P}^n\right),$$ and $u(0)=u_0$, $\mathbb{P}$-a.s.
For any $v\in\mathcal{C}_0^\infty(\Theta)$, applying Itô’s formula to the scalar semimartingale $$\begin{aligned}
\langle u_n(t),v\rangle=\langle u_n(t),v\rangle_0=\langle u_{0n},v\rangle+\int_0^t \left\langle -\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{A}u_n(s)-\mathcal{B}u_n(s),v\right \rangle\,ds\\
+\sum_{l=1}^2\int_0^t \left\langle \partial_l u_n(s),v \right \rangle\,dB^l(s),\end{aligned}$$ and the function $f(x)=\exp\{ix\}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\exp\left\{i\langle u_n(t),v\rangle\right\}&=\exp\left\{i\langle u_{0n},v\rangle\right\}\\
&\quad+\int_0^t i\exp\left\{i\langle u_n(s),v\rangle\right\}\left\langle -\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{A}u_n(s)-\mathcal{B}u_n(s),v\right \rangle\,ds\\
&\quad+\sum_{l=1}^2\int_0^t i\exp\left\{i\langle u_n(s),v\rangle\right\}\left\langle \partial_l u_n(s),v \right \rangle\,dB^l(s)\\
&\quad+\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t i^2 \exp\left\{i\langle u_n(s),v\rangle\right\}\sum_{l=1}^2 \left\langle \partial_l u_n(s),v \right \rangle^2\,ds\\
&=\int_0^t \exp\left\{i\langle u_n(s),v\rangle\right\}\varphi^v(u_n(s))\,ds\\
&\quad+\exp\left\{i\langle u_{0n},v\rangle\right\}+\sum_{l=1}^2\int_0^t i\exp\left\{i\langle u_n(s),v\rangle\right\}\left\langle \partial_l u_n(s),v \right \rangle\,dB^l(s).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we have shown the following result
For each $n$, $\mathbb{P}^n$ is a measure on $\mathcal{X}$ such that for each test function $v$ belonging to $\mathcal{C}_0^\infty(\Theta)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{martigale-problem}
L_t^{n,v}&\doteq\exp\left\{i\langle u_n(t),v\rangle\right\}-\int_0^t \exp\left\{i\langle u_n(s),v\rangle\right\}\varphi^v(u_n(s))\,ds\\
&=\exp\left\{i\langle u_{0n},v\rangle\right\}+\sum_{l=1}^2\int_0^t i\exp\left\{i\langle u_n(s),v\rangle\right\}\left\langle \partial_l u_n(s),v \right \rangle\,dB^l(s),\end{aligned}$$ that is, $L_t^{n,v}\in \mathcal{M}_{loc}^c\left(\mathbb{D},\mathbb{P}^n\right)$. Therefore, $\mathbb{P}^n$ is a solution of the martingale problem $\left(u_{0n},-\frac{1}{2}\,\mathcal{A}-\mathcal{B}, \mathcal{E}\right)$.
To prove Theorem \[Main-result\] we need the following result
\[aux-Main-result\] For each $u_0 \in V$ there exists a measure $\mathbb{P}$ on $\mathcal{X}$ solving the martingale problem $\left(u_0,-\frac{1}{2}\,\mathcal{A}-\mathcal{B}, \mathcal{E}\right)$ such that $$\label{sol-estimates1}
\underset{0\leq t\leq T}{\sup}\hbox {ess sup}_{\Omega}\|u(t)\|_0^2< \infty \text{ and}\underset{0\leq r\leq T}{\sup}\mathbb{P}\left\{\|u(r)\|_1^2\right\}<\infty.$$ In addition, $\mathbb{P}-a.s.$ $$\label{sol-estimates2}
\int_0^T\left\|\frac{1}{2}\,\mathcal{A}u(s)+\mathcal{B}u(s)\right\|_{-1}^2\,ds<\infty.$$
Notice that in (\[sol-estimates1\]) we make a slight abuse of notation as in [@MiRo05], that is, we write $\mathbb{P}\left\{F\right\}$ for an integral of a measurable function $F$ with respect to the measure $\mathbb{P}$.
The proof follows from the arguments used in the proof of Theorem 2.10 in [@MiRo05]. For sake of completeness we shall sketch some of them. Owing to Corollary \[cor:compact-rel\], we can suppose that a sequence of measures $\{\mathbf{P}^n\}$ converges weakly to some measure $\mathbf{P}$. Let $\omega_n\rightarrow \omega$ in $\mathcal{X}$. By Lemma \[compact-rel\], the sequence $\{\omega_n(t)\}$ is weakly relatively compact in $L^2\left([0,T]; \left[H^1(\Theta)\right]^2\right)$. Thus, using the weakly relatively compactness of $\{\omega_n(t)\}$ and Lemma \[operator-estimates\] it is possible to prove that the sequence $\{L_t^{n,v}(\omega_n)\}$ is equicontinuous in $t$ with respect to $n$. Next, one shows that $$\sup_{s\leq T}\left|L_t^{n,v}(\omega_n)-L_t^v(\omega)\right|\overset{n\rightarrow \infty}{\longrightarrow} 0.$$ Thus for each compact set $K\subseteq \mathcal{X}$, $$\sup_{s\leq T,\quad \omega\in K}\left|L_t^{n,v}(\omega_n)-L_t^v(\omega)\right|\overset{n\rightarrow \infty}{\longrightarrow} 0.$$ Then the probability $\mathbf{P}$, as the limit of the sequence $\{\mathbf{P}^n\}$,is shown to be a solution of the martingale problem $\left(u_0,-\frac{1}{2}\,\mathcal{A}-\mathcal{B},\mathcal{E}\right)$ and the estimates and can be checked.
Finally, we shall give the proof of our main result:
Using Theorem \[aux-Main-result\], the proof can be completed by borrowing the arguments of that of Theorem 2.1 in [@MiRo05]. Again, for sake of completeness we shall give the details. Owing to Theorem \[aux-Main-result\], there exists a measure $\mathbf{P}$ on $\mathcal{X}$ such that holds and $\mathbf{P}$-a.s. for each $v\in \mathcal{C}_0^\infty$, $$\left\langle u(t),v\right\rangle_0=\left\langle u_0,v\right\rangle_0+\int_0^t\left\langle \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{A}u(s)+\mathcal{B}u(s),v\right\rangle\,ds+M^v(t),$$ where $M_t^v\in \mathcal{M}_{loc}(\mathbb{D},\mathbf{P})$ and $$\|M^v(t)\|_0^2-\sum_{l=1}^2\int_0^t \left\langle \partial_l u(s),v\right\rangle^2\,ds\in \mathcal{M}_{loc}(\mathbb{D},\mathbf{P}).$$ Since $$\mathbf{P}\left\{\sum_{l=1}^2\int_0^t \left\langle \partial_l u(s),v\right\rangle_0^2\,ds\right\}<\infty,$$ there is an $[L^2(\Theta)]^2$-valued continuous martingale $M(t)$ such that $\mathbf{P}$-a.s. $\left\langle M(t),v\right \rangle=M^v(t) $ for all $t$. In fact, taking an $[L^2(\Theta)]^2$-basis $\{v_k\}$, we define $M(t):=\sum_{k=1}^\infty M^{v_k}(t)\,v_k$.
Therefore, $\mathbf{P}$-a.s., $$\left\{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.8}
\begin{array}{l}
d u(t)=-\left\{\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{A}u(t)+\mathcal{B}u(t)\right\}\,dt+dM(t),\\
u(0)=u_0.
\end{array}
\right.$$ According to Lemma 3.2 in [@MiRo99], there exists a cylindrical Wiener process $B$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ (possibly in some extension of the probability space $(\Omega, \mathcal{D}_T,\mathbf{P})$) such that $$M(t)= \sum_{l=1}^2\int_0^t \partial_l u(s)\,dB^l(s).$$
This completes the proof of our main result.
2D stochastic Euler equations on the torus
==========================================
In Equation (\[Euler:str:eq\]) we replace the $2$-dimensional Brownian motion by the following Wiener process on $\Theta=[0,2\pi]^2$ with free divergence and periodic boundary conditions: $$\label{brownian torus}
W(t,\theta)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{c_W}}\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}^2}q_k^{1/2}\left[{\mathfrak{c}}_k(\theta)\,B_k^1(t)+{\mathfrak{s}}_k(\theta)\,B_k^2(t)\right],$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&q_{(0,0)}=1,\quad q_k=\frac{1}{|k|^{2(\beta-1)}} ~\hbox{for}~ k\in \mathbb{Z}^2 \setminus\{(0,0)\},\\
&c_W=1+\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}^2\setminus \{(0,0)\}}\frac{(k^1)^2}{|k|^{2\beta}}=1+\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}^2\setminus \{(0,0)\}}\frac{(k^2)^2}{|k|^{2\beta}},\quad |k|^2=(k^1)^2+(k^2)^2,\quad \beta>3\\
& {\mathfrak{c}}_{(0,0)} =(1,0),\qquad {\mathfrak{s}}_{(0,0)}=(0,1),\\
&{\mathfrak{c}}_k(\theta)=\frac{1}{|k|}(k^2,-k^1)\cos(k\cdot \theta),\quad {\mathfrak{s}}_k(\theta)=\frac{1}{|k|}(k^2,-k^1)\sin(k\cdot \theta) ~\hbox{for}~ k\in \mathbb{Z}^2 \setminus\{(0,0)\},\\
&k\cdot \theta=k^1\theta^1+k^2\theta^2\\
&B_k=(B_k^1,B_k^2)\text{ is a sequence of independent $2$-dimensional standard Brownian motions}.\end{aligned}$$ (See [@CC07] for details.) Notice that $\{{\mathfrak{c}}_k,\,{\mathfrak{s}}_k:\,k\in \mathbb{Z}^2\}\}$ is a complete system of vectors for $\left[L^2(\Theta)\right]^2$ of divergence free and with periodic boundary conditions, which are the eigenvectors of the operator $-\Delta$ with eigenvalues $\{|k|^2:\,k \in \mathbb{Z}^2\}$, respectively.
This stochastic process is a centered Gaussian process on the Sobolev space $\left[H^\alpha(\Theta)\right]^2$, $0<\alpha<\beta-2$, with covariance function $$\mathbb{E}\left(W(t)\otimes W(t)\right)=t\, Q,$$ where $Q$, defined by the eigenvalues $\left\{q_k\right\}_{k\in\mathbb{Z}^2}$ in $\{{\mathfrak{c}}_k,\,{\mathfrak{s}}_k:\,k\in \mathbb{Z}^2\}$, is of trace class. In addition, we can define $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_i W(t,\theta)&=\frac{1}{\sqrt{c_W}}\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}^2\setminus \{(0,0)}q_{k}^{1/2}k^i\left[-{\mathfrak{s}}_k(\theta)\,B_k^1(t)+{\mathfrak{c}}_k(\theta)\,B_k^2(t)\right],\end{aligned}$$ for $1\leq i \leq 2$.
To be more precise, we want to study the following stochastic Euler equation in dimension 2: $$\label{Euler:str:periodic:eq}
\left\{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.8}
\begin{array}{ll}
d u(t,\theta)=-(u(t,\theta) \cdot\nabla )u(t,\theta)\,dt+ \sum_{l=1}^2\partial_l u(t,\theta) \circ dW^l(t,\theta) &\text{ in } ]0,T[\times \Theta, \\
{\rm div}\, u(t,\theta)=0 &\text{ in }]0,T[\times \Theta, \\
u(t,(\theta^1,0))=u(t,(\theta^1,2\pi)), \\ u(t,(0,\theta^2))=u(t,(2\pi,\theta^2)),\text{ for } \theta^1,\theta^2\in [0,2\pi],\,t\in ]0,T[,\\
u(\theta,0)=u_0(\theta) &\text{ in } \Theta,
\end{array}
\right.$$ in the Stratonovich formulation, or $$\label{Euler:ito:periodic:eq}
\left\{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.8}
\begin{array}{ll}
d u(t,\theta)=\left\{\frac{1}{2}\,\Delta u(t,\theta)-(u(t,\theta) \cdot\nabla )u(t,\theta)\right\}\,dt\\\hspace{6cm}+ \sum_{l=1}^2\partial_l u(t,\theta)\, dW^l(t,\theta) &\text{ in }\Theta\times]0,T[, \\
{\rm div}\, u(t,\theta)=0 &\text{ in }]0,T[\times \Theta, \\
u(t,(\theta^1,0))=u(t,(\theta^1,2\pi)), \\ u(t,(0,\theta^2))=u(t,(2\pi,\theta^2)),\text{ for } \theta^1,\theta^2\in [0,2\pi],\,t\in ]0,T[,\\
u(\theta,0)=u_0(\theta) &\text{ in } \Theta,
\end{array}
\right.$$ in the Itô formulation, respectively, where we also assume that the initial condition $u_0(\theta)$ is also a periodic function. Indeed, using the expressions of $\partial_i W^j(t,\theta)$’s, $1\leq i,j\leq 2$, we obtain that (cf. [@CC07]) $$\sum_{l=1}^2\partial_l u(t,\theta) \circ dW^l(t,\theta)= \sum_{l=1}^2\partial_l u(t,\theta)\,dW^l(t,\theta)+\frac{1}{2}\Delta u(t,\theta).$$ The stochastic term of $\partial_l u(t,\theta)$ is $$\sum_{j=1}^2\partial^2_{jl}u(t,\theta)\,dW^j(t,\theta)+ \sum_{j=1}^2\partial_j u(t,\theta)\,d\partial_lW^j(t,\theta),$$ and the respective joint quadratic variations give $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\langle W^j(t,\theta),W^l(t,\theta)\right \rangle=\delta_{jl},
&\left\langle \partial_lW^j(t,\theta),W^l(t,\theta)\right \rangle=0.\end{aligned}$$
The basic spaces $H$ and $V$ are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
H&=\Big\{v\in \left[L^2\left(\Theta\right)\right]^2: \quad {\rm div}\,v=0;\quad v(\theta^1,0)=v(\theta^1,2\pi ), \\
&\hspace{4cm}v(0,\theta^2)=v(2\pi,\theta^2)~\hbox{for}~ \theta^1,\theta^2\in [0,2\pi]\Big\},\\
V&=\Big\{v\in \left[H^1\left(\Theta\right)\right]^2: \quad {\rm div}\,v=0;\quad v(\theta^1,0)=v(\theta^1,2\pi ), \\
&\hspace{4cm}v(0,\theta^2)=v(2\pi,\theta^2)~\hbox{for}~ \theta^1,\theta^2\in [0,2\pi]\Big\},\end{aligned}$$ respectively.
In the space $H$ consider the Stokes operator $\mathcal{A}: D(\mathcal{A})\subset H\rightarrow H$, defined as $\mathcal{A} v=-P_H \Delta v$, for all $v\in D(\mathcal{A})$, where $P_H$ is the Leray projector. Denoting by $\left\langle \cdot,\cdot\right \rangle $ the inner product in $H$, the operator $\mathcal{A}$ is defined as $$\label{A:def:per}
\left \langle \mathcal{A}u,v\right \rangle=\int_\Theta \nabla u\cdot \nabla v,$$ for all $u,v\in V$.
We also define $\mathcal{B}:V\rightarrow V^\prime$ as $\mathcal{B} u=(u \cdot\nabla )u$, that is, $$\label{B:def:per}
\left \langle \mathcal{B}u,v\right \rangle=\int_\Theta (u \cdot\nabla )u\cdot v,$$ for all $u,v\in V$. Here $V^\prime$ denotes the topological dual of $V$.
In terms of $\mathcal{A}$, $\mathcal{B}$ we can write Equation (\[Euler:ito:periodic:eq\]) as the following stochastic evolution equation in $V'$: $$\label{NS:eqevol:per}
\left\{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.8}
\begin{array}{ll}
d u(t)=-\left\{\frac{1}{2}\,\mathcal{A} u(t)
+\mathcal{B}u(t)\right\}\,dt+ \sum_{l=1}^2\partial_l u(t)\, dW^l(t) , \\
u(0)=u_0.
\end{array}
\right.$$
The formulation of Equation (\[NS:eqevol:per\]) is equivalent to the following weak or variational form: $$\label{NS:eqweak:per}
\left\{\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.8}
\begin{array}{ll}
d\left\langle u(t),v\right\rangle= -\left\langle \frac{1}{2}\,\mathcal{A} u(t)
+\mathcal{B}u(t),v\right\rangle\,dt+ \sum_{l=1}^2\left\langle \partial_l u(t)\, dW^l(t) ,v\right \rangle &\text{ in }]0,T[, \\
\left \langle u^\nu(0),v\right\rangle=\left\langle u_0,v\right\rangle, &
\end{array}
\right.$$ for all $v\in V$.
Following analogous arguments as those in Section \[section:approximations\], we can define the corresponding Faedo-Galerkin approximations of Equation . Let $$H_n:={\rm span}\, \left\{{\mathfrak{c}}_k,{\mathfrak{s}}_k:\, k\in I_n^2\right\},$$ where $I_n^2\doteq \left\{-n,\ldots,-1,0,1,\ldots,n\right\}^2$, and define $$u_n(t)\doteq \sum_{k\in I_n^2}\left[u_n^{1k}(t)\,{\mathfrak{c}}_k+u_n^{2k}(t)\,{\mathfrak{s}}_k\right],$$ where $u_n^{1k}\doteq \langle u_n^\nu(t),{\mathfrak{c}}_k\rangle$, $u_n^{2k}\doteq \langle u_n^\nu(t),{\mathfrak{s}}_k\rangle$, as the solution of the following stochastic differential equation: For each $v\in H_n$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{NS:sde:per}
d\left\langle u_n(t),v\right\rangle= -\left\langle \frac{1}{2}\,\mathcal{A} u_n(t)
+\mathcal{B}u_n(t),v\right\rangle\,dt+ \sum_{l=1}^2\left\langle \partial_l u_n(t)\, dW_n^l(t) ,v\right \rangle ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$W_n(t,\theta)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{c_W}}\sum_{k\in I_n^2}q_k^{1/2}\left[{\mathfrak{c}}_k\,B_k^1(t)+{\mathfrak{s}}_k\,B_k^2(t)\right],$$ with $u_{0n}=\sum_{k\in I_n^2} \left[\langle u_0,{\mathfrak{c}}_k\rangle {\mathfrak{c}}_k+\langle u_0,{\mathfrak{s}}_k\rangle {\mathfrak{s}}_k\right]$ as initial condition.
Let us consider a priori estimates for $u_n$ independent on $n$.
\[apriori-estimates:periodic\] Let $u_0\in V$. Then for each $T>0$ $$\label{est1:periodic}
\sup_{n}\,\sup_{0\leq r\leq T}\left\|u_n(t)\right\|_0^2\leq \|u_0\|_0^2$$ with probability $1$, and $$\label{est2:periodic}
\sup_{n}\,\mathbb{E}\left\|u_n(t)\right\|_1^2\leq \|u_0\|_1^2 \, e^{Ct},$$ for any $t\in[0,T]$, where $C>0$ is a constant not depending on $n$.
Firstly, notice that we can write the process $u_n$ in the following way: $$\begin{aligned}
u_n(t)&=u_{0n}-\int_0^t\left\{\frac{1}{2}\,\mathcal{A} u_n(s)+\mathcal{B}u_n(s)\right\}\,ds\\&\quad+\frac{1}{\sqrt{c_W}}\sum_{k\in I_n^2}q_k^{1/2}\int_0^t\left[({\mathfrak{c}}_k\cdot \nabla)u_n(s)\,dB_k^1(s)+({\mathfrak{s}}_k\cdot \nabla)u_n(s)\,dB_k^2(s)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $$({\mathfrak{c}}_{(0,0)}\cdot \nabla)u_n(s)=\partial_1 u_n(s), \quad ({\mathfrak{s}}_{(0,0)}\cdot \nabla)u_n(s)=\partial_2 u_n(s),$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathfrak{c}}_k\cdot \nabla)u_n(s)&=\frac{k^2}{|k|}\cos(k\cdot \ast)\partial_1 u_n(s)-\frac{k^1}{|k|}\cos(k\cdot \ast)\partial_2 u_n(s),\\
({\mathfrak{s}}_k\cdot \nabla)u_n(s)&=\frac{k^2}{|k|}\sin(k\cdot \ast)\partial_1 u_n(s)-\frac{k^1}{|k|}\sin(k\cdot \ast)\partial_2 u_n(s),\end{aligned}$$ for $k\neq (0,0)$.
On the other hand, $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla u_n(t)&=\nabla u_{0n}-\int_0^t\left\{\frac{1}{2}\,\nabla\left[\mathcal{A} u_n(s)\right]+\nabla\left[\mathcal{B}u_n(s)\right]\right\}\,ds\\&\quad+\frac{1}{\sqrt{c_W}}\sum_{k\in I_n^2}q_k^{1/2}\int_0^t\left[\nabla\left[({\mathfrak{c}}_k\cdot \nabla)u_n(s)\right]\,dB_k^1(s)+\nabla\left[({\mathfrak{s}}_k\cdot \nabla)u_n(s)\right]\,dB_k^2(s)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla\left[({\mathfrak{c}}_k\cdot \nabla)u_n(s)\right]&=\left(\partial_1\partial_1 u_n(s),\partial_2\partial_1 u_n(s)\right),\\
\nabla\left[({\mathfrak{s}}_k\cdot \nabla)u_n(s)\right]&=\left(\partial_1\partial_2 u_n(s),\partial_2\partial_2 u_n(s)\right),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla\left[({\mathfrak{c}}_k\cdot \nabla)u_n(s)\right]&=-\frac{\left(k^2k^1,(k^2)^2 \right)}{|k|}\sin(k\cdot \ast)\partial_1 u_n(s)+\frac{k^2}{|k|} \cos(k\cdot \ast)\left(\partial_1\partial_1 u_n(s),\partial_2\partial_1 u_n(s)\right)\\
&\quad+\frac{\left((k^1)^2,k^1k^2 \right)}{|k|}\sin(k\cdot \ast)\partial_2 u_n(s)-\frac{k^1}{|k|} \cos(k\cdot \ast)\left(\partial_1\partial_2 u_n(s),\partial_2\partial_2 u_n(s)\right),\\
\nabla\left[({\mathfrak{s}}_k\cdot \nabla)u(s)\right]&=\frac{\left(k^2k^1,(k^2)^2 \right)}{|k|}\cos(k\cdot \ast)\partial_1 u_n(s)+\frac{k^2}{|k|} \sin(k\cdot \ast)\left(\partial_1\partial_1 u_n(s),\partial_2\partial_1 u_n(s)\right)\\
&\quad-\frac{\left((k^1)^2,k^1k^2 \right)}{|k|}\cos(k\cdot \ast)\partial_2 u_n(s)-\frac{k^1}{|k|} \sin(k\cdot \ast)\left(\partial_1\partial_2 u_n(s),\partial_2\partial_2 u_n(s)\right),\end{aligned}$$ for $k\neq (0,0)$.
Then, using similar arguments as those in the proof of Lemma \[apriori-estimates\], in particular using Itô’s formula, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|u_n(t)\|_0^2&=\|u_{0n}\|_0^2-\int_0^t\left\langle u_n(s),u_n(s)\right\rangle_1\,ds-2\int_0^t\left\langle (u_n(s)\cdot \nabla)u_n(s),u_n(s)\right\rangle_0\,ds\\
&\quad+\frac{2 }{\sqrt{c_W}}\sum_{k\in I_n^2}q_k^{1/2}\int_0^t\left[\left\langle({\mathfrak{c}}_k\cdot \nabla)u_n(s),u_n(s)\right\rangle_0\,dB_k^1(s)\right.\\
&\hspace{7cm}\left.+\left\langle ({\mathfrak{s}}_k\cdot \nabla)u_n(s),u_n(s)\right\rangle_0\,dB_k^2(s)\right]\\
&\quad+\frac{1}{c_W}\left(1+\sum_{k\in I_n^2\setminus\{(0,0)\}}\frac{(k^1)^2}{|k|^{2\beta}}\right)\int_0^t \|u_n(s)\|_1^2\,ds\\
&\leq \|u_{0}\|_0^2-\int_0^t \|u_n(s)\|_1^2\,ds+\int_0^t \|u_n(s)\|_1^2\,ds= \|u_0\|_1^2,\end{aligned}$$ for a.e. $\omega\in \Omega$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\|\nabla u_n(t)\|_0^2&=\|\nabla u_{0n}\|_0^2-\int_0^t \sum_{j,l=1}^2\|\partial_j\partial_l u_n(s)\|_0^2\,ds\\
&\quad-2\int_0^t\left\langle \nabla[(u_n(s)\cdot\nabla) u_n(s)],\nabla u_n(s)\right\rangle_0\,ds\\
&\quad-\frac{2 }{\sqrt{c_W}}\sum_{k\in I_n^2}\frac{1}{|k|^{\beta-1}}\int_0^t\left[\left\langle({\mathfrak{c}}_k\cdot \nabla)u_n(s),\Delta u_n(s)\right\rangle_0\,dB_k^1(s)\right.\\
&\hspace{7cm}\left.+\left\langle ({\mathfrak{s}}_k\cdot \nabla)u_n(s),\Delta u_n(s)\right\rangle_0\,dB_k^2(s)\right]\\
&\quad+\frac{1}{c_W}\left(1+\sum_{k\in I_n^2\setminus\{(0,0)\}}\frac{(k^1)^2}{|k|^{2\beta}}\right)\int_0^t \sum_{j,l=1}^2\|\partial_j\partial_l u_n(s)\|_0^2\,ds\\
&\quad+ \frac{1}{c_W}\left(\sum_{k\in I_n^2\setminus\{(0,0)\}}\frac{(k^1)^2}{|k|^{2\beta-2}}\right)\int_0^t\|\nabla u_n(s)\|_0^2\,ds
\\
&\leq \|\nabla u_0\|_0^2+\frac{c'_W}{c_W}\int_0^t\|\nabla u_n(s)\|_0^2\,ds\\
&\quad-\frac{2 }{\sqrt{c_W}}\sum_{k\in I_n^2}\frac{1}{|k|^{\beta-1}}\int_0^t\left[\left\langle({\mathfrak{c}}_k\cdot \nabla)u_n(s),\Delta u_n(s)\right\rangle_0\,dB_k^1(s)\right.\\
&\hspace{7cm}\left.+\left\langle ({\mathfrak{s}}_k\cdot \nabla)u_n(s),\Delta u_n(s)\right\rangle_0\,dB_k^2(s)\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $$c'_W=\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}^2\setminus \{(0,0)\}}\frac{(k^1)^2}{|k|^{2\beta-2}}.$$ Thus, applying expectations to the expression of $\|\nabla u_n(t)\|_0^2$ and next Gronwall inequality, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\|\nabla u_n(t)\|_0^2\leq \|\nabla u_0\|_0^2 \, e^{\frac{c'_W}{c_W}t}.\end{aligned}$$ It ends the proof of this Lemma.
Observe that using Lemma \[apriori-estimates:periodic\] we can adapt the arguments of Section \[section:existence\] in order to give an existence result for the solution of Equation as a solution of a martingale problem. The statement of the result that can be proven is the following:
\[Torus-result\] Let $u_0\in V$. Then there exist a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ with a right-continuous filtration $\mathbb{F}=\{\mathcal{F}_t\}$ of $\sigma$-algebras, a Wiener process $W$ on $[0,2\pi]^2$ defined by , and an $[L^2([0,2\pi]^2)]^2$-valued weakly continuous $\mathbb{F}$-adapted process $u(t)$ such that $$\sup_{0\leq t \leq T}\hbox {ess sup}_{\Omega}\|u(t)\|_0^2\leq \|u_0\|_0^2=:\mathcal{K}<+\infty,$$
$$\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\mathbb{E}\| u(t)\|_1^2\leq \|u_0\|_1^2 \, e^{CT}=:\mathcal{K}'<\infty,$$ where $C$ is a positive constant, and (\[Euler:ito:periodic:eq\]) holds. In addition, $u(t)$ is strongly continuous in $t$.
Observe that if in the definition of the Brownian motion $W(t)$ we only sum on a finite number of indeces this Theorem still holds.
When the Brownian motion is space-independent, namely when $$W(t)={\mathfrak{c}}_{(0,0)} B^1_{(0,0)} (t) + {\mathfrak{s}}_{(0,0)} B^2_{(0,0)} (t)=(B^1 (t), B^2 (t))$$ the equation becomes analogous to the one in sections 2-4, now with periodic boundary conditions The stochastic transport equation for this case has been studied recently in [@Y13].
Geometric formulation of the equation
=====================================
V. I. Arnold (cf. [@A66]) showed that the deterministic non-viscous incompressible Euler equation, namely
$${d\over dt}u( t,\theta )=-(u(t,\theta )\cdot\nabla )u(t, \theta )-\nabla p (t,\theta)$$
$${\rm div}\, u (t, \theta )=0$$ corresponds to the equation of the geodesic flow defined on the group $G (M )$ of measure-preserving diffeomorphisms over a compact oriented Riemannian manifold $M$ with respect to the $L^2$ metric for the volume measure. Such a group is infinite-dimensional but, nevertheless, can be endowed with some Riemannian structure, as it was proved and developed by Ebin and Marsden ([@EM70]) following Arnold’s work. The metric is right-invariant and we have practically a Lie algebra (except for some regularity conditions). In particular Euler equation can be written as a geodesic equation,
$${d\over dt}u (t)=-\sum_{l,j}\Gamma_{l,j} u^l (t) u^j (t)$$ where $\Gamma$ denote the Christoffel symbols of the associated Levi-Civita connection, $u^*$ the components of the vector $u$ in the corresponding tangent space to the identity (or Lie algebra, which is identified with the space of vector fields with vanishing divergence). The equation here should be interpreted in the sense of distributions for $L^2$, which explains that the pressure term does not appear.
Actually the formulation of Euler equation as a geodesic flow is a particular case of the so-called Euler-Poincaré reduction in Geometrical Mechanics, that has been generalized to the stochastic framework in [@ACC13].
Consider, as before, an orthonormal basis $e_j$ for $H$, and define the constants of structure $c_{k,l}^m$ by
$$[e_k ,e_l ]=\sum_m c_{k,l}^m e_m.$$ Then the Levi-Civita Christoffel symbols with respect to this basis are obtained by
$$\Gamma_{k ,l}^m ={1\over 2} (c_{k,l}^m -c_{l,m}^k +c_{m,k}^l )$$
When $\Theta =\mathbb T^2$ is the two-dimensional torus we refer to [@CFM07] for an explicit computation of the Lie brackets of the vector fields ${\mathfrak{c}}_k , {\mathfrak{s}}_k $ and for the expression of the corresponding Christoffel symbols.
In this context the stochastic Euler equation , without the pressure term, reads,
$$du (t)=-\sum_{l,j}\Gamma_{l,j} u^l (t) u^j (t)- \Gamma_{l ,j} u^j (t) \circ dB^l (t).$$
The linear part describes the stochastic parallel transport over Brownian paths. Our equation is therefore a transport type equation where both an initial velocity and an initial noise are transported along the underlying stochastic Lagrangian flow (with drift given by $u$).
Using a space-independent Brownian motion corresponds to let the component $l$ take only the value $(0,0)$.
We thank the referees for a cautious reading of the paper.
The second author wishes to acknowledge the support of the FCT portuguese project Pest-OE/MAT/UI0208/2011 by means of a post-doctoral position for one year.
[99]{}
Arnaudon, M., Chen, X., Cruzeiro, A.B.: *Stochastic Euler-Poincaré reduction.* arXiv:1204.3922.
Arnold, V.I.: *Sur la géométrie différentielle des groupes de Lie de dimension infinie et ses applications à l’hydrodynamique des flluides parfaits.* Ann. Inst. Fourier, Vol. **16**, (1966), 319-361.
Brzezniak, Z., Peszat, S.: *Stochastic two dimensional Euler equations.* The Annals of Probability. **29**, No. 4, (2001), 1796-1832.
Cruzeiro, A.B., Flandoli, F., Malliavin, P.: *Brownian motion on volume preserving diffeomorphisms group and existence of global solutions of 2D stochastic Euler equation.* J. Funct. Anal., Vol. **242**, (2007), 304-326.
Cipriano, F., Cruzeiro, A.B.: *Navier-Stokes equation and diffusions on the group of homeomorphisms of the torus.* Commun. Math. Phys. **275**, (2007), 255-269.
Ebin, D.J., Marsden, J.: *Groups of diffeomorphisms and the motion of an incompressible fluid.* Ann. of Math., Vol. **92**, 1 (1970), 102-163.
Mikulevicius, R.: *On strong $H_2^1$-solutions of stochastic Navier-Stokes equation in a bounded domain.* SIAM J. Math. Anal. Vol. **41**, No. 3, (2009), 1206-1230.
Mikulevicius, R., Rozovskii, B. L.: *Martingale problems for stochastic PDE’s.* In Stochastic Partial Differential Equations: Six Perspectives (R. Carmona and B. L. Rozovskii, eds.). Mathematical Surveys and Monographs **64**. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI. (1999), 243-325.
Mikulevicius, R., Rozovskii, B. L.: *Global $L_2$-solutions of stochastic Navier-Stokes equations.* The Annals of Probability, Vol. **33**, No. 1, (2005), 137-176.
Schmalfuss, B.: *Measure attractors of the stochastic Navier-Stokes equations.* University Breman, Report 258 (1991).
Temam, R.: *Navier-Stokes Equations. Theory and Numerical Analysis.* Reprint of the 1984 edition, AMS Chelsea, Providence, RI, (2001).
Yokoyama, S.: *Construction of Weak Solutions of a certain Stochastic Navier-Stokes Equation*, Stochastics, online published.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We continue the study of communication cost of computing functions when inputs are distributed among $k$ processors, each of which is located at one vertex of a network/graph called a terminal. Every other node of the network also has a processor, with no input. The communication is point-to-point and the cost is the total number of bits exchanged by the protocol, in the worst case, on all edges.
Chattopadhyay, Radhakrishnan and Rudra (FOCS’14) recently initiated a study of the effect of topology of the network on the total communication cost using tools from $L_1$ embeddings. Their techniques provided tight bounds for simple functions like Element-Distinctness (ED), which depend on the 1-median of the graph. This work addresses two other kinds of natural functions. We show that for a large class of natural functions like Set-Disjointness the communication cost is essentially $n$ times the cost of the optimal Steiner tree connecting the terminals. Further, we show for natural composed functions like $\text{ED} \circ \text{XOR}$ and $\text{XOR} \circ \text{ED}$, the naive protocols suggested by their definition is optimal for general networks. Interestingly, the bounds for these functions depend on more involved topological parameters that are a combination of Steiner tree and 1-median costs.
To obtain our results, we use some new tools in addition to ones used in Chattopadhyay et. al. These include (i) viewing the communication constraints via a linear program; (ii) using tools from the theory of tree embeddings to prove topology sensitive direct sum results that handle the case of composed functions and (iii) representing the communication constraints of certain problems as a family of collection of multiway cuts, where each multiway cut simulates the hardness of computing the function on the star topology.
author:
- 'Arkadev Chattopadhyay [^1]'
- 'Atri Rudra[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'two-lps.bib'
- 'references-ar.bib'
- 'references-ac.bib'
title: The Range of Topological Effects on Communication
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
We consider the following distributed computation problem $p \equiv (f,G,K,\Sigma)$: there is a set $K$ of $k$ processors that have to jointly compute a function $f\,:\,\Sigma^{K} \to \{0,1\}$. Each of the $k$ inputs to $f$ is held by a distinct processor. Each processor is located on some node of a network (graph) $G \equiv (V,E)$. These nodes in $V$ with an input are called [*terminals*]{} and the set of such nodes is denoted by $K$. The other nodes in $V$ have no input but have processors that also participate in the computation of $f$ via the following communication process: there is some fixed a-priori protocol according to which, in each round of communication, nodes of the network send messages to their neighbors. The behavior of a node in any round is just a (randomized) function of inputs held by it and the sequence of bits it has received from its neighbors in the past. All communication is point-to-point in the sense that each edge of $G$ is a private communication channel between its endpoints. In any round, if one of the endpoints of an edge is in a state where it expects to receive some communication from the other side, then silence from the other side is not allowed in a legal protocol. At the end of communication process, some pre-designated node of the network outputs the value of $f$ on the input instance held by processors in $K$. We assume that protocols are randomized, using public coins that are accessible to all nodes of the network, and err with small probability. The cost of a protocol on an input is the expected total number of bits communicated on all edges of the network. The main question we study in this work is how the cost of the best protocol on the worst input depends on the function $f$, the network $G$ and the set of terminals $K$. This cost is denoted by $R_{\epsilon}\big(p\big)$ (and we use $R(p)$ to denote $R_{1/3}(p)$). It is not difficult to see that this cost is lower bounded by the expected cost (of the best protocol) under any distribution $\mu$ over the inputs to nodes in $K$. This latter quantity is denoted by $R_{\epsilon,\mu}\big(p\big)$ and turns out to be easier to lower bound under a conveniently chosen $\mu$.
This communication model seems to be a natural abstraction of many distributed problems and was recently studied in its full generality by Chattopadhyay, Radhakrishnan and Rudra [@CRR14].[^3] A noteworthy special case is when $G$ is just a pair of nodes connected by an edge. This corresponds to the classical model of 2-party communication introduced by Yao [@Yao79] more than three decades ago. The study of the classical model has blossomed into the vibrant and rich field of communication complexity, which has deep connections to theoretical computer science in general and computational complexity in particular.
This point-to-point model had received early attention in the works of Tiwari [@T87], Dolev and Feder [@DF89] and Duris and Rolim [@DR98]. These early works seem to have entirely focused on deterministic and non-deterministic complexities. In particular, Tiwari [@T87] showed several interesting topology-sensitive bounds on the cost of deterministic protocols for simple functions. However, these bounds were for specific graphs like trees, grids, rings etc. More recently, there has been a resurgence of interest in the randomized complexity of functions in the point-to-point model. These have several motivations: BSP model of Valiant [@bgp], models for MapReduce [@mr-1], parallel models to compute conjunctive queries [@join-1], distributed models for learning [@learning-1], distributed streaming and functional monitoring [@func-survey], sensor networks [@KK12] etc. Interestingly, in a very recent work Drucker, Kuhn and Oshman [@DKO14] showed that some outstanding questions in this model (where one is interested in bounding the number of rounds of communication as opposed to bounding the total communication) have connections to well known hard problems on constant-depth circuits. Motivated by such diverse applications, a flurry of recent works [@PVZ12; @WZ12; @WZ13; @WZ14; @BEOPV13; @HRVZ13; @LSWW14; @CM14] have proved strong lower bounds, developing very interesting techniques. All of these works, however, focus on the star topology with $k$ leaves, each having a terminal and a central non-terminal node. Note that every function on the star can be computed using $O(kn)$ bits of communication, by making the leaves simultaneously send each of their $n$-bit inputs to the center that outputs the answer. The aforementioned recent works show that this is an optimal protocol for various natural functions.
In contrast, on a general graph not all functions seem to admit $O(kn)$-bit protocols. Consider the naive protocol that makes all terminals send their inputs to a special node $u$. The speciality of $u$ is the following: let the status of a node $v$ in network $G$ w.r.t. $K$, denoted by $\sigma_K\left(v\right)$, be given by $\sum_{w \in K} d_G(v,w)$, where $d_G(x,y)$ is the length of a shortest path in $G$ between nodes $x$ and $y$. Node $u$ is special and called the [*median*]{} as it has a minimal status among all nodes, which we denote by $\sigma_K\left(G\right)$. Thus, the cost of the naive protocol is $\sigma_K\left(G\right)\cdot n$. For the star, the center is the median with status $k$. On the other hand, for the line, ring and grid, each having $k$ nodes all of which are terminals, $\sigma_K(G)$ is $\Theta(k^2)$, $\Theta(k^2)$ and $\Theta(k^{3/2})$ respectively.
The work in [@CRR14] appears to be the first one to address the issue of randomized protocols over arbitrary $G$. It shows simple natural functions like Element-Distinctness[^4], have $\Theta(\sigma_K\left(G\right))$ as the cost (up to a poly-log$(k)$ factor) of the optimal randomized protocol computing them. While these are essentially the strongest possible lower bounds[^5], not all functions of interest have that high complexity. Consider the function Equality that outputs 1 precisely when all input strings at the nodes in $K$ are the same. There is a randomized protocol of cost much less than $\sigma_K(G)$ for computing it: consider a minimal cost Steiner-tree with nodes in $K$ as the terminals. Let the cost of this tree be denoted by ${\mathrm{ST}}\left(G,K\right)$. Root this tree at an arbitrary node. Each leaf node sends a hash (it turns out $O(1)$ bits of random hash suffices for our purposes[^6]) of its string to its parent. Each internal node $u$ collects all hashes that it receives from nodes in the sub-tree rooted at $u$, verifies if they are all equal to some string $s$. If so, it sends $s$ to its parent and otherwise, it sends a special symbol to its parent indicating inequality. Thus, in cost $O\left({\mathrm{ST}}\left(G,K\right)\right)$, one can compute Equality with small error probability.[^7]
For many scenarios in a distributed setting, the task to be performed is naturally layered in the following way. The set of terminal nodes is divided into $t$ groups $K_1,\ldots,K_t$. Within a group of $m$ terminals, the input needs to be pre-processed in a specified manner, expressed as a function $g: \big(\{0,1\}^n\big)^m \to \{0,1\}^n$. Finally the results of the computation of the groups need to be combined in a different way, given by another function $f : \big(\{0,1\}^n\big)^t \to \{0,1\}$. More precisely, we want to compute the composed function $f \circ g$. The canonical protocol will first compute in parallel all instances of the task $g$ in groups using the optimal protocol for $g$ and then use the optimal protocol for $f$ on the outputs of $g$ in each of $K_i$. However, this is not the optimal protocol for all $f,g$ and network $G$. For example, consider the case when $f$ is Equality and $g$ is the bit-wise XOR function. As we show later, the optimal protocol for computing XOR has cost $\Theta\left({\mathrm{ST}}\left(G,K\right)\cdot n\right)$. Hence, the naive protocol for $\text{EQ}\circ \text{XOR}$ will have cost $\Omega\big(\left({\mathrm{ST}}\left(G,K'\right)\right)\,+ \,\sum_{i=1}^r \left({\mathrm{ST}}\left(G,K_i\right)\cdot n\right)\,\big)$. However, it is not hard to see that there is a protocol of cost $O\big(t\cdot \left({\mathrm{ST}}\left(G,K\right)\right)$. This cost can be much lower than the naive cost depending on the network.
Our Results
===========
The first part of our work attempts to understand when the naive protocol cannot be improved upon for composed functions. Function composition is a widely used technique in computational complexity for building new functions out of more primitive ones [@RM99; @G11; @GNW11; @BBCR13; @KRW95]. Proving that the naive way of solving $f \circ g$ is essentially optimal, in many models remain open. In particular, even in the 2-party model of communication where the network is just an edge, this problem still remains unsolved (see [@BBCR13]). To describe our results on composition, we need the following terminology: The cost of solving a problem $\big(f,G,K,\{0,1\}^n\big)$ will have a dependence on both $n$ and the topology of $G$. We will deal with two kinds of dependence on $n$. If the cost depends linearly on $n$, we say $f$ is of linear type. Otherwise, there is no dependence on $n$. (We typically ignore poly-log factors in this paper.) Call $f$ a *$1$-median* type function if its topology-sensitive complexity is $\sigma_K\left(G\right)$. We say $f$ is of *Steiner tree* type, if its topology-sensitive complexity is ${\mathrm{ST}}\left(G,K\right)$. The protocol for a Steiner tree type problem $f$ seems to move information around in a fundamentally different way from the one for a $1$-median type problem $g$. It seems tempting to expect that there composition cannot be solved by any cheaper protocol than the naive ones. However, we are only able to prove this intuition for few natural instances in this work.
Consider the following composition: the first function is element distinctness function, denoted by ${\mathrm{ED}}$, which was shown by [@CRR14] to be of $1$-median type. The second is the bit-wise xor function (which we denote by ${\mathrm{XOR}}_n$), which is shown to be of linear Steiner-tree type later in Appendix \[app:lp-cc\]. In particular, given a graph $G=(V,E)$ and $t$ subsets $K_1,\dots,K_t\subseteq V$, we define the composed function ${\mathrm{ED}}\circ{\mathrm{XOR}}_n$ as follows. Given $k_i\stackrel{def}{=} |K_i|$ $n$-bit vectors $X_1^i,\dots,X_{k_i}^i\in\{0,1\}^n$ for every $i\in [t]$, define ${\mathrm{ED}}\circ{\mathrm{XOR}}_n\left( X^1_1,\dots,X^1_{k_1},\dots,X^t_1,\dots,X_{k_t}^t\right)={\mathrm{ED}}\left({\mathrm{XOR}}_n\left(X^1_1,\dots,X^1_{k_1}\right),\dots,{\mathrm{XOR}}_n\left(X^t_1,\dots,X_{k_t}\right)\right)$. The naive algorithm mentioned earlier specializes for ${\mathrm{ED}}\circ{\mathrm{XOR}}_n$ as follows: compute the inner bit-wise ${\mathrm{XOR}}$’s first[^8] and then compute the ${\mathrm{ED}}$ on the intermediate values. This immediately leads to an upper bound of $$\label{eq:ed-xor-mixed-ub}
O\left(\sigma_{K_1,\dots,K_t}(G)\cdot \log{k}+ \sum_{i=1}^t {\mathrm{ST}}(G,K_i)\cdot \log{k}\right),$$ where $\sigma_{K_1,\dots,K_t}(G)$ is the minimum of $\sigma_K(G)$ for every choice of $K$ that has exactly one terminal from $K_i$ for every $i\in [t]$. One of our results, stated below, shows that this upper bound is tight to within a poly-log factor:
\[thm:ed-xor-lb\] $$R({\mathrm{ED}}\circ{\mathrm{XOR}}_n,G,K,\{0,1\}^n)\ge \Omega\left(\frac{\sigma_{K_1,\dots,K_t}(G)}{\log{t}}\;+\; \frac{\sum_{i=1}^t {\mathrm{ST}}(G,K_i)}{{\log{|V|}\log\log{|V|}}}\right).$$
We prove the above result (and other similar results) by essentially proving a topology sensitive direct sum theorem (see Section \[sec:tree\] for more).
To get a feel for how behaves between the two extremes consider the case when $G$ is a $\sqrt{k}\times \sqrt{k}$ grid and the set of $k$ terminals (i.e. all nodes are terminals) is divided into $t$ sets of size $k/t$, where each $K_i$ for $i\in [t]$ is a $\sqrt{\frac{k}{t}}\times\sqrt{\frac{k}{t}}$ sub-grid. It can be verified that in this case is (up to an $O(\log{k})$ factor) $t\sqrt{k}+k$. In Section \[sec:xor-ed\], we further show that changing the order of composition to $\text{XOR}\circ \text{ED}$ also does not allow any cost savings over the naive protocol:
\[thm:xor-ed-lb\] For every choice of $u_i\in K_i$: $$R({\mathrm{XOR}}_1\circ{\mathrm{ED}},G,K,\{0,1\}^n)\ge \Omega\left({\mathrm{ST}}(G,\{u_1,\dots,u_t\})+\frac{\sum_{i=1}^t \sigma_{K_i}(G)}{\log{k}}\right).$$
The results discussed so far follow by appropriately reducing the problem on a general graph to a bunch of two-party lower bounds, one across each cut in the graph. This was the general idea in [@CRR14] as well but the reductions in this paper need to use different tools. However, the idea of two-party reduction seems to fail for the Set-Disjointness function, which is one of the centrally studied function in communication complexity. In our setting, the natural definition of Set-Disjointness (denoted by ${\mathrm{DISJ}}$) is as follows: each of the $k$ terminals in $K$ have an $n$-bit string and the function tests if there is an index $i\in [n]$ such that all $k$ strings have their $i$th bit set to $1$. It is easy to check that this function can be computed with $O({\mathrm{ST}}(G,K)\cdot n)$ bits of communication (in fact one can compute the bit-wise ${\mathrm{AND}}$ function with this much communication by successively computing the partial bit-wise ${\mathrm{AND}}$ as we go up the Steiner tree). Before our work, only a tight bound was known for the special case of $G$ being a $k$-star (i.e. a lower bound of $\Omega(kn)$), due to the recent work of Braverman et al. [@BEOPV13]. In this work, we present a fairly general technique that ports a tight lower bound on a $k$-star to an almost tight lower bound for the general graph case. For the complexity of Set-Disjointness, this technique yields the following bound:
\[thm:sd-lb\] $$R({\mathrm{DISJ}},G,K,\{0,1\}^n)\ge \Omega\left(\frac{{\mathrm{ST}}(G,K)\cdot n}{\log^2{k}}\right).$$
Next, we present our key technical results and an overview of their proofs. We would like to point out that our proofs use many tools used in algorithm-design like (sub)tree embeddings, Boruvka’s algorithm to compute an MST for a graph and integrality gaps of some well-known LPs, besides using $L_1$-embeddings of graph that was also used in [@CRR14]. We hope this work encourages further investigation of other algorithmic techniques to prove message-passing lower bounds.
Key Technical Results and Our Techniques {#sec:gen}
========================================
In Appendix \[app:lp-cc\] we present a simple formulation of communication lower bounds in terms of a linear program (LP), whose constraints correspond to two-party communication complexity lower bounds induced across various cuts in the graph $G$. In particular, we prove our earlier claimed lower bound of $\Omega({\mathrm{ST}}(G,K)\cdot n)$ for the ${\mathrm{XOR}}_n$ problem. Further, this connection can also be used to recover the $\Omega(\sigma_K(G)/\log{k})$ lower bound for the ${\mathrm{ED}}$ function from [@CRR14]– see Theorem \[thm:ed-lb\]. While LPs have been used to prove communication complexity lower bounds in the standard 2-party setting (see e.g. [@Sherstov09; @SZ09]), our use of LPs above seem to be novel for proving communication lower bounds. In the remainder of the section, we present two general results that we will use to prove our lower bounds for specific functions including those in Theorems \[thm:ed-xor-lb\], \[thm:xor-ed-lb\] and \[thm:sd-lb\]. (See Appendix \[sec:app\] for the details.)
A Result on Two LPs {#sec:tree}
-------------------
We now present a result that relates the objective values of two similar LPs. Both the LPs will involve the same underlying topology graph $G=(V,E)$.
We begin with the first LP, which we dub ${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)$: $$\min \sum_{e\in E} x_e$$ subject to $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{e\text{ crosses } C} x_e & \ge \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} b^i(C) & \text{ for every cut } C\\
x_e& \ge 0 &\text{ for every } e\in E.\end{aligned}$$ In our results, we will use $x_e$ to denote the expected communication of an arbitrary protocol for a problem $p$ over a distribution over the input. The constraint for each cut $C$ will correspond to a two-party lower bound of $\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} b^i(C)$. Then the objective value of the above LP, which by abuse of notation we will also denote by ${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)$, will be a valid lower bound on $R(p)$.
Next we consider the second LP, which we dub ${\textsc{LP}^U}(G)$: $$\min \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \sum_{e\in E} x_{i,e}$$ subject to $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{e\text{ crosses } C} x_{i,e} & \ge b^i(C) & \text{ for every cut } C\text{ and }i\in [\ell]\\
x_{i,e}& \ge 0 &\text{ for every } e\in E\text{ and } i\in [\ell].\end{aligned}$$ In our results, we will connect the objective value of the above LP (which again with abuse of notation we will denote by ${\textsc{LP}^U}(G)$) to the total communication of a trivial algorithm that solves problem $p$.
Our main aim is to show that for certain settings, the lower bound we get from ${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)$ is essentially the same as the upper bound we get from ${\textsc{LP}^U}(G)$.
Before we state our main technical result, we need to define the property we need on the values $b^i(C)$. In particular, let $\delta(C)$ denote the set of crossing edges for a cut $C$. We say that the values $b^i(C)$ satisfy the [*sub-additive property*]{} if for any three cuts $C_1,C_2$ and $C_3$ such that $C_1\cup C_2= C_3$,[^9] we have that for every $i\in [\ell]$: $b^i(C_3)\le b^i(C_1)+b^i(C_2)$. We remark that the two main families of functions that we consider in this paper lead to LPs that do satisfy the sub-additive property (see Appendix \[app:sub-add\]). We are now ready to state our first main technical result:
\[cor:lp1-lp2\] For any graph $G=(V,E)$ (and values $b^i(C)$ for any $i\in [\ell]$ and cut $C$ with the sub-additive property), we have $${\textsc{LP}^U}(G)\ge {\textsc{LP}^L}(G)\ge \Omega\left(\frac{1}{{\log{|V|}\log\log{|V|}}}\right)\cdot {\textsc{LP}^U}(G).$$
Theorem \[cor:lp1-lp2\] is the main ingredient in proving the lower bound for a $1$-median function composed with a Steiner tree function as given in Theorem \[thm:ed-xor-lb\] (see Appendix \[sec:ed-xor\]).
We can also use Theorem \[cor:lp1-lp2\] to prove nearly tight lower bound for composing a Steiner tree type function ${\mathrm{XOR}}$ with a linear $1$-median function ${\mathrm{IP}}$ as well as another $1$-median function ${\mathrm{ED}}$. However, it turns out for these functions, we can prove a better bound than Theorem \[cor:lp1-lp2\]. In particular, using techniques developed in [@CRR14], we can prove lower bounds given in Theorem \[thm:xor-ed-lb\] and the one stated below (see Appendix \[sec:xor-ip\] for details):
\[cor:xor-ip-lb\] For every choice of $u_i\in K_i$: $$R({\mathrm{XOR}}\circ{\mathrm{IP}}_n,G,K,\{0,1\}^n)\ge\Omega\left({\mathrm{ST}}(G,\{u_1,\dots,u_t\})+\frac{\sum_{i=1}^t \sigma_{K_i}(G)\cdot n}{\log{k}}\right).$$
### Proof Overview {#sec:techniques-1}
We give an overview of our proof of Theorem \[cor:lp1-lp2\] (specialized to the proof of Theorem \[thm:ed-xor-lb\]). While the LP based lower bound argument for ${\mathrm{XOR}}_n$ in Appendix \[app:lp-cc\] is fairly straightforward things get more interesting when we consider ${\mathrm{ED}}\circ{\mathrm{XOR}}_n$. It turns out that just embedding the hard distribution for ${\mathrm{ED}}$ from [@CRR14], one can prove a lower bound of just $\Omega\left(\frac{\sigma_{K_1,\dots,K_t}(G)}{\log{t}}\right)$ (see Lemma \[lem:ed-xor-mfc-lb\]). The more interesting part is proving a lower bound of $\tilde{\Omega}\left(\sum_{i=1}^t {\mathrm{ST}}(G,K_i)\right)$. It is not too hard to connect the [*upper*]{} bound of $\tilde{O}\left(\sum_{i=1}^t {\mathrm{ST}}(G,K_i)\right)$ to the following LP, which we dub ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}^U(G,K)$ (and is a specialization of ${\textsc{LP}^U}(G)$): $$\min \sum_{i=1}^{t} \sum_{e\in E} x_{i,e}$$ subject to $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{e\text{ crosses } C} x_{i,e} & \ge 1 & \text{ for every cut } C\text{ that separates } K \text{ and }i\in [t]\\
x_{i,e}& \ge 0 &\text{ for every } e\in E\text{ and } i\in [t].\end{aligned}$$ Indeed the above LP is basically solving the sum of $t$ independent linear programs: call them ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}(G,K_i)$ for each $i \in [t]$. Hence, one can independently optimize each of these ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}(G,K_i)$ and then just put them together to get an optimal solution for ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}^U(G,K)$. This matches the claimed upper bounds since it is well-known that the objective value of ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}(G,K_i)$ is $\Theta({\mathrm{ST}}(G,K_i))$ [@vazirani].
On the other hand, if one tries the approach we used to prove the lower bound for ${\mathrm{XOR}}_n$, then one picks an appropriate hard distribution $\mu$ and shows that for every cut $C$ the induced two-party problem has a high enough lower bound. In this case, it turns out (see Section \[sec:ed-xor\]) that the corresponding two-party lower bound (ignoring constant factors) is the number of sets $K_i$ separated by the cut. Then proceeding as in the argument for ${\mathrm{XOR}}_n$ if one sets $y_e$ to be the expected (under $\mu$) communication for any fixed protocol over any $e\in E$, then $(y_e)_{e\in E}$ is a feasible solution for the following LP, which we dub ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}^L(G,K)$ (and is a specialization of ${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)$): $$\min \sum_{e\in E} x_e$$ subject to $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{e\text{ crosses } C} x_e & \ge v(C,K) & \text{ for every cut } C\\
x_e& \ge 0 &\text{ for every } e\in E,\end{aligned}$$ where $v(C,K)$ is the number of subsets $K_i$ that are separated by $C$. If we denote the objective value of the above LP by ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}^L(G,K)$, then we have an overall lower bound of $\Omega({LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}^L(G,K))$. Thus, we would be done if we can show that ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}^L(G,K)$ and ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}^U(G,K)$ are close. It is fairly easy to see that ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}^L(G,K)\le {LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}^U(G,K)$. However, to prove a tight lower bound, we need an approximate inequality in the other direction. We show this is true by the following two step process:
1. First we observe that if $G$ is a tree $T$ then ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}^L(T,K)= {LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}^U(T,K)$.
2. Then we use results from embedding graphs into sub-trees to show that there exists a subtree $T$ of $G$ such that ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}^L(G,K)\approx {LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}^L(T,K)$ and ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}^U(G,K)\approx {LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}^U(T,K)$, which with the first step completes our proof.
We would like to remark on three things. First, our proof can handle more general constraints than those imposed by the Steiner tree LP. In particular, we generalize the argument above to prove Theorem \[cor:lp1-lp2\]. Second, to the best of our knowledge this result relating the objective values of these two similar LPs seems to be new. However, we would like to point out that our proof follows (with minor modifications) a similar structure that has been used to prove other algorithmic results via tree embeddings (e.g. in [@AA97]). Third, we find it interesting to observe that the upper bound on the gap between the two LP’s is the key step in accomplishing a distributed direct-sum like result.
From Star to Steiner Trees
--------------------------
We define a multicut $C$ of $K$ to be a collection of non-empty pair-wise disjoint subsets $C_1,\ldots,C_r$ of $K$. Each such subset is called an explicit set of $C$ and the (maybe empty) set $K \setminus \cup_{i=1}^r C_i$ is called its implicit set. We will call $f:\Sigma^K\to \{0,1\}$ to be $h$-[*[maximally hard on the star graph]{}*]{} if the following holds for any multicut $C$. There exists a distribution $\mu_C^f$ such that the expected cost (under $\mu_C^f$) of any protocol that correctly computes $f$ on the following star graph is $\Omega(|C|\cdot h(|\Sigma|))$: each leaf of the star has all terminals from an explicit set from $C$, no two leaves have terminals from the same explicit set and the center contains terminals from the implicit set. The following is our second main technical result:
\[thm:sd-st\] Let $f$ be $h$-[maximally hard on the star graph]{}$\text{.}$ Then $$R(f,G,K,\Sigma)\ge \Omega\left(\frac{{\mathrm{ST}}(G,K)\cdot h(|\Sigma|)}{\log^2{k}}\right).$$
The above result easily implies the lower bound (see Section \[sec:disj\] ) in Theorem \[thm:sd-lb\].
Theorem \[thm:sd-st\] can also be used to prove a lower bound similar to Theorem \[thm:sd-lb\] above for the Tribes function using the lower bound for Tribes on the star topology from [@CM14]. We defer the proof of this claim to the full version of the paper.
### Proof Overview {#sec:techniques-2}
In all of the arguments so far, we reduce the lower bound problem on $(G,K)$ to a bunch of two party lower bounds induced by cuts. However, we are not aware of any hard distribution such that one can prove a tight lower bound that reduces the set disjointness problem to a bunch of two-party lower bounds. In fact, the only non-trivial lower bound for set disjointness, in the point-to-point model, that we are aware of is the $\Omega(kn)$ lower bound for the $k$-star by Braverman et al. [@BEOPV13]. In particular, their proof does not seem to work by reducing the problem to two-party lower bounds. In this work, we are able to extend the set disjointness lower bound of [@BEOPV13] to Theorem \[thm:sd-lb\]. We prove Theorem \[thm:sd-lb\] by modifying the argument in [@CRR14] as follows. Essentially the idea in [@CRR14] is to construct a collection of cuts such that essentially every edge participates in $O(\log{k})$ cuts and one can prove the appropriate two-party lower bound across each of the cuts in the collection so that when one sums up the contribution from each cut one gets the appropriate $\Omega(\sigma_K(G)/\log{k})$ overall lower bound. (These collection of cuts were obtained via Bourgain’s $L_1$ embedding [@Bou85; @LLR95]. As mentioned earlier, this trick does not seem to work for set disjointness and it is very much geared towards $1$-median type functions). We modify this idea as follows: we construct a collection of [*multi-cuts*]{} such that (i) every edge in $G$ appears in at most one multi-cut and (ii) one can use lower bounds on star graph to compute lower bounds for the induced function on each multi-cut, which can then be added up.
The main challenge in the above is to construct an appropriate collection of multi-cuts that satisfy properties (i) and (ii) above. The main idea is natural: we start with balls of radius $0$ centered at each of the $k$ terminals and then one grows all the balls at the same rate. When two balls intersect, we combine the two balls and grows the larger ball appropriately. The multi-cut at any point of time is defined by the vertices in various balls. To argue the required properties, we observe that the algorithm above essentially simulates Boruvka’s algorithm [@boruvka] on the [*metric closure*]{} of $K$ with respect to the shortest path distances in $G$. In other words, we show that the sum of the contributions of the lower bounds from each multi-cut is related to the MST on the metric closure of $K$ with respect to $G$, which is well-known to be closely related to ${\mathrm{ST}}(G,K)$ (see e.g. [@vazirani Chap. 2]). It turns out that for set disjointness, one has to define $O(\log{k})$ different hard distributions (that depend on the structure of the multi-cuts above) and this is the reason why we lose a $O(\log{k})$ factor in our lower bound. (We lose another $O(\log{k})$ factor since we use lower bounds on the star topology.) To the best of our knowledge this is the first instance where the hard distribution actually depends on the graph structure– most of our results as well as those preceding ours use hard distributions that are [*independent*]{} of the graph structure. This argument generalizes easily to prove Theorem \[thm:sd-st\].
[**Summary:**]{} We have two main contributions towards proving topology-sensitive lower bounds on the randomized communication complexity. The first is a new use of LPs, aided by the theory of sub-tree embeddings, to prove distributed direct-sum like results for natural problems. The second is a technique to port communication bounds proven for the star-topology to general graphs with arbitrary topology. The second technique proves bounds by carefully considering an explicit collection of multiway cuts. Both techniques yield almost tight bounds for several natural functions.
Open Questions {#sec:concl}
==============
We conclude by pointing out two of the many open questions that arise from our work:
1. Our two main technical tools are complementary. Theorem \[cor:lp1-lp2\] works for the case when the set of terminals $K$ is divided into sets $K_1,\dots,K_t$ and one applies some inner functions on these $K_i$’s. Theorem \[cor:lp1-lp2\] allows us to prove a sort of direct sum result in this case. However, this technique reduces the problem on $(G,K)$ to a bunch of two-party lower bounds. On the other hand, Theorem \[thm:sd-st\] transforms the problem on $(G,K)$ to lower bounds on star graphs. However, this cannot prove a direct sum type lower bound (and also only handles Steiner tree type constraints). A natural question to ask is if one can get the best of both worlds, i.e. can we show a direct sum type lower bound of the kind $\Omega(\sum_{i=1}^t {\mathrm{ST}}(G,K_i))$ by reducing the problem to a bunch of lower bounds on the star topology?
2. In this paper we only present results for specific $f\circ g$. It would be nice to prove our conjecture from the introduction: if the inner function is a (linear) Steiner tree type and the outer function is a (linear) $1$-median type function, then the trivial two-stage algorithm is optimal for $f\circ g$. There are several avenues to pursue this. One such is to extend the [*XOR lemma*]{} (which corresponds to proving that the naive protocol is optimal for ${\mathrm{XOR}}\circ g$) of Barak et al. [@BBCR13] from the two-party communication setting to ours (as long as $g$ is of 1-median type).
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Thanks to Jaikumar Radhakrishnan for pointing out that cost of minimum Steiner tree can bound the communication complexity of a class of functions. Many thanks to Anupam Gupta for answering our questions on tree embeddings and related discussions.
We would like to thank the organizers of the [2014 Dagstuhl seminar on Algebra in Computational Complexity](http://www.dagstuhl.de/en/program/calendar/semhp/?semnr=14391) for inviting us to Dagstuhl, where some of the results in this paper were obtained.
AC is supported by a Ramanujan Fellowship of the DST and AR is supported in part by NSF grant CCF-0844796.
Notes on the Appendix {#notes-on-the-appendix .unnumbered}
=====================
Further, some of our results hold for the case when more than one input is assigned to the same terminal, i.e. we have a [*multi-set*]{} of terminals. In the appendix, we will use ${\mathcal{K}}$ to denote the case of the set of terminals being a multi-set and $K$ to denote the case that the set of terminals is a proper set.
Related Work in Distributed Computing {#app:dc}
=====================================
Not surprisingly, the role of topology in computation has been studied extensively in distributed computing [@peleg-book]. There are three main differences between works in this literature and ours. First, the main objective in distributed computation is to minimize the end to end delay of the computation, which in communication complexity terminology corresponds to the number of rounds need to compute a given function. By contrast, we mostly consider the related but different measure of the total amount of communication. Second, the effect of network topology on the cost of communication has been analyzed to quite an extent when the networks are *dynamic* (see for example the recent survey of Kuhn and Oshman [@KO11]). By contrast, in this paper we are concerned with static networks of arbitrary topology. Finally, there has also been work on proving lower bounds for distributed computing on static networks, see e.g. the recent work of Das Sarma et al. [@das-sarma]. This line of work differs from ours in at least two ways. First, their aim is to prove lower bounds on the number of rounds needed to compute, especially when the edges of the graph are capacitated. This paper, on the other hand, focuses on the total communication needed without placing any restriction on the capacities of the edges or the number of rounds involved. Second, the kinds of functions considered in the distributed computing community (for recent papers see e.g. [@das-sarma; @L13; @DKO14]) are generally of a different nature than the kinds of functions that we consider in this paper (which are more influenced by the functions typically considered in the communication complexity literature). For many functions in distributed computing, the function $f$ itself depends on $G$ (e.g. computing the diameter of $G$, the cost of the MST of $G$ etc.) while all the functions we consider are independent of $G$– indeed we want to keep the function $f$ the same and see how its communication complexity changes as we change $G$. Further, even for the case when $f$ is independent of $G$ (e.g. sorting) typically one has $k=n$ and $V={\mathcal{K}}$ while in our case we have arbitrary ${\mathcal{K}}$ and $|V|$ and $n$ are independent parameters. (There is a very recent exception in [@KNPR13].)
Communcation Complexity Lower Bounds via LPs {#app:lp-cc}
============================================
A basic idea in our technique, is to understand the topological constraints placed on the communication demands of the problem by considering cuts of a graph. The general idea of using cuts for this purpose has appeared in many places before like network coding (ex: [@lili1; @lili2; @lili3] and function computation in sensor networks (ex: [@KK12]). But the idea of using several cuts rather than a single cut that we describe next is primarily borrowed from [@CRR14] (similar though slightly less general arguments were also made in [@T87; @PVZ12]). The original problem $\big(f,\{0,1\}^n, G, K\big)$ naturally gives rise to a classical 2-party problem across a cut $C = (V^A,V^B)$, where $V^A,V^B$ partition the set of vertices $V(G)$. In the 2-party problem, Alice gets the inputs of the terminals in $K^A \equiv K \cap V^A$ and Bob gets the inputs of terminals in $K^B \equiv K \cap V^B$. Alice and Bob compute $f^C$, the induced problem on the cut. A protocol $\Pi$ solving $f$ induces protocol $\Pi'$ for Alice and Bob as follows: let $\delta(C)$ be the set of cut-edges. As long as $\Pi$ does not send any bits across any edge in $\delta(C)$, Alice and Bob simulate $\Pi$ internally with no communication to each other. If $\Pi$ communicates bits through edges in $\delta(C)$, Alice sends exactly those bits to Bob that were sent in $\Pi$ from vertices in $V^A$ to vertices in $V^B$ via some pre-determined encoding in $\Pi'$. Bob then sends to Alice the bits sent in the other direction in $\Pi$. Thus, the 2-party problem gets solved in essentially the same cost as the total number of bits sent over edges of $\delta(C)$ by $\Pi$. However, the simple thing to note is that if $f^C$ is known to have large 2-party communication complexity of $b(C)$, then that places a communication demand of $b(C)$ across the cut $C$.
We would like to say that we understand the communication bottlenecks in the graph, as is often done in analyzing network flows, by specifying this demand $b(C)$ from our understanding of 2-party communication complexity. An obvious problem is the following: usually randomized 2-party communication complexity specifies “worst-case” complexity. The worst-case cost locally across each cut $C$ may not correspond to a globally consistent input. It was observed in [@CRR14] that there is a simple fix to this. We define a global input distribution $\mu$ such that the “expected” communication cost of the 2-party problem across cut $C$ w.r.t the induced distribution $\mu_C$ is $b(C)$. Then, the use of linearity of expectation helps us analyze the expected communication cost of the original problem. This idea was used in [@CRR14] by using a special family of cuts obtained from $L_1$ embeddings of graphs. This worked well to give 1-median type lower bounds, where the demand function $b(C)$ was of a specific type. In this work, we want to deal with more varied demand functions. It turns out to be more convenient and (in hindsight) more natural for us to write these two-party communication constraints as a linear program (LP). This helps us not only to recover the bounds for the 1-median type functions but also to obtain tight bounds for other types of functions.
We illustrate the use of an LP in our setting by considering the bit-wise xor function: given inputs $X^i=(X^i_1,\dots,X^i_n)\in\{0,1\}^n$ for every $i\in K$, the function ${\mathrm{XOR}}_n:\left(\{0,1\}^n\right)^K\to\{0,1\}^n$ is defined as follows: ${\mathrm{XOR}}_n\left((X^i)_{i\in K}\right) = \left( \left(\bigoplus_{i\in K} X^i_j\right)_{j=1}^n\right)$, where $\oplus$ denote the boolean xor function. It is easy to see that we can compute this function by successively computing the bit-wise xor values of inputs along the Minimum Steiner tree for $K$, which implies an upper bound of $O({\mathrm{ST}}(G,K)\cdot n)$. We now show how one can prove an $\Omega({\mathrm{ST}}(G,K)\cdot n)$ lower bound for ${\mathrm{XOR}}_n$. Let $\mu$ be the hard distribution that assign an independent and uniformly random vector from $\{0,1\}^n$ to each of the $k$ terminals. Now fix any protocol $\Pi$ that correctly solves the ${\mathrm{XOR}}_n$ function on $(G,K)$ on all inputs. Now consider a cut $C$ of $G$ that separates the terminal set $K$. If one now considers the induced two party problem, it is not too hard to see that if Alice gets the vectors on one side of $C$ and Bob gets the rest of the input then Alice and Bob are trying to solve the two-party bit-wise XOR function. In particular, Alice and Bob have two vectors[^10] $A,B\in\{0,1\}^n$ and they want to compute ${\mathrm{XOR}}_n(A,B)$. $\Pi$ thus induces a bounded error randomized protocol for Alice and Bob where they communicate only bits that $\Pi$ communicates on cut-edges. Further, the induced distribution $\mu_C$ on $(A,B)$ is the uniform distribution on $\{0,1\}^n\times \{0,1\}^n$. It is not difficult to use an entropy argument and conclude that the two-party problem has an expected (under $\mu_C$) communication complexity lower bound of at least $\alpha\cdot n$ for some absolute constant $\alpha>0$. Now for every $e\in E$, define $x_e$ to be expected total communication through edge $e$ by $\Pi$ under $\mu$. Then the argument above and linearity of expectation implies that the expected total communication complexity of $\Pi$ (scaled down by a factor of $\alpha\cdot n$) is lower bounded by the objective value of the following linear program, which we will dub ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}(G,K)$: $$\min \sum_{e\in E} x_e$$ subject to $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{e\text{ crosses } C} x_e&\ge 1 &\text{ for every cut } C \text{ that separates } K\\
x_e&\ge 0&\text{ for every }e\in E.\end{aligned}$$ By abuse of notation let ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}(G,K)$ also denote the objective value of the above LP. It is well-known that ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}(G,K)$ is $\Theta({\mathrm{ST}}(G,K))$ (see Theorem \[thm:st-lp\]), which with the above discussion implies the desired lower bound of $\Omega({\mathrm{ST}}(G,K)\cdot \alpha\cdot n)=\Omega({\mathrm{ST}}(G,K)\cdot n)$ for the ${\mathrm{XOR}}_n$ problem.
More Details on Graph Parameters {#sec:graphs}
================================
It is well-known that ${\mathrm{ST}}(G,K)$ is closely related to ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}(G,K)$ (see e.g. [@vazirani]):
\[thm:st-lp\] $${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}(G,K) \le {\mathrm{ST}}(G,K)\le 2\cdot{LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}(G,K).$$
The quantity $\sigma_k(G)$ is closely related to the following LP, which we will dub ${LP_{\mathrm{MDN}}}(G,K)$: $$\min \sum_{e\in E} x_e$$ subject to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lpmfc-cons}
\sum_{e\text{ crosses } C} x_e&\ge \min(|C|,|K\setminus C|) &\text{ for every cut } C\\
x_e&\ge 0&\text{ for every }e\in E. \notag\end{aligned}$$ By abuse of notation let ${LP_{\mathrm{MDN}}}(G,K)$ also denote the objective value of the above LP. The following result was implicitly argued in [@CRR14]. For the sake of completeness we present a proof in Appendix \[sec:graphs\].
\[thm:mfc-lp\] $${LP_{\mathrm{MDN}}}(G,K) \ge \Omega\left(\frac{\sigma_K(G)}{\log{k}}\right).$$
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be the collection of cuts in $G$ guaranteed by Bourgain’s embedding [@Bou85; @LLR95] that has the following two guarantees: (i) Every edge is cut by $\beta=O(\log{k})$ cuts in ${\mathcal{C}}$ and (ii) for every $u\neq v\in V$, the pair is separated by at least $d_G(u,v)$ cuts in ${\mathcal{C}}$.
Using the constraint over all cuts in ${\mathcal{C}}$, we get that for the optimal solution $(x_e)_{e\in E}$ for ${LP_{\mathrm{MDN}}}(G,K)$ (we use property (ii) of ${\mathcal{C}}$ in the third inequality) $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{C\in{\mathcal{C}}} \sum_{e\in \delta(C)} x_e &\ge \sum_{C\in{\mathcal{C}}} \min(|C|,|K\setminus C|)\\
&\ge \sum_{C\in{\mathcal{C}}} \frac{|C|\cdot|K\setminus C|}{k}\\
&= \sum_{C\in{\mathcal{C}}} \frac{\left| \{ (u,v)|u\neq v\in K, C\text{ separates } (u,v)\}\right|}{k}\\
&= \frac{1}{k}\cdot \sum_{u\neq v\in K} \left|\{C\in{\mathcal{C}}| C\text{ separates } (u,v)\}\right|\\
&\ge \frac{1}{k}\cdot \sum_{u\neq v\in K} d_G(u,v)\\
&= \frac{1}{k}\sum_{u\in K}\sum_{v\in K, v\neq u} d_G(u,v)\\
&= \frac{1}{k}\sum_{u\in K} \sigma_K(u)\\
&\ge \sigma_K(G).\end{aligned}$$ Finally by property (i) of ${\mathcal{C}}$ we have that $\sum_{C\in {\mathcal{C}}} \sum_{e\in \delta(C)} x_e \le \beta\cdot \sum_{e\in E} x_e$, which with the above inequality implies that $\sum_{e\in E} x_e\ge \sigma_K(G)/\beta$, as desired.
[@CRR14] also considered another graph parameter. Given the graph $G=(V,E)$, the subset of even number of terminals $K$ and a partition $M$ of $K$ into sets of size exactly two, define $d(G,M)=\sum_{(u,v)\in M} d_G(u,v)$. The quantity $d(G,M)$ is related to the following LP, which we will dub ${LP_{\mathrm{MTCH}}}(G,K,M)$: $$\min \sum_{e\in E} x_e$$ subject to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lpmtch-cons}
\sum_{e\text{ crosses } C} x_e&\ge m(C,M) &\text{ for every cut } C\\
x_e&\ge 0&\text{ for every }e\in E \notag,\end{aligned}$$ where $m(C,M)$ is the number of pairs in $M$ separated by $C$. By abuse of notation let ${LP_{\mathrm{MTCH}}}(G,K,M)$ also denote the objective value of the above LP. The following result was implicitly argued in [@CRR14]. For the sake of completeness we present a proof.
\[thm:mtch-lp\] $${LP_{\mathrm{MTCH}}}(G,K,M) \ge \Omega\left(\frac{d(G,M)}{\log{k}}\right).$$
Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be the collection of cuts in $G$ guaranteed by Bourgain’s embedding [@Bou85; @LLR95] that has the following two guarantees: (i) Every edge is cut by $\beta=O(\log{k})$ cuts in ${\mathcal{C}}$ and (ii) for every $u\neq v\in V$, the pair is separated by at least $d_G(u,v)$ cuts in ${\mathcal{C}}$.
Using the constraint over all cuts in ${\mathcal{C}}$, we get that for the optimal solution $(x_e)_{e\in E}$ for ${LP_{\mathrm{MTCH}}}(G,K,M)$ (we use property (ii) of ${\mathcal{C}}$ in the last inequality) $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{C\in{\mathcal{C}}} \sum_{e\in \delta(C)} x_e &\ge \sum_{C\in{\mathcal{C}}} \left| \{ (u,v)\in M| C\text{ separates } (u,v)\}\right|\\
&= \sum_{(u,v)\in M} \left|\{C\in{\mathcal{C}}| C\text{ separates } (u,v)\}\right|\\
&\ge \sum_{(u,v)\in M} d_G(u,v)\\
&= d(G,M).\end{aligned}$$ Finally by property (i) of ${\mathcal{C}}$ we have that $\sum_{C\in {\mathcal{C}}} \sum_{e\in \delta(C)} x_e \le \beta\cdot \sum_{e\in E} x_e$, which with the above inequality implies that $\sum_{e\in E} x_e\ge d(G,M)/\beta$, as desired.
Finally, the quantities $\sigma_K(G)$ and the worst-case $d(G,M)$ are within a factor of $2$ of each other:
\[lem:worst-match\] Let $K$ be a set of even number of terminals and let ${\mathcal{M}}(K)$ denote the set of all disjoint pairings in $K$. Then $$\frac{1}{2}\cdot \sigma_K(G)\le \max_{M\in{\mathcal{M}}(K)}d(G,M)\le \sigma_K(G).$$
Sub-additivity Property {#app:sub-add}
=======================
We briefly argue that the two main families of functions that we consider in this paper lead to LPs that do satisfy the sub-additive property:
- Steiner Tree constraints. There are sets of terminals $T_i\subseteq V$ (for $i\in [\ell]$) and $b^i(C)=1$ if $C$ separates $T_i$ and $0$ otherwise. Note that with these constraints ${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)$ and ${\textsc{LP}^U}(G)$ are the same as ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}^L(G,K)$ and ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}^L(G,K)$ that we saw in the introduction.
- Multi-commodity flow constraints. We have a set of demands $D_i$ (for $i\in [\ell]$) and $b^i(C)$ is the number of demand pairs in $D_i$ that are separated by $C$. Note that with these constraints ${\textsc{LP}^U}(G)$ is essentially the sum of ${LP_{\mathrm{MDN}}}(G,K_i)$ where $D_i$ consists of all pairs in $K_i$.
Applications {#sec:app}
============
In this section, we apply the general techniques we have developed so far to obtain lower bounds for specific functions. However, we begin with our lower bound for all functions.
Lower Bound For Every Function
------------------------------
We prove here that every function needs $\Omega\left({\mathrm{ST}}(K,G)\right)$ bits to be computed by any protocol.
\[thm:steiner-tree-minimal\] Let $f:\Sigma^k \to \{0,1\}$ be any function that depends on all of its input symbols. Then, $$R\left(f,G,K,\Sigma\right) \geq \Omega({\mathrm{ST}}\left(G,K)\right).$$
Let $\Pi$ be any protocol in which the node $u$ in $V(G)$ computes the output of $f$. Take any cut $C$ of $G$ that partitions $V(G)$ into $V^A,\, V^B$ and separates the set $K$ of terminals into $K^A$ and $K^B$, each of which is non-empty. We argue that at least one bit is communicated in total across the edges of $\delta(C)$. This will be sufficient to establish our theorem, using Lemma \[lem:lpo-cc-lb\] and Theorem \[thm:st-lp\].
WLOG, assume $u \in V^A$ is the designated terminal that needs to know the final output bit. As $f$ depends on all its input symbols, there is an assignment $a\in \Sigma^{K^A}$ to terminals in $K^A$ such that $f$ is determined by the assignment to terminals in $K^B$, i.e. there exists $b,b' \in \Sigma^{K^B}$ such that $f(a,b) \ne f(a,b')$. Hence, when $a$ is the assignment to $K^A$, there is at least 1 bit of communication across $\delta(C)$ from $V^B$ to $V^A$ for $u$ to output the answer correctly on all inputs with probability greater than 1/2. Otherwise, if no communication is expected by nodes in $V^A$, then the answer they give is independent of inputs to nodes in $K^B$. In this case, at least for one of the assignments $ab$ and $ab'$, protocol $\Pi$ errs with probability at least $1/2$.
For every other assignment to $K^A$, as long as there is no communication from $V^A$ to $V^B$, there is no way for processors in $V^B$ to know that the assignment to $K^A$ is not $a$. Hence, if they do not communicate in this case, they will also not communicate when $K^A$ is assigned $a$, which we argued is not possible. Thus, in every case, at least 1 bit of communication occurs on $\delta(C)$.
We note that we only use the property of a valid protocol that it cannot have a deadlock (i.e. if one end point of an edge is expecting to receive some communication then the other end point has to communicate something) in the proof above. The rest of our proofs do not use this property explicitly.
Theorem \[thm:steiner-tree-minimal\] also has the following interesting consequence. Recall that in our model there is one designated terminal that needs to know the output bit. However, since the output bit can be transmitted to all the terminals with ${\mathrm{ST}}(G,K)$ amounts of additional communication, our model is equivalent (up to constant factors) to a related model where [*all*]{} the terminals need to know the output bit at the termination of the protocol.
Bounds for ${\mathrm{DISJ}}$ {#sec:disj}
----------------------------
We next prove bounds for one of the most well-studied functions in classical communication complexity: the set disjointness function (${\mathrm{DISJ}}$).
We first note that for a given set of terminals $K$, where each terminal gets a subset of $[n]$ (as a vector in $\{0,1\}^n$), one can compute their intersection by computing the running intersection from the leaves of the minimum Steiner tree on $K$ in $G$ to its root. Each edge only carries at most $n$ bits, which leads to the following result:
\[prop:sd-ub\] $$R({\mathrm{DISJ}},G,K,\{0,1\}^n)\le O({\mathrm{ST}}(G,K)\cdot n).$$
Next, we argue that the bound above is nearly tight. Towards this end, we claim that
\[lem:sd-maxhard\] Let $h$ be the function $h(M)=\lceil \log{M}\rceil$. Then ${\mathrm{DISJ}}$ is $h$-[maximally hard on the star graph]{}.
Let $\nu_s$ be the hard distribution for ${\mathrm{DISJ}}$ on an $s$-star from Braverman et al. [@BEOPV13]. Using standard tools of information theory, it follows from that work that for such hard distribution the set disjointness problem needs $\Omega(sn)$ expected communication over an $s$-star. Now consider any multicut $C$ of $K$ with $|C|=s$. Now define $\mu_C^{{\mathrm{DISJ}}}$ as follows: let $(X_1,\dots,X_s)$ be a sample from $\mu_s$. Then the terminals in the $i$th explicit set in $C$ all get $X_i$. Finally, all the terminals in the implicit set get the all ones vector. It is easy to check that $\mu_C^{{\mathrm{DISJ}}}$ has the required property.
The above lemma along with Theorem \[thm:sd-st\] immediately proves Theorem \[thm:sd-lb\].
Composed Functions
------------------
Finally we prove bounds for some composed functions.
### Bounds for ${\mathrm{ED}}\circ{\mathrm{XOR}}_n$ {#sec:ed-xor}
In this section, we consider the composed function ${\mathrm{ED}}\circ{\mathrm{XOR}}_n$. For the sake of completenes, we recall its definition. Let $G=(V,E)$ be the graph and given $t$ subsets $K_1,\dots,K_t\subseteq V$ (which need not all be disjoint or distinct), we have ${\mathcal{K}}=\{K_1,\dots,K_t\}$. Given $k_i\stackrel{def}{=} |K_i|$ $n$-bit vectors $X_1^i,\dots,X_{k_i}^i\in\{0,1\}^n$ for every $i\in [t]$, define: $${\mathrm{ED}}\circ{\mathrm{XOR}}_n\left( X^1_1,\dots,X^1_{k_1},\dots,X^t_1,\dots,X_{k_t}^t\right)={\mathrm{ED}}\left({\mathrm{XOR}}_n\left(X^1_1,\dots,X^1_{k_1}\right),\dots,{\mathrm{XOR}}_n\left(X^t_1,\dots,X_{k_t}\right)\right).$$
We now state the obvious upper bound for solving the ${\mathrm{ED}}\circ{\mathrm{XOR}}_n$ function. For notational convenience, define $\sigma_{K_1,\dots,K_t}(G)$ to be the minimum of $\sigma_K(G)$ for every choice of $K$ that has exactly one terminal from $K_i$ for every $i\in [t]$. Then we have the following upper bound.
\[prop:ed-xor-ub\] Let $k=\sum_{i=1}^t k_i$. Then $$R({\mathrm{ED}}\circ{\mathrm{XOR}}_n,G,{\mathcal{K}},\{0,1\}^n)\le O\left(\sigma_{K_1,\dots,K_t}(G)\cdot \log{k}+ \sum_{i=1}^t {\mathrm{ST}}(G,K_i)\cdot \log{k}\right).$$
Note that with $O({\mathrm{ST}}(G,K_i)\cdot \log{k})$ amounts of communication, every terminal in $K_i$ will know the hash[^11] of ${\mathrm{XOR}}_n(X^i_1,\dots,X^i_{k_i})$. Doing this for every $i\in [t]$ gives the second term in the claimed bound.
Let $u_1,\dots,u_t$ be such that $u_i\in K_i$ for every $i\in [t]$ and $\sigma_{K_1,\dots,K_t}(G)=\sigma_{\{u_1,\dots,u_t\}}(G)$. Then run the upper bound protocol for ${\mathrm{ED}}$ using the hashes at the terminals in the set $\{u_1,\dots,u_t\}$. This latter part accounts for the first term in the claimed bound. This completes the proof.
We will now prove Theorem \[thm:ed-xor-lb\], which is an almost matching lower bound to the upper bound in Proposition \[prop:ed-xor-ub\]. We will do so by proving two lower bounds separately: one each for the two terms in the upper bound. Note that this immediately implies a lower bound that is the sum of the two terms (up to a factor of $1/2$) as desired.
The first term follows immediately from existing results [@CRR14]:
\[lem:ed-xor-mfc-lb\] $$R({\mathrm{ED}}\circ{\mathrm{XOR}}_n,G,{\mathcal{K}},\{0,1\}^n)\ge \Omega\left(\frac{\sigma_{K_1,\dots,K_t}(G)}{\log{t}}\right).$$
Let $u_i\in K_i$ for every $i\in [t]$ be such that $\sigma_{K_1,\dots,K_t}(G)=\sigma_{\{u_1,\dots,u_t\}}(G)$. Let $\mu_t$ be the hard distribution from [@CRR14] for ${\mathrm{ED}}$ on $t$ terminals. Assign the $t$ inputs from $\mu_t$ to each $u_i$ and all the other terminals in $\cup_{i=1}^t K_i$ get inputs that are distinct from each other and have a support disjoint from the support in $\mu_t$. Then the lower bound for $\mu_t$ from [@CRR14] implies the claimed bound.
\[rem:max-sigma\] We note that the proof can also be extended to replace $\sigma_{K_1,\dots,K_t}(G)$ by the [*maximum*]{} $\sigma_{K'}(G)$, where $K'$ contains exactly one terminal from $K_1,\dots,K_t$. However, this does not lead to any contradiction since it is easy to check that $\sigma_{K'}(G)\le \sigma_{K_1,\dots,K_t}(G) +\sum_{i=1}^t {\mathrm{ST}}(G,K_i)$ and hence even if we use the stronger bound for above, the total lower bound does not exceed the upper bound.
Next, we will prove a lower bound matching the second term in the upper bound in Proposition \[prop:ed-xor-ub\] up to poly-log factors. Before that we consider a specific problem that will be useful in the proof of our lower bound.
\[lem:ed-cor-2-party-lb\] Alice and Bob get $t$ inputs $A_1,\dots,A_t\in\{0,1\}^n$ and $B_1,\dots,B_t\in\{0,1\}^n$. They want to compute ${\mathrm{ED}}({\mathrm{XOR}}_n(A_1,B_1),\dots,{\mathrm{XOR}}_n(A_t,B_t))$. Consider the distribution $\nu_t$ where each $A_i$ and $B_j$ are picked uniformly and independently at random. Then for $n\ge 3\log{t}$ and any protocol with bounded error that computes ${\mathrm{ED}}({\mathrm{XOR}}_n(A_1,B_1),\dots,{\mathrm{XOR}}_n(A_t,B_t))$ correctly on all inputs has expected cost (under $\nu_t$) of $\Omega(t)$.
We will use the fact that the set disjointness problem where Alice and Bob get two sets of size $t$ where each set is picked by picking $t$ uniformly random elements (with replacement) from $\{0,1\}^n$ has expected communication complexity lower bound of $\Omega(t)$: see e.g. [@CRR14].[^12] Let us call his hard distribution $\mu_t$.
Now for the sake of contradiction assume that there exists a protocol $\Pi$ that computes ${\mathrm{ED}}({\mathrm{XOR}}_n(A_1,B_1),\dots,{\mathrm{XOR}}_n(A_t,B_t))$ correctly on all inputs with expected cost (under $\nu_t$) $o(t)$. We will use this to obtain a protocol that solves the set disjointness problem above for sets of size $t/2$ with expected cost $o(t)$ under $\mu_{t/2}$, which will lead to a contradiction. Let us assume that Alice gets $\{X_1,\dots,X_{t/2}\}$ and Bob gets $\{Y_1,\dots,Y_{t/2}\}$ from the distribution $\mu_{t/2}$. Alice and Bob construct the sets $\{A_1,\dots,A_t\}$ and $\{B_1,\dots,B_t\}$ as follows. Using shared randomness Alice and Bob both pick uniformly random elements $Z_1,\dots,Z_t\in \{0,1\}^n$ and compute their sets as follows: $$A_i=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\mathrm{XOR}}_n(X_i,Z_i) & \text{if }i\le t/2\\
Z_i&\text{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.$$ and $$B_i=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
Z_i & \text{if }i\le t/2\\
{\mathrm{XOR}}_n(Y_{i-t/2},Z_i)&\text{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.
.$$ Note that the induced distribution on $\{A_1,\dots,A_t\}$ and $\{B_1,\dots,B_t\}$ is exactly the same as $\nu_t$. Further, we have ${\mathrm{ED}}({\mathrm{XOR}}_n(A_1,B_1),\dots,{\mathrm{XOR}}_n(A_t,B_t))=1$ if and only if $\{X_1,\dots,X_{t/2}\}$ and $\{Y_1,\dots,Y_{t/2}\}$ are disjoint. Thus, if Alice and Bob run $\Pi$ on the inputs $A_1,\dots,A_t$ and $B_1,\dots,B_t$ as above, then they can solve the disjointness problem on inputs under the distribution $\mu_{t/2}$ with $o(t)$ expected cost, as desired.
We are now ready to prove a matching lower bound for the second term in the upper bound in Proposition \[prop:ed-xor-ub\].
\[lem:ed-xor-lb\] $$R({\mathrm{ED}}\circ{\mathrm{XOR}}_n,G,{\mathcal{K}},\{0,1\}^n)\ge\Omega\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^t {\mathrm{ST}}(G,K_i)}{{\log{|V|}\log\log{|V|}}}\right).$$
Consider the hard distribution $\mu$, where each of the inputs in $\cup_{i=1}^t K_i$ is chosen uniformly and independently at random from $\{0,1\}^n$. Now consider any cut $C$ in the graph $G$. Let ${\mathrm{ED}}\circ{\mathrm{XOR}}_n(C)$ denote the induced two-party problem. We claim that this problems needs $\Omega(t')$ amounts of expected communication where $t'$ is the number of sets $K_i$ that are separated by $C$. Assuming this claim, note that by Corollary \[cor:lpo-cc-lb\] the effective lower bound for the entire problem is $\Omega({\textsc{LP}^L}(G))$ where $\ell=t$ and $b^j(C)=1$ if $K_j$ is cut by $C$ and $0$ otherwise (for any $j\in [t]$). Further, note that the values $b^j(C)$ are sub-additive. By Theorem \[cor:lp1-lp2\], we have a lower bound of $$\Omega\left(\frac{{\textsc{LP}^U}(G)}{{\log{|V|}\log\log{|V|}}}\right).$$ To get the claimed lower bound, observe that the objective of ${\textsc{LP}^U}(G)$ is just the sum of ${LP_{{\mathrm{ST}}}}(G,K_i)$ for $i\in [t]$. Finally, since we can minimize the objective of ${\textsc{LP}^U}(G)$ by separately minimizing each instance of the Steiner tree LP, Theorem \[thm:st-lp\] implies that we have ${\textsc{LP}^U}(G)\ge \Omega\left(\sum_{i=1}^t {\mathrm{ST}}(G,K_i)\right)$, which implies the claimed lower bound.
We complete the proof by arguing the claimed lower bound on the two party function ${\mathrm{ED}}\circ{\mathrm{XOR}}_n(C)$ for any cut $C$. WLOG assume that $C$ separates the sets $K_1,\dots,K_{t'}$. Then note that if Alice gets the inputs from one side of the cut $C$ and Bob gets the inputs from the other side then they are trying to solve ${\mathrm{ED}}({\mathrm{XOR}}_n(A_1,B_1),\dots,{\mathrm{XOR}}_n(A_{t'},B_{t'}))$ where $A_i$ is the bit-wise ${\mathrm{XOR}}_n$ of all inputs in $K_i$ that Alice gets and $B_i$ is the ${\mathrm{XOR}}_n$ of the inputs from $K_i$ that Bob gets. Further, note that the distribution on $A_1,\dots,A_{t'}$ and $B_1,\dots,B_{t'}$ is the same as the hard distribution in Lemma \[lem:ed-cor-2-party-lb\]. Thus, Lemma \[lem:ed-cor-2-party-lb\] implies the claimed lower bound of $\Omega(t')$.
### Bounds for ${\mathrm{XOR}}\circ{\mathrm{IP}}$ {#sec:xor-ip}
There are multiple definitions of ${\mathrm{XOR}}\circ{\mathrm{IP}}$ that make sense. In this subsection we will consider the version, which we dub ${\mathrm{XOR}}\circ{\mathrm{IP}}_n$, that gives the cleanest bounds. Given the set of terminals ${\mathcal{K}}$ divided into $t$ subsets of terminals $K_1,\dots,K_t$, let $M_i$ be a set of disjoint pairings of $K_i$ such that $d(G,M_i)=\Theta(\sigma_{K_i}(G))$ (by Lemma \[lem:worst-match\] such an $M_i$ exists). Given $k_i\stackrel{def}{=} |K_i|$ $n$-bit vectors $X_1^i,\dots,X_{k_i}^i\in\{0,1\}^n$ for every $i\in [t]$, define: $${\mathrm{XOR}}\circ{\mathrm{IP}}_n\left( X^1_1,\dots,X^1_{k_1},\dots,X^t_1,\dots,X_{k_t}^t\right)={\mathrm{XOR}}_1\left({\mathrm{IP}}_{M_1}\left(X^1_1,\dots,X^1_{k_1}\right),\dots,{\mathrm{IP}}_{M_t}\left(X^t_1,\dots,X_{k_t}\right)\right),$$ where ${\mathrm{XOR}}_1$ denotes the function that first applied ${\mathrm{XOR}}_n$ on the $t$ vectors and then takes the xor of the resulting $n$ bits and we consider the following version of the inner product function. Given a set of disjoint pairings $M$ of $K$, define ${\mathrm{IP}}_{M}:
\left(\{0,1\}^n\right)^K\to \{0,1\}^n$ as follows. Given inputs $X^i=(X^i_1,\dots,X^i_n)\in\{0,1\}^n$ for every $i\in K$, ${\mathrm{IP}}_M\left((X^i)_{i\in K}\right) = \left( \left(\bigoplus_{(u,v)\in M} \left(X^i_u\bigwedge X^i_v\right)\right)_{j=1}^n\right)$.
Now consider the obvious protocol to solve the ${\mathrm{XOR}}\circ{\mathrm{IP}}_n$: first compute all the ${\mathrm{IP}}_{M_i}\left(X^i_1,\dots,X^i_{k_i}\right)$ using the trivial $\sigma_{K_i}(G)\cdot n$ protocol and then store the xor of the resulting $n$ bits at say $u_i\in K_i$. At this point with $O\left(\sum_{i=1}^t \sigma_{K_i}(G)\cdot n\right)$ bits of communication we have $t$ bits at $u_i\in K_i$. Then we compute the final desired output bits by using the Steiner tree on $\{u_1,\dots,u_t\}$. This implies an overall upper bound of
\[prop:xor-ip-ub\] Let $k=\sum_{i=1}^t k_i$. Then $$R({\mathrm{XOR}}\circ{\mathrm{IP}}_n,G,{\mathcal{K}},\{0,1\}^n)\le O\left({\mathrm{ST}}(G,\{u_1,\dots,u_t\})+ \sum_{i=1}^t \sigma_{K_i}(G)\cdot n\right).$$
Recall that Corollary \[cor:xor-ip-lb\] shows a nearly matching lower bound. One can easily show a matching lower bound for the first term in the sum above (e.g. by the argument for ${\mathrm{XOR}}_n$ for $n=1$ from the introduction). We can also prove a nearly matching lower bound for the second term:
\[lem:xor-ip-lb\] $$R({\mathrm{XOR}}\circ{\mathrm{IP}}_n,G,{\mathcal{K}},\{0,1\}^n)\ge\Omega\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^t \sigma_{K_i}(G)\cdot n}{\log{k}}\right).$$
To prove this we will need the following result (the proof appears in Appendix \[app:lem:lp1-lp2-mtch\]):
\[lem:lp1-lp2-mtch\] Let $K_1,\dots,K_{\ell}$ and $M_1,\dots,M_{\ell}$ be defined as above. For any $j\in [\ell]$ define $b^j(C)$ is defined to be the number of pairs in $M_j$ separated by the cut $C$. Then for $k=\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} |K_i|$, $$\Omega\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \sigma_{K_i}(G)}{\log{k}}\right)\le {\textsc{LP}^L}(G)\le {\textsc{LP}^U}(G)\le O\left(\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \sigma_{K_i}(G)\right).$$
Let $\mu$ be the distribution where the $k=\sum_{i=1}^t k_i$ vectors are picked uniformly and independently at random from $\{0,1\}^n$. Let $C$ be an arbitrary cut of $G$ and let $k'_i$ be the number of pairs in $M_i$ that are cut by $C$. Then note that the induced two-party problem is essentially trying to solve the two-party inner product function on $(\sum_{i=1}^t k'_i)\cdot n$ bits. Further, conditioned on all valid fixings of inputs corresponding to pairs that are not separated by $C$, the remaining inner product problem mentioned above corresponds to Alice (who receives all the vectors on one side of $C$) receiving a uniform vector with $(\sum_{i=1}^t k'_i)\cdot n$ uniform bits. Similarly for Bob. It is well-known [@CG88] that for this induced distribution the two party lower bound on the expected cost is $\Omega\left((\sum_{i=1}^t k'_i)\cdot n\right)$ bits of communication.
Note that by Corollary \[cor:lpo-cc-lb\] the effective lower bound for the entire problem is $\Omega({\textsc{LP}^L}(G))$ where $\ell=t$ and $b^j(C)= k'_j\cdot n$. Lemma \[lem:lp1-lp2-mtch\] completes the proof.
It turns out that one can replace the ${\log{|V|}\log\log{|V|}}$ term in Lemma \[lem:xor-ip-lb\] by $\log{k}$. This follows by noting that under the hard distribution used in the proof of Lemma \[lem:xor-ip-lb\] above is essentially a lower bound for ${\mathrm{IP}}_M$ where $M=\cup_{i=1}^t M_i$. In other words, ${LP_{\mathrm{MTCH}}}(G,M)$ is a valid lower bound. Then noting that the proof of Theorem \[thm:mtch-lp\] works for $M$ being any collection of pairs (and not necessarily disjoint ones) implies that we get a lower bound of $\Omega(d(G,M)/\log{k})$. Noting that $d(G,M)=\sum_{i=1}^t d(G,M_i)$ and our choices of $M_i$ implies the following stronger lower bound:
\[lem:xor-ip-lb-strong\] $$R({\mathrm{XOR}}\circ{\mathrm{IP}}_n,G,{\mathcal{K}},\{0,1\}^n)\ge\Omega\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^t \sigma_{K_i}(G)\cdot n}{\log{k}}\right).$$
### Bounds for ${\mathrm{XOR}}\circ {\mathrm{ED}}$ {#sec:xor-ed}
In this section, we consider in some sense the “reverse” of the ${\mathrm{ED}}\circ{\mathrm{XOR}}_n$ function. The function ${\mathrm{XOR}}_1\circ{\mathrm{ED}}:\left(\{0,1\}^n\right)^{{\mathcal{K}}}\to \{0,1\}$ is defined as follows. Let the set of terminals ${\mathcal{K}}$ be divided into $t$ subsets of terminals $K_1,\dots,K_t$. Given $k_i\stackrel{def}{=} |K_i|$ $n$-bit vectors $X_1^i,\dots,X_{k_i}^i\in\{0,1\}^n$ for every $i\in [t]$, define: $${\mathrm{XOR}}_1\circ{\mathrm{ED}}\left( X^1_1,\dots,X^1_{k_1},\dots,X^t_1,\dots,X_{k_t}^t\right) =\bigoplus_{i=1}^t {\mathrm{ED}}\left(X^i_1,\dots,X^i_{k_i}\right).$$
Now consider the trivial two-step protocol that results in the following upper bound:
\[lem:xor-ed-ub\] Choose $t$ terminals $u_i\in K_i$ for every $i\in [t]$. Then $$R({\mathrm{XOR}}_1\circ{\mathrm{ED}},G,{\mathcal{K}},\{0,1\}^n)\le O\left({\mathrm{ST}}(G,\{u_1,\dots,u_t\})+\sum_{i=1}^t \sigma_{K_i}(G)\cdot\log{k}\right).$$
Using the argument in proof of Proposition \[prop:ed-xor-ub\], with $O\left(\sum_{i=1}^t \sigma_{K_i}(G)\cdot \log{k}\right)$ bits of communication, every $u_i$ knows the value of $ {\mathrm{ED}}\left(X^i_1,\dots,X^i_{k_i}\right)$. Then the resulting ${\mathrm{XOR}}_1$ can be computed with $O({\mathrm{ST}}(G,\{u_1,\dots,u_t\})$ bits of communication by progressively computing the ${\mathrm{XOR}}_1$ along the corresponding Steiner tree.
Recall that Theorem \[thm:xor-ed-lb\] shows a nearly matching lower bound. We can have matching lower bound term for the first term in the sum above from Theorem \[thm:steiner-tree-minimal\].[^13] The more interesting part is to prove matching lower bound for the second term. Towards that end, we will need a result on classical 2-party Set-Disjointness: let ${\mathrm{UDISJ}}_n$ the unique-set disjointness problem on $2n$ bits that has the following promise. Alice and Bob get $n$-bit strings such that they have at most one occurrence of an all-one column in their inputs, i.e. their sets have at most one element in common. They want to find out if their sets intersect. Pair the input bits of Alice and Bob as $(X_1,Y_1),\ldots,(X_n,Y_n)$. Each pair $(X_i,Y_i)$ is sampled independently from a distribution $\mu$ that we describe next. To draw a sample $(U,V)$ from $\mu$, we first throw a uniformly random coin $D$. If $D=0$, $U$ is fixed to 0 and $V$ is drawn uniformly at random from $\{0,1\}$. If $D=1$, the roles of $U$ and $V$ are reversed. The following result was observed by [@CRR14], using the seminal work of Bar-Yossef et al. [@BJKS]:
\[thm:info-set-disj\] Let $\Pi$ be any 2-party randomized protocol solving ${\mathrm{UDISJ}}_n$ with bounded error $\epsilon$ < 1/2. Then, its expected communication cost w.r.t. input distribution $\mu^n$ is at least $\big(1-2\sqrt{\epsilon}\big)(n/4)$.
We are now ready to prove a nearly tight lower bound for the second term in Lemma \[lem:xor-ed-ub\]:
\[lem:xor-ed-lb\] For $n\ge \log{k} + 2$, $$R({\mathrm{XOR}}_1\circ{\mathrm{ED}},G,{\mathcal{K}},\{0,1\}^n)\ge \Omega\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^t \sigma_{K_i}(G)}{\log{k}}\right).$$
We assume for convenience that each $|K_i|$ is even. Consider pairing $M_i$ of nodes in $K_i$, for each $i$ such that $d(G,M_i) \ge (1/2)\cdot \sigma_{K_i}\big(G\big)$ (such an $M_i$ exists thanks to Lemma \[lem:worst-match\]). Let $M$ be the multi-set union $\cup_{i=1}^{\ell}M_i$, with $|M|= k/2 \equiv m$. Now for ease of description, we notate the inputs at the pairs of terminals in $M$ as $(X_1,Y_1),\ldots,(X_m,Y_m)$. We fix the first $\log k$ bits of each of the pair of terminals $X_j,Y_j$ to a string $a_j \in \{0,1\}^{\log k}$ such that $a_j \ne a_i$ for $i\ne j$. We call $a_j$ the prefix string of its pair. In the ensuing discussion we look at only restricted inputs, where the first $\log k$ bits of the inputs of each terminal are fixed to its respective prefix string. To keep notation simple, we still notate the unfixed bits of the $i$th pair in $M$ as $(X_i,Y_i)$.
We now describe the remaining input distribution: Let $\{s_x^0,s_y^0,s^1\}$ be three distinct strings in $\{0,1\}^{n'}$ where $n'= n-\log{k}$. Such three strings exist because of our assumed bound on $n$. Define auxiliary random variables $D_1,\ldots,D_m$ that are i.i.d and each takes value in $\{0,1\}$ uniformly at random. Then if $D_i = 0$, set $X_i=s_x^0$ and $Y_i$ takes uniformly at random a value in $\{s_y^0,\,s^1\}$. If $D_i=1$, then $Y_i = s_y^0$ and $X_i$ at random takes value in $\{s_x^0,\,s^1\}$. This completes the description of our input distribution that we denote by ${\mathcal{D}}$.
We will show that we can invoke Lemma \[lem:lp1-lp2-mtch\] using distribution ${\mathcal{D}}$. To do so, we analyze the expected communication cost of any protocol $\Pi$ solving ${\mathrm{XOR}}_1 \circ {\mathrm{ED}}$ on $G$, across a cut $C$. Let number of pairs of $M_i$ cut by $C$ be $m'_i$ and $m' \equiv m'_1 + \dots + m'_{\ell}$. Let ${\mathcal{K}}_C$ denote the set of terminals whose mate in $M$ is separated by $C$. Let $\overline{{\mathcal{K}}_C} \equiv {\mathcal{K}}\setminus {\mathcal{K}}_C$. Consider any assignment $\alpha$ to the terminals in $\overline{{\mathcal{K}}_C}$ that is supported by ${\mathcal{D}}$ and let the induced protocol be denoted by $\Pi_{\alpha}$. We claim that we can solve unique (2-party) set-disjointness over $m'$ bits using $\Pi_{\alpha}$ as follows: Alice and Bob associate each of their co-ordinates with a separated pair in $M_C$. Alice and Bob both replace their 1’s by the string $s^1$. Alice replaces her 0’s by $s_x^0$ and Bob replaces his by $s_y^0$. Then they simulate $\Pi_{\alpha}$ and communicate to each other whenever and whatever $\Pi_{\alpha}$ communicates across $C$. It is simple to verify that this way Alice and Bob can solve unique Set-Disjointness: if there is no all-1 column in their input, $\Pi_{\alpha}$ outputs $r\mod{2}$ w.h.p, where $r$ is the number of $M_i$’s that are separated by $C$. If they do have a (unique) all-1 column, $\Pi_{\alpha}$ outputs $(r-1)\mod{2}$ w.h.p. Further, the distribution induced on inputs of terminals in ${\mathcal{K}}_C$, when Alice and Bob’s input distribution is sampled from $\mu^{m'}$ (recall definition of $\mu$ from Theorem \[thm:info-set-disj\]), is precisely the distribution ${\mathcal{D}}$ induces on ${\mathcal{K}}_C$, conditioned on $\alpha$ assigned to inputs in $\overline{{\mathcal{K}}_C}$.
Thus, by Theorem \[thm:info-set-disj\], the expected communication of $\Pi_{\alpha}$ over the cut edges of $C$ is $\Omega(m')$, for any $\alpha$. Hence, expected communication of $\Pi$ over $C$ is $\Omega(m')$. Corollary \[cor:lpo-cc-lb\] and Lemma \[lem:lp1-lp2-mtch\] complete the proof.
Omitted Proofs from Section \[sec:tree\]
========================================
Proof of Theorem \[cor:lp1-lp2\]
--------------------------------
We first state a simple property of sub-additive values:
\[lem:sub-add-sum\] Let $G=(V,E)$ be a tree and let $b^i(C)$ for $i\in [\ell]$ be the constraint values for ${\textsc{LP}^U}(G)$ that satisfy the sub-additive property. For any edge $e\in E$, let $C_e$ denote the cut formed by removing $e$ from $G$. Then for any cut of $G$ we have $$\sum_{e\in \delta(C)} b^i(C_e) \ge b^i(C).$$
This follows from the fact that $C=\cup_{e\in \delta(C)} C_e$ (since $G$ is a tree) and the definition of the sub-additive property.
In the rest of this subsection, we will prove Theorem \[cor:lp1-lp2\]. We begin with the upper bound in Theorem \[cor:lp1-lp2\], which is trivial.
\[lem:trivial-ineq-G\] For any graph $G$, $${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)\le {\textsc{LP}^U}(G).$$
Consider any feasible solution $\{{\mathbf{x}}_i\}_{i=1}^{\ell}$ for ${\textsc{LP}^U}(G)$, where ${\mathbf{x}}_i=(x_{i,e})_{e\in E}$. Then note that the vector ${\mathbf{x}}=(x_e)_{e\in E}$ defined as $$x_e=\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} x_{i,e}$$ is also a feasible solution for ${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)$.
To complete the proof, we now focus on proving the lower bound in Theorem \[cor:lp1-lp2\]. We first begin by observing that the two LPs are essentially the same when $G$ is a tree:
\[lem:eq-tree\] For any tree $T=(V,E)$ (and values $b^i(C)$ for any $i\in [\ell]$ and cut $C$ with the sub-additive property), we have $${\textsc{LP}^L}(T)={\textsc{LP}^U}(T).$$
The proof basically follows by noting that for a tree $T$, we only need to consider some special cuts. In particular, for every edge $e\in E$, let $C_e$ denote the cut that only cuts the edge $e$ (In other words, the two sides of the cut are formed by the two subgraphs obtained by removing $e$ from $T$).
We first claim that $${\textsc{LP}^L}(T)\ge \sum_{e\in E} \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} b^i(C_e).$$ To see this consider any feasible solution ${\mathbf{x}}\in {\mathbb{R}}^{E}$ for ${\textsc{LP}^L}(T)$. We have from the constraint on $C_e$ for every $e\in E$ that $$x_e\ge \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} b^i(C_e).$$ Summing the above over all $e\in E$ completes the claim.
Finally, we argue that $${\textsc{LP}^U}(T)\le \sum_{e\in E}\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} b^i(C_e),$$ which with Lemma \[lem:trivial-ineq-G\] will complete the proof. Consider the specific vector $\{{\mathbf{x}}_i\}_{i\in [\ell]}$ such that for every $i\in [\ell]$ and $e\in E$, we have $$x_{i,e}=b^i(C_e).$$ Note that the proof will be complete if we can show that the above vector is a feasible solution for ${\textsc{LP}^U}(T)$. Notice that by the fact that $T$ is a tree the above vector indeed does satisfy all the constraints corresponding to the cuts $C_e$ for every $e\in E$. Now consider an arbitrary cut $C$. Indeed we have for every $i\in [\ell]$: $$\sum_{e\in \delta(C)} x_{i,e} = \sum_{e\in \delta(C)} b^i(C_e) \ge b^i(C),$$ where the inequality follows from Lemma \[lem:sub-add-sum\].
Thus, we are done for the case when $G$ is a tree. For the more general case of a connected graph $G$, we will just embed $G$ into one of its sub-tree with a low distortion. This basically follows a similar trick used in [@AA97]. We say a graph $G$ embeds with a distortion $\alpha$ on to (a distribution ${\mathcal{D}}$ on) its subtrees such that for every $(u,v)\in V$, we have $\alpha\cdot d_G(u,v)\ge {\mathbb{E}_{T\gets {\mathcal{D}}}\left[{d_T(u,v)}\right]}$. (Note that for every sub-tree $T$ of $G$, we have $d_T(u,v)\ge d_G(u,v)$.)
We will now prove the following result:
\[lem:embedding\] Let $G=(V,E)$ embed into its subtrees under distribution ${\mathcal{D}}$ with distortion $\alpha$. Then we have $${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)\ge \frac{1}{\alpha} \cdot {\textsc{LP}^U}(G).$$
Using the embedding trick of [@AA97], we will show that there exists a subtree $T$ of $G$ such that $${\textsc{LP}^L}(T)\le \alpha\cdot {\textsc{LP}^L}(G) \text{ and } {\textsc{LP}^U}(G)\le {\textsc{LP}^U}(T).$$ Note that the above along with Lemma \[lem:eq-tree\] completes the proof. Further, note that the second inequality in the above just follows from the fact that $T$ is a sub-tree of $G$. Hence, to complete the proof we only need to prove the first inequality.
A word of clarification. When we talk about the constraints in ${\textsc{LP}^L}(T)$ and ${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)$, we have the same $b^i(C)$ value for each cut. However, note that the set $\delta(C)$ could be different for $G$ and $T$.
Towards this end, consider an optimal solution ${\mathbf{x}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^E$ for ${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)$. From this, we will construct a feasible solution ${\mathbf{x}}'\in{\mathbb{R}}^E$ for ${\textsc{LP}^L}(T)$ whose expected cost is bounded, i.e. $$\label{eq:embed-ineq}
{\mathbb{E}_{T\gets {\mathcal{D}}}\left[{\sum_{e\in E(T)} x'_e}\right]}\le \alpha\cdot \sum_{e\in E(G)} x_e.$$ Markov’s inequality will then complete the proof.
Finally, we define the solution ${\mathbf{x}}'$ for ${\textsc{LP}^L}(T)$. Consider the following algorithm (for any given $T$):
1. Initialize $x'_e\gets 0$ for every $e\in E$.
2. For every $e=(u,v)\in E$ such that $x_e>0$ do the following
1. For the unique path $P_{u,v}$ that connects $u$ and $v$ in $T$ do the following
- For every $e'\in P_{u,v}$, do $x'_{e'}\gets x'_{e'}+x_e$.
We first argue that the vector ${\mathbf{x}}'$ computed by the algorithm above is a feasible solution to ${\textsc{LP}^L}(T)$. Consider an arbitrary cut $C$ in $G$ and consider any $e=(u,v)\in \delta(C)$ such that $x_e>0$. Now consider the same cut $C$ in $T$. Note that in this case there has to be at least one edge $e'\in P_{u,v}$ such that $e'\in\delta(C)$ in $T$. Thus, we have $$\sum_{e'\in\delta_T (C)} x'_e\ge \sum_{e\in \delta_G(C):x_e>0} x_e\ge \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} b^i(C),$$ where the last inequality follows since ${\mathbf{x}}$ is a feasible solution for ${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)$. Thus, we have shown that ${\mathbf{x}}'$ is a feasible solution.
Finally, we prove . Note that by the algorithm above, we have $$\sum_{e\in E(T)} x'_e = \sum_{e=(u,v)\in E(G)} d_T(u,v)\cdot x_e.$$ Now follows from the above, linearity of expectation and the fact that $G$ embeds with a distortion of $\alpha$ under ${\mathcal{D}}$.
The proof above also implies the following:
\[cor:embedding-tree\] For every connected graph $G$, there exists a sub-tree $T$ such that $${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)\le {\textsc{LP}^L}(T)\le 3\alpha\cdot {\textsc{LP}^L}(G) \text{ and }{\textsc{LP}^U}(G)\le {\textsc{LP}^U}(T)\le 3\alpha\cdot {\textsc{LP}^U}(G).$$ Further, the bounds hold even if one only considers integral solutions.
The lower bound follow since $T$ is a sub-graph of $G$. Using the arguments in the proof above, one can show that under the embedding distribution, we have both $${\mathbb{E}_{T\gets {\mathcal{D}}}\left[{{\textsc{LP}^L}(T)}\right]} \le \alpha\cdot {\textsc{LP}^L}(G)\text{ and } {\mathbb{E}_{T\gets {\mathcal{D}}}\left[{{\textsc{LP}^U}(T)}\right]} \le \alpha\cdot {\textsc{LP}^U}(G).$$ Markov inequality and the union bound shows that the required $T$ exists with probability at least $1/3$.
The claim on integral solutions follows from the fact that the reduction in the proof above preserves integrality of solution when moving from $G$ to $T$.
It is known that any graph $G=(V,E)$ can be embedded into a distribution of its subtrees with distortion $O\left({\log{|V|}\log\log{|V|}}\right)$ (see e.g.[@AN12; @ABN08]), which in turn proves Theorem \[cor:lp1-lp2\].[^14]
\[rem:just-trees\] It is natural to wonder if one can use embedding of a graph into a distribution of trees (instead of sub-trees as we do) and not lose the extra $\log\log{|V|}$ factor (since for trees one can get a distortion of $O(\log{|V|})$ [@FRT04]). We do not see how to use this result: in particular, in our proof of Lemma \[lem:embedding\] we do not see how to guarantee that the vector $(x'_e)_{e\in E(T)}$ satisfies the corresponding ${\textsc{LP}^L}(T)$ constraint. In short, this is because the edges in $T$ for the result in [@FRT04] have weights (say $w_e$ for every $e\in E(T)$) so we can no longer prove the (stronger) inequality $\sum_{e'\in\delta_T (C)} w_e\cdot x'_e\ge \sum_{e\in \delta_G(C):x_e>0} x_e$.
Proof of Lemma \[lem:lp1-lp2-mtch\] {#app:lem:lp1-lp2-mtch}
-----------------------------------
The inequality ${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)\le {\textsc{LP}^U}(G)$ follows from Lemma \[lem:trivial-ineq-G\].
We begin with the last inequality. Towards this end we present a feasible solution for ${\textsc{LP}^U}(G)$. Fix an $i\in [\ell]$. Now consider the following algorithm to compute $x_{i,e}$ for $e\in E$:
- $x_{i,e}\gets 0$ for every $e\in E$.
- For every $(u,v)\in M_i$, let $P_{u,v}$ be a shortest path from $u$ to $v$ in $G$. For every $e\in P_{u,v}$, do $x_{i,e}\gets x_{i,e}+1$.
It is easy to check that the vector computed above satisfies $\sum_{e\in E} x_{i,e}=d(G,M_i)\le O(\sigma_{K_i}(G))$ (where the inequality follows from our choice of $M_i$). Now consider any cut $C$. For every pair $(u,v)\in M_i$ that is cut by $C$, the chosen path $P_{u,v}$ will cross $C$ at least once. This implies that the vector $(x_{i,e})$ satisfies all the relevant constraints. This implies the claimed upper bound of ${\textsc{LP}^U}(G)\le O\left(\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \sigma_{K_i}(G)\right)$.
We finally, argue the first inequality. We first note that ${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)$ is exactly the same as ${LP_{\mathrm{MTCH}}}(G,{\mathcal{K}},M)$ (where $M$ is the (multi-set) union of $M_1,\dots,M_{\ell}$). Thus, we have $${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)={LP_{\mathrm{MTCH}}}(G,{\mathcal{K}},M) \ge \Omega\left(\frac{d(G,M)}{\log{k}}\right) = \Omega\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} d(G,M_i)}{\log{k}}\right) \ge \Omega\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \sigma_{K_i}(G)}{\log{k}}\right),$$ where the first inequality follows from Lemma \[thm:mtch-lp\] (and noting that its proof also works for the case when $M$ is a multi-set), the second equality follows from the fact that $M$ is the multi-set union of $M_1,\dots,M_t$ and the last inequality follows from our choices of $M_i$. This completes the proof.
Relating Communication Complexity Lower Bounds to ${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)$
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We now make the straightforward connection between two party lower bounds and ${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)$. In what follows consider a problem $p=(f,G,{\mathcal{K}},\Sigma)$. Further for any cut $C$ in graph $G$, we will denote by $f_C$ the two-party problem induced by the cut: i.e. Alice gets all the inputs from terminals in ${\mathcal{K}}$ that are on one side of the cut and Bob gets the rest of the inputs. Finally, for a distribution $\mu$ over $\Sigma^{{\mathcal{K}}}$ let $\mu_C$ be the induced distribution on the inputs on two sides of the cut.
\[lem:lpo-cc-lb\] Let $p=(f,G,{\mathcal{K}},\Sigma)$ be a problem and $\mu$ be a distribution on $\Sigma^{{\mathcal{K}}}$ such that the following holds for every cut $C$ in $G$ $$\label{eq:2-party-lb}
D_{1/3,\mu_C}(f_C)\ge \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} b^i(C),\footnote{For a two party function $f$ and a distribution $\mu$ on the inputs of $f$, we will use $D_{{\epsilon},\mu}(f)$ to denote the minimum expected communication cost over the distribution $\mu$ for the worst-case inputs over all protocols that compute $f$ with probability at least $1-{\epsilon}$ on every input.}$$ then the following lower bound holds $$R(p)\ge {\textsc{LP}^L}(G).$$
Let $\Pi$ be an arbitrary protocol that correctly solves the problem $p=(f,G,{\mathcal{K}},\Sigma)$ with error at most ${\epsilon}=1/3$. For a given input $Y\in \Sigma^{{\mathcal{K}}}$, let $c_e(Y,\Pi)$ denote the total amount of bits communicated over the edge $e\in E(G)$ for the input $Y$. For every $e\in E(G)$, define $$x_e={\mathbb{E}_{Y\gets \mu}\left[{c_e(Y,\Pi)}\right]}.$$ Note that by linearity of expectation $\sum_{e\in E(G)} x_e$ denotes the expected cost of $\Pi$ on $p$. Further, if we can show that the vector ${\mathbf{x}}=(x_e)_{e\in E(G)}$ as defined above is a feasible solution for ${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)$, then the expected communication cost of $\Pi$ will be lower bounded by ${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)$. The claim then follows since we chose $\Pi$ arbitrarily.
To complete the proof, we need to show that ${\mathbf{x}}$ satisfies all the constraints. It follows from definition that $x_e\ge 0$ for every $e\in E(G)$. Thus, to complete the proof we need to show that for every cut $C$ $$\label{eq:constraint-sat}
\sum_{e\in \delta(C)} x_e\ge \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} b^i(C).$$ Towards this end fix an arbitrary cut $C$ and consider the following protocol $\Pi_C$ for the induced two-party function $f_C$. Alice runs $\Pi$ by herself as long as $\Pi$ only uses messages on edges on Alice’s side of the cut $C$. If $\Pi$ needs to send a message over $\delta(C)$, then Alice sends the corresponding message to Bob. Bob then takes over and does the same. $\Pi_C$ terminates when $\Pi$ terminates. It is easy to check that $\Pi_C$ is a correct protocol for $f_C$ and errs with probability at most ${\epsilon}$. Further, the total communication for $\Pi_C$ for an input $Y\in\Sigma^{{\mathcal{K}}}$ is exactly $$\sum_{e\in\delta(C)} c_e(Y,\Pi).$$ Thus, by linearity of expectation, the expected cost of $\Pi_C$ under $\mu_C$ is $\sum_{e\in \delta(C)} x_e$. This along with proves , as desired.
The above immediately implies the following corollary:
\[cor:lpo-cc-lb\] Let $p=(f,G,{\mathcal{K}},\Sigma)$ be a problem and $\mu$ be a distribution on $\Sigma^{{\mathcal{K}}}$ such that the following holds for every cut $C$ in $G$ $$D_{1/3,\mu_C}(f_C)\ge \alpha\cdot \left(\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} b^i(C)\right),$$ for some value $\alpha>0$ then the following lower bound holds $$R(p)\ge \alpha\cdot {\textsc{LP}^L}(G).$$
Next, we show we can use Corollary \[cor:lpo-cc-lb\] to reprove the following lower bound on the ${\mathrm{ED}}$ function:
\[thm:ed-lb\] $$R({\mathrm{ED}},G,K,\{0,1\}^n) \ge \Omega\left(\frac{\sigma_K(G)}{\log{k}}\right).$$
Let $\mu$ be the distribution that picks $k$ random vectors without replacement from $\{0,1\}^n$. It was shown in [@CRR14] that for for every cut $C$ of $G$, we have $D_{1/3,\mu_C}({\mathrm{ED}}_C)\ge\Omega\left(\min(|C|,|K\setminus C|\right)$. The claim then follows from Corollary \[cor:lpo-cc-lb\] (for $\ell=1$), Theorem \[thm:mfc-lp\] and noting that with the constraints above ${\textsc{LP}^L}(G)$ is the same as ${LP_{\mathrm{MDN}}}(G,K)$.
### A generic proof framework
Corollaries \[cor:tree-integral\] and \[cor:embedding-tree\] suggests the following general strategy to prove tight lower bounds:
1. \[step:distribution\] Pick appropriate hard distribution such that for every cut $C$, we get an appropriate lower bound $b^i(C)$ for every $i\in [\ell]$. Note that this implies that $b^i(C)$ are all integral.
2. \[step:lb\] Corollaries \[cor:tree-integral\] and \[cor:embedding-tree\] then implies that the objective value of the (integral) solution to ${\textsc{LP}^L}(T)$ defines a valid lower bound to the communication problem (up to a $3\alpha$ factor).
3. \[step:ub\] Argue that there exists a communication protocol that realizes the integral solution for ${\textsc{LP}^U}(T)$ to within a factor of $\beta\ge 1$.
4. \[step:concl\] Conclude that we have proved a lower bound that is tight to within a factor of $\Theta(\alpha^2\cdot \beta)$.
Note that the above steps can be done with our lower bounds in the FOCS paper without having to use the $\ell_1$ metric embeddings result. In particular, if we just use the hard distributions used in the FOCS paper then we can implement Step \[step:ub\] with $\beta=1$. (Recall that in these problems we have $\ell=1$ and hence ${\textsc{LP}^L}={\textsc{LP}^U}$.)
Here is a quick argument for the last claim above. In the MFC type problems, we have the demand pair constraints and in this case just using the unique path between the demand pairs realizes the integral solution for ${\textsc{LP}^U}(T)$. For the Steiner type problems, we need a Steiner tree and that in a tree that is uniquely determined once given the terminals.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:sd-st\]
==============================
A collection of multi-way cuts
------------------------------
We will consider multi-way cuts of a graph $G=(V,E)$. For our purposes a multi-way cut $C$ of $G$ is a partition of $V$ into at least two sets. For notational convenience, we will list all but one set of a multi-way cut $C$: i.e. the “missing" set will be implicitly defined by the set $V\setminus \cup_{S\in C} S$. Just for concreteness, we will call the sets explicitly mentioned in $C$ is [*explicit sets*]{} and the missing set to be the [*implicit set*]{}. (Note that this implies that the size of a multi-cut $|C|$ is the number of explicit sets in $C$.) Also ${\delta\left({C}\right)}$ denotes the set of [*cut-edges*]{} of $C$: i.e. the set of edges that have one end point in one explicit set of $C$ and the other end point in another set (explicit or implicit) of $C$.
Given two multi-way cuts $C$ and $C'$ of $G$, we say that $C$ is [*contained*]{} in $C'$ is every explicit set of $C'$ is the union of one or more explicit set of $C$ (and maybe some extra elements from the implicit set of $C$).
We now define a family of collection of multi-way cuts that will be useful in proving our lower bounds.
\[def:multicut-family\] We call a family of collection of multi-way cuts ${\mathcal{C}}_1,\dots,{\mathcal{C}}_{\ell}$ to be $(\ell,\alpha)$-multicut family for $G$ if the following is true for every $i\in [\ell]$. (For every $i\in [\ell]$, let ${\mathcal{C}}_i=\{C_i^{(1)},\dots,C_i^{(m_i)}\}$, where each $C_i^{(j)}$ is a multi-way cut for $G$.)
1. ([Containment property]{}) For every $1\le j < m_i$, $C_i^{(j)}$ is contained in $C_i^{(j+1)}$.
2. ([Disjointness property]{}) For every $1\le j_1\neq j_2\le m_i$, ${\delta\left({C_i^{(j_1)}}\right)}$ and ${\delta\left({C_i^{(j_1)}}\right)}$ are disjoint.
3. ([Singleton property]{}) Call an explicit set $S$ in $C_i^{(j)}$ for any $j\in [m_i]$ to be [*singleton*]{} if $S$ contains exactly one set from $C_i^{(1)}$. Then $C_i^{(m_i)}$ has at least $\alpha\cdot {\left|{C_i^{(1)}}\right|}$ singleton explicit sets.
Multicut family to a lower bound
--------------------------------
Next we show how an $(\ell,\alpha)$-multicut family implies a lower bound for certain functions. We begin with the specific class of functions.
Recall that $f:\Sigma^K\to \{0,1\}$ is $h$-[*[maximally hard on the star graph]{}*]{} if the following holds for any multicut $C$ of $K$. There exists a distribution $\mu_C^f$ such that the expected cost (under $\mu_C^f$) of any protocol that correctly computes $f$ on any star graph where each of the leaves has terminals from an explicit set from $C$ (and the center contains the implicit set of $C$) is $\Omega(|C|\cdot h(|\Sigma|))$.
\[lem:multicut=>sd-lb\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}$ be an $(\ell,\alpha)$-multicut family for $G$ such that every (explicit) set in $C_1^{(1)}$ has at least one terminal from $K$ in it and let $f:\Sigma^K\to \{0,1\}$ be an $h$-[maximally hard on the star graph]{} function. Then $$R(f,G,K,\Sigma)\ge \Omega\left(\frac{\alpha\cdot h(|\Sigma|)}{\ell\cdot \log{k}}\cdot \sum_{i=1}^{\ell} m_i\cdot{\left|{C_i^{(1)}}\right|}\right).$$
Fix an $i\in [\ell]$. We will define a hard distribution $\mu_i$ for terminals in $K$ such that the expected cost of communication over all the crossing edges in the multi-way cuts in ${\mathcal{C}}_i$ for any correct protocol will be $$\label{eq:one-level}
\Omega\left( \frac{1}{\log{k}}\cdot\alpha\cdot h(|\Sigma|) \cdot m_i\cdot{\left|{C_i^{(1)}}\right|}\right).$$ Note that by picking the final hard distribution $\mu=\frac{1}{\ell}\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \mu_i$, will complete the proof.
To complete the proof, we argue . Let $s$ be the number of singleton sets in $C_i^{(m_i)}$. Then by the containment property of ${\mathcal{C}}$, this implies that there exist explicit sets $T_1,\dots,T_s\in C_1^{(1)}$ such that for every $1<j\le [m_i]$, $C_i^{(j)}$ has $s$ singleton sets that contain $T_1,\dots,T_s$ respectively. We then let $\mu_i$ be $\mu_{\{T_1,\dots,T_s\}}^f$, where we think of $\{T_1,\dots,T_s\}$ as a multicut on $K$. By the definition of $\mu_{\{T_1,\dots,T_s\}}^f$, we get that the expected amount of communication on the cut edges ${\delta\left({C_i^{(j)}}\right)}$ (for any $j\in [m_i]$) is $\Omega(sh(|\Sigma|)/\log{k})$.[^15] Since the cut edge sets are disjoint for any two cuts $C_i^{(j_1)}$ and $C_i^{(j_2)}$, by linearity of expectation, the expected cost over all edges in $\cup_{j=1}^{m_i} {\delta\left({C_i^{(j)}}\right)}$ is $\Omega(sm_ih(|\Sigma|)/\log{k})$. The proof is complete by noting that the Singleton property of ${\mathcal{C}}$ implies that $s\ge \alpha\cdot {\left|{C_i^{(1)}}\right|}$.
Constructing the multicut family
--------------------------------
The main result in this section is to show that we can construct a good multicut family.
\[lem:good-multicuts\] For any given instance $(G,K)$ there exists an $(\ell=O(\log{k}),\alpha= 1/3)$-multicut family for $G$ such that $C_1^{(1)}=\{\{i\}|i\in K\}$: i.e. all the explicit sets in $C_1^{(1)}$ just contain one terminal from $K$. Further, we have $$\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} \sum_{j=1}^{m_i} {\left|{C_i^{(j)}}\right|}\ge \Omega\left({\mathrm{ST}}(G,K)\right).$$
Note that Lemmas \[lem:multicut=>sd-lb\] and \[lem:good-multicuts\] prove Theorem \[thm:sd-st\]. In the rest of the section, we prove Lemma \[lem:good-multicuts\]. We will in fact first define a collection of multi-way cuts $C_1,\dots,C_t$ for some $t\ge 1$ such that they satisfy the containment and disjointness properties in Definition \[def:multicut-family\] for $\ell=1$ (but not necessarily the singleton property). Further, these cuts satisfy the two extra properties needed in Lemma \[lem:good-multicuts\]. Finally, we will show how to divide the collection of multicuts into $O(\log{k})$ sub-collections so that the new family is actually an $(O(\log{k}),1/3)$-multicut family for $G$ (without losing the other desired properties).
We start with a notation that will help us define our multi-way cut family. For any non-empty subset $S\subseteq V$, let ${\mathcal{B}}_G(S,r)$ denote the set of all vertices in $G$ with a (shortest path) distance of at most $r$ from some node in $S$. More precisely: $${\mathcal{B}}_G(S,r)=\left\{u\in V| \text{ there exists a } w\in S\text{ such that } d_G(u,w)\le r\right\}.$$
We will define the multicuts $C_1,\dots,C_t$ by defining a partition of $K$ for each $i\in [t]$: let us call the $i$th partition ${\mathcal{S}}_i$. Given the partition ${\mathcal{S}}_i$, the definition of the multicut $C_i$ is simple: there is one explicit set in $C_i$ corresponding to each $S\in {\mathcal{S}}_i$. In particular, for every $S\in{\mathcal{S}}_i$, we have $$C_i=\{{\mathcal{B}}_G(S,i-1)|S\in {\mathcal{S}}_i\},$$ where recall we only state the explicit sets in the multi-way cut $C_i$.
Thus, to complete the descriptions of the multi-way cuts, it is enough to show how to compute ${\mathcal{S}}_{i}$. ${\mathcal{S}}_1$ is defined to be the partition of $K$ into the $k$ singleton sets $\{i\}$ (for every $i\in K$). To compute ${\mathcal{S}}_{i+1}$ from ${\mathcal{S}}_i$ we first construct a graph $G'_i$ which has one node for every $S\in {\mathcal{S}}_i$. Add an edge $(S,T)$ for $T\neq S\in {\mathcal{S}}_i$ in $G'_i$ if ${\mathcal{B}}_G(S,i)$ intersects ${\mathcal{B}}_G(T,i)$. For each connected component in $G'_i$, add the union of all sets from ${\mathcal{S}}_i$ in the connected component as one set in ${\mathcal{S}}_{i+1}$. Note that it is possible that ${\mathcal{S}}_{i+1}={\mathcal{S}}_i$. The last index $t$ is defined as the smallest index such that $|{\mathcal{S}}_{t+1}|=1$.
Note that the containment and disjointness properties of the multi-way cuts $C_1,\dots,C_t$ follow from construction. Further, by definition, all the explicit sets in $C_1$ contains exactly one terminal from $K$. Next we argue that
\[lem:sum-cost=st\] $$\sum_{i=1}^t |C_i| \ge \frac{1}{2}\cdot {\mathrm{ST}}(G,K).$$
Let $\bar G$ denote the complete graph on the vertex set $K$, where the edge $(u,v)$ in $\bar G$ has a cost of $d_G(u,v)$. Let $T(\bar G)$ denote an MST of $\bar G$. It is easy to see the cost of $T(\bar G)$ (denoted by ${\textsc{cost}}(T(\bar G))$) is at least ${\mathrm{ST}}(G,K)$. Next we argue that $\sum_{i=1}^t |C_i|$ is at least half of the cost of $T(\bar G)$, which would complete the proof.
Intuitively, the argument about the cost of $T(\bar G)$ is essentially that our algorithm to compute the various ${\mathcal{S}}_i$ simulates a run of Boruvka’s algorithm [@boruvka] for computing an MST of $\bar G$.
We will now prove the result by induction on $k\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}|K|$. When $k=2$, then it is easy to see that $\sum_{i=1}^t |C_i| \ge {\textsc{cost}}(T(\bar G))-1 \ge {\textsc{cost}}(T(\bar G))/2$, as desired.[^16] Let us assume that the claim is true for all $K$ with $|K|=k\ge 2$.
Next consider the case when $|K|=k+1$. Let $i$ be the smallest index where the graph $G'_{i-1}$ has at most $k$ components (i.e. this is the first $i$ such that at least two singletons sets from ${\mathcal{S}}_{i-1}$ are merged when computing ${\mathcal{S}}_i$). Let $G'$ denote the graph where we collapse all nodes in ${\mathcal{C}}_i$ into “super-nodes" and let $K'$ denote the corresponding set of terminals in $G'$: i.e. $K'$ is in one to one correspondence with ${\mathcal{S}}_i$. Let $C'_1,\dots,C'_{t'}$ denote the cuts defined if our algorithm ran on $G'$ and $K'$. We claim two properties: (i) $\sum_{i=1}^t |C_i|-\sum_{j=1}^{t'}|C'_j|=(k+1)\cdot(i-1)$ and (ii) the corresponding graph[^17] $\bar G'$ has its MST cost (denoted by ${\textsc{cost}}(T(\bar G'))$) to be at least ${\textsc{cost}}(T(G))-2k(i-1)$. Note that claims (i) and (ii) complete the inductive step of the proof.[^18] To complete the proof, we argue these two claims.
We begin with claim (i). We first note that the multi-way cut $C'_j$ (for $j\in [t']$) is in one to one correspondence[^19] with $C_{i+j-1}$. In particular, we have $|C'_j|=|C_{i+j-1}|$. The claim then follows by noting that all ${\mathcal{S}}_{\ell}={\mathcal{S}}_1$ for $\ell<i$ (and hence $\sum_{\ell=1}^{i-1} |C_{\ell}|=(k+1)(i-1)$).
We finish by arguing claim (ii). The main observation is that $T(\bar G)$ can be obtained by starting with $T(\bar G')$ and then replacing each super node in $T(\bar G')$ by a spanning tree of the corresponding component of $G'_{i-1}$ (recall that each super node in $K'$ is constructed by collapsing a component in $G'_{i-1}$ of size at least two). To complete the claim, we need to track the changes in edge weights. We first note that the cost of edges in $\bar G'$ is smaller than the corresponding edge in $\bar G$ by exactly $2(i-1)$. Second, each edge added back for each super node in $K'$ has cost at most $2(i-1)$. This implies that $${\textsc{cost}}(T(\bar G))-{\textsc{cost}}(\bar G')= \left(|K'|-1\right)\cdot 2(i-1)+ \left(|K|-|K'|\right)\cdot 2(i-1) \le 2k(i-1),$$ as desired.
Note that now we have shown an $(1,1/k)$-multicut family that satisfies all the other conditions in Lemma \[lem:good-multicuts\]. We now present a simple way to convert this into an $(O(\log{k}),1/3)$-multicut family. In particular, we will group $\ell=O(\log{k})$ consecutive chunks of multi-way cuts from $C_1,\dots,C_t$ to obtain our final family ${\mathcal{C}}_1,\dots,{\mathcal{C}}_{\ell}$. We first show how we compute ${\mathcal{C}}_1$. Let $j$ be the largest index in $[t]$ such that ${\mathcal{S}}_j$ has at least $k/3$ singleton sets. Then ${\mathcal{C}}_1=\{C_1,\dots,C_j\}$. Now note that $|{\mathcal{S}}_{j+1}|\le 2k/3$ (because it has at most $k/3$ singleton sets and the rest in the worst-case might form subset of size $2$). We now re-start the process from $C_{j+1}$, where we think of ${\mathcal{S}}_{j+1}$ as the set of terminals. If this process stops in $\ell$ steps note that this results in an $(\ell,1/3)$-multicut family. Recall that once we go from ${\mathcal{C}}_i$ to constructing ${\mathcal{C}}_{i+1}$, the number of terminals decreases by a factor of at least $3/2$. This in turn implies that $\ell=O(\log{k})$, as desired.
[^1]: School of Technology and Computer Science, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, email: [email protected]. Research partially supported by a Ramanujan Fellowship of the DST.
[^2]: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University at Buffalo, SUNY, email: [email protected]. Research supported in part by NSF grant CCF-0844796.
[^3]: Related but different problems have been considered in distributed computing. Please see Appendix \[app:dc\] for more details.
[^4]: Given inputs $X^i\in \Sigma$ for every $i\in K$, the function ${\mathrm{ED}}:\Sigma^K\to\{0,1\}$ is defined as follows: ${\mathrm{ED}}\left((X^i)_{i\in K}\right) =1 \text{ if and only if } X^i\neq X^j \text{ for every } i\neq j\in K$.
[^5]: Strictly speaking, the strongest lower bound is $\Omega(\sigma_K\left(G\right)\cdot n)$. Several functions, called linear 1-median type later, are shown to achieve this bound in [@CRR14].
[^6]: Observe that if two strings held at two terminals are not equal, each hash will detect inequality with probability $2/3$.
[^7]: In fact, we observe in Theorem \[thm:steiner-tree-minimal\] that [*any*]{} function $f:\Sigma^K\to \{0,1\}$ that depends on all of its input symbols needs $\Omega({\mathrm{ST}}(G,K))$ amounts of communication (even for randomized protocols), which implies that the randomized protocol above for Equality is essentially optimal.
[^8]: In fact, we just need to compute the ${\mathrm{XOR}}$ of the hashes of the input, which with a linear hash is just the bit-wise ${\mathrm{XOR}}$ of $O(\log{k})$-bits of hashes.
[^9]: This means that one side of the cut $C_3$ is the union of one side each of $C_1$ and $C_2$.
[^10]: $A$ is the bit-wise xor of all the inputs on Alice’s side and $B$ is the bit-wise XOR of all the input on Bob’s side.
[^11]: In particular, here the hash is the inner product of $O(\log{k})$ random vectors with the input. The random vectors are generated using public randomness.
[^12]: Technically in [@CRR14] the hard distribution for set disjointness, the elements in the sets for Alice and Bob are chosen without replacement. However, the probability that either Alice or Bob have a set of size strictly less than $t$ or have an intersection is at most $\frac{\binom{2t}{2}}{2^n}$, which by our lower bound on $n$ is negligible.
[^13]: Technically, we get a lower bound of $\Omega({\mathrm{ST}}(G,{\mathcal{K}}))$, which of course implies a lower bound of $\Omega({\mathrm{ST}}(G,\{u_1,\dots,u_t\}))$.
[^14]: The result in [@AN12] is not stated as distribution over sub-trees but rather the paper presents a deterministic algorithm to compute a tree $T$ that has low weighted average stretch. In our application, this means that the algorithm can compute a tree $T$ such that given weight $x_e$ for $e\in E(G)$, it is true that $\sum_{e=(u,v)\in E(G)} d_T(u,v) x_e\le \alpha \cdot\sum_{e\in E(G)} x_e$, which is enough for the rest of our proof to go through.
[^15]: The definition implies a lower bound on a star but it is easy to see that any protocol on any connected graph can be simulated on a star graph with only a $O(\log{k})$ blowup in the total communication. In particular, consider the following simulation. When a message needs to be sent from one of the $k$ nodes $u$ to another $v$, the leaf corresponding to $u$ in the $k$-star uses $O(\log{k})$ bits to identify the leaf corresponding to $v$ to the center so that the center can relay the original message from $u$ to $v$.
[^16]: The inequality holds as long as ${\textsc{cost}}(T(\bar G))\ge 2$. If ${\textsc{cost}}(T(\bar G))=1$, then note that $\bar G$ is just a unit cost edge with the two end points being the two terminals. Note that in this case $|C_1|=1$ and hence the inequality $\sum_{i=1}^t |C_i| \ge {\textsc{cost}}(T(\bar G))/2$ still holds as required.
[^17]: In particular, $\bar G'$ is a complete graph on ${\mathcal{S}}_i$ and the cost of an edge $(u',v')$ is $d_G(u',v')-2(i-1)$, where $d_G(u',v')$ is the distance between the closest pairs of terminals in $u'$ and $v'$ (recall that $u'$ and $v'$ correspond to disjoint subsets of $K$).
[^18]: It can be verified that our construction of $C_i,\dots,C_t$ on $G$ corresponds to running our algorithm on $G'$ with the terminal set $K'$. This implies (e.g. by induction) that $\sum_{j=i}^{t'} |C'_j|\ge {\textsc{cost}}(T(\bar G'))/2$. Hence by (i) we have $\sum_{i=1}^t |C_i|\ge (k+1)(i-1)+{\textsc{cost}}(T(\bar G'))/2\ge (k+1)(i-1) + {\textsc{cost}}(T(G))/2-k(i-1)\ge {\textsc{cost}}(T(G))/2+(i-1)\ge {\textsc{cost}}(T(G))/2$, where the second inequality follows from (ii).
[^19]: This follows by our earlier observation that we can think of the construction of $C_i,\dots,C_t$ as running our algorithm on $G'$ with the terminal set being $K'$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A hybrid Car-Parrinello QM/MM molecular dynamics simulation has been carried out for the Watson-Crick base pair of 9-ethyl-8-phenyladenine and 1-cyclohexyluracil in deuterochloroform solution at room temperature. The resulting trajectory is analyzed putting emphasis on the N-H$\cdots$N Hydrogen bond geometry. Using an empirical correlation between the $\NN$-distance and the fundamental NH-stretching frequency, the time-dependence of this energy gap along the trajectory is obtained. From the gap-correlation function we determine the infrared absorption spectrum using lineshape theory in combination with a multimode oscillator model. The obtained average transition frequency and the width of the spectrum is in reasonable agreement with recent experimental data.'
address:
- 'Institut für Chemie und Biochemie, Freie Universität Berlin, Takustra[ß]{}e 3, 14195 Berlin, Germany'
- 'Institut für Physik, Universität Rostock, Universitätsplatz 3, 18055 Rostock, Germany'
author:
- 'Yun-an Yan'
- ',Gireesh M. Krishnan'
- ',Oliver Kühn'
title: 'QM/MM Lineshape Simulation of the Hydrogen-bonded Uracil NH Stretching Vibration of the Adenine:Uracil Base Pair in CDCl$_3$'
---
nucleic base pairs ,[*ab initio*]{} molecular dynamics ,Hydrogen bonding ,infrared lineshape
Introduction
============
The dynamics of the hydrogen bonds (HBs) linking complementary nucleic acid bases is an essential element responsible for the properties of DNA [@jeffrey97]. Among the various experimental methods used to study HBs, infrared (IR) spectroscopy serves as an important means because of its remarkable sensitivity to HB formation and geometry [@taillandier92:307]. In particular, absorption lineshapes in the HB stretching region contain information on the strength of the HB, its anharmonic couplings to fingerprint modes via Fermi-type resonances and to low-frequency intra- and intermolecular HB modes. At the same time the widths of the absorption profiles give evidence for the interaction with the surrounding medium [@giese06:211]. The details of HB lineshapes as well as the responsible dynamical processes can be investigated using nonlinear time-resolved IR spectroscopy [@nibbering07:619]. So far there are only a few ultrafast IR spectroscopic studies of DNA samples. Zanni et al. [@krummel06:13991] used two-dimensional IR spectroscopy in the carbonyl-stretching region to unravel coupling patterns sensitive to secondary structures in guanine-cytosine bases. A related theoretical investigation based on a vibrational exciton model was given by Cho and coworkers (see, e.g., Ref. [@lee06:114510]). More recently, Heyne et al. employed the two-color pump-probe method to identify the symmetric NH$_2$ stretching fundamental transition in adenine-thymine oligomers [@heyne08:7909].
The complexity of DNA oligomers can be considerably reduced by focussing on the base pair building blocks. There are a number of high-resolution IR+UV spectroscopic studies in the gas phase by the groups of de Vries and Kleinermanns. In Ref. [@plutzer03:838], for instance, it was shown that Watson-Crick (WC) pairing is not the most favorable case in the gas phase (see also simulation in Ref. [@krishnan07:132]). WC pairing can be enforced by substitutions as shown, e.g., for adenine and uracil derivatives in deuterochloroform solution (9-ethyladenine, 1-cyclohexyluracil) [@hamlin65:1734]. Recently, the first subpicosecond time-resolved study of the vibrational relaxation of the H-bonded NH stretching fundamental transition in a substituted adenine-uracil pair has been reported by Wouterson and Cristalli [@woutersen04:5381]. In particular they observed that base-pairing decreases the relaxation time by a factor of three as compared to monomeric uracil. Since vibrational energy flow in H-bonded nucleic acid bases is of apparent importance for the understanding of DNA dynamics, not at least in the context of DNA photoprotection, there is a need to develop a microscopic picture for this process.
In this contribution we will present the first step towards this goal which is the simulation of the NH stretching IR absorption lineshape around 3200 . In doing so we will follow the argument of Baerends and co-workers, that the electrostatic description of the HB in WC base pairs is questionable and charge transfer as well as resonance assistance occur which necessitates the quantum treatment of the electrons [@guerra99:3581]. For this purpose we employ Car-Parrinello Molecular Dynamics (CPMD) [@car85:2471] which has been used previously to simulate IR spectra, e.g., of HBs formed between water molecules and uracil [@gaigeot03:10344], of protonated water networks in bacteriorhodopsin [@rousseau04:4804], of intramolecular H-bonds in a Mannich base in gas and crystalline phase [@jezierska07:205101; @jezierska07:818; @jezierska08:839] as well as of crystalline H$_5$O$_2^+$ClO$_4^-$ [@vener06:273] and picolinic acid N-oxide [@stare08:1576]. In order to model the effect of the fluctuating deuterochloroform environment on the $\NHN$ HB dynamics we have chosen to use a QM/MM hybrid method [@laio02:6941] as detailed in Section \[sec:sim\]. This will provide us with a classical trajectory from which time-dependent NH stretching frequencies are extracted using the correlation between the NH fundamental transition gap and the $\textrm{N}\cdots\textrm{N}$ distance [@novak74:177] (Section \[sec:res1\]). In Section \[sec:res2\] the frequency correlation function is determined and lineshape theory [@mukamel95] is used to obtain the IR absorption spectrum which is compared with the experiment results of Ref. [@woutersen04:5381].
Simulation Details {#sec:sim}
==================
Following the experimental setup of Ref. [@woutersen04:5381] we will investigate the WC form of 9-ethyl-8-phenyladenine (A) and 1-cyclohexyluracil (U) (see, Fig. \[fig:structure\]) solvated in CDCl$_3$. Our model is based on the hybrid QM/MM method as implemented in the Gromacs/CPMD interface [@biswas05:164114]. All atoms of A:U pair other than those in the three substituents are dealt with by CPMD [@cpmd]. The substituents as well as the solvent are handled by Gromacs [@gmx31] using the OPLS all-atom force field [@jorgensen96:11225]. Since chemical bonds are cut by the QM/MM boundary, H atom capping is used to saturate the dangling bonds (see Fig. \[fig:structure\]).
In the simulation, one A:U pair is solvated in 100 $\textrm{CDCl}_3$ molecules within a box with dimensions $30.0~\textrm{\AA}\times23.5~\textrm{\AA}\times23.5~\textrm{\AA}$ (density is 0.1 M [@woutersen04:5381]). The QM part is placed in a $21.2~\textrm{\AA}\times15.9~\textrm{\AA}\times15.9~\textrm{\AA}$ box and the Becke exchange and Lee-Yang-Par correlation functional (BLYP) together with the plane wave basis set is used as implemented in the CPMD code. Further the Vanderbilt ultrasoft pseudopotential is employed with a wave function cutoff of 30 Ry. The MM molecular dynamics run is performed at 298 K using a time step of 2 fs and the Car-Parrinello dynamics is integrated with a time step of 0.121 fs and a fictitious electron mass of 400 a.u.. The initial configuration corresponded to the geometry of the optimized gas phase base pair replacing solvent atoms in the equilibrated simulation box. Subsequently a 7.5 ps trajectory has been generated, the first picosecond of which was assigned for equilibration and not used for data analysis.
It is well appreciated that there is a correlation between the HB length, i.e. here the $\NN$ distance, and the respective NH stretching frequency. Using the correlation curve obtained by Novak [@novak74:177] supplemented by more recent data we can establish the time-dependent fundamental NH stretching frequency, $\omega_{10}(t)$, along the trajectory and its correlation function $$\label{eq:corr}
C(t) = \left\langle \left(\omega_{10}(t)-\langle\omega_{10}\rangle\right)
\left(\omega_{10}(0)-\langle\omega_{10}\rangle\right)\right\rangle \,.$$ Here, Ê$\langle\omega_{10}\rangle$ is the mean value along the trajectory. In passing we note that frequency-distance correlations also exist for O-H(D)$\ldots$O HBs [@mikenda86:1]. They have been used, e.g., in Ref. [@bratos04:197] to simulate lineshape functions for HOD in D$_{2}$O.
Adopting an adiabatic two-level model and the Condon approximation where all other degrees of freedom except the NH stretching frequency are treated classically, the IR spectrum can be expressed via the lineshape function $$\label{eq:gt}
g(t) \equiv \int^t_0d\tau\int^\tau_0d\tau^\prime\, C(\tau^\prime),$$ as [@mukamel95] $$\label{eq:irsp}
\sigma(\omega) = \frac{1}{\pi}\textrm{Re}\int^\infty_0 dt \,
e^{i(\omega-\left\langle \omega_{10}\right\rangle) t - g(t)} \, .$$ The correlation function, Eq. (\[eq:corr\]), is a classical quantity and does not satisfy detailed balance. In principle detailed balance can be restored by applying certain correction factors. On the other hand, one might ask whether this matters at all for room temperature simulations which usually are characterized by rapidly decaying correlation functions. This problem has been addressed recently by Skinner and coworker for HOD in D$_{2}$O, who showed that quantum corrections have a modest influence on the IR lineshape only, but are important for nonlinear spectroscopies [@lawrence05:6720]. Below we will take into account quantum effects by adopting the multimode oscillator model [@mukamel95] for fitting the classical correlation function by the expression $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:qcf}
C(t) &= &C'(t)+iC''(t) \nonumber\\
&=&\sum_jS_j\omega^2_j\coth(\hbar\omega_j/2k_{\rm B}T)\cos(\omega_jt) + i \sum_jS_j\omega^2_j\sin(\omega_jt) \, .\end{aligned}$$ Here, $S_j$ is the dimensionless Huang-Rhys factor giving the coupling strength between the two-level system and the mode with frequency $\omega_j$. The real part $C'(t)$ is first used to fit the correlation function obtained from the molecular dynamics trajectory to a set of oscillators. Subsequently, $C''(t)$ is determined and the complex lineshape function is used to calculate the spectrum.
Results and Discussions
=======================
Trajectory Analysis {#sec:res1}
-------------------
The geometry is one of the most prominent characteristics of HBs and provides via correlation relations access to spectroscopic observables such as fundamental IR transitions [@novak74:177] or NMR chemical shifts [@pietrzak07:296]. In Fig. \[fig:traj\]a we show the $\NN$ separation along the production part of the trajectory. Apparently, the HB length varies over a large range, that is, from 2.62 Å to 3.94 Å. The time average is 3.2 Å for the $\NN$ separation and 2.2 Å for the $\textrm{H}\cdots\textrm{N}$ distance. The latter value is at the upper boundary of what has been reported for purine and pyrimidine crystals, that is, $1.73 ~\textrm{\AA} < L(\HN) < 2.23 ~\textrm{\AA}$ with a mean of 1.882 Å [@jeffrey86:127].
Fig. \[fig:traj\]b presents the distance between the H atom and the geometric center of the $\NN$ connecting line. The distance is defined to be negative if the H atom transfers to the adenine side. First, we notice that during most of the simulation interval the H atom is close to the uracil Nitrogen. Hydrogen transfer occurs in a short period of time only, that is, in the time interval $6.5~ \textrm{ps} < t < 6.56~ \textrm{ps}$. Apart from this short interval there is a clear correspondence between $\NN$ and $\NHN$ distance changes. This indicates that the HB should be close to being linear. To clarify this point further the deviation of the H atom away from the linear motion in the HB defined as the difference between the sum $L(\textrm{N}-\textrm{H}) + L(\textrm{N}\cdots \textrm{H})$ and the bond length $L(\textrm{N}\cdots \textrm{N})$, is drawn in panel (c) of Fig. \[fig:traj\]. Significant deviations occur for times greater than $t=6.5~\textrm{ps}$ only and can be traced back to the H transfer event. Here, the H atom acquires additional kinetic energy after it transfers back to the uracil side. The reason lies in the fact that the potential energy curve is an asymmetric double well with the higher energy at the adenine side. The additional kinetic energy will lead to a substantial out of line motion until it is dissipated to the A:U pair and the solvent, as shown in the window around $t=7~\textrm{ps}$ of this panel. Except for the period of H transfer and relaxation thereafter the difference is smaller than 0.09 Å for 95% of the simulation time and smaller than 0.14 Å for 99% of the time. The average deviation is 0.034 Å for times before the H transfer and 0.044 Å for the whole simulation. Compared with the average NH distance (1.05 Å), the deviation is small and the HB can indeed be considered to be linear.
In a next step we will correlate the $\NN$ separation to the NH stretching frequency using the experimentally established correlation of Novak [@novak74:177] which we supplement by two additional data points for small distances (see caption Fig. \[fig:corr\]). The frequency-distance correlation is shown in Fig. \[fig:corr\]a together with a linear regression fit to the function $$\label{eq:fit}
f(r) = \omega_\infty/2\pi c \, {\rm erf}\left(\sum_{i=0}^2 a_i r^i\right),$$ where $\omega_\infty$ is the free NH stretching frequency in gas phase (for parameters see figure caption). As a note in caution we emphasize that this type of correlation curve is of approximate nature. On the experimental side, the spectrum is often very broad and bears sub-band structure which makes the assignment difficult. On the computational side, this model assumes that the H atom is attached the original site, therefore, there is no H transfer at all. Of course, this is not the case throughout our simulation and we will have to exclude the corresponding configurations. Further we note that Eq. (\[eq:fit\]) also should not be used for very strong HBs, since there the transition frequencies are very sensitive to the details of the particular potential energy surface as well as to zero point energy effects (see, e.g. Ref. [@asmis07:8691]).
With help of the frequency-distance correlation, the transition frequency evolution along the trajectory can be obtained from the HB $\NN$ length. The result is shown in Fig. \[fig:corr\]b which also displays the rescaled HB length to emphasize the correlation between stretching frequency and HB length. Notice that the correlation curve levels off at large $\NN$ distances such that the frequency essentially stays constant. The average frequency along the trajectory in the interval 1.0-6.2 ps is 3227 .
IR Lineshape {#sec:res2}
------------
Having calculated the time-dependent frequency $\omega_{10}(t)$ we can proceed to determine the correlation function, Eq. (\[eq:corr\]). This is done by assuming ergodicity, that is, $C(t)$ is obtained along the trajectory via $$\label{eq:ccal}
C(t) = \frac{1}{T_f - T_i - t} \int^{T_f - t}_{T_i} d\tau
(\omega_{10}(t+\tau) -\langle\omega_{10}\rangle)
(\omega_{10}(\tau) -\langle\omega_{10}\rangle),$$ where $[T_i, T_f]$ is a certain propagation time interval. Concerning this time interval one has to be cautious to ensure that the time $T_i$ is chosen such that the system has equilibrated from the initial configuration. The impact of different choices of the time interval is shown in Fig. \[fig:spec\]a and b. One finds that when $T_i$ varies from $T_i=1.0~\textrm{ps}$ to $T_i=1.4~\textrm{ps}$ the differences of the correlation function are minor for $t<1.8~\textrm{ps}$ and quite small for $t>1.8~\textrm{ps}$. This finding indicates that as far as the simulation of $C(t)$ is concerned the system is indeed sufficiently equilibrated at $t=1.0~\textrm{ps}$. Panel (b) shows that for $T_i=1.0~\textrm{ps}$, the result for $T_f=6.0~\textrm{ps}$ is almost identical to that for $T_f=6.2~\textrm{ps}$ but quite different from that obtained using $T_f = 7.2~\textrm{ps}$. The reason lies in the previously mentioned fact that the H transfer which occurs at about $t=6.6~\textrm{ps}$ leads the system away from the uracil NH equilibrium site. In other words, H transfer is a singular event in the considered time interval and in order to make any statement concerning its influence one should have at hand a much longer trajectory sampling many of such H transfer events. In addition the correlation in Fig. \[fig:corr\]a has been developed for local NH stretching vibrations and becomes questionable if the N-H bond is replaced by a N$\cdots$H bond. Combining the two panels, one can draw the conclusion that the correlation function after time $t=1.8~\textrm{ps}$ is sensitive to the time interval and is not reliable. Based on this consideration, the time range $1.0~\textrm{ps} \leq t \leq 6.2~\textrm{ps}$ will be used for the time average.
To proceed we will fit $C(t)$ using the multimode oscillator model, Eq. (\[eq:qcf\]), as outlined in Section \[sec:sim\]. The frequency interval is dictated by time-step and interval of the correlation function, i.e. 80-1770 , discretized into 20 modes whose frequencies and coupling constants are fitting parameters. Given the number of parameters, the correlation function can be fit almost perfectly in the interval up to 1.8 ps. The fitted coupling strength is a smooth function of the frequency, as shown in Fig. \[fig:spec\]c. Specifically we find that the coupling between the NH vibration of the A:U pair and all other degrees of freedom is dominated by low-frequency modes. This includes A:U modes modulating the HB length ($\NN$ distance). Preliminary normal mode calculations for the gas phase A:U pair show that the shoulder around 400 could also be due to various modes having $\NN$ stretching character. In passing we note that this shoulder is reproducible for different sets of starting frequencies in the fitting.
Finally, in Fig. \[fig:spec\]d we compare the simulated and measured [@woutersen04:5381] IR absorption spectrum. The experimental spectrum peaks at 3185 and has a full-width at half maximum (FWHM) of 53 . The average transition frequency of our simulation has been 3227 which upon incorporating the harmonic correction factor shifts to 3209 , i.e. the difference with respect to the experiment is only 1%. The calculated FWHM is 39 which is 24% smaller than the experimental value. Both spectra show some asymmetry with respect to the high energy side. We note that without the quantum correction the linewidth reduces to 32 . Besides the perhaps surprisingly good agreement between theory and experiment the analysis in Fig. \[fig:spec\]d allows to assign the spectrum of modes coupled to the NH stretching vibration. One notices that this spectrum is cut-off at high frequencies. Therefore, contributions from the first overtone of the NH bending vibration are not explicitly included. It can be argued that possible Fermi resonances are implicitly included in the frequency-distance correlation. However, to establish the role of such a Fermi resonance a model which includes both vibrations, e.g., by calculating respective potential energy surfaces for snapshots along the trajectory, should be used.
In summary we have presented a QM/MM approach to the calculation of the IR lineshape of the H-bonded NH stretching vibration of an A:U pair in CDCl$_3$ solution. The time-dependence of the transition frequency was obtained using the $\NN$-distance-frequency correlation from Novak [@novak74:177] supplemented by more recent data and fitted to a function which contained the free NH vibration as a limiting case. The obtained average $\NN$ distance of 3.2 Å corresponds to a transition frequency of 3344 , which is slightly larger than the experimental value (3185 [@woutersen04:5381]). However, using lineshape theory together with a multimode oscillator model an IR spectrum has been obtained which is quantitative as compared to the experiment within 1% for the line position and 24% for the FWHM. The spectral density responsible for the width of the spectrum is dominated by modes in the range below 200 .
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We are indebted to Dr. H. Naundorf (Berlin) for his continuous support in the software installation and to Dr. S. Woutersen (Amsterdam) for the helpful discussion concerning the NH assignment. This work has been financially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Sfb450).
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix
G. A. Jeffrey, An introduction to Hydrogen bonding, Oxford, New York, 1997.
E. Taillandier, J. Liquier, D. M. J. Lilley, J. E. Dahlberg, Methods Enzymol. 211 (1992) 307.
K. Giese, M. Petković, H. Naundorf, O. Kühn, Phys. Rep. 430 (2006) 211.
E. T. J. Nibbering, J. Dreyer, O. Kühn, J. Bredenbeck, P. Hamm, T. Elsaesser, in O. Kühn, L. Wöste (eds.), Analysis and control of ultrafast photoinduced reactions, Vol. 87 of Springer Series in Chemical Physics, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 2007, p. 619.
A. Krummel, M. Zanni, J. Phys. Chem. B 110 (2006) 13991.
C. Lee, K.-H. Park, J.-A. Kim, S. Hahn, M. Cho, J. Chem. Phys. 125 (2006) 114510.
K. Heyne, G. M. Krishnan, O. Kühn, J. Phys. Chem. B 112 (2008) 7909.
C. Plützer, I. Hünig, K. Kleinermanns, E. Nir, M. S. D. Vries, ChemPhysChem 4 (2003) 838.
G. M. Krishnan, O. Kühn, Chem. Phys. Lett. 435 (2007) 132.
R. Hamlin, R. C. Lord, A. Rich, Science 148 (1965) 1734.
S. Woutersen, G. Cristalli, J. Chem. Phys. 121 (2004) 5381.
C. Fonseca-Guerra, F. M. Bickelhaupt, J. G. Snijders, E. J. Baerends, Chem. Eur. J. 5 (1999) 3581.
R. Car, M. Parrinello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (1985) 2471.
M. P. Gaigeot, M. Sprik, J. Phys. Chem. B 107 (2003) 10344.
R. Rousseau, V. Kleinschmidt, U. W. Schmitt, D. Marx, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 43 (2004) 4804.
A. Jezierska, J. J. Panek, A. Koll, J. Mavri, J. Chem. Phys. 126 (2007) 205101.
A. Jezierska, J. J. Panek, A. Filarowski, J. Chem. Inform. Model. 47 (2007) 818.
A. Jezierska, J. J. Panek, A. Koll, ChemPhysChem 9 (2008) 839.
M. V. Vener, in Hydrogen transfer reactions, J. T. Hynes, J. P. Klinman, H.-H. Limbach, R. L. Schowen (eds.), Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2006, p 273.
J. Stare, J. Panek, J. Eckert, J. Grdadolnik, J. Mavri, D. Hadži, J. Phys. Chem. A 112 (2008) 1576.
A. Laio, J. VandeVondele, U. Röthlisberger, J. Chem. Phys. 116 (2002) 6941.
A. Novak, Struct. Bonding 18 (1974) 177.
S. Mukamel, Principles of nonlinear optical spectroscopy, Oxford, New York, 1995.
P. K. Biswas, V. Gogonea, J. Chem. Phys. 123 (2005) 164114.
CPMD, http://www.cpmd.org/, Copyright IBM Corp 1990-2008, Copyright MPI für Festkörperforschung Stuttgart 1997-2001.
D. van der Spoel, A. R. van Buuren, E. Apol, P. J. Meulenhoff, D. P. Tieleman, A. L. T. M. Sijbers, B. Hess, K. A. Feenstra, E. Lindahl, R. van Drunen, H. J. C. Berendsen, Gromacs [U]{}ser [M]{}anual version 3.1, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands. Internet: http://www.gromacs.org (2001).
W. L. Jorgensen, D. S. Maxwell, J. TiradoRives, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 118 (1996) 11225.
W. Mikenda, J. Mol. Struct. 147 (1986) 1.
S. Bratos, J.-Cl. Leicknam, S. Pommeret, G. Gallot, J. Mol. Struct. 798 (2004) 197.
C. P. Lawrence, J. L. Skinner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102 (2005) 6720.
M. Pietrzak, M. F. Shibl, M. Bröring, O. Kühn, H.-H. Limbach, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129 (2007) 296.
G. A. Jeffrey, H. Maluszynska, J. Mol. Struct. 147 (1986) 127.
K. R. Asmis, Y. Yang, G. Santambrogio, M. Brümmer, J. R. Roscioli, L. R. McCunn, M. A. Johnson, O. Kühn, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 46 (2007) 8691.
J. Rozière, J. M. Williams, E. Grech, Z. Malarski, L. Sobcyzk, J. Chem. Phys. 72 (1980) 6117.
E. Grech, T. G[ł]{}owiak, Z. Malarski, L. Sobczyk, Chem. Phys. Lett. 76 (1980) 495.
P. Colarusso, K. Q. Zhang, B. J. Guo, P. F. Bernath, Chem. Phys. Lett. 269 (1997) 39.
\
Fig. 1 (Yan et al.)
{width="90.00000%"}\
Fig. 2 (Yan et al.)
{width="90.00000%"}\
Fig. 3 (Yan et al.)
{width="\textwidth"}\
Fig. 4 (Yan et al.)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Abuzer Yakary[i]{}lmaz A. C. Cem Say\
Boğaziçi University, Department of Computer Engineering,\
Bebek 34342 İstanbul, Turkey\
\
` {say,abuzer}@boun.edu.tr `
date: 'March 29, 2009'
title: |
Language Recognition by Generalized Quantum Finite Automata\
with Unbounded Error[^1]
---
Research on theoretical models of practically implementable quantum computers has focused on variants of the quantum finite automaton (QFA). The bounded-error language recognition capabilities of various alternative QFA types have been analyzed and compared with their classical counterparts. In this paper, we examine the computational power of QFA’s in the unbounded error setting. Extending previous work [@YS09D], we show that all one-way QFA models that are at least as general as Kondacs-Watrous QFA’s (KWQFA’s) [@KW97] are equivalent in power to classical probabilistic finite automata in this setting. Unlike their probabilistic counterparts, allowing the tape head to stay put for some steps during its traversal of the input does enlarge the class of languages recognized by such QFA’s with unbounded error.
A Nayak QFA (NQFA) [@Na99] undergoes three operations in each step of the traversal of its input tape: First, its state vector evolves according to the unitary transformation dictated by the scanned symbol. Then, it undergoes the projective measurement associated with the same symbol. Finally, another measurement is performed to see whether the machine has accepted, rejected, or not halted yet. The computation continues with the next tape symbol only if this measurement yields the result that the machine has not halted yet. A KWQFA is a NQFA where the first measurement described above is just the identity operator.
\[theorem:GQFAToGPFA\] Let $ \mathcal{G}_{1} $ be a NQFA with $ n $ states and $ f_{\mathcal{G}_{1}}:\Sigma \rightarrow [0,1] $ be its acceptance probability function. Then, there exists a generalized probabilistic finite automaton (GPFA) [@Tu69] $ \mathcal{G}_{2} $ with $ O(n^{2}) $ states such that $ f_{\mathcal{G}_{1}}(w)=f_{\mathcal{G}_{2}}(w) $ for all $ w \in \Sigma^{*} $.
Theorem \[theorem:GQFAToGPFA\] establishes that every language recognized with unbounded error by an NQFA is stochastic. Combining this with the fact [@YS09D] that every stochastic language can be recognized by a KWQFA, we obtain
\[corollary:GQFAStochaticLanguage\] The class of languages recognized with unbounded error by NQFA’s equals the class of stochastic languages.
Several other one-way QFA models (like [@Pa00; @BMP03], and the one-way version of the machines of [@AW02],) that generalize the KWQFA have appeared in the literature. In the bounded-error case, some of these generalized machines recognize more languages than the KWQFA. We claim that the classes of languages recognized with unbounded error by all these automata are identical to each other.
We demonstrate this fact for one of the most general models, namely, the quantum finite automaton with control language (QFC) [@BMP03], the proofs for the other variants are similar. For any QFC $ \mathcal{M}
$, there exists a GPFA that computes exactly the same acceptance probability function as $ \mathcal{M} $, and for any KWQFA $ \mathcal{M}_{1} $, there exists a QFC that computes the same acceptance probability function as $ \mathcal{M}_{1} $ [@LQ08]. Therefore, QFC’s recognize all and only the stochastic languages with unbounded error.
Regardless of the specifics of their definitions, the two–way versions of any of these models will have to contain two–way KWQFA’s as specimens, and the fact [@YS09D] that even “1.5–way" KWQFA’s can recognize nonstochastic languages, combined with our Theorem \[theorem:GQFAToGPFA\], show that such an additional capability would enlarge the class of languages recognized by all these QFA’s with unbounded error.
[ grid=no, colspacing=1em, bgColorOne=lighteryellow, bgColorTwo=lightestyellow, borderColor=reddishyellow, headerColorOne=yellow, headerColorTwo=reddishyellow, headerFontColor=black, boxColorOne=lightyellow, boxColorTwo=lighteryellow, textborder=roundedleft, eyecatcher=no, headerborder=open, headerheight=0.10, headershape=roundedright, headershade=plain, headerfont=, boxshade=plain, background=shade-tb, background=plain, linewidth=2pt ]{} [{width="10em"}]{} [ Language Recognition by Generalized Quantum Finite\
Automata with Unbounded Error ]{} [\
Abuzer Yakary[i]{}lmaz ([email protected]) and A. C. Cem Say ([email protected])\
Boğaziçi University, Department of Computer Engineering, Bebek 34342 İstanbul, Turkey ]{} =\[top color=baposterBGtwo!30!white,bottom color=baposterBGone!30!white,shading=axis,shading angle=30\]
[^1]: This work was partially supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) with grant 108142 and the Boğaziçi University Research Fund with grant 08A102.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We construct global solutions on a full measure set with respect to the Gibbs measure for the one dimensional cubic fractional nonlinear Schrödinger equation (FNLS) with weak dispersion $(-\partial_x^2)^{\alpha/2}$, $\alpha<2$ by quite different methods, depending on the value of $\alpha$. We show that if $\alpha>\frac{6}{5}$, the sequence of smooth solutions for FNLS with truncated initial data converges almost surely, and the obtained limit has recurrence properties as the time goes to infinity. The analysis requires to go beyond the available deterministic theory of the equation. When $1<\alpha\leq \frac{6}{5}$, we are not able so far to get the recurrence properties but we succeeded to use a method of Bourgain-Bulut to prove the convergence of the solutions of the FNLS equation with regularized both data and nonlinearity. Finally, if $\frac{7}{8}<\alpha\leq 1$ we can construct global solutions in a much weaker sense by a classical compactness argument.'
address: ' Université de Cergy-Pontoise, Cergy-Pontoise, F-95000,UMR 8088 du CNRS'
author:
- 'Chenmin Sun, Nikolay Tzvetkov'
title: Gibbs measure dynamics for the fractional NLS
---
Introduction
============
Motivation
----------
Invariant Gibbs measures for Hamiltonian PDE’s were extensively studied in the last 35 years. These studies aim to provide macroscopic properties for these PDE’s. They have several perspectives. One of them (see the introduction of the seminal paper [@F]) is the extension of the recurrence properties of the solutions of Hamiltonian PDE’s from integrable to non integrable models. Another (see [@B; @bourgain; @BB1; @BB2; @BB3; @BTT-AIF; @BTT-Toulouse; @BT-IMRN; @dS; @Dem; @Deng; @FOSW; @LRS; @NORS; @Oh1; @Oh2; @OTh; @R; @Tz-AIF; @Z1; @Z2; @Z3]) is the construction of low regularity solutions. As a consequence of the above mentioned works, when considering the initial value problem of a Hamiltonian PDE for initial data on the support of the Gibbs measure, we now have methods to get weak solutions, to prove uniqueness of weak solutions and to get strong solutions (leading to recurrence properties). It turns out that all these methods can be naturally applied in the context of the fractional NLS which is the goal of this article. It will be revealed that the strength of the dispersion will crucially influence on the nature of the obtained solutions. Our results leave the picture incomplete, several interesting problems remain to be understood.
The fractional nonlinear Schrödinger equation
---------------------------------------------
We are interested in the one dimensional defocusing cubic fractional nonlinear Schrödinger equation (FNLS) $$\label{main-NLS}
i\partial_t u+|D_x|^\alpha u+|u|^{2}u=0, \quad (t,x)\in\R\times \T,$$ where $u$ is complex-valued and $|D_x|^\alpha =(-\partial_x^2)^{\alpha/2}$ is defined as the Fourier-multiplier $\widehat{|D_x|^\alpha f}(n)=|n|^\alpha\widehat{f}(n)$. The parameter $\alpha$ measures the strength of the dispersion. The equation is a Hamiltonian system with conserved energy functional $$H(u)=\int_{\T}||D_x|^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u|^2dx+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\T}|u|^4dx\,.$$ Moreover, the mass $ M(u)=\int_{\T}|u|^2dx
$ is also conserved along the flow of . The fractional Schrödinger equations was introduced in the theory of the fractional quantum mechanics where the Feynmann path integrals approach is generalized to $\alpha$-stable Lévy process [@Laskin]. Also, it appears in the water wave models (see [@Ionescu-Pusateri] and references therein). Finally, we refer to [@KLS] where the fractional NLS on the line appears as a limit of the discrete NLS with long range interactions.
Construction of the Gibbs measure
---------------------------------
Roughly speaking, our aim in this article is to study how much dispersion $\alpha$ is needed to construct an invariant Gibbs measure for . There are two aspects of the analysis. The first is the construction of the Gibbs measure, and the second is the construction of a dynamics on the support of the measure, leading to invariance of the Gibbs measure. In this subsection, we discuss the measure construction.\
Let $(g_n)_{n\in\Z}$ be a sequence of independent, standard complex-valued Gaussian random variables on a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$. Let us consider the Gaussian measure $\mu$ on $H^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\epsilon}(\T)$ for any $\epsilon>0$, induced by the map $$\label{induced-Gaussian}
\omega\longmapsto \sum_{n\in\Z} \frac{g_n(\omega)}{[n]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}e^{inx},$$ where $[n]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}=(1+|n|^{\alpha})^{\frac{1}{2}}$. Set $E_N=\textrm{span}\{e^{inx}: |n|\leq N
\}$. We denote by $$\Pi_N: H^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\epsilon}(\T) \longrightarrow E_N$$ the corresponding projection.\
If $\alpha>1$, it is well-known that for $0\leq \sigma<\frac{\alpha-1}{2}$, $\||D|^{\sigma}u\|_{L^{\infty}(\T)}$ is $\mu$-almost surely finite. Then the Gibbs measure $\rho$ associated with is $$d\rho(u)=e^{-V(u)}d\mu(u),\quad V(u)=\frac{1}{2}\|u\|_{L^4(\T)}^4.$$ Formally, the measure $\rho$ can be seen as $Z^{-1}\exp(-H(u)-M(u))du$.\
However, if $\alpha\leq 1$, due to the fact that $\|u\|_{L^4(\T)}=\infty$, $\mu$-almost surely, a renormalization if needed, as described for instance in [@BTT-Toulouse] for the case $\alpha=1$. More precisely, we set $$\alpha_N=\mathbb{E}_{\mu}\left[\|\Pi_Nu\|_{L^2(\T)}^2\right]$$ and $$f_N(u)=\frac{1}{2}\|\Pi_Nu\|_{L^4(\T)}^4-2\alpha_N\|\Pi_Nu\|_{L^2}^2+\alpha_N^2.$$ Further, we define $$d\rho_N(u)=\beta_N e^{-f_N(u)}d\mu(u),$$ where $\beta_N$ is chosen so that $\rho_{N}$ is a probability measure. Denote by $$H_N(u)=\||D_x|^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u\|_{L^2}^2+f_N(u)$$ the renormalized Hamiltonian functional, and the associated Hamiltonian equation $$i\partial_tu=\frac{\delta H_N}{\delta\ov{u}}$$ reads $$\label{weakEQ}
i\partial_tu_N+|D_x|^{\alpha}u_N+F_N(u_N)=0,$$ where $F_N$ stands for $$F_N(u_N)=\Pi_N(|u_N|^2u_N)-2\alpha_Nu_N.$$ Similarly to [@BTT-Toulouse], we will prove the following statement.
\[convergence-Gibbs\] Assume that $\alpha\in\left(\frac{7}{8},1\right]$ and $1\leq p<\infty$. Then the sequence $(f_N)_{N\geq 1}$ converges in $L^p(d\mu(u))$ to some limit denoted by $f(u)$. Moreover, $$e^{-f(u)}\in L^p(d\mu(u)).$$ Therefore, we can define a probability measure $\rho$ by $$d\rho(u)=C_{\infty}e^{-f(u)}d\mu(u).$$
The lower bound $\alpha>\frac{7}{8}$ is by no means optimal, here we perform the simplest argument we found providing a framework for weak solutions techniques. We expect that the construction of the Gibbs measure can be performed for any $\alpha>\frac{1}{2}$.\
Observe that the measures $\mu$ and $\rho$ depend on $\alpha$ but for conciseness we omit the explicit mentioning of this dependence.
Weak solutions
--------------
The measure construction of the previous subsection essentially implies the existence of weak solutions of as we explain below. Consider $$\label{truncated-NLS}
i\partial_tu+|D_x|^\alpha u+\Pi_N(|u|^2u)=0,\quad
u|_{t=0}=\displaystyle{\sum_{|n|\leq N}}\frac{g_n(\omega)}{[n]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}e^{inx}\,.$$ The equation is a Hamiltonian ODE on $E_N$ with a conserved energy $$H_N(u)=\int_{\T}|\Pi_Nu|^2dx+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\T}|\Pi_Nu|^4dx\,.$$ Hence for any fixed $N$, has almost surely a unique global solution $u^{\omega}_N$. We have the following statement.
\[thm1\] Assume that $\alpha>1$ and $\sigma<\frac{\alpha-1}{2}$. There is a subsequence $(N_k)_{k\in\N}$, $N_k\rightarrow \infty$ of $(1,2,3,\cdots)$ and a sequence of $C(\R;H^{\sigma}(\T))$ valued random variables $(\widetilde{u}_{N_k})_{k\in\N}$ with the same law as $(u_{N_k}^{\omega})_{k\in\N}$ such that $(\widetilde{u}_{N_k})_{k\in\N}$ converges a.s. in $C(\R;H^{\sigma}(\T))$ to some limit $u$ which solves in the distributional sense. Moreover, $\rho$ is invariant under the map $u(0)\mapsto u(t)$, $t\in\R$.
For $\alpha\leq 1$ we get convergence only after a renormalisation. Here is the precise statement.
\[thm2\] Assume that $\alpha\in\left(\frac{7}{8},1 \right]$ and $\sigma<\frac{\alpha-1}{2}$. Then there is a divergente sequence of real numbers $(c_N)_{N\in\N}$, there is a subsequence $(N_k)_{k\in\N}$, $N_k\rightarrow \infty$ of $(1,2,3,\cdots)$ and a sequence of $C(\R;H^{\sigma}(\T))$ valued random variables $(\widetilde{u}_{N_k})_{k\in\N}$ with the same law as $(u_{N_k}^{\omega})_{k\in\N}$, such that the sequence $(e^{itc_{N_k}} \widetilde{u}_{N_k})_{k\in\N}$ converges a.s. in $C(\R;H^{\sigma}(\T))$ to some limit $u$. Moreover, $\rho$ defined by Proposition \[convergence-Gibbs\] is invariant under the map $u(0)\mapsto u(t)$, $t\in\R$.
Uniqueness of the weak solutions
--------------------------------
In the case $\alpha>1$ we can strongly improve Theorem \[thm1\] by showing that almost surely, the whole sequence $(u_N)_{N\in\N}$ of solutions to converges[^1] (without changing it).
\[thm3\] Assume that $\alpha>1$ and $\sigma<\frac{\alpha-1}{2}$. The sequence $(u^{\omega}_{N})_{N\in\N}$ of solutions of converges a.s. in $C(\R;H^{\sigma}(\T))$ to some limit $u$ which solves in the distributional sense. Moreover, $\rho$ is invariant under the map $u(0)\mapsto u(t)$, $t\in\R$.
The proof of Theorem \[thm3\] uses a method introduced by Bourgain-Bulut in [@BB1; @BB2; @BB3]. We also mention that similar arguments were used by N. Burq and the second author in the context of the probabilistic continuous dependence with respect to the initial data for the nonlinear wave equation with data of super-critical regularity (see [@BT-JEMS]).\
We point out that in Theorems \[thm1\], \[thm2\], \[thm3\] we do not show that the obtained limit satisfy the flow property which prevents us to apply the Poincaré recurrence theorem.
Strong solutions
----------------
In this article we call strong solutions these solutions which are the *unique* limits of smooth solutions of , satisfying the flow property. For that purpose we need to define the global flow of for smooth data. The following theorem of J. Thirouin assures the global well-posedness of for smooth data.
\[thm-Thir\] Assume that $\alpha>\frac{2}{3}$. Then for every $u_0\in C^{\infty}(\T)$ there is a unique solution $u \in C(\R;C^{\infty}(\T))$ of $$i\partial_tu+|D_x|^{\alpha}u+|u|^2u=0,\quad u|_{t=0}=u_0.$$ Moreover, the flow map has a unique extension to the energy space $H^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}(\T)$.
In view of Theorem \[thm-Thir\] and the remarkable recent work by F. Flandoli on the Euler equation [@Fl] one may ask whether it is possible to construct weak solutions for $\alpha\in(\frac{7}{8},1]$ by using the smooth solutions of Theorem \[thm-Thir\] as an approximation sequence (compare with Theorem \[thm1\] and Theorem \[thm2\]).\
It tuns out that if the dispersion is slightly stronger than $\alpha>1$, we have the following convergence result.
\[thm5\] Assume that $\alpha>\frac{6}{5}$ and $\sigma<\frac{\alpha-1}{2}$. Then the sequence of smooth solutions $(u_N)_{N\in\N}$ of $$\label{FNLS-sequence}
i\partial_tu_N+|D_x|^\alpha u_N+|u_N|^2u_N=0,\quad
u|_{t=0}=\displaystyle{\sum_{|n|\leq N}\frac{g_n(\omega)e^{inx}}{[n]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}},$$ defined by Theorem \[thm-Thir\] converges almost surely in $C(\R;H^{\sigma}(\T))$ to a limit which solves in the distributional sense.
More importantly, the unique limit satisfies the flow property. The following statement is essentially a more precise formulation of Theorem \[thm5\].
\[thm6\] Assume that $\alpha>\frac{6}{5}$. There exists a measurable set $\Sigma$ of full $\rho$ measure, so that for any $\phi\in\Sigma$, the Cauchy problem $$i\partial_tu+|D_x|^\alpha u+|u|^2u=0,\quad u|_{t=0}=\phi$$ has a global solution such that $$u(t,\cdot)-e^{\frac{it}{\pi}\|\phi\|_{L^2(\T)}^2}e^{it|D_x|^\alpha}\phi\in C(\R;H^s(\T))$$ for some $s\in\big(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4},\alpha-1\big)$. The solution is unique in the sense that for every $T>0$, $$\label{unicite}
e^{-\frac{it}{\pi}\|\phi\|_{L^2(\T)}^2 } u(t,\cdot)-e^{it|D_x|^{\alpha}}\phi \in X_T^{s,b},\quad b>1/2,$$ where $X_T^{s,b}$ is the Bourgain space localized on $[-T,T]$ (see below). If we denote by $\Phi(t)$ the solution map then $\Phi(t)$ satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(t)(\Sigma)=\Sigma,\quad \forall t\in\R\,\text{ and }\,\, \Phi(t_1)\circ\Phi(t_2)=\Phi(t_1+t_2),\quad \forall t_1,t_2\in\R. \end{aligned}$$ Moreover, for all $\sigma<\frac{\alpha-1}{2}$ and $t\in\R$, $$\|u(t,\cdot)\|_{H^{\sigma}(\T)}\leq
\Lambda(\phi)
\log^3(1+|t|),$$ where $\Lambda(\phi)$ is a constant depending on $\phi\in\Sigma$. Finally, for any $\rho$ measurable set $A\subset\Sigma$ and for any $t\in\R$, $\rho(A)=\rho(\Phi(t)A)$.
If $\alpha>\frac{4}{3}$, from the deterministic local well-posedness result in [@Cho], the proof of Theorem \[thm6\] is much easier, see [@Dem]. In fact, FNLS is known to be locally well-posed for initial data in $H^s(\T)$ with $s\geq\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4}$. If $\alpha>\frac{4}{3}$, we have $\frac{\alpha-1}{2}>\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4}$. Since the initial data is $\mu$-a.s. supported on $H^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-}(\T)$, the deterministic theory applies. However, if $\frac{6}{5}<\alpha\leq\frac{4}{3}$ then we need to prove a new probabilistic local well-posedness result. We conjecture that it is possible to extend Theorem \[thm6\] to the range $\alpha>1$ by adapting a more involved resolution ansatz (see Remark \[fut\] below). We will address this issue in a forthcoming work.\
For $\alpha>1$, a typical function with respect to $\mu$ is an $L^\infty$ function. As a consequence, if we were dealing with a similar problem for a parabolic PDE then thanks to the nice $L^\infty$ mapping properties of the heat flow the analysis would become essentially trivial. On the other hand, since we are dealing with a dispersive PDE, the linear problem is only well-posed in $L^2$ in the scale of the $L^p$ spaces which makes that even at positive regularities, refined detereministic estimates and probabilistic considerations are essential in the analysis. A similar comment applies in the context of [@BT1/2; @BT-JEMS] and all subsequent works\
The proof of Theorem \[thm6\] is divided into two parts. Firstly, we need to establish a local well-posedness theory. For this, we follow the roadmap of [@bourgain] (see also the subsequent works [@Co-Oh], [@Nah-Staffilani]). An important new feature is that in sharp contrast with the case $\alpha=2$, for a general $\alpha$, the values of $$|n_1|^{\alpha}-|n_2|^{\alpha}+|n_3|^{\alpha}-|n_1-n_2+n_3|^{\alpha},\quad n_1,n_2,n_3\in\Z$$ may be dense in an interval of size $1$. This causes losses of regularity which are delicate to control. We also emphasize that the phase factor $e^{-\frac{it}{\pi}\|\phi\|_{L^2(\T)}^2}$ in makes the uniqueness class different from [@bourgain; @Co-Oh; @Nah-Staffilani]. Secondly, we need to extend the local solution to the global one and to prove the invariance of the good data set $\Sigma$ along the flow by using the measure invariance argument introduced by Bourgain in [@B]. Compared with the existing literature (see for example [@BTT-AIF; @BT-IMRN; @Sun-Tz] and references therein), the smoother part in the Bourgain space does not belong to the initial data space. This fact makes the choice of the $\Sigma$ more delicate. In particular, we make use of spaces with sum structure.\
As a consequence of Theorem \[thm6\] and the Poincaré recurrence theorem, we get the following statement (we consider $\Sigma$ equipped with the topology inherited by the separable space $H^\sigma(\T)$).
\[recurrence\] In the context of Theorem \[thm6\] for $\mu$ almost every $u_0\in\Sigma$ and all $t\in\R$, there is a subsequence $(n_k)_{k\in\N}$, $n_k\rightarrow \infty$ of $(1,2,3,\cdots)$ , such that the solution of $$i\partial_tu+ |D_x|^\alpha u+|u|^2u=0,\quad u|_{t=0}=u_0$$ satisfies $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\|u(n_kt)-u_0\|_{H^\sigma(\T)}=0,\quad \sigma<\frac{\alpha-1}{2}\,.$$
Another application of the flow property is the following stability result.
\[stability\] Let $f_1,f_2\in L^1(d\mu)$ and let $\Phi(t)$ be the flow of $$i\partial_tu+ |D_x|^\alpha u+|u|^2u=0,\quad u|_{t=0}=u_0$$ defined $\mu$ a.s. Then for every $t\in\R$, the transports of the measures $$f_1(u) d \mu(u),\quad f_2(u)d\mu(u)$$ by $\Phi(t)$ are given by $$F_1(t,u)d\mu(u),\quad F_2(t,u)d\mu(u)$$ respectively, for suitable $F_1(t,\cdot),F_2(t,\cdot)\in L^1(d\mu)$. Moreover $$\|F_1(t,\cdot)-F_2(t,\cdot)\|_{L^1(d\mu)}=\|f_1-f_2\|_{L^1(d\mu)} \,.$$
Corollary \[stability\] describes a general feature. A similar statement holds each time we deal with a PDE defining a flow under which a measure is quasi-invariant. For example, thanks to a recent work by Forlano-Trenberth the result of Corollary \[stability\] remains true if the measure $\mu$ is replaced by the measure induced by the map $$\omega\longmapsto \sum_{n\in\Z} \frac{g_n(\omega)}
{
(1+|n|^{s})^{\frac{1}{2}}
}
e^{inx},$$ for $s>\alpha$ large enough. We refer to [@FT] for the precise restriction on $s$. There is a gap between the best $s$ and $\alpha$ leaving an interesting open problem.
[ As already mentioned, it is not clear to us how to get the the flow property described by Theorem \[thm6\] by the method of Bourgain-Bulut. At the present moment, in the case $\alpha\in (1,\frac{6}{5}]$ we only know how to prove almost sure convergence of the solutions of the ODE’s : $$i\partial_tu+|D_x|^\alpha u+\Pi_N(|u|^2u)=0,\quad u|_{t=0}= \sum_{|n|\leq N}\frac{g_n(\omega)}{[n]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}e^{inx}.$$ A similar comment applies to [@BB1; @BB2; @BB3]. ]{}
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The authors are supported by the ANR grant ODA (ANR-18-CE40- 0020-01). We would like to thank Sahbi Keraani for his comments while the first author visited the Laboratoire Paul Painlevé of Lille University. We are grateful to Phil Sosoe for several nice discussions while the authors visited Cornell University, in particular for pointing out the reference [@F].
Preliminaries
=============
Calculus inequalities
---------------------
\[bound:resonance\] If $n_1-n_2+n_3-n=0$, we define the resonant function $\Phi(\ov{n}):=|n_1|^{\alpha}-|n_2|^{\alpha}+|n_3|^{\alpha}-|n|^{\alpha}$. If $\{n_1,n_3\}\neq \{n_2,n\}$, $\Phi(\ov{n})$ never vanishes. Moreover, $$|\Phi(\ov{n})|\gtrsim |n_1-n_2||n_2-n_3||n|_{\mathrm{max}}^{\alpha-2},$$ where $|n|_{\mathrm{max}}=\max\{|n_1|,|n_2|,|n_3|, |n| \}$.
See Lemma 2.1 of [@FT].
\[convolution\] Let $a>1\geq b\geq 0$ with $a+b>1$. Then there exists $C>0$, such that $$\int_{\R}\frac{dy}{\langle x-y\rangle^a \langle y\rangle^{b} }\leq \frac{C}{\langle x\rangle^{b}},$$ for any $x\in\R$.
We break the integral into $\int_{|y|\leq |x|/2}$ and $\int_{|y|>|x|/2}$. When $|y|\leq |x|/2$, we have $$\int_{|y|\leq |x|/2}\frac{dy}{\langle x-y\rangle^a \langle y\rangle^{b} }\leq C\langle x\rangle^{-a+1-b}\log\langle x\rangle\leq C\langle x\rangle^{-b}.$$ When $|y|>|x|/2$, we have $$\int_{|y|>|x|/2}\frac{dy}{\langle x-y\rangle^a \langle y\rangle^{b}}\leq C\langle x\rangle^{-b}.$$
\[lemme-summation\] Assume that $\frac{1}{2}<\beta\leq 1$, then for all $\gamma<2\beta-1$, there exists $C_{\gamma}>0$, such that for any $a\in\R$, $$\sum_{n\in\Z}\frac{1}{\langle n\rangle^{\beta}\langle n-a\rangle^{\beta}}\leq\frac{C_{\gamma}}{\langle a\rangle^{\gamma}}.$$
We cut the sum in two parts $$\sum_{|n|\leq |a|/2}\langle n\rangle^{-\beta}\langle n-a\rangle^{-\beta}+\sum_{|n|>|a|/2}\langle n\rangle^{-\beta}\langle n-a\rangle^{-\beta}.$$ Then the first term can be majorized by $$C\langle a\rangle^{-\beta}\sum_{|n|\leq \frac{|a|}{2}}\langle n\rangle^{-\beta}\leq C\langle a\rangle^{1-2\beta}\log\langle a\rangle.$$ The second term can be bounded by $C_{\gamma}\langle a\rangle^{-\gamma}$, thanks to $2\beta-1>0$.
Strichartz estimates and applications
-------------------------------------
We proceed by the standard argument reducing the $L^4$ Strichartz estimate to a counting lemma. Denote by $$S_{\alpha}(t)=e^{it|D_x|^{\alpha}}$$ the Schrödinger semi-group. Recall that the Bourgain space $X^{s,b}$ is associated with the norm $$\|u\|_{X^{s,b}}^2:=\int_{\R}\sum_{n\in\Z}\langle n\rangle^{2s}\langle\tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{2b}|\widehat{u}(\tau,n)|^2d\tau.$$ For finite time interval $I\subset\R$, the localized Bourgain space $X_I^{s,b}$ is defined via the norm $$\label{localizedBourgain} \|u\|_{X_I^{s,b}}:=\inf\left\{\|v\|_{X^{s,b}}: v|_{I}=u \right\}.$$ We will also use the notation $X_T^{s,b}$ to stand for $X_{[-T,T]}^{s,b}$. We have the following standard statements.
\[time-localization\] Let $\eta\in \mathcal{S}(\R)$. Then for $0<T<1$, $s\in\R$ and $-\frac{1}{2}<b'\leq b<\frac{1}{2}$, we have the estimate $$\|\eta(t/T)u\|_{X^{s,b'}}\lesssim T^{b-b'}\|u\|_{X^{s,b}}.$$
\[inhomo-linear\] Let $\eta\in\mathcal{S}(\R)$. Then for $s\in\R, 1>b>\frac{1}{2}$, we have the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\|\eta(t)\int_0^tS_{\alpha}(t-t')F(t')dt' \Big\|_{X^{s,b}}\lesssim \|F\|_{X^{s,b-1}}.\end{aligned}$$
Now we are going to derive some linear and bilinear $X^{s,b}$ estimates. Define the set of integers $$A_{a,l,N_1,N_2}(r):=\{k\in\Z\,:\,
N_1\leq |k|\leq 2N_1,\, N_2\leq |a-k|\leq 2N_2,\, ||k|^{\alpha}+|a-k|^{\alpha}-l|\leq r \}$$ and $A_{a,l,N}(r):=A_{a,l,N,N}(r).
$ For a dyadic number $N\geq 1$, we denote by $\mathbf{P}_N$ the Fourier projector on $$N\leq \langle n\rangle\leq 2N.$$ For an interval $J\subset\R$, we denote by $\mathbf{P}_J$ the Fourier projector: $$\widehat{\mathbf{P}_Jf}(n)=\mathbf{1}_J(n)\widehat{f}(n).$$ We have the following estimate.
\[Reduction-1\] For any finite time interval $I\subset \R$, there exists $C>0$, depending only on $|I|$, such that $$\|S_{\alpha}(t)\mathbf{P}_Nf\|_{L^4(I;L^4(\T) )}^2\leq C \sup_{a,l}\big(\# A_{a,l,N}(1/2)\big)^{1/2}\|\mathbf{P}_Nf\|_{L^2(\T)}^2.$$
We use an almost orthogonality argument in the time variable. Without loss of generality, we assume that $I=[0,1]$ and $f=\mathbf{P}_Nf$. From a direct computation, we have $$\label{desired}
\|S_{\alpha}(t)f\|_{L^4(I;L_x^4)}^2=\Big(\sum_{a\in \Z}\|g_a(t)\|_{L_t^2(I)}^2 \Big)^{1/2},$$ where $$g_a(t)=\sum_{k\in\Z}\widehat{f}(k)\widehat{f}(a-k)e^{it\varphi_a(k)},\quad \varphi_{a}(k)=|k|^{\alpha}+|a-k|^{\alpha}.$$ We fix $\phi\in C_c^{\infty}(\widetilde{I})$, such that $\phi|_{I}\equiv 1$ where $\widetilde{I}$ is a slight enlargement of $I$. Thus $$ \begin{split}
\int_I|g_a(t)|^2dt\leq &\int_{\R}\phi(t)\Big|\sum_{k} \widehat{f}(k)\widehat{f}(a-k)e^{it\varphi_a(k)}\Big|^2dt\\
=&\int_{\R}\phi(t)\Big|\sum_{l}\sum_{k:|\varphi_a(k)-l|\leq \frac{1}{2}} \widehat{f}(k)\widehat{f}(a-k)e^{it\varphi_a(k)} \Big|^2dt\\
=&\sum_{l,l'}\sum_{|\varphi_a(k)-l|\leq \frac{1}{2}}\sum_{|\varphi_a(k')-l'|\leq \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{f}(k)\widehat{f}(a-k)\ov{\widehat{f}(k')}\ov{\widehat{f}(a-k')}\widehat{\phi}(\varphi_a(k')-\varphi_a(k) )\\
\leq & C\sum_{l,l'}\frac{1}{1+|l-l'|^2}\sum_{k,k'}\mathbf{1}_{A_{a,l,N}(1/2)}(k)\mathbf{1}_{A_{a,l',N}(1/2)}(k')|F(a,k)F(a,k')|,
\end{split}$$ where $F(a,k)=\widehat{f}(k)\widehat{f}(a-k)$ (here we use a slight abuse of notation : by $|\varphi_a(k)-l|\leq \frac{1}{2}$, we mean $-\frac{1}{2}<\varphi_a(k)-l\leq \frac{1}{2}$).\
Now, by Schur’s test, we arrive at $$\int_I|g_a(t)|^2dt \leq C \sum_{l}\Big|\sum_{k}\mathbf{1}_{A_{a,l,N}(1/2)}(k)|F(a,k)|\Big|^2.$$ Therefore, by Cauchy-Schwarz, we have $$\begin{split}
\eqref{desired}\leq &C\Big( \sum_{a,l}\Big|\sum_{k}\mathbf{1}_{A_{a,l,N}(1/2)}(k)|\widehat{f}(k)\widehat{f}(a-k)|\Big|^2 \Big)^{1/2}\\
\leq& C\Big(\sum_{l,a}\sum_{k}|\widehat{f}(k)\widehat{f}(a-k)|^2\mathbf{1}_{A_{a,l,N}(1/2)}(k)\#(A_{a,l,N}(1/2)) \Big)^{1/2}\\
\leq & C\sup_{a,l}\big(\# A_{a,l,N}(1/2)\big)^{1/2}\|f\|^2_{L^2(\T)}.
\end{split}$$ This completes the proof of Lemma \[Reduction-1\].
We shall use the following elementary lemma.
\[counting-lemma\] Let $I,J$ be two intervals and $\varphi$ be a $C^1$ function, then $$\begin{split}
& \quad \quad \#\{k\in J\cap \Z:\varphi(k)\in I \}\leq 1+\frac{|I|}{\inf_{\xi\in J}|\varphi'(\xi)| }.
\end{split}$$
\[counting-1\] For $r\geq \frac{1}{100}$and $1<\alpha<2$, we have $$\#A_{a,l,N_1,N_2}(r)\leq C \min(N_1,N_2)^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}r^{1/2}.$$
First we assume that $N_1\ll N_2$ (a similar argument applies in the case $N_2\ll N_1$). Then for $\varphi_a(\xi)=|\xi|^{\alpha}+|a-\xi|^{\alpha}$, we have $|\varphi_a'(\xi)|\gtrsim N_2^{\alpha-1}$. From Lemma \[counting-lemma\], we have $\#A_{a,l,N_1,N_2}(r)\lesssim rN_2^{-(\alpha-1)}+1$. On the other hand, we have the trivial bound $\#A_{a,l,N_1,N_2}(r)\lesssim N_1$. We can conclude in this case since $$\min(N_1, rN_2^{-(\alpha-1)}+1 )\lesssim N_1^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}r^{1/2}.$$ Now we assume that $N_1\sim N_2\sim N$. If $r\gtrsim N^{\alpha}$, we have the trivial estimate $$\#A_{a,l,N}(r)\lesssim N\lesssim N^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}r^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$ Now we assume that $r\ll N^{\alpha}$. Let $0<\theta<1$ to be chosen later. We have $$\# A_{a,l,N}(r)=\#A_{1}(\theta)+\#A_{2}(\theta)+\#A_{3}(\theta),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
& A_{1}(\theta)=A_{a,l,N}(r)\cap \{k: |k-a/2|\leq \theta^{-1} \},\\
& A_{2}(\theta)=A_{a,l,N}(r)\cap \{k: |k-a/2|>\theta^{-1},\,k(a-k)<0 \},\\
&A_3({\theta})=A_{a,l,N}(r)\cap \{k:|k-a/2|>\theta^{-1},\, k(a-k)\geq 0 \}.
\end{aligned}$$ We have trivially that $\#A_1(\theta)\leq 2\theta^{-1}$. If $\xi$ and $a-\xi$ have different signs, we have $$|\varphi_a'(\xi)|=\alpha\big||\xi|^{\alpha-1}+|a-\xi|^{\alpha-1} \big|\gtrsim N^{\alpha-1}.$$ Thus $ \#A_2(\theta)\lesssim rN^{1-\alpha}.
$ If $\xi$ and $a-\xi$ have the same signs, we deduce that $$|\varphi_a'(\xi)|= \alpha| |\xi|^{\alpha-1}-|a-\xi|^{\alpha-1}|\gtrsim \frac{|2a-\xi|}{\max\{ |\xi|^{2-\alpha}, |a-\xi|^{2-\alpha}\} }\geq \frac{\theta^{-1}}{N^{2-\alpha}},$$ hence $\#A_3(\theta)\lesssim r\theta N^{\alpha-2}$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{!!!!}
\#A_{a,l,N}(r)\lesssim \theta^{-1}+r\theta N^{2-\alpha}+rN^{1-\alpha}.
\end{aligned}$$ If $r\ll N^{\alpha}$, we choose $\theta$ such that the first two terms have the same size. Therefore, $\theta=r^{-1/2}N^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-1}$. It follows that $ \# A_{a,l,N}(r)\leq N^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}r^{1/2},
$ where we used the fact that $r\ll N^{\alpha}$, in order to estimate the third term in the r.h.s. of . This completes the proof of Proposition \[counting-1\].
\[Strichartz-bilinear\] Let $1<\alpha\leq 2$, we have the following linear and bilinear Strichartz estimates: $$\begin{split}
& (1)\quad \|S_{\alpha}(t)\mathbf{P}_Nf\|_{L^4(I;L^4(\T))}\leq CN^{\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4}\right)}\|\mathbf{P}_Nf\|_{L^2(\T)}.\\
&(2)\quad \|S_{\alpha}(t)\mathbf{P}_Mf\cdot S_{\alpha}(t)\mathbf{P}_N\|_{L^2(I;L^2(\T))}\leq C\min\{M,N \}^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4}}\|\mathbf{P}_Mf\|_{L^2(\T)}\|\mathbf{P}_Ng\|_{L^2(\T)}.
\end{split}$$ Moreover, for any interval $J$ with length $|J|$, we have $$\label{boxlocalized-Strichartz}
\|S_{\alpha}(t)\mathbf{P}_Jf\|_{L^4(I;L^4(\T))}\leq C|J|^{\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4}\right)}\|f\|_{L^2(\T)}.$$
\(1) is the direct consequence of Lemma \[Reduction-1\] and Proposition \[counting-1\], applied with $r=1$. For (2), we may assume that $N>2^{100}M$, otherwise, it is a consequence of (1) and the Hölder’s inequality. To proceed, we first remark that the linear Strichartz estiamte (1) also holds true if we replace $P_Nf$ by any function with Fourier modes supported on an interval of size $N$. This can be seen quickly by considering $\widetilde{f}=fe^{ix\cdot k_0}$, where $k_0$ is near the center of such an interval. Now we write $$\mathbf{P}_Ng=\sum_{j}\mathbf{P}_{j,M}g,\quad \mathbf{P}_{j,M}g=\mathbf{P}_{jM\leq |D|\leq (j+1)M}\mathbf{P}_Ng.$$ From almost orthogonality, $$\|S_{\alpha}(t)\mathbf{P}_Mf\cdot S_{\alpha}(t)\mathbf{P}_Ng\|_{L^2(I;L^2(\T))}^2\leq C\sum_{j}\|S_{\alpha}(t)\mathbf{P}_Mf\cdot S_{\alpha}(t)\mathbf{P}_{j,M}g \|_{L^2(I;L^2(\T))}^2.$$ For each term in the summation, we use Cauchy-Schwarz and (1) to majorize it by $$M^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}\|\mathbf{P}_Mf\|_{L^2(\T)}^2\|\mathbf{P}_{j,M}g\|_{L^2(\T)}^2.$$ Finally, summing over $j$, we obtain (2). To prove the last assertion, we denote by $n_J$, the center of the interval $J$ and consider the function $\widetilde{f}=e^{ixn_J}\cdot P_Jf$, then $\widehat{\widetilde{f}}$ is supported on $|n|\leq |J|$, and we obtain the desired estimate from (1). This completes the proof of Corollary \[Strichartz-bilinear\].
\[bilinear-spacetime\] Let $1<\alpha\leq 2$. For $u_1,u_2\in L^2(\R\times \T)$ such that $$\widehat{u}_j(\tau,k)=\mathbf{1}_{K_j\leq | \tau-|k|^{\alpha}| < 2K_j}\mathbf{1}_{N_j\leq |k|<2N_j}\widehat{u}_j(\tau,k),\quad j=1,2,$$ we have the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bilinearXsb}
\|u_1u_2\|_{L^2}\notag \lesssim \min (N_1,N_2)^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4}}\cdot
\min(K_1,K_2)^{1/2} \max(K_1,K_2)^{1/4} \|u_1\|_{L^2} \cdot \|u_2\|_{L^2}.
\end{aligned}$$
By duality, it is sufficient to show that for any $v\in L^2(\R\times \T)$, $\|v\|_{L^2}=1$, we have $$\label{Prop-2.7}
\Big|\int_{\R\times \T}u_1u_2vdxdt\Big|\leq \min(N_1,N_2)^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4}}\cdot
\min(K_1,K_2)^{1/2} \max(K_1,K_2)^{1/4}
\|u_1\|_{L^2}\|u_2\|_{L^2}.$$ The left hand-side of can be written as $$\label{Prop2.7-0}
\Big|\int_{\tau_1+\tau_2+\tau_3=0}\sum_{k_1+k_2+k_3=0}\widehat{u_1}(\tau_1,k_1)\widehat{u_2}(\tau_2,k_2)\widehat{v}(\tau_3,k_3)\Big|.$$ By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, can be bounded by $$\label{Prop2.7-1}
\begin{split}
&\|\widehat{u_1}\|_{L_{\tau,k}^2}\|\widehat{u_2}\|_{L_{\tau,k}^2} \|\widehat{v}\|_{L_{\tau,k}^2}\cdot \sup_{(\tau_3,k_3)}(\mathrm{mes}(A(\tau_3,k_3)))^{1/2},
\end{split}$$ where $$\begin{split}
A(\tau_3,k_3)=&\{(\tau_1,k_1):K_1\leq |\tau_1-|k_1|^{\alpha}|<2K_1, K_2\leq |\tau_3+\tau_1+|k_3+k_1|^{\alpha} |< 2K_2 \}\\
\cap &
\{(\tau_1,k_1): N_1\leq |k_1|<2N_1, N_2\leq |k_3+k_1|<2N_2 \}.
\end{split}$$ Eliminating $\tau_1$, we can write $
A(\tau_3,k_3)\leq \min(K_1,K_2)\#B(k_3),
$ where $$\begin{split}
B(\tau_3,k_3)=&\{k_1: N_1\leq|k_1|<2N_1, N_2\leq |k_3+k_1|<2N_2\}\\
\cap &\{k_1: |\tau_3+|k_1|^{\alpha}+|k_3+k_1|^{\alpha}|\lesssim\max(K_1,K_2) \}.
\end{split}$$ Applying Proposition \[counting-1\], we have $\# B(\tau_3,k_3)\lesssim \min(N_1,N_2)^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}\max(K_1,K_2)^{1/2}. $ Therefore, $$\mathrm{mes}(A(\tau_3,k_3))^{1/2}\leq \min(K_1,K_2)^{1/2}\max(K_1,K_2)^{1/4}\cdot \min(N_1,N_2)^{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4}}$$ and we obtain . This completes the proof of Proposition \[bilinear-spacetime\].
\[bilinear-Xsb\] Let $1<\alpha\leq 2$. For any $s\geq \frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4}$, $0<\epsilon\ll1$ and $N\gg M$, we have
$$\begin{split}
& (1)\quad \|\mathbf{P}_Nf \|_{L_{t,x}^4}\lesssim N^{\frac{s}{2}}\|\mathbf{P}_Nf\|_{X^{0,\frac{3}{8}}}\,.\\
& (2)\quad \|\mathbf{P}_Nf\cdot \mathbf{P}_M g\|_{L_{t,x}^2}\lesssim M^{s}\|\mathbf{P}_Nf\|_{X^{0,\frac{3}{8}}}\|\mathbf{P}_Mg\|_{X^{0,\frac{3}{8}}}\,. \\
&(3)\quad \|\mathbf{P}_Nf\cdot \mathbf{P}_Mg\|_{L_{t,x}^2}\lesssim M^{\frac{s}{3}}\|\mathbf{P}_Nf\|_{X^{0,\frac{1}{4}}}\|\mathbf{P}_Mg\|_{L_{t,x}^{6}}.
\end{split}$$
The inequalities (1) and (2) are immediate consequences of the Proposition \[bilinear-spacetime\]. To prove (2), we write $$\mathbf{P}_Nf=\sum_{J}\mathbf{P}_N\mathbf{P}_Jf,$$ where we sum over intervals $J$ of the size $M$. By almost orthogonality, we have $$\begin{split}
\|\mathbf{P}_Nf\cdot \mathbf{P}_Mf\|_{L_{t,x}^2}^2\lesssim \sum_{J}\|\mathbf{P}_N\mathbf{P}_Jf\cdot \mathbf{P}_Mg\|_{L_{t,x}^2}^2.
\end{split}$$ For each fixed $J$, using Hölder, interpolation and the box-localized Strichartz , we obtain that $$\|\mathbf{P}_N\mathbf{P}_Jf\cdot \mathbf{P}_Mg\|_{L_{t,x}^2}\lesssim M^{\frac{s}{3}}\|\mathbf{P}_N\mathbf{P}_Jf\|_{X^{0,\frac{1}{4}}}\cdot \|\mathbf{P}_Mg\|_{L_{t,x}^{6}}.$$ Summing the square of the inequality above over $J$, we complete the proof.
Another consequence of Proposition \[bilinear-spacetime\] is the following trilinear $X^{s,b}$ estimate, which yields the deterministic local well-posedness result in [@Cho].
\[Trilinear\] Let $1<\alpha\leq 2$. For $s\geq \frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4}$, $0<\epsilon\ll1$, we have $$\|u_1\ov{u_2}u_3\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}\lesssim \|u_1\|_{X^{s,\frac{3}{8}}}\|u_2\|_{X^{s,\frac{3}{8}}}\|u_3\|_{X^{s,\frac{3}{8}}}.$$
Probabilistic estimates
-----------------------
We present two probabilistic lemmas related to the Gaussian random variables. Recall that $(g_n)_{n\in\Z}$ denotes a family of independent standard complex-valued Gaussian random variables on a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$.
\[Wiener-Chaos\] Let $c:\Z^k\rightarrow\C$. Set $$S(\omega)=\sum_{(n_1,\cdots,n_k)\in \Z^k}c(n_1,\cdots, n_k)g_{n_1}(\omega)\cdots g_{n_k}(\omega).$$ Suppose that $S\in L^2(\Omega)$. Then there is a constant $C_k$ such that for every $p\geq 2$, $$\|S\|_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq C_k\, p^{\frac{k}{2}}\|S\|_{L^2(\Omega)}.$$
For a proof of Lemma \[Wiener-Chaos\], we refer to [@Simon].
\[proba-Strichartz\] Let $$f^{\omega}(t,x)=\sum_{n\in\Z} c_ng_{n}(\omega)e^{i(nx-[n]^{\alpha}t)}\,.$$ Then for $2\leq q<\infty$, there exists $T_0<0$ and $c>0$ such that for all $T\leq T_0$, $R>0$ $$\label{eq:proba-Strichartz}
\mathbb{P}\{\omega: \|f^{\omega}\|_{L^q([-T,T]\times\T)}>R\|c_n\|_{l_n^2} \}\leq \exp(-cT^{-\frac{2}{q}}R^2).$$
We can assume that $\|c_n\|_{l^2}=1$. By Lemma \[Wiener-Chaos\], there exists $C_0>0$, independent of $(c_n)_{n\in\Z}$, such that $$\big\|\sum_{n\in\Z} c_n\, g_{n}(\omega)\big\|_{L^r(\Omega)}\leq C_0\sqrt{r}\,,$$ for every $r\geq 2$. Therefore, for $r\geq q$, by the Minkowski inequality, we have $$(\mathbb{E}[\|f^{\omega}\|_{L^q([-T,T]\times \T)}^r])^{\frac{1}{r}}\leq C_1\sqrt{r}T^{\frac{1}{q}}\,.$$ Then by Chebyshev’s inequality, we have $$\mathbb{P}\{\omega:\|f^{\omega}\|_{L^q([-T,T]\times \T)}>R \}\leq C_1^r R^{-r} r^{\frac{r}{2}} T^{\frac{r}{q}}.$$ By taking $r=R^2C_1^{-2}e^{-2}T^{-\frac{2}{q}}$, we obtain $$C_1^rR^{-r}r^{\frac{r}{2}}T^{\frac{r}{q}}=e^{-R^2/((eC_1)^2\,T^{2/q})}=e^{-cT^{-\frac{2}{q}}R^2}$$ with $c=(eC_1)^{-2}$. This completes the proof of Lemma \[proba-Strichartz\].
Local well posedness for $\frac{6}{5}<\alpha<2$
===============================================
In this section, we prove a local well-posedness result for in the case $\frac{6}{5}<\alpha<2$. We remark that if $\alpha>\frac{4}{3}$, then $\frac{\alpha-1}{2}>\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4}$, and the deterministic local well-posedness of the cubic FNLS applies. Hence we will only focus on the case $\frac{6}{5}<\alpha\leq\frac{4}{3}$, where additional arguments are needed.\
Introducing the gauge transform $$v(t,x)=u(t,x)e^{\frac{it}{\pi}\int_{\T}|u|^2},$$ the FNLS is transformed to the Wick-ordered FNLS $$\label{WiFNLS}
i\partial_tv+|D_x|^{\alpha}v+\big(|v|^2-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{\T}|v|^2dx \big)v=0$$ with the same initial data as $u$. The flow of , if exists, will be denoted by $\Psi(t)$. We also denote by $\Psi_N(t)$ the flow map of the truncated Wick-ordered FNLS $$\label{WiFNLS-N}
i\partial_tv_N+|D_x|^{\alpha}v_N+\Pi_N\Big(\big(|\Pi_Nv_N|^2-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{\T}|\Pi_Nv_N|^2dx \big)\Pi_Nv_N\Big)=0.$$ By inverting the gauge transformation, $$u_N(t,x):=e^{-\frac{it}{\pi}\int_{\T}|\Pi_Nv_N|^2dx}\Pi_Nv_N(t,x)+\Pi_N^{\perp}v_N(t,x)$$ satisfies the truncated FNLS $$i\partial_tu_N+|D_x|^{\alpha}u_N+\Pi_N\big(|\Pi_Nu_N|^2\Pi_Nu_N\big)=0,$$ with the same initial data as $v_N$. Though the Wick-ordered FNLS (truncated or not) is equivalent to the original FNLS in our setting, it turns out that the use of the gauge transformation removes trivial resonances, which improves the regularity at multi-linear level.\
The Wick-ordered nonlinearity can be written as $$\mathcal{N}(v):=\big(|v|^2-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{\T}|v|^2 \big)v.$$ More generally, $\mathcal{N}(v)$ can be written as the trilinear form $$\mathcal{N}(v,v,v):=\mathcal{N}_1(v,v,v)-\mathcal{N}_0(v,v,v),$$ where the trilinear forms $\mathcal{N}_1(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$ and $\mathcal{N}_0(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$ are defined as $$\label{wicknonlinear}
\begin{split}
& \mathcal{N}_0(f_1,f_2,f_3):=\sum_{n\in\Z}\widehat{f_1}(n)\ov{\widehat{f_2}}(n)\widehat{f_3}(n)e^{inx},\\
&\mathcal{N}_1(f_1,f_2,f_3):=\sum_{n_2\neq n_1,n_3}\widehat{f_1}(n_1)\ov{\widehat{f_2}}(n_2)\widehat{f_3}(n_3)e^{i(n_1-n_2+n_3)x}.
\end{split}$$ Here and in the sequel, $n_2\neq n_1,n_3$ means that $n_2\neq n_1$ and $n_2\neq n_3$.\
The resolution of and will be achieved by writing $$v(t)=S_{\alpha}(t)\phi+w(t),$$ where the nonlinear part $w$ is pretended to be smoother, and it satisfies the integral equation $$w(t)=-i\int_0^t S_{\alpha}(t-t')\mathcal{N}\big(S_{\alpha}(t')v_0+w(t')\big)dt'.$$ In order to formulate our local existence result, we need to introduce several quantities. First, we take $\chi_0\in C_c^{\infty}(-2,2)$, $\chi_0(t)=1$ for $|t|\leq 1$, such that $$\sum_{l\in\Z}\chi_0(t-l)=1,\quad \forall\, t\in\R.$$ Define $$\label{auxillarynorms}
\begin{split}
& \|\phi\|_{\mathcal{Z}^{q,\epsilon}}:=\|\phi\|_{\mathcal{F}L^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-\epsilon,\frac{2}{\epsilon}}}+\|\chi_0(t)S_{\alpha}(t)\phi\|_{L_t^qW_x^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\epsilon,\frac{1}{\epsilon} }} \,\, ,\\
& \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi):=\sum_{l\in\Z}\langle l\rangle^{-2}\big\|\chi_0(t)\mathcal{N}(S_{\alpha}(t+l)\phi ) \big\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\,\, ,
\\
&\|\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}:=\|\phi\|_{\mathcal{F}L^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-\frac{2\epsilon}{3},\frac{2}{\epsilon}}}+\sum_{l\in\Z}\langle l \rangle^{-2}\big\|\chi_0(t)S_{\alpha}(t+l)\phi\big\|_{L_t^qW_x^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\frac{\epsilon}{2},\frac{1}{\epsilon}}} \,\, ,\\
&\|\phi\|_{\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}^{q,\epsilon}}:=\|\phi\|_{\mathcal{F}L^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-\epsilon,\frac{2}{\epsilon}}}+\sum_{l\in\Z}\langle l \rangle^{-2}\big\|\chi_0(t)S_{\alpha}(t+l)\phi\big\|_{L_t^qW_x^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\epsilon,\frac{1}{\epsilon}}}\,\,.
\end{split}$$ The Fourier-Lebesgue norm if defined by $\|f\|_{\mathcal{F}L^{s,r}}:=\big\|\langle n\rangle^s\widehat{f}(n)\big\|_{l^r}$. We denote by $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}$ the functions with finite $\mathcal{V}^{\epsilon,q}$ norm and $\mathcal{W}^{s,\epsilon}$ the measurable subset of $H^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\epsilon}$ where the functions have finite $\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}$ quantity. Obviously, $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}\hookrightarrow \widetilde{\mathcal{V}}^{q,\epsilon}$, hence the auxiliary norm $\mathcal{\widetilde{V}}^{q,\epsilon}$ is weaker. We remark that $\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\cdot)$ is not a norm, and the normed space $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}$ is not complete. Since the partial sum $\Pi_N$ is uniformly bounded in $L^p(\T)$ for $1<p<\infty$, we have the following statement.
\[Dirichletkernel\] There exists a uniform constant $A_0\geq 1$, such that for all $N\in\N$, $$\|\Pi_N\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}\rightarrow \mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}\leq A_0, \quad \|\Pi_N^{\perp}\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}\rightarrow \mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}\leq A_0.$$
\[LWP-main\] Assume that $\frac{6}{5}<\alpha<2$, $2\ll q<\infty$ is large enough and $0<\epsilon\ll 1$ is small enough. Let $N\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{\infty \}$, $s\in\big[\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4},\alpha-1 \big)$. There exist $c>0, \kappa>0$, independent of $N$ such that the following holds true. The Cauchy problem [^2] with initial data $v_N(0)=\phi_N+r_N$ is locally well-posed for data $r_N\in H^s(\T)$ and $\phi_N$ in some suitable set. More precisely, for every $R\geq 1$, if $$\big(\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi_N)\big)^{\frac{1}{3}}+\|\phi_N\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}\leq R \textrm{ and } \|r_N\|_{H^s(\T)}\leq R,$$ there is a unique solution of in the class $$S_{\alpha}(t)(\phi_N+r_N)+X_{\tau_R}^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon} \text{ on } [-\tau_R,\tau_R] \text{ where } \tau_R=cR^{-\kappa}.$$ In particular, the solution can be written as $ v_N(t)=S_{\alpha}(t)(\phi_N+r_N)+w_N(t),
$ with $$\|w_N\|_{X_{\tau_R}^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\leq R^{-1}.$$
By inverting the gauge transformation, we obtain the local existence for the flow $\Phi_N(t)$ as well as $\Phi(t)$. Note that even the global existence of $\Phi_N(t)$ is not an issue, the important point in Proposition \[LWP-main\] are the uniform in $N$ bounds. It is standard that $\rho_N$ is invariant under $\Phi_N(t)$ thanks to the Liouville theorem for divergence free vector fields and the invariance of complex gaussians under rotations.\
Furthermore, we have a more general local convergence result, which will be useful in the construction of the global dynamics. For $R>0$, we introduce the notation $$\mathcal{B}_R:=\big\{\phi\in H^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\epsilon}(\T): \big(\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi_N)\big)^{\frac{1}{3}}+ \|\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}\leq R \big\}.$$
\[local-convergence\] Assume that $R\geq 1$ and $\alpha,q,\epsilon$ are the numerical constants as in Proposition \[LWP-main\]. Let $(\phi_{0,k})\subset \mathcal{B}_R$, $\phi_0\in \mathcal{B}_R$. Assume that $(r_{0,k})\subset H^s(\T)$ satisfying $\|r_{0,k}\|_{H^s(\T)}\leq 2R$. Let $N_k\rightarrow\infty$ be a subsequence of $\mathbb{N}$. Assume moreover that $$\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi_{0,k}-\phi_0)=0,\quad \lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\|r_{0,k}-r_0\|_{H^s(\T)}=0.$$ Then there exist $c>0, \kappa>0$, such that on $[-T_R,T_R]$ with $T_R=cR^{-\kappa}$, we have $$\begin{split}
& \Phi_{N_k}(t)(\phi_{0,k}+r_{0,k})=e^{\frac{it}{\pi}\|\Pi_{N_k}(\phi_{0,k}+r_{0,k} )\|_{L^2(\T)}^2 } \big(\Pi_{N_k}S_{\alpha}(t)(\phi_{0,k}+r_{0,k})+w_k(t) \big)+\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_{0,k},\\
& \Phi(t)(\phi_0+r_0)=e^{\frac{it}{\pi}\|\phi_0+r_0\|_{L^2(\T)}^2 }\big(S_{\alpha}(t)(\phi_0+r_0)+w(t) \big).
\end{split}$$ Furthermore, $$\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\|w_k-w \|_{X_{T_R}^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}=0,\quad \text{and in particular},\quad \lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{|t|\leq T_R}\|w_k(t)-w(t)\|_{H^s(\T)}=0.$$
The proof of Proposition \[LWP-main\] and Proposition \[local-convergence\] depends on the following deterministic multilinear estimate. Let $\eta\in C_c^{\infty}((-1,1))$ and $\eta_T(t)=\eta\big(\frac{t}{T}\big)$.
\[multi-linear\] Let $\alpha\in \big(\frac{6}{5}, 2 \big)$ and $s\in\big[\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4},\alpha-1 \big)$. There exist $2\ll q<\infty$, large enough, $0<\epsilon\ll 1$, small enough and $\theta=\theta(\epsilon,q)>0$, such that for all $0<T<1$, $f_1,f_2,f_3\in \mathcal{Z}^{q,\epsilon}$ and $u_1,u_2,u_3\in X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}$, the following estimates hold: $$\begin{split}
&(\mathrm{1})\quad \|\eta_T(t)\mathcal{N}(S_{\alpha}(t)f_1,u_2,u_3)\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\lesssim T^{\theta}\|f_1\|_{\mathcal{Z}^{q,\epsilon}}\|u_2\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}\|u_3\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}\,\, ,
\\
&(\mathrm{2})\quad \|\eta_T(t)\mathcal{N}(u_1,S_{\alpha}(t)f_2,u_3)\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\lesssim T^{\theta}\|u_1\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon }}\|f_2\|_{\mathcal{Z}^{q,\epsilon}}\|u_3\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\,\, ,\\
&(\mathrm{3})\quad \|\eta_T(t)\mathcal{N}(u_1,u_2,S_{\alpha}(t)f_3)\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\lesssim T^{\theta}\|u_1\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\|u_2\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}\|f_3\|_{\mathcal{Z}^{q,\epsilon}}\,\, ,\\
&(\mathrm{4})\quad \|\eta_T(t)\mathcal{N}(S_{\alpha}(t)f_1,u_2,S_{\alpha}(t)f_3)\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\lesssim T^{\theta}\|f_1\|_{\mathcal{Z}^{q,\epsilon}}\|u_2\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}\|f_3\|_{\mathcal{Z}^{q,\epsilon}}\,\, ,\\
&(\mathrm{5})\quad \|\eta_T(t)\mathcal{N}(S_{\alpha}(t)f_1,S_{\alpha}(t)f_2,u_3)\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\lesssim T^{\theta}\|f_1\|_{\mathcal{Z}^{q,\epsilon}}\|f_2\|_{\mathcal{Z}^{q,\epsilon}}\|u_3\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\,\, ,\\
&(\mathrm{6})\quad \|\eta_T(t)\mathcal{N}(u_1,S_{\alpha}(t)f_2,S_{\alpha}(t)f_3)\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\lesssim T^{\theta}\|u_1\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}\|f_2\|_{\mathcal{Z}^{q,\epsilon}}\|f_3\|_{\mathcal{Z}^{q,\epsilon}}\,\, .
\end{split}$$
We will postpone the proof of Proposition \[multi-linear\] to the next section and use it to prove the local existence results, Proposition \[LWP-main\] and Proposition \[local-convergence\], in the rest of this section.\
For simplicity, we drop the subindex $N$ everywhere. Consider the mapping $$\Gamma: w(t)\rightarrow -i\int_0^tS_{\alpha}(t-t')\mathcal{N}\big(\eta_T(t')\big(S_{\alpha}(t')(\phi+r )+ w(t')\big) \big)dt',$$ and we want to show that $\Gamma$ is a contraction on a ball of $X_{T}^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}$. For given $u$ on $[-T,T]\times\T$, we denote by $\widetilde{u}$ an extension of $u$ onto $\R\times\T$. Note that from Lemma \[inhomo-linear\], we deduce that $$\Big\|\int_0^t S_{\alpha}(t-t')\mathcal{N}(\widetilde{u}(t')) dt'\Big\|_{X_{T}^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\lesssim \|\eta_T(t)\mathcal{N}(\widetilde{u})\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}},$$ where $\eta_T(t)=\eta(t/T)$ is a smooth cutoff on $[-2T,2T]$, $\eta_T(t)=1$ for $t\in[-T,T]$. Take $\widetilde{w}$ an extension of $w$ on $\R\times\T$ with the property $\widetilde{w}(t)=w(t)$ for $t\in[-T,T]$. For $\widetilde{u}(t)=\eta_T(t)\big(S_{\alpha}(t)\phi+S_{\alpha}(t)r+\widetilde{w}(t) \big)$, from Proposition \[multi-linear\], we have $$\|\mathcal{N}(\widetilde{u})\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\lesssim T^{\theta}\Big(\|\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}^3+\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi) +\|\eta_T(t)(S_{\alpha}(t)r+\widetilde{w})\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}^3 \Big).$$ This implies that $$\|\Gamma(w)\|_{X_T^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\lesssim T^{\theta} \Big(\|\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}^3+ \|r\|_{H_x^s}^3+\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi)+\|w\|_{X_T^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}^3 \Big).$$ Moreover, if $w_1,w_2\in X_T^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon},$ the same argument, after doing simple algebraic manipulations, yields $$\begin{split}
&\|\Gamma(w_1)-\Gamma(w_2)\|_{X_T^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\\ \lesssim &T^{\theta}\Big(\|\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}^2+\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi)+\|r\|_{H_x^s}^3+\|w_1\|_{X_T^{s,\frac{1}{2}\epsilon}}^2+\|w_2\|_{X_T^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}^3 \Big)\|w_1-w_2\|_{X_T^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}.
\end{split}$$ Hence $\Gamma$ is a contraction in the ball $B_{X_T^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}(R^{-1})$, provided that $$\|\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}+\big(\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi_N)\big)^{\frac{1}{3}}\leq R, \quad T\leq T_R:= cR^{-\kappa},$$ with $c>0$ small enough and $\kappa>0$ large enough. This proves the existence and uniqueness of $w_N(t)$ for all $N\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{\infty\}$. This completes the proof of Proposition \[LWP-main\].
To simplify the notation, we denote by $ z(t)=\eta_T(t)S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_0, z_{k}(t)=\eta_T(t)S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_{0,k}$, and $y(t)=\eta_T(t)S_{\alpha}(t)r_0, y_k(t)=\eta_T(t)S_{\alpha}(t)r_{0,k}$. By inverting the gauge transformation, for $t$ belonging to the time interval of local existence theory, we have $$w_k(t)=-i\Pi_{N_k}\int_0^t S_{\alpha}(t)\mathcal{N}\big(z_k+y_k+w_k \big)(t')dt',$$ and $$w(t)=-i\int_0^tS_{\alpha}(t-t')\mathcal{N}\big( z+y+w \big)(t')dt'.$$ Taking the difference, we get $$\begin{split}
\|w_k-w\|_{X_T^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\leq & \Big\|\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}\int_0^tS_{\alpha}(t-t')\mathcal{N}(z+y+w)(t')dt' \Big\|_{X_T^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\\
+& \Big\|\int_0^tS_{\alpha}(t-t')\Pi_{N_k}\big(\mathcal{N}(z+y+w)(t')-\mathcal{N}(z_k+y_k+w_k)(t') \big)dt'
\Big\|_{X_T^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}.
\end{split}$$ The first term on the right side is $o(1)$, as $k\rightarrow\infty$, since $\mathcal{N}(z+y+w)\in X_T^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}.$ Note that $\mathcal{N}(z+y+w)-\mathcal{N}(z_k+y_k+w_k)$ consists of the terms $$\mathcal{N}(z-z_k,z-z_k,z-z_k),\quad \mathcal{N}(w-w_k+y-y_k,\cdot,\cdot),\quad \mathcal{N}(\cdot, w-w_k+y-y_k,\cdot),\cdots$$ Therefore, the second term on the right hand-side of the last inequality can be bounded by $$C\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi_{0,k}-\phi_0)+CR^2T^{\theta}\big(\|w_k-w\|_{X_T^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}+\|r_{0,k}-r_0\|_{H_x^s} \big),$$ where we used Proposition \[multi-linear\]. By choosing $c>0$ small enough, $\kappa>0$ large enough such that $ CT^{\theta}R^2<\frac{1}{2}$, we have $$\|w_k-w\|_{X_T^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\leq 2C \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi_{0,k}-\phi_0) +T^{\theta}R^2\|r_{0,k}-r_0\|_{H_x^s} =o(1),\quad k\rightarrow\infty.$$ This completes the proof of Proposition \[local-convergence\].
Deterministic trilinear estimate
================================
In this section, we prove the trilinear estimates in Proposition \[multi-linear\]. Note that by the symmetric role of the first place and the third place in the expression of $\mathcal{N}(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$, it is sufficient to prove (1), (2), (4), (5) of Proposition \[multi-linear\]. Note also that from the embedding $$\begin{aligned}
W_x^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\epsilon,\frac{1}{\epsilon}}\hookrightarrow W_x^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-3\epsilon,\infty} \text{ and } \mathcal{F}L^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-\epsilon,\frac{2}{\epsilon}}\hookrightarrow\mathcal{F}L^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-\epsilon,\infty},\end{aligned}$$ it would be sufficient to prove stronger estimates by replacing $\mathcal{Z}^{q,\epsilon}$ with $ L_{t,\mathrm{loc}}^qW_x^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-3\epsilon,\infty}\cap \mathcal{F}L^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-\epsilon,\infty}.$ In what follows, we may insert the smooth cutoff function $\eta_T$ on $[-2T,2T]$ without additional mention. We will carry out a case-by-case analysis on $$\|\eta_T(t)\mathcal{N}_0(v_1,v_2,v_3)\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\textrm{ and } \|\eta_T(t)\mathcal{N}_1(v_1,v_2,v_3)\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}$$ where $v_j$ takes one of the following forms $$\begin{split}
&(\mathrm{I}) \quad
v_j=\eta_T(t)\sum_{n\in\Z}\hat{f_j}(n)e^{i(nx+|n|^{\alpha}t)}\in L_t^{\infty}\mathcal{F}L^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-\epsilon,\infty}\cap L_{t}^{q}W_x^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-3\epsilon,\infty}\,,
\\
&(\mathrm{II}) \quad v_j=\eta_T(t)v_j\in X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}.
\end{split}$$ By normalization, we may assume that $$\sup_{|t|\leq 1}\|S_{\alpha}(t)f_j\|_{L_t^qW_x^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-3\epsilon,\infty}}+\|f_j\|_{\mathcal{F}L^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-\epsilon,\infty}}=1\text{ if $v_j$ is of type I}.$$ and $$\|v_j\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}=1 \text{ if } v_j \text{ is of type II}.$$ In the sequel we will suppose that $\hat{f_j}(n)=\phi(n)$, i.e. that all $f_j$ are equal. Under this assumption the analysis is essentially the same and it will be satisfied in the applications of Proposition \[multi-linear\].\
Throughout this section, $\frac{6}{5}<\alpha<2$ and $\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4}\leq s<\alpha-1$. First we have a simple estimate for the part $\mathcal{N}_0(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$.
\[trilinear-N0\] For any small $\epsilon>0$ and $q<\infty$ large enough, there exists $\theta>0$, such that for $0<T<1$, $$\label{estimate:N0}
\|\eta_T(t)\mathcal{N}_0(v_1,v_2,v_3)\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\lesssim T^{\theta}.$$
One may remark that this proposition holds true for all $\alpha>1$.
By Lemma \[time-localization\] and the definition, $$\label{N0-1}
\begin{split}
&\|\eta_T(t)\mathcal{N}_0(v_1,v_2,v_3)\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\lesssim T^{\epsilon}\|\eta_T(t)\mathcal{N}_0(v_1,v_2,v_3)\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+3\epsilon}} \\
=&T^{\epsilon}\Big\|\frac{\langle n\rangle^s}{\langle\tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}-3\epsilon}}\int_{\tau=\tau_1-\tau_2+\tau_3}
\widehat{v_1}(\tau_1,n)\ov{\widehat{v_2}}(\tau_2,n)\widehat{v_3}(\tau_3,n)d\tau_1 d\tau_2 \Big\|_{l_n^2L_{\tau}^2}.
\end{split}$$ By abusing the notation, we may replace $v_j$ by $\eta_Tv_j$ if necessary.\
$\bullet$ [**Case (1):**]{} $v_1,v_2,v_3$ are of type (II). Writting $\widehat{v_j}(\tau_,n)=\langle n\rangle^{-s}\langle\tau_j- |n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}-\epsilon}V_j(\tau,n),$ we estimate the $L_{\tau}^2$ norm of the second term of the right side by $$\label{N0-3}
\begin{split}
&T^{\epsilon}\Big\| \langle n\rangle^s\int \widehat{v_1}(\tau_1,n)\ov{\widehat{v_2}}(\tau_2,n)\widehat{v_3}(\tau-(\tau_1-\tau_2), n)d\tau_1 d\tau_2\Big\|_{L_{\tau}^2}
\\ \lesssim &T^{\epsilon}
\langle n\rangle^{-2s}\Big\|\int \frac{V_1(\tau_1,n)\ov{V}_2(\tau_2,n)V_3(\tau-(\tau_1-\tau_2),n)}{\langle\tau_1-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}
\langle\tau_2-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}
\langle\tau-(\tau_1-\tau_2)-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon} }d\tau_1 d\tau_2\Big\|_{L_{\tau}^2}
\\
\lesssim &T^{\epsilon}\langle n\rangle^{-2s}\|V_1(\cdot,n)\|_{L_{\tau}^2}\|V_2(\cdot,n)\|_{L_{\tau}^2}\|V_3(\cdot,n)\|_{L^2_{\tau}},
\end{split}$$ where at the last step, we used Minkowski to pass the $L_{\tau}^2$ inside the integral and then Cauchy-Schwarz in $\tau_1,\tau_2$ variables. Finally, taking $l_n^2$ of the right side of , we obtain in this case.
$\bullet$ [**Case (2):**]{} Exactly two $v_j$ of type (I), say, $v_1(\mathrm{I}), v_2(\mathrm{I})$ and $v_3(\mathrm{II})$. With the same notation $V_3(\tau,n)=\langle n\rangle^s\langle\tau- |n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}\widehat{v_3}(\tau,n)$, we estimate $$ \begin{split}
\eqref{N0-1}\lesssim &T^{\epsilon} \Big\||\phi(n)|^2\int_{\tau=\tau_1-\tau_2+\tau_3}\frac{\widehat{\eta_T}(\tau_1-|n|^{\alpha})\ov{\widehat{\eta_T}}(\tau_2-|n|^{\alpha}) V_3(\tau_3,n)}{\langle\tau_3-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}\langle\tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}-3\epsilon} } d\tau_1 d\tau_2 \Big\|_{l_n^2L_{\tau}^{2}}\\
\lesssim & T^{\frac{1}{2}}\|\langle n\rangle^{-\alpha}\|_{l_n^2}\|V_3\|_{l_n^{\infty}L_{\tau}^{2}}\lesssim T^{\frac{1}{2}},
\end{split}$$ where we used the fact that $\eta_T(t)=\eta(T^{-1}t)$ and $\|\widehat{\eta_T}\|_{L^2(\R)}=O(T^{1/2})$.
$\bullet$ [ **Case (3):**]{} Exactly one $v_j$ of type (I), say, $v_1$(I), $v_2$(II), $v_3$(II).
With the same notations, we have $$ \begin{split}
\eqref{N0-1}\lesssim & T^{\epsilon}
\|\langle n\rangle^{-s}\phi(n)\|_{l_n^2}\Big\|\int \frac{\widehat{\eta_T}(\tau_1-|n|^{\alpha})\ov{V}_2(\tau_2,n)V_3(\tau-(\tau_1-\tau_2),n)d\tau_1 d\tau_2 }{\langle\tau_2-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}\langle \tau-(\tau_1-\tau_2)-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}\langle\tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}-3\epsilon} } \Big\|_{l_n^{\infty}L_{\tau}^2 }\\
\lesssim &T^{\epsilon}\|\widehat{\eta_T}\|_{L_{\tau_1}^1}\|V_2\|_{l_n^{\infty}L_{\tau_2}^2}\|V_3\|_{l_n^{\infty}L_{\tau}^2}\lesssim T^{\epsilon}.
\end{split}$$ $\bullet$ [ **Case (4):**]{} All $u_j$ of type (I), then $$\begin{split}
\eqref{N0-1} \lesssim & T^{\epsilon}\Big\|\frac{\langle n\rangle^s|\phi(n)|^3}{\langle \tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}-3\epsilon} }\int \widehat{\eta_T}(\tau_1-|n|^{\alpha})\ov{\widehat{\eta_T}}(\tau_2-|n|^{\alpha})\widehat{\eta_T}(\tau-\tau_1+\tau_2-|n|^{\alpha})d\tau_1 d\tau_2 \Big\|_{l_n^2L_{\tau}^2}\\
\lesssim & T^{\epsilon}\Big\|\langle n\rangle^s |\phi(n)|^3
\int |\widehat{\eta_T}(\tau_1-|n|^{\alpha})\widehat{\eta_T}(\tau_2-|n|^{\alpha})
| \|\frac{\widehat{\eta_T}(\tau-\tau_1+\tau_2-|n|^{\alpha})}{\langle\tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}-3\epsilon} }\|_{L_{\tau}^2}d\tau_1 d\tau_2
\Big\|_{l_n^2}\\
\lesssim &T^{\epsilon}.
\end{split}$$
This completes the proof of Proposition \[trilinear-N0\].
Estimate on $\mathcal{N}_1$ for high modulations
------------------------------------------------
In the following two subsections, we will prove the following trilinear estimate for $\mathcal{N}_1$
\[trilinear-N1\] Assume that $v_1,v_2,v_3$ are not all of type $(\mathrm{I})$. Then there exists $0<\epsilon\ll 1$, small enough, $2\ll q<\infty$, large enough, and $\theta=\theta(\epsilon)>0$ such that for $0<T<1$, $$\label{estimate:N1}
\|\eta_T(t)\mathcal{N}_1(v_1,v_2,v_3)\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\lesssim T^{\theta}.$$
Without loss of generality, in what follows, we assume that $v_1,v_2,v_3$ are *not all of type* (II), since in this case, we can directly apply[^3] Corollary \[Trilinear\]. We decompose $v_1,v_2,v_3$ dyadically with frequencies of sizes $N_1,N_2,N_3$, respectively and denote them by $\mathbf{P}_{N_j}v_j$ respectively. We denote by $N_{(1)},N_{(2)},N_{(3)}$ the decreasing ordering of $N_1,N_2,N_3$. By relabeling the index, we denote by $v_{(j)}=\mathbf{P}_{N_{(j)}}v_{*}$, the corresponding $v_j$-factors. In the following, we use superscripts to imply that functions or variables are arranged in the decreasing order of the spatial frequencies $N_1,N_2,N_3$. By duality, we need to estimate $$\label{N1-dual'}
\int_{-2T}^{2T}\int_{\T}\mathcal{N}_1(v_1,v_2,v_3)\cdot \langle D_x \rangle^s \ov{v}dtdx,$$ where $\|v\|_{X^{0,\frac{1}{2}-2\epsilon}}\leq 1$ and $v$ has compact support in $t$. It turns out that we can only treat $$\int_{-2T}^{2T}\int_{\T}\mathcal{N}_1\big(v_{(1)},v_{(2)},v_{(3)}\big)\cdot\langle D_x \rangle^s \ov{v}dtdx,$$ and the analysis for other situations has no significant difference. In the high modulation cases, the main contribution comes from $$\int_{-2T}^{2T}\int_{\T}v_1\ov{v_2}v_3\cdot\langle D_x\rangle^s\ov{v}dtdx,$$ and we use the bilinear Strichartz inequalities and the regularization in the co-normal regularity (the $\frac{3}{8}$ exponent in the Strichartz inequality).
The first goal of this subsection is to reduce the matter to the low modulation cases. More precisely, if there is any $v_j$ of type (II), we will reduce the estimate to the contribution where in the Fourier side, $$\langle\tau_j-|n_j|^{\alpha}\rangle\ll K_j, \textrm{ if } v_j \textrm{ is of type (II)},$$ for some suitable $K_j$, depending on different situations. We need to estimate the dyadic summation in $N_{(1)}, N_{(2)}, N_{(3)}$, $N$ for the following terms[^4]: $$\mathcal{A}=\Big|\int_{-2T}^{2T}\int_{\T}v_{(1)}\ov{v}_{(2)}v_{(3)}\cdot\langle D_x\rangle^s\ov{v}dtdx \Big|,\quad \mathcal{B}=\Big|\int_{-2T}^{2T}\big(v_{(1)},v_{(2)}\big)_{L_x^2}\big(v_{(3)},\langle D_x\rangle^s\mathbf{P}_Nv\big)_{L_x^2}dt \Big|,$$ and $$ \mathcal{C}=\Big|\int_{-2T}^{2T}\big(v_{(1)},\langle D_x\rangle^s\mathbf{P}_Nv \big)_{L_x^2} \big(v_{(2)}, v_{(3)}\big)_{L_x^2}dt \Big|.\footnote{ $ \mathcal{A},\mathcal{B},\mathcal{C} $ \text{ depend on the dyadic numbers } $N_{(1)}, N_{(2)}, N_{(3)}, N $\text{ and we omit the indices here. } }$$ For the proof in the rest subsections, we fix the index $\sigma=\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-3\epsilon$.
### Estimates for the high modulations of $\mathcal{B},\mathcal{C}$.
We first estimate the quantities $\mathcal{B}$ and $\mathcal{C}$. Note that $\mathcal{B}=0$ unless $N_{(1)}\sim N_{(2)}$ and $N_{(3)}\sim N$. By Cauchy-Schwarz and then Hölder for the time integration, we have $$\mathcal{B}\lesssim N^s\|v_{(1)}\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}\|v_{(2)}\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}\|v_{(3)}\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}\|\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}.$$ Since there is at least one of $v_{(j)}$ of type (II), using the interpolation between $X^{0,0}= L_{t}^2L_x^2$ and $X^{0,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}\hookrightarrow L_t^{\infty}L_x^2$, we bound the $L_t^4L_x^2$ norm of $v_{(j)}(\mathrm{II})$ as follows $$\|v_{(j)}(\mathrm{II})\|_{X^{0,\frac{1}{4}+\epsilon}}\lesssim T^{\frac{1}{4}}\|v_{(j)}(\mathrm{II})\|_{X^{0,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}},$$ where we used Lemma \[time-localization\]. Note that no matter type (I) or type (II), the dyadic summation over $N_{(1)}\sim N_{(2)}, N\sim N_{(3)}$ always converges, and we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{N_{(1)}, N_{(2)}, N_{(3)}, N \text{ dyadic }\\ N_{(1)}\sim N_{(2)}, N_{(3)}\sim N }}N^s\|v_{(1)}\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}\|v_{(2)}\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}\|v_{(3)}\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}\|\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{L_t^4L_x^2}
\lesssim T^{\frac{1}{4}}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $\mathcal{C}=0$ unless $N_{(1)}\sim N$ and $N_{(2)}\sim N_{(3)}$. If $v_{(1)}$ is of type II, we obtain the same estimate as for $\mathcal{B}$, and the dyadic summation over $N_{(1)}\sim N, N_{(2)}\sim N_{(3)}$ converges. Now we assume that $v_{(1)}$ is of type (I). There are essentially two possibilities, either $v_{(2)}$ is of type (I) and $v_{(3)}$ is of type (II), or both are of type (II). For the former case, we bound $\mathcal{C}$ by $$\mathcal{C}\lesssim N_{(1)}^{s-\sigma}N_{(2)}^{-\sigma}N_{(3)}^{-s}\|v_{(1)}\|_{L_t^qH_x^{\sigma}}\|v_{(2)}\|_{L_t^qH_x^{\sigma}}\|v_{(3)}\|_{L_t^{q_1}H_x^s } \|\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{L_t^{q_1}L_x^2 }$$ where for small $\epsilon>0$, large $q<\infty$,
$$ q_1=\frac{2q}{q-2}, \text{ almost } 2.$$
By interpolation between $X^{0,0}=L_t^2L_x^2$ and $X^{0,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}\hookrightarrow L_t^{\infty}L_x^2$, we have $X^{s,\frac{1+2\epsilon}{q}}\hookrightarrow L_t^{q_1}H_x^s$, thus $$ \mathcal{C}\lesssim N_{(1)}^{s-\sigma}N_{(2)}^{-\sigma}N_{(3)}^{-s}\|v_{(1)}\|_{L_t^qH_x^{\sigma}}
\|v_{(2)}\|_{L_t^qH_x^{\sigma}}\|v_{(3)}\|_{X^{s,\frac{1+2\epsilon}{q}}}\|\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{X^{0,\frac{1+2\epsilon}{q}}}.$$ We can choose $q$ large enough such that $\frac{1+2\epsilon}{q}<\epsilon$. For the case where both $v_{(2)}$ and $v_{(3)}$ are of type (II), we have $$\mathcal{C}\lesssim N_{(1)}^{s-\sigma}N_{(2)}^{-s}N_{(3)}^{-s}\|v_{(1)}\|_{L_t^qH_x^{\sigma}}
\|v_{(2)}\|_{L_t^{\frac{3q}{q-1}}H_x^{s}}\|v_{(3)}\|_{L_t^{\frac{3q}{q-1}}H_x^{s}}\|\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{L_t^{\frac{3q}{q-1}}L_x^{2}},$$ and by interpolation, we obtain that $$ \mathcal{C} \lesssim N_{(1)}^{s-\sigma}N_{(2)}^{-s}N_{(3)}^{-s}\|v_{(1)}\|_{L_t^qH_x^{\sigma}}
\|v_{(2)}\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{6}+\delta(q,\epsilon)}}\|v_{(3)}\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{6}+\delta(q,\epsilon)}}\|\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{X^{0,\frac{1}{6}+\delta(q,\epsilon)}},$$ where
$$\delta(q,\epsilon)=\frac{(1+2\epsilon)(q+2)}{6q}-\frac{1}{6}<\epsilon,$$
provided that $q$ is chosen large enough. For each $v_j$ of type (II) and $v$, we divide them as $$v_j(\tau,n)=v^{\mathrm{high}}_{j}+v^{\mathrm{low}}_{j}, \quad v(\tau,n)=v^{\mathrm{high}}+v^{\mathrm{low}},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{v^{\text{high}}_j}(\tau,n)=\mathbf{1}_{\langle\tau-|n|^{\alpha} \rangle^{\frac{1}{3}}\geq N_{(1)}^{s-\sigma} } \widehat{v_j}(\tau,n),\quad \widehat{v^{\text{high}}}(\tau,n)=\mathbf{1}_{\langle\tau-|n|^{\alpha} \rangle^{\frac{1}{3}}\geq N_{(1)}^{s-\sigma} } \widehat{v}(\tau,n).\end{aligned}$$ Then for the case $v_{(2)}=v_{(2)}(\mathrm{I}), v_{(3)}=v_{(3)}(\mathrm{II})$, if one of $v_{(3)}^{\text{low}}, \mathbf{P}_Nv^{\text{low} }=0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{ N_{(1)}, N_{(2)}, N_{(3)}, N\\
N_{(1)}\sim N, N_{(2)}\sim N_{(3)}
}
}& N_{(1)}^{s-\sigma}N_{(2)}^{-s}N_{(3)}^{-s} \|v_{(1)}\|_{L_t^qH_x^{\sigma}} \|v_{(2)}\|_{L_t^qH_x^{\sigma}} \|v_{(3)}\|_{X^{s,\frac{1+2\epsilon}{q}}}\|\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{X^{0,\frac{1+2\epsilon}{q}}}\notag \\
\lesssim &T^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ For the case $v_{(2)}=v_{(2)}(\mathrm{II}), v_{(3)}=v_{(3)}(\mathrm{II})$, if one of $v_{(2)}^{ \text{low}},v_{(3)}^{\text{low}}, \mathbf{P}_Nv^{\text{low} }=0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\substack{ N_{(1)}, N_{(2)}, N_{(3)}, N\\
N_{(1)}\sim N, N_{(2)}\sim N_{(3)}
}
} &N_{(1)}^{s-\sigma}N_{(2)}^{-s}N_{(3)}^{-s}\|v_{(1)}\|_{L_t^qH_x^{\sigma}}
\|v_{(2)}\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{6}+\delta(q,\epsilon)}}\|v_{(3)}\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{6}+\delta(q,\epsilon)}}\|\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{X^{0,\frac{1}{6}+\delta(q,\epsilon)}}\notag \\
\lesssim T^{1/3}.\end{aligned}$$
### Estimates for the high modulations of $\mathcal{A}$.
Since there is no significant issue, we will drop the conjugate sign. It remains to estimate the dyadic summation over $N_{(1)}, N_{(2)}, N_{(3)},$ $ N$ for $$\mathcal{A}=\Big|\int_{-2T}^{2T}\int_{\T} v_{(1)}v_{(2)}v_{(3)}\cdot \langle D_x\rangle^sv dtdx
\Big|.$$
$\bullet$ [**Case A:**]{} $v_{(1)}$ and $v_{(2)}$ are of type (II).
In this case $v_{(3)}$ must be of type (I). Regrouping the terms as $\|v_{(1)}v_{(3)}\|_{L_{t,x}^2}\cdot \|v_{(2)}\langle D_x\rangle^s\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{L_{t,x}^2}$ and using Corollary \[bilinear-Xsb\], we have $$\mathcal{A}\lesssim N^sN_{(3)}^{\frac{s}{3}}N_{(2)}^s\|v_{(1)}\|_{X^{0,\frac{1}{4}}}\|v_{(2)}\|_{X^{0,\frac{3}{8}}}\|v_{(3)}\|_{L_{t,x}^{6}}\|\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{X^{0,\frac{3}{8}}}.$$ Since $v_{(3)}$ is of type (I)[^5], $\|v_{(3)}\|_{L_{t,x}^6}\lesssim N_{(3)}^{-\sigma}$, we obtain that $$\mathcal{A}\lesssim T^{\epsilon}N^sN_{(2)}^sN_{(3)}^{\frac{s}{3}-\sigma}\|v_{(1)}\|_{X^{0,\frac{1}{4}+\epsilon}}\|v_{(2)}\|_{X^{0,\frac{3}{8}}}\|\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{X^{0,\frac{3}{8}}}.$$ Note that $\frac{s}{3}-\frac{\alpha-1}{2}<0$, then if in the Fourier side, either $\langle\tau_j-|n_j|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{8}-\epsilon}\gtrsim (N\wedge N_{(2)})^{\epsilon}$, $j=1,2$ or $\langle\tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{8}-\epsilon}\gtrsim (N\wedge N_{(2)})^{\epsilon} $ hold true for some $\epsilon>0$, the dyadic summation over $N_{(1)}\geq N_{(2)} \geq N_{(3)}, N\leq N_{(1)}$ converges. Hence it remains to estimate the contributions to with a cutoff on the Fourier side on the region satisfying $$\label{low-modulation1}
\begin{split}
\langle &\tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{8}}\ll (N_{(2)}\wedge N)^{2\epsilon} \textrm{ and }
\\
&\langle \tau_j-|n_j|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{8}}\ll (N_{(2)}\wedge N)^{2\epsilon},\textrm{ if } v_j \textrm{ of type (II) and $N_{(3)}\ll N_{(1)}$}.
\end{split}$$ $\bullet$ [**Case B:**]{} $v_{(1)}$ is of type (II) and $v_{(2)}$ is of type (I).
Suppose first that $v_{(3)}$ is of type (II). Then by the same argument (changing the superindices $v_{(2)}$ and $v_{(3)}$ ) as for the case A, we obtain , except for the low modulation cases in the Fourier side: $$\label{low-modulation2}
\begin{split}
\langle &\tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{8}}\ll (N_{(3)}\wedge N)^{2\epsilon} \textrm{ and }
\\
&\langle \tau_j-|n_j|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{8}}\ll (N_{(3)}\wedge N)^{2\epsilon},\textrm{ if } v_j \textrm{ of type (II) and $N_{(2)}\ll N_{(1)}$}.
\end{split}$$ Now suppose that $v_{(3)}$ is of type (I). From Hölder and the embedding $X^{0,\frac{1+2\epsilon}{q}}\hookrightarrow L_t^{\frac{2q}{q-2}}L_x^2$ as before, we have $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{A}\lesssim &N^s\|v_{(1)}\|_{L_t^{\frac{2q}{q-2}}L_{x}^2}\|v_{(2)}\|_{L_t^qL_{x}^{\infty}}\|v_{(3)}\|_{L_t^qL_{x}^{\infty}}\|\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{L_t^{\frac{2q}{q-2}}L_{x}^2} \\
\lesssim &N_{(2)}^{-\sigma}N_{(3)}^{-\sigma}\|v_{(1)}\|_{X^{s,\frac{1+2\epsilon}{q}}}\|\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{X^{0,\frac{1+2\epsilon}{q}}}.
\end{split}$$ From the same reason, the dyadic summation converges, since in the case $N_{(2)}\ll N_{(1)}$, we must have $N\sim N_{(1)}$. Finally the $T^{\theta}$ factor appears when we use Lemma \[time-localization\] to estimate $\|v_{(1)}\|_{X^{s,\frac{1+2\epsilon}{q}}}\lesssim T^{\frac{1}{2}}\|v_{(1)}\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}, $ if $q$ is chosen large enough, namely such that $\frac{1+2\epsilon}{q}<\epsilon$.
$\bullet$ [**Case C:**]{} $v_{(1)}$ is of type (I), and $v_{(2)}, v_{(3)}$ are of type (II).\
Using the bilinear Strichartz estimate and Lemma \[time-localization\], we have $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{A}\lesssim &
N^s\|v_{(1)} v_{(2)}\|_{L_{t,x}^2}\|v_{(3)}\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{L_{t,x}^2}\\ \lesssim & T^{2\epsilon}(N_{(1)})^{s-\sigma}(N_{(2)})^{-s}\|v_{(2)}\|_{X^{s,\frac{3}{8}+2\epsilon}}\|v_{(3)}\|_{X^{s,\frac{3}{8}}}\|\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{X^{0,\frac{3}{8}}}.
\end{split}$$ If $N_{(2)}\sim N_{(1)}$, the dyadic summation converges directly, without reducing to the low modulation. Hence, it remains to estimate the contribution to from the region satisfying $$\label{low-modulation3}
\begin{split}
&\langle \tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{8}}\ll N_{(1)}^{s-\sigma}N_{(2)}^{-s} \textrm{ and }\\
&\langle\tau_j-|n_j|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{8}}\ll N_{(1)}^{s-\sigma}N_{(2)}^{-s}, \textrm{ if } v_j \textrm{ is of type (II) and $N_{(2)}\ll N_{(1)}$}.
\end{split}$$
$\bullet$ [**Case D:**]{} $v_{(1)}$ of type (I), and either $v_{(2)}(\mathrm{II}), v_{(3)}(\mathrm{I})$ or $v_{(2)}$(I), $v_{(3)}$(II).
Suppose that $v_{(2)}=v_{(2)}$(I) and $v_{(3)}=v_{(3)}$(II). We have $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{A}\lesssim &N^s\|v_{(1)}\|_{L_t^qL_{x}^{\infty}}\|v_{(2)}\|_{L_t^qL_{x}^{\infty}}\|v_{(3)}\|_{L_t^{\frac{2q}{q-2}}L_{x}^2}\|\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{L_t^{\frac{2q}{q-2}}L_{x}^2}\\ \lesssim &T^{\epsilon}N^s(N_{(1)}N_{(2)})^{-\sigma}N_{(3)}^{-s}\|v_{(3)}\|_{X^{s,\frac{1+2\epsilon}{q}+\epsilon }}\|\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{X^{0,\frac{1+2\epsilon}{q} }},
\end{split}$$ where we use the interpolation $X^{0,\frac{1+2\epsilon}{q}}\subset L_t^{\frac{2q}{q-2}}L_x^2$ and Lemma \[time-localization\] as before. Since $s<\alpha-1$, we may choose $\epsilon\ll 1$, $q\gg 1$, such that $s<2\sigma$ and $\frac{1+2\epsilon}{q}<\epsilon$, then if $N_{(2)}\sim N_{(1)}$, the dyadic summation converges. Otherwise, it reduces to estimate the contribution to from the Fourier region satisfying $$\label{low-modulation4}
\begin{split}
&\langle \tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}}\ll N_{(1)}^{s-\sigma} \textrm{ and }\\
&\langle\tau_j-|n_j|^{\alpha}\rangle^{\frac{1}{2}}\ll N_{(1)}^{s-\sigma}\textrm{ if } v_j \textrm{ is of type (II) and $N_{(2)}\ll N_{(1)}$}.
\end{split}$$
Suppose that $v_{(2)}=v_{(2)}$(II) and $v_{(3)}=v_{(3)}(\mathrm{I})$, then we obtain the similar bound (switching the role of $v_{(2)}$ and $v_{(3)}$ and using bilinear Strichartz) $$\mathcal{A}\lesssim T^{\epsilon}N^sN_{(1)}^{-\sigma}N_{(3)}^{-\sigma}N_{(2)}^{-s}\|v_{(2)}\|_{X^{s,\frac{3}{8}+2\epsilon}}\|\mathbf{P}_Nv\|_{X^{0,\frac{3}{8}+\epsilon}}.$$ Hence it reduces the matter to the same low modulation case . In summary, when $\mathbf{P}_{N_j}v_j$ is of type (II), we may write it as $$\mathbf{P}_{N_j}v_j=\mathbf{P}_{N_j}v_j^{\text{low} }+ \mathbf{P}_{N_j}v_j^{\text{high} },
\quad \mathbf{P}_{N}v=\mathbf{P}_{N}v^{\text{low} }+ \mathbf{P}_{N}v^{\text{high} }$$ where $$\widehat{\mathbf{P}_{N_j}v_j^{\text{low}} }=\mathbf{1}_{\langle\tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle\leq K}\widehat{\mathbf{P}_{N_j}v_j}(\tau,n),\quad \widehat{\mathbf{P}_{N}v^{\text{low}} }=\mathbf{1}_{\langle\tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle\leq K}\widehat{\mathbf{P}_{N}v}(\tau,n),$$ and the modulation $K$ is given specifically, according to the case (A), (B), (C), (D). The $\mathbf{P}_{N_j}v_j^{\text{low}}$ is called the low-modulation portion. From the discussions above, if at least one of the type (II) $\mathbf{P}_{N_1}v_1, \mathbf{P}_{N_2}v_2, \mathbf{P}_{N_3}v_3 $ or $\mathbf{P}_Nv$ has zero low modulation portion, we have $$\int\mathcal{N}_1\big(\mathbf{P}_{N_1}v_1\mathbf{P}_{N_2}\ov{v_2}\mathbf{P}_{N_3}v_3 \big)\cdot\mathbf{P}_N\ov{v}dtdx\lesssim T^{\theta}c_{N_1,N_2,N_3,N},$$ where $$\sum_{N_1,N_2,N_3,N\text{ dyadic } } c_{N_1,N_2,N_3,N}\lesssim 1.$$ Therefore, the main contributions come from the high modulation part $\mathbf{P}_{N_j}v_j^{\text{high } } $ and $\mathbf{P}_{N}v^{\text{high } } $ [^6]. In what follows, we assume that $\langle\tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle\ll K$ and $\langle\tau_j-|n_j|^{\alpha}\rangle\ll K$ if $v_j=v_j$(II) without stating explicitly. Moreover, we assume that each $v_j$ is decomposed dyadically in spatial frequency $|n_j|\sim N_j$, satisfying $N_{(2)}\ll N_{(1)}$ for Cases (B)(C)(D), and $N_{(3)}\ll N_{(1)}$ for Case (A).
Low modulation reduction
------------------------
The goal of this subsection is to setup suitable low-modulation estimates that we need. Set $$\Gamma(\ov{n}):=\{(n_1,n_2,n_3)\in \Z^3: n=n_1-n_2+n_3, n_2\neq n_1,n_3 \},$$ and $$\Gamma_{2}(\lambda,n):=\{(\tau_1,\tau_2,\tau_3)\in\R^3:
\lambda+|n|^{\alpha}=\tau_1-\tau_2+\tau_3 \}.$$ Let us recall a standard representation for functions in $X^{s,b}$. Given a function $f(t,x)$, we can write $f$ as $$f(t,x)=\int \langle\lambda\rangle^{-b}\Big(\sum_{m}\langle m\rangle^{2s}\langle\lambda\rangle^{2b}|\widehat{f}(\lambda+|m|^{\alpha},m)|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\Big(e^{i\lambda t}\sum_{n}a_{\lambda}(n)e^{inx+i|n|^{\alpha}\lambda}\Big)d\lambda,$$ where $$a_{\lambda}(n)=\frac{\widehat{f}(\lambda+|n|^{\alpha},n)}{\Big(\sum_{m}\langle m\rangle^{2s}|\widehat{f}(\lambda+|m|^{\alpha},m)|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}}.$$ Note that $\sum_{n}\langle n\rangle^{2s}|a_{\lambda}(n)|^2=1$. For $\|f\|_{X^{s,b}}\leq 1$, if its modulation is bounded from above by some $K\geq 1$, then by Cauchy-Schwarz, we have $$\int\langle \lambda\rangle^{-b}\Big(\sum_{n}\langle n\rangle^{2s}\langle\lambda\rangle^{2b}|\widehat{f}(\lambda+|n|^{\alpha},n)|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}d\lambda\lesssim 1+K^{1-2b}\,.$$ As explained in the last subsection, we need to estimate the low-modulation component of $\|\eta_T(t)\mathcal{N}_1(v_1,v_2,v_3)\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}$. Since at least one of $v_1,v_2,v_3$ is of type (II), we can replace $v_j(\mathrm{II})$ by $\eta_T(t)v_j(\mathrm{II})$, and estimate only $\|\kappa(t)\mathcal{N}_1(v_1,v_2,v_3)\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}$, with some fixed time cutoff $\kappa\in C_c^{\infty}(\R)$, $\kappa(t)\equiv 1$ if $|t|\leq 1$ and $\kappa(t)\eta_T(t)=\eta_T(t)$, for $T<1$. We denote by $(\kappa(t)\mathcal{N}_1(v_1,v_2,v_3))_K^{\text{low}}$ the modulation smaller than $K$. By the Hölder inequality, we have $$\begin{split}
&\|(\kappa(t)\mathcal{N}_1(v_1,v_2,v_3))_K^{\text{low}}\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\\=&\Big(\sum_{n}\langle n\rangle^{2s}\int_{|\lambda|<K}\frac{|(\mathcal{F}_{t,x}\kappa(t)\mathcal{N}_1(v_1,v_2,v_3))(\lambda+|n|^{\alpha},n)|^2 }{\langle\lambda\rangle^{1-4\epsilon} }d\lambda \Big)^{1/2}\\
\lesssim &K^{2\epsilon}\|\mathbf{1}_{|\lambda|<K}\langle n\rangle^s\mathcal{F}_{t,x}(\kappa(t)\mathcal{N}_1(v_1,v_2,v_3)) (\lambda+|n|^{\alpha},n)\|_{L_{\lambda}^{\infty}l_n^2}\,.
\end{split}$$ Note that $$\begin{split}
(\mathcal{F}_{t,x}\mathcal{N}_1(v_1,v_2,v_3) )(\tau,n)=\sum_{(n_1,n_2,n_3)\in\Gamma(\ov{n})}\int_{(\tau_1,\tau_2,\tau_3)\in\Gamma_2(\tau-|n|^\alpha,n)}\widehat{v_1}(\tau_1,n_1)\ov{\widehat{v_2}}(\tau_2,n_2)\widehat{v_3}(\tau_3,n_3)d\tau_1 d\tau_2,
\end{split}$$ where $$\widehat{v_j}(\tau_j,n_j)=\phi(n_j)\delta(\tau_j-|n_j|^{\alpha})\quad \textrm{if $v_j$ is of type (I) }\footnote{\textrm{ We send the time-cutoff $\eta_T(t)$ to the $v_j$ of type (II).}}$$ or $$\begin{split}
\widehat{v_j}(\tau_j,n_j)=&\int_{|\lambda_j|<K}\langle \lambda_j\rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}c_j(\lambda_j)a_{\lambda_j}(n_j)\delta(\tau_j-\lambda_j-|n_j|^{\alpha})d\lambda_j \quad \textrm{if $v_j$ is of type (II)},
\end{split}$$ with $\sum_{n_j} \langle n_j\rangle^{2s}|a_{\lambda_j}(n_j)|^2=1$ and $$c_{j}(\lambda_j)=\Big(\sum_{m_j}\langle m_j\rangle^{2s}\langle \lambda_j\rangle^{1-2\epsilon}|\widehat{v_j}(\lambda_j+|m_j|^{\alpha},m_j)|^2 \Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$ Therefore, if there is exactly one $v_j$ of type (II), say $v_1$(I), $v_2$(I), $v_3$(II), a direct calculation yields $$\begin{split}
(\mathcal{F}_{t,x}\kappa(t)\mathcal{N}_1(v_1,v_2,v_3) )(\tau,n)\\:=\sum_{(n_1,n_2,n_3)\in\Gamma(\ov{n})}\int_{ |\lambda_3|<K}&\langle\lambda_3\rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}c_3(\lambda_3)\phi(n_1)\ov{\phi}(n_2)\\
\times&\widehat{\kappa}\left(\tau-\lambda_3-|n_1|^{\alpha}+|n_2|^{\alpha}-|n_3|^{\alpha} \right)a_{\lambda_3}(n_3) d\lambda_3.
\end{split}$$ If $v_2$, $v_3$ are of type (II), and $v_1$ of type (I), we have $$\begin{split}
(\mathcal{F}_{t,x}\kappa(t)\mathcal{N}_1(v_1,v_2,v_3) )(\tau,n)\\:=\sum_{(n_1,n_2,n_3)\in\Gamma(\ov{n})}\iint_{|\lambda_2|<K, |\lambda_3|<K}&\langle\lambda_2\rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}\langle\lambda_3\rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}\ov{c_2}(\lambda_2)c_3(\lambda_3)\phi(n_1)\\
\times&\widehat{\kappa}\left(\tau+\lambda_2-\lambda_3-|n_1|^{\alpha}+|n_2|^{\alpha}-|n_3|^{\alpha} \right)\ov{a_{\lambda_2}}(n_2)a_{\lambda_3}(n_3) d\lambda_2 d\lambda_3.
\end{split}$$ Since we only care about the low modulation part of $\mathcal{N}_1(v_1,v_2,v_3)$, below $|\lambda|\lesssim K$, applying the Hölder inequality, we obtain that $$\begin{split}
\|(\kappa(t)\mathcal{N}_1(v_1,v_2,v_3))_K^{\text{low}}\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}} \lesssim K^{2\epsilon}\sup_{\langle\lambda\rangle< K}\left\| \langle n\rangle^s (\mathcal{F}_{t,x}(\kappa(t)\mathcal{N}_1(v_1,v_2,v_3) )(\lambda+|n|^{\alpha},n) \right\|_{l_n^2}.
\end{split}$$ Since $v_j=\eta_T(t)v_j$, if it is of type (II), from Lemma \[time-localization\], we have $$\int_{\R}|c_j(\lambda_j)|^2d\lambda_j=\|v_j\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}-\epsilon}}\lesssim T^{2\epsilon}\|v_j\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}.$$ Therefore, we obtain that $$\label{goal-0}
\begin{split}
&\|(\kappa(t)\mathcal{N}_1(v_1,v_2,v_3))_K^{\text{low}}
\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\\ \lesssim &T^{2\epsilon}K^{3\epsilon}\sup_{\substack{|\lambda|<K\\
|\lambda_j|<K,j=2,3 }}\Big\|\sum_{(n_1,n_2,n_3)\in\Gamma(\ov{n})} \phi(n_1)\ov{a_{\lambda_2}}(n_2)a_{\lambda_3}(n_3) \widehat{\kappa}(\lambda+\lambda_2-\lambda_3-\Phi(\ov{n})) \Big\|_{l_n^2}
\end{split}$$ or $$\label{goal-0'}
\begin{split}
&\|(\kappa(t)\mathcal{N}_1(v_1,v_2,v_3))_K^{\text{low}}\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\\ \lesssim &T^{2\epsilon}K^{2\epsilon}\sup_{\substack{|\lambda|<K\\
|\lambda_3|<K }}\Big\|\sum_{(n_1,n_2,n_3)\in\Gamma(\ov{n})} \phi(n_1)\ov{\phi(n_2)}a_{\lambda_3}(n_3) \widehat{\kappa}(\lambda-\lambda_3-\Phi(\ov{n})) \Big\|_{l_n^2},
\end{split}$$ depending on how many $v_j$ are of type (II).
From the discussion of the last subsection, to finish the proof, we need to estimate the R.H.S. of and , according to the constraint $K$, defined as ,, and , according to Case (A),(B),(C),(D), respectively. We will do this by dyadically decomposing $|n_j|\sim N_j$. In what follows, we only estimate each dyadic pieces of R.H.S of or , satisfying that $N_{(2)}\ll N_{(1)}$, for Cases (B)(C)(D), and $N_{(3)}\ll N_{(1)}$ for Case (A), and deduce the correct numerology so that the final dyadic summation over $N_1, N_2, N_3$ will converge. In summary, we have to deal with the following cases:
$\bullet$ [**Case 1:**]{} $v_{(1)}=v_{(1)}$(I),$v_{(2)}=v_{(2)}$(II), $v_{(3)}=v_{(3)}$(II) and $N_{(2)}\ll N_{(1)}$. The modulation bound in this case is $$K_{1}=N_{(1)}^{8(s-\sigma)}N_{(2)}^{-8s}.$$ Therefore, the dyadic pieces of is bounded by $$\begin{split}
T^{2\epsilon}K_{1}^{3\epsilon}\sup_{|\mu|\lesssim K_{1} }\Big(\sum_{|n|\lesssim N_{(1)}}\langle n\rangle^{2s}\Big|\sum_{(n_1,n_2,n_3)\in\Gamma(\ov{n}) }\widehat{\kappa}(\mu-\Phi(\ov{n}) )a_1(n_1)a_2(n_2)a_3(n_3)
\Big|^2 \Big)^{1/2},
\end{split}$$ where $a_{(1)}(n)=\phi(n)$ and $\sum_{|n|\sim N^{(j)}}|a_{(j)}(n)|^2\lesssim N_{(j)}^{-2s}, j=2,3$.
$\bullet$ [**Case 2:**]{} $v_{(1)}=v_{(1)}$(I), and exactly one of $v_{(2)}, v_{(3)}$ is of type (II) and $N_{(2)}\ll N_{(1)}$. In this case, the modulation bound is $$K_{2}=N_{(1)}^{2(s-\sigma)},$$ and the dyadic pieces of is bounded by $$\begin{split}
T^{\epsilon}K_{2}^{2\epsilon}\sup_{|\mu|\lesssim K_{2} }\Big(\sum_{|n|\lesssim N_{(1)}}\langle n\rangle^{2s}\Big|\sum_{(n_1,n_2,n_3)\in\Gamma(\ov{n}) }\widehat{\kappa}(\mu-\Phi(\ov{n}) )a_1(n_1)a_2(n_2)a_3(n_3)
\Big|^2 \Big)^{1/2},
\end{split}$$ where $a_{(1)}(n)=\phi(n)$, and one of $a_{(2)}(n)$, $a_{(3)}(n)$ is $\phi(n)$, while the rest one satisfies $\sum_{|n|\sim N_{(j)}}|a_{(j)}(n)|^2\lesssim N_{(j)}^{-2s}$.
$\bullet$ [**Case 3:**]{} $v_{(1)}=v_{(1)}$(II), and one of $v_{(2)},v_{(3)}$ is of type (I) and $N_{(3)}\ll N_{(1)}$. In this case, the modulation bound is $$K_{3}=N_{(2)}^{\epsilon}.$$ and the dyadic pieces of (or ) are bounded by $$\begin{split}
T^{\epsilon}K_{3}^{3\epsilon}\sup_{|\mu|\lesssim K_{3} }\Big(\sum_{|n|\lesssim N_{(1)}}\langle n\rangle^{2s}\Big|\sum_{(n_1,n_2,n_3)\in\Gamma(\ov{n}) }\widehat{\kappa}(\mu-\Phi(\ov{n}) )a_1(n_1)a_2(n_2)a_3(n_3)
\Big|^2 \Big)^{1/2},
\end{split}$$ where $\sum_{|n|\sim N_{(1)}}|a_{(1)}(n)|^2\sim N_{(1)}^{-2s}$, $a_{(j)}(n)=\phi(n)$ or $\sum_{|n|\sim N_{(j)}}|a_{(j)}(n)|^2\lesssim N_{(j)}^{-2s}$. Moreover, at least one of $a_{(2)}(n), a_{(3)}(n)$ is of the form $\phi(n)$.
Estimate of low modulation cases:
---------------------------------
Using the fact that $\kappa\in \mathcal{S}(\R)$, we observe that modulo an error of $C_L(N_{(1)})^{-L}$, for any $L\in\mathbb{N}$, we may reduce the estimate to the following expression [^7]. $$\label{eq:lowmodulationreduction}
T^{\epsilon}N_{(1)}^{s+\epsilon}\sup_{|\mu|\lesssim K}\Big(\sum_{|n|\lesssim N_{(1)}}\Big|\sum_{\substack{(n_1,n_2,n_3)\in\Gamma(\ov{n})\\
|\Phi(\ov{n})-\mu|\leq 1 }} a_1(n_1)a_2(n_2)a_3(n_3)\Big|^2 \Big)^{1/2}.$$ Now we perform the case-by-case analysis. Denote by $$\widetilde{\Phi}(n,n_2,n_3)=|n+n_2-n_3|^{\alpha}-|n_2|^{\alpha}+|n_3|^{\alpha}-|n|^{\alpha}.$$ $\bullet$ [**Case 1:**]{} Denote $b_j(n)=a_j(n)\langle n\rangle^{s}$, if $v_j$ is of type (II). We first assume that $n_1=n_{(1)}, n_2=n_{(2)}$ and $n_3=n_{(3)}$. $$\begin{split}
A:=\{(n,n_2,n_3):& n_3\neq n_2, n_3\neq n, |n_j|\sim N_j, j=2,3; |n+n_2-n_3|\sim N_1;\\ &|\widetilde{\Phi}(n,n_2,n_3)-\mu|\leq 1 \},
\end{split}$$ where $\mu$ can be viewed as a fixed parameter. Note that $|\phi(n+n_2-n_3)|\lesssim (N_{(1)})^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}+2\epsilon}$ on $A$. Applying Cauchy-Schwarz to the summation over $n_2,n_3$, we obtain that $$\label{eq:lowmodulation1}
\begin{split}
\eqref{eq:lowmodulationreduction}\lesssim & T^{\epsilon}N_{(1)}^{\left(s-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)+2\epsilon}N_{(2)}^{-s}N_{(3)}^{-s}\\ \times &\Big[\sum_{|n|\lesssim N_{(1)}}\Big(\sum_{n_2,n_3}|b_2(n_2)|^2\mathbf{1}_{A}(n,n_2,n_3) \Big)
\Big(\sum_{n_2,n_3}|b_3(n_3)|^2\mathbf{1}_{A}(n,n_2,n_3) \Big) \Big]^{1/2}.
\end{split}$$ The second line of the right hand side can be majorized by $$\Big[\sum_{|n|\lesssim N_{(1)}}\sum_{n_2,n_3}|b_2(n_2)|^2\mathbf{1}_{A}(n,n_2,n_3) \Big]^{1/2}\cdot \sup_{|n|\lesssim N_{(1)}}\Big(\sum_{n_2,n_3}|b_3(n_3)|^2\mathbf{1}_{A}(n,n_2,n_3) \Big)^{1/2}.$$ Thanks to $N_{(1)}\gg N_{(2)}$, viewing $n_2$ as parameter, for fixed $n,n_3$, $$\Big|\frac{\partial\widetilde{\Phi}}{\partial n_2} \Big|\sim |n+n_2-n_3|^{\alpha-1}\sim N_{(1)}^{\alpha-1}, \textrm{ thus }\sum_{n_2}\mathbf{1}_A(n,n_2,n_3)\lesssim 1.$$ Thus $\Big(\sum_{n_2,n_3}|b_3(n_3)|^2\mathbf{1}_A(n,n_2,n_3)\Big)^{1/2}\lesssim 1$. Viewing $n$ as parameter, for fixed $n_2,n_3$, $$\Big|\frac{\partial\widetilde{\Phi}}{\partial n}\Big|\sim \Big||n+n_2-n_3|^{\alpha-1}-|n|^{\alpha-1} \Big|\sim |n_2-n_3|N_{(1)}^{\alpha-2},$$ then $ \sum_{n}\mathbf{1}_{A}(n,n_2,n_3)\lesssim 1+\frac{(N_{(1)})^{2-\alpha} }{|n_2-n_3| }.
$ Therefore, if $N_{(1)}^{2-\alpha}\gg N_{(2)}$, we obtain that $$\Big(\sum_{|n|\lesssim N_{(1)}}\sum_{n_2,n_3}|b_2(n_2)|^2\mathbf{1}_{A}(n,n_2,n_3) \Big)^{1/2}\lesssim N_{(1)} ^{\left(1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)+2\epsilon}.$$ This yields $$\eqref{eq:lowmodulationreduction}\lesssim T^{\epsilon}N_{(1)}^{\left(s-\frac{\alpha}{2}+1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\right)+3\epsilon} N_{(2)}^{-s}N_{(3)}^{-s},$$ which is conclusive, if $s<\alpha-1$. If $N_{(1)}^{2-\alpha}\lesssim N_{(2)}$, we estimate $$\begin{split}
&\sum_{|n|\lesssim N_{(1)}}\sum_{n_2,n_3}|b_2(n_2)|^2\mathbf{1}_A(n,n_2,n_3)\\
\leq &\sum_{n_2}|b_2(n_2)|^2\Big[\sum_{n_3:|n_3-n_2|\gtrsim (N_{(1)})^{2-\alpha}}\sum_{n}\mathbf{1}_A(n,n_2,n_3)+\sum_{n_3:|n_3-n_2|\ll (N_{(1)})^{2-\alpha}}\sum_{n}\mathbf{1}_A(n,n_2,n_3)\Big]\\
\lesssim &N_{(3)}+N_{(1)}^{2-\alpha+\epsilon}.
\end{split}$$ Therefore, $$\eqref{eq:lowmodulationreduction}\lesssim T^{\epsilon}\Big[ N_{(1)}^{s-\frac{\alpha}{2}+1-\frac{\alpha}{2}+3\epsilon} N_{(2)}^{-s}N_{(3)}^{-s}+N_{(1)}^{s-\frac{\alpha}{2}+3\epsilon}N_{(2)}^{-s}N_{(3)}^{-s} N_{(3)}^{\frac{1}{2}} \Big],\footnote{\textrm{This bound can not be improved if we perform the Wiener chaos estimate as in \cite{bourgain}, due to the loss in the counting. }}$$ which can be majorized by $T^{\epsilon}(N_{(1)})^{-\delta(\epsilon)}$, for some $\delta(\epsilon)>0$, provided that $ s<\alpha-1$. For the remaining case $n_2=n_{(1)}$, there is no significant difference in the argument.
$\bullet$ [**Case 2:**]{} Denote $b_j(n)=a_j(n)\langle n\rangle^{s}$, if $v_j$ is of type (II), where $\mu$ can be viewed as a fixed parameter. The modulation bound is $K_{2}=N_{(1)}^{2(s-\sigma)}$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $n_1=n_{(1)}$ and $a_1(n_1)=\phi(n_1)$. Since $N_{(1)}\gg N_{(2)}$, we must have $$|\Phi(\ov{n})|\gtrsim |n_2-n_3||n_2-n_1|N_{(1)}^{2-\alpha}\gtrsim N_{(1)}^{\alpha-1},$$ where $\Phi(\ov{n})$ is defined in Lemma \[bound:resonance\]. For non-zero contributions, $|\Phi(\ov{n})-\mu|\leq 1$ ,where $|\mu|\lesssim K_{2}$, it holds $$N_{(1)}^{\alpha-1}\lesssim |\Phi(\ov{n})|\leq |\mu|+|\Phi(\ov{n})-\mu|\lesssim N_{(1)}^{2(s-\sigma)}.$$ This constraint is violated since $2(s-\sigma)<\alpha-1$ if $\epsilon>0$ is chosen small enough. This means that all the contributions are zero. The same argument applies to the case where $n_2=n_{(1)}$.
$\bullet$ [**Case 3:** ]{} Note that the case where $v_{(2)}, v_{(3)}$ are both of type (I) is already considered in the Case(B). It turns out there that the high-modulation analysis is conclusive. Now we assume that $v_{(2)}=v_{(2)}$(II) and $v_{(3)}=v_{(3)}$(I), this is the situation in Case (A), and we have $N_{(3)}\ll N_{(1)}$. In this case, we still have $|\Phi(\ov{n})|\gtrsim N_{(1)}^{\alpha-1}$, and the constraint for the non-zero contributions is $$N_{(1)}^{\alpha-1}\lesssim |\Phi(\ov{n})|\leq |\mu|+|\Phi(\ov{n})-\mu|\lesssim N_{(1)}^{16\epsilon},$$ which is empty for small $\epsilon$. Thus the contributions in this case are all zero. This completes the proof of Proposition \[trilinear-N1\]. Hence the proof of Proposition \[multi-linear\] is also completed.
[ There is a room in the reduction to low modulations, but the case when the highest frequency is of type (I) is independent of this reduction, and it leads to the restriction $s<\alpha-1$. More precisely, the use of the Fourier-Lebesgue space gives $\alpha/2$ regularization, while the degeneration of the curvature of the resonant surface causes a derivative loss of order $1-\frac{\alpha}{2}$. Therefore, we need to impose $s-\frac{\alpha}{2}+\big(1-\frac{\alpha}{2}\big)<0$ ($s$ comes from the fact that we evaluate the nonlinearity in $X^{s,b}$). We emphasize that here, the reason for the restriction $s<\alpha-1$ is different from the same restriction appearing in the next section. ]{}
Probabilistic linear and trilinear estimates
============================================
In order to use measure invariance arguments to construct global solutions, we need to prove large deviation estimates for the linear norm $\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}$ and the trilinear quantity $\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\cdot)$ defined in . Let us introduce some notations. For $M<K\leq \infty$, we set $$z^M_{1,K}(t)=S_{\alpha}(t)\Pi_M^{\perp}\Pi_K
\big( \sum_{n\in\Z} \frac{g_n(\omega)}{[n]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}e^{inx}\big)=\sum_{M< |n|\leq K}\frac{g_n(\omega)}{[n]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}e^{inx-i|n|^{\alpha}t}.$$
\[eq:z3\] Fix $\eta\in C_c^{\infty}(\R)$ and assume that $1<\alpha<2$, $M_j<K_j\leq \infty$, $j=1,2,3.$ Then for any $s<\alpha-1$, $0<\epsilon\ll 1$, there exist $0<\epsilon_0\ll 1, c>0$, such that for any $\lambda\geq 1$, $$\label{z3:largedeviation}
\begin{split}
&\mathbb{P}\Big\{\omega: \Big\|\int_0^tS_{\alpha}(t-t')\eta(t')\mathcal{N}\big(z_{1,K_1}^{M_1}, z_{1,K_2}^{M_2}, z_{1,K_3}^{M_3} \big)(t')dt' \Big\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}>\max\{M_1,M_2,M_3 \}^{-\epsilon_0}\lambda \Big\}\\ \leq &\exp\big(-c\lambda^{2/3} \big).
\end{split}$$
From Lemma \[inhomo-linear\], we have $$\begin{split}
&\Big\|\int_0^tS_{\alpha}(t-t')\eta(t')\mathcal{N}\big(z_{1,K_1}^{M_1},z_{1,K_2}^{M_2},z_{1,K_3}^{M_3} \big) \Big\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}\\
\lesssim & \Big\|\eta(t)\mathcal{N}_0\big(z_{1,K_1}^{M_1},z_{1,K_2}^{M_2},z_{1,K_3}^{M_3} \big)\Big\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}+\Big\|\eta(t)\mathcal{N}_1\big(z_{1,K_1}^{M_1},z_{1,K_2}^{M_2},z_{1,K_3}^{M_3} \big)\Big\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}.
\end{split}$$ Set $$I_{M_j,K_j}:=\{n\in\Z: M_j< |n|\leq K_j \}.$$ Note that $$\begin{split}
&\Big\|\eta(t)\mathcal{N}_0\big(z_{1,K_1}^{M_1},z_{1,K_2}^{M_2},z_{1,K_3}^{M_3} \big)\Big\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}}\\=&\Big\|\mathbf{1}_{n\in \cap_{j=1}^3I_{M_j,K_j} }\langle n\rangle^{s}\langle\tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}\widehat{\eta}(\tau-|n|^{\alpha}) \frac{|g_n(\omega)|^2g_n(\omega)}{[n]^{\frac{3\alpha}{2}}}\Big\|_{L_{\tau}^2l_n^2}.
\end{split}$$ By Minkowski’s inequality, for $p\geq 2$, we have $$\label{N0Xsb}
\begin{split}
&\Big\|\eta(t)\mathcal{N}_0\left(z_{1,K_1}^{M_1},z_{1,K_2}^{M_2}, z_{1,K_3}^{M_3} \right) \Big\|_{L^p(\Omega;X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon})}\\
\leq &\Big\|\mathbf{1}_{n\in \cap_{j=1}^3I_{M_j,K_j} }\langle n\rangle^{s}\langle\tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}\widehat{\eta}(\tau-|n|^{\alpha}) \frac{|g_n(\omega)|^2g_n(\omega)}{[n]^{\frac{3\alpha}{2}}}\Big\|_{L_{\tau}^2l_n^2L^p(\Omega)}.
\end{split}$$ It follows from the property of Gaussian random variables that $$ \begin{split}
\textrm{(RHS) of \eqref{N0Xsb}}\lesssim &p^{3/2}\Big\|\mathbf{1}_{n\in\cap_{j=1}^3I_{M_j,N_j} }\langle n\rangle^{s-\frac{3\alpha}{2}}\langle\tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}\widehat{\eta}(\tau-|n|^{\alpha}) \Big\|_{L_{\tau}^2l_n^2} \\
\lesssim &p^{3/2}\max\{M_1,M_2,M_3 \}^{s+\frac{1}{2}-\frac{3\alpha}{2} }\lesssim p^{3/2}\max\{M_1,M_2,M_3\}^{-\big(\frac{3\alpha}{2}-s-\frac{1}{2} \big)},
\end{split}$$ in which the index is negative. Recall the notation $$\Gamma(\ov{n}):=\{(n_1,n_2,n_3):n=n_1-n_2+n_3, n_2\neq n_1, n_2\neq n_3 \}.$$ Similarly, applying Minkowski’s inequality and the Wiener chaos estimate of Lemma \[Wiener-Chaos\], we have $$\label{N1Xsb}
\begin{split}
&\Big\|\eta(t)\mathcal{N}_1\big(z_{1,N_1}^{K_1}, z_{1,N_2}^{K_2}, z_{1,N_3}^{K_3} \big) \Big\|_{L^p(\Omega;X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon} )}^2\\
\lesssim & p^{3}\Big\| \langle\tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{-\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon}\langle n\rangle^s\sum_{\substack{(n_1,n_2,n_3)\in \Gamma(\ov{n})\\
n_j\in I_{M_j,K_j},j=1,2,3 } }\frac{g_{n_1}(\omega)\ov{g}_{n_2}(\omega)g_{n_3}(\omega) }{[n_1]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}
[n_2]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}
[n_3]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} }\widehat{\eta}(\tau-|n|^{\alpha}-\Phi(\ov{n})) \Big\|_{L_{\tau}^2l_n^2L^2(\Omega)}^2.
\end{split}$$ For fixed $n$, using independence, we have $$\begin{split}
&\Big\|\sum_{\substack{(n_1,n_2,n_3)\in \Gamma(\ov{n})\\
n_j\in I_{M_j,K_j},j=1,2,3 } }\frac{g_{n_1}(\omega)\ov{g}_{n_2}(\omega)g_{n_3}(\omega) }{[n_1]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}
[n_2]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}
[n_3]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} }\widehat{\eta}(\tau-|n|^{\alpha}-\Phi(\ov{n})) \Big\|_{L^2(\Omega)}^2\\
\lesssim &\sum_{\substack{(n_1,n_2,n_3)\in \Gamma(\ov{n})\\
n_j\in I_{M_j,K_j},j=1,2,3 } }
\frac{|\widehat{\eta}(\tau-|n|^{\alpha}-\Phi(\ov{n})) |^2 }{\langle n_1\rangle^{\alpha}
\langle n_2\rangle^{\alpha}
\langle n_3\rangle^{\alpha} }.
\end{split}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{split}
\textrm{(RHS) of \eqref{N1Xsb}}\lesssim & p^3\int_{\R}\sum_{n}\sum_{\substack{(n_1,n_2,n_3)\in \Gamma(\ov{n})\\
n_j\in I_{M_j,K_j},j=1,2,3 } }\frac{\langle n\rangle^{2s}\langle\tau-|n|^{\alpha}\rangle^{-1+2\epsilon}|\widehat{\eta}(\tau-|n|^{\alpha}-\Phi(\ov{n})) |^2 }{\langle n_1\rangle^{\alpha}
\langle n_2\rangle^{\alpha}
\langle n_3\rangle^{\alpha} }d\tau.
\end{split}$$ Since $|\widehat{\eta}(\tau)|\leq C_L\langle\tau\rangle^{-L}$ for any $L\in\mathbb{N}$, applying Lemma \[convolution\], we have $$\begin{split}
\textrm{(RHS) of \eqref{N1Xsb}}\lesssim p^3J,\quad J:=\sum_{n}\sum_{\substack{(n_1,n_2,n_3)\in \Gamma(\ov{n}) \\
n_j\in I_{M_j,K_j},j=1,2,3 } }
\frac{\langle n\rangle^{2s} }{\langle n_1\rangle^{\alpha}
\langle n_2\rangle^{\alpha}
\langle n_3\rangle^{\alpha}\langle\Phi(\ov{n})\rangle^{1-2\epsilon} }.
\end{split}$$ We decompose the summation into dyadic pieces $|n_j|\sim N_j$ where $M_j/2\leq N_j\leq 2K_j$ for $j=1,2,3$. We write $$J=\sum_{N_1,N_2,N_3}J_{N_1,N_2,N_3}.$$ Denote by $N_{(1)}\geq N_{(2)}\geq N_{(3)}$ the non-increasing order of $N_1,N_2,N_3$. Recall that from Lemma \[bound:resonance\], $|\Phi(\ov{n})|\gtrsim |n_1-n_2||n_2-n_3|N_{(1)}^{\alpha-2}$.
If $N_1\sim N_2\sim N_3$, we have $$\label{highhighhigh}
\begin{split}
J_{N_1,N_2,N_3}\lesssim &N_{(1)}^{2s-3\alpha+(2-\alpha)(1-2\epsilon)}\sum_{\substack{n_2\neq n_1,n_3\\
|n_j|\sim N_j,j=1,2,3 }}\frac{1}{\langle n_1-n_2\rangle^{1-2\epsilon}\langle n_2-n_3\rangle^{1-2\epsilon} }\\
\lesssim & N_{(1)}^{2s+3-4\alpha+2\alpha\epsilon}.
\end{split}$$ If $N_{(1)}\sim N_{(2)}\gg N_{(3)}$, we have $$\label{hhl}
\begin{split}
J_{N_1,N_2,N_3}\lesssim &N_{(1)}^{2s-2\alpha+(2-\alpha)(1-2\epsilon)}N_{(3)}^{-\alpha}\sum_{\substack{n_2\neq n_1,n_3\\
|n_j|\sim N_j,j=1,2,3 } }\frac{1}{\langle n_1-n_2\rangle^{1-2\epsilon}\langle n_2-n_3\rangle^{1-2\epsilon} }\\
\lesssim &N_{(1)}^{2s-2\alpha+(2-\alpha)(1-2\epsilon)+4\epsilon}.
\end{split}$$ The worst case is $N_{(1)}\gg N_{(2)}\geq N_{(3)}$, saying[^8] $N_1\sim N_{(1)}$, $|\Phi(\ov{n})|\gtrsim N_{(1)}^{\alpha-1}|n_2-n_3|$, thus $$\label{hll}
\begin{split}
J_{N_1,N_2,N_3}\lesssim & N_{(1)}^{2s-\alpha-(\alpha-1)(1-\epsilon)}\cdot N_{(2)}^{-\alpha}N_{(3)}^{-\alpha}\sum_{\substack{n_2\neq n_1,n_3\\
|n_j|\sim N_j, j=1,2,3 } } \frac{1}{\langle n_2-n_3\rangle^{1-2\epsilon}}\\
\lesssim &N_{(1)}^{2s-2(\alpha-1)+(\alpha-1)\epsilon }\cdot N_{(2)}^{-\alpha+2\epsilon}N_{(3)}^{1-\alpha}.
\end{split}$$ If $s<\alpha-1$, we may choose $\epsilon>0$ such that $s<\alpha-1-\epsilon$.
To estimate $J$, we write $$J=\sum_{N_1\sim N_2\sim N_3} J_{N_1,N_2,N_3}+\sum_{N_{(1)}\gg N_{(2)}\geq N_{(3)}}J_{N_1,N_2,N_3}+
\sum_{N_{(1)}\sim N_{(2)}\gg N_{(3)}}J_{N_1,N_2,N_3}.$$ For the summation over dyadic integers satisfying $N_1\sim N_2\sim N_3\sim N_{(1)}$, the non-zero contributions satisfy $N_{(1)}\gtrsim \max\{M_1,M_2,M_3 \}$, thus the dyadic summation over $N_1\sim N_2\sim N_3$ is bounded by $\displaystyle{ \max\{ M_1,M_2,M_3 \}^{2s+3-4\alpha+2\alpha\epsilon} }$. For the summation over dyadic integers satisfying $N_{(1)}\gg N_{(2)}\geq N_{(3)}$, the non-zero contributions satisfy $N_{(1)}\geq \max\{M_1,M_2,M_3 \} $, hence the summation can be bounded by $\displaystyle{\max\{M_1,M_2,M_3 \}^{(\alpha-3)\epsilon} }$. From the constraint of $s$, we have $$J\lesssim \max\{M_1,M_2,M_3 \}^{-(3-\alpha)\epsilon}.$$ The rest argument follows from an application of Chebyshev’s inequality, as in the proof of Lemma \[proba-Strichartz\].
\[fut\] [ From , and , we see that the constraint $s<\alpha-1$ comes only from the high-low-low frequency interactions. The other cases give $s<4\alpha-3$ and $s<3\alpha-2$ respectively. In these other cases the condition $s\geq \frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4}$ gives the full range $\alpha>1$. The situation therefore reminds the impressive recent work [@Deng2] and as a consequence we conjecture that Theorem \[thm6\] and Theorem \[thm5\] can be extended to $\alpha>1$, and even to some values of $\alpha\leq1$ after suitable renormalizations. ]{}
\[convergence:W\] Assume that $1<\alpha<2$, then for any $s<\alpha-1$, there exist $\epsilon_0>0, 0<\epsilon\ll 1,c>0$, such that for any $\lambda\geq 1$, $i_1,i_2,i_3\in\{0,1\}$ and $M\in\N$, $K\in\N\cup\{+\infty\}$, $M\leq K$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}\Big\{\omega: M^{\epsilon_0(i_1+i_2+i_3)}\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big(\Pi_K(\Pi_M^{\perp})^{i_1}\phi^{\omega}, \big(\Pi_K(\Pi_M^{\perp})^{i_2}\phi^{\omega},\big(\Pi_K(\Pi_M^{\perp})^{i_3}\phi^{\omega}\big) >\lambda \Big\}\leq e^{-c\lambda^{2/3}}.\end{aligned}$$
Denote by $\phi_{i_j}:=\Pi_K(\Pi_M^{\perp})^{i_j}\phi^{\omega}$. From the Wiener chaos estimates, it is sufficient to obtain the following estimate for large $p<\infty$: $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\| \sum_{l\in\Z}\langle l\rangle^{-2} \Big\| \int_0^t\chi_0(t)S_{\alpha}(t-t')\mathcal{N}\big(z_{1,K}^{M_1},z_{1,K}^{M_2},
z_{1,K}^{M_3} \big)(t'+l)dt'
\Big\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}
\Big\|_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq CM^{-\epsilon_0}p^{3/2},\end{aligned}$$ where $M_j=M$ if $i_j=1$ and $M_j=0$ if $i_j=0$. Since $\sum_{l\in \Z}\langle l\rangle^{-2}<\infty$, it is sufficient to show that for any $l\in\Z$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{!!}
\Big\| \int_0^t\chi_0(t)S_{\alpha}(t-t')\mathcal{N}\big(z_{1,K}^{M_1},z_{1,K}^{M_2},
z_{1,K}^{M_3} \big)(t'+l)dt'
\Big\|_{L^p\big(\Omega;X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}\big)} \leq CM^{-\epsilon_0}p^{3/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $S_{\alpha}(l)\phi^{\omega}$ has the same law as $\phi^{\omega}$, we obtain from the same proof of Lemma \[z3:largedeviation\]. This completes the proof of Corollary \[convergence:W\].
\[linear-convergence\] Assume that $1<\alpha<2$ and $M<K\leq \infty$. Then for any $t_0\in\R$, any $\epsilon>0$, there exist $2\leq q<\infty$, $0<\epsilon_0\ll 1$, such that for all $\lambda\geq 1$, $$\begin{split}
\mathbb{P}\Big\{\omega:\big\|z_{1,K}^M\big\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}> M^{-\epsilon_0}\lambda \Big\}<e^{-c\lambda^2},
\end{split}$$ where $c>0$ is some uniform constant.
Denote by $\sigma_0=\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\frac{\epsilon}{2}, \sigma_1=\frac{\alpha}{2}-\frac{2\epsilon}{3}, r=\frac{1}{\epsilon}$. From Wiener chaos estimates and by the same argument as in the proof of Corollary \[convergence:W\], it would be sufficient to show that for all large $p<\infty$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\|\|\chi_0(t)z_{1,K}^M\|_{L_t^q\mathcal{F}L^{\sigma_1,2r}\cap L_t^qW_x^{\sigma_0,r} } \Big\|_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq CM^{-\epsilon_0}\sqrt{p}. \end{aligned}$$ We first deal with the Fourier-Lebesgue norm $\mathcal{F}L^{\sigma_1,2r}$. Note that $S_{\alpha}(t)$ keeps the Fourier-Lebesgue norm invariant, it suffices to show that for large $p$, $$\big\|\mathbf{1}_{M\leq |n|\leq K}\langle n\rangle^{\sigma_1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}g_n(\omega)\big\|_{L^p(\Omega;l_n^{2r} )}\leq CM^{-\epsilon_0}\sqrt{p}.$$ Note that $\big(\frac{\alpha}{2}-\sigma_1\big)2r=\frac{4}{3}>1$, take $p\geq 2r$, from Minkowski, we have $$\big\|\mathbf{1}_{M\leq |n|\leq K}\langle n\rangle^{\sigma_1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}g_n(\omega)\big\|_{L^p(\Omega;l_n^{2r} )}\leq \big\|\mathbf{1}_{M\leq |n|\leq K}\langle n\rangle^{\sigma_1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}g_n(\omega)\big\|_{l_n^{2r}L^p(\Omega)}.$$ From a property of the Gaussian random variables, we have $$\begin{split}
\big\|\mathbf{1}_{M\leq |n|\leq K}\langle n\rangle^{\sigma_1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}g_n(\omega)\big\|_{l_n^{2r}L^p(\Omega)}\leq & C\sqrt{p}\|\mathbf{1}_{|n|\geq M}\langle n\rangle^{\sigma_1-2\alpha}\|_{l_n^{2r}}\leq CM^{-\frac{1}{6r}}\sqrt{p}.
\end{split}$$ Next we deal with the Sobolev norm $L_t^qW_x^{\sigma_0,r}$. Again, for $p\geq 2r, p\geq q$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\|\|\chi_0(t)z_{1,K}^M\|_{ L_t^qW_x^{\sigma_0,r} } \Big\|_{L^p(\Omega)}=& \Big\|
\Big\|\chi_0(t)\sum_{M\leq |n|\leq K} \frac{\langle n\rangle^{\sigma_0} g_n(\omega) e^{inx+i|n|^{\alpha}t}}{[n]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} }
\Big\|_{L_t^qL_x^{r}}
\Big\|_{L^p(\Omega)}\\
\leq &\Big\|
\Big\|\chi_0(t)\sum_{M\leq |n|\leq K} \frac{\langle n\rangle^{\sigma_0} g_n(\omega) e^{inx+i|n|^{\alpha}t}}{[n]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} }
\Big\|_{L^p(\Omega)}
\Big\|_{L_t^qL_x^{r}}.\end{aligned}$$ By Wiener chaos estimate, there exists $C>0$, such that for any $(t,x)$, $$\begin{split}
\Big\|\chi_0(t)\sum_{M\leq |n|\leq K} \frac{\langle n\rangle^{\sigma_0} g_n(\omega) e^{inx+i|n|^{\alpha}t}}{[n]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} }
\Big\|_{L^p(\Omega)}\leq &C\sqrt{q} \|\mathbf{1}_{M\leq |n|\leq K}\langle n\rangle^{\sigma_0-\frac{\alpha}{2}} \|_{l_n^2}\\
\leq & CM^{-\frac{\epsilon}{2}}\sqrt{p}.
\end{split}$$ The proof of Lemma \[linear-convergence\] is now complete.
Global well-posedness and flow property when $\frac{6}{5}<\alpha<2$
===================================================================
Enhanced local convergence
--------------------------
Throughout this section, we fix the small parameter $\epsilon>0,$ and the large parameter $q<\infty$ as required in the previous sections. We also fix the constants $$\frac{6}{5}<\alpha<2,\quad \sigma=\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\epsilon,\quad \frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4}<s<\alpha-1.$$ We remark that in contrast with previous situations (as for instance in [@BT-IMRN],[@Sun-Tz]), here the nonlinear evolution part though more regular lives in different function spaces which may not be embedded into the function space of the linear evolution part. This causes difficulties to construct the invariant data set. To overcome this difficulty, we define the summed space $\mathcal{Y}^{s,\epsilon}:=\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s(\T)$ via the norm $$\|u\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}:=\inf\{\|u_1\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}+\|u_2\|_{H^s(\T)}: \textrm{ if } u=u_1+u_2 \text{ for some } u_1\in \mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon},u_2\in H^s(\T) \}.$$ Since $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}$ and $H^s(\T)$ are continuously embedded into $L^2(\T)$, from Lemma 2.3.1 of [@Bergh], $(\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s,\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s})$ is a normed space. We introduce the summed space structure, since the gauged linear evolution part should be measured by $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}$ norm and the quantity $\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}$, while the nonlinear evolution should be measured by $H^s$ norm. The analysis in this section is somewhat soft and topological.\
We need to introduce some notations. For functions $f_1,f_2,f_3$, we extend the nonlinear quantity $\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\cdot)$ to the following canonical trilinear form: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(f_1,f_2,f_3):=\sum_{l\in\Z}\langle l\rangle^{-2}\big\| \chi_0(t)\mathcal{N}\big(\big(S_{\alpha}(t+l)f_{1},S_{\alpha}(t+l)f_{2},S_{\alpha}(t+l)f_{3} \big)
\big\|_{X^{s,-\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Note that for any two fixed entries, $\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\cdot,f_2,f_3), \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(f_1,\cdot,f_3)$ satisfy the triangle inequality. Given a finite set $\mathcal{J}$ of functions, the notation $$\sum_{f_{j}\in\mathcal{J} } \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big(f_1,f_2,f_3 \big)$$ means to sum over all possible $f_1,f_2,f_3\in\mathcal{J}$ of $\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(f_1,f_2,f_3)$. For the projector $\Pi_N^{\perp}$, we denote by $$\big(\Pi_{N}^{\perp}\big)^{j}=\Pi_N^{\perp},\text{ if }j=1;\quad \big(\Pi_{N}^{\perp}\big)^{j}=\mathrm{Id},\text{ if }j=0.$$ We will make use of the following simple quasi-invariance property.
\[quasi-invarianceW\] There exists a constant $A_1>0$, such that for all $|t_0|\leq \frac{1}{2}$ and all $\phi,\phi_1,\phi_2,\phi_3$ $$\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big(S_{\alpha}(t_0)\phi_1,S_{\alpha}(t_0)\phi_2,S_{\alpha}(t_0)\phi_3 \big)\leq A_1 \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi_1,\phi_2,\phi_3),\quad \|S_{\alpha}(t_0)\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}\leq A_1\|\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}.$$
From the support property of $\chi_0$, we have for any $t\in\R$, $|t_0|\leq \frac{1}{2}$, $$\chi_0(t-t_0)=\chi_0(t-t_0)\sum_{|m|\leq 3}\chi_0(t-m).$$ Note that the $X^{s,b}$ norm is invariant under the time-shifting, from Lemma \[time-localization\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \big\|\chi_0(t)\mathcal{N}\big(S_{\alpha}(t_0+t+l)\phi_1,S_{\alpha}(t_0+t+l)\phi_2,S_{\alpha}(t_0+t+l)\phi_3 \big) \big\|_{X^{s,b}}\\ \leq &C\sum_{|m|\leq 3}\big\|\chi_0(t-m)\mathcal{N}\big(S_{\alpha}(t+l)\phi_1,S_{\alpha}(t+l)\phi_2,S_{\alpha}(t+l)\phi_3 \big) \big\|_{X^{s,b}}\\
\leq &C\sum_{|m|\leq 3}\|\chi_0(t)\mathcal{N}\big(S_{\alpha}(t+l+m)\phi_1,S_{\alpha}(t+l+m)\phi_2,S_{\alpha}(t+l+m)\phi_3 \big) \big\|_{X^{s,b}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Multiplying by $\langle l\rangle^{-2}$ and sum over $l\in\Z$, we obtain the first inequality. The second one follows from a similar argument, and we omit the details. This completes the proof of Lemma \[quasi-invarianceW\].
\[multi-linearW\] For all $f_1,f_2,f_3\in \widetilde{\mathcal{V}}^{q,\epsilon}$ and $g_1,g_2,g_3\in H^{s,}$, the following estimates hold $$\begin{split}
&(\mathrm{1})\quad \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(f_1,g_2,g_3)\lesssim \|f_1\|_{\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}^{q,\epsilon}}\|g_2\|_{H^{s}}\|h_3\|_{H^{s}}\,\, ,
\\
&(\mathrm{2})\quad \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(g_1,f_2,g_3)\lesssim \|g_1\|_{H^s}\|f_2\|_{\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}^{q,\epsilon}}\|g_3\|_{H^s}\,\, ,\\
&(\mathrm{3})\quad \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(g_1,g_2,f_3)\lesssim \|g_1\|_{H^s}\|g_2\|_{H^s}\|f_3\|_{\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}^{q,\epsilon}}\,\, ,\\
&(\mathrm{4})\quad \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(f_1,g_2,f_3)\lesssim \|f_1\|_{\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}^{q,\epsilon}}\|g_2\|_{H^s}\|f_3\|_{\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}^{q,\epsilon}}\,\, ,\\
&(\mathrm{5})\quad \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(f_1,f_2,g_3)\lesssim \|f_1\|_{\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}^{q,\epsilon}}\|f_2\|_{\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}^{q,\epsilon}}\|g_3\|_{H^s}\,\, ,\\
&(\mathrm{6})\quad \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(g_1,f_2,f_3)\lesssim \|g_1\|_{H^s}\|f_2\|_{\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}^{q,\epsilon}}\|f_3\|_{\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}^{q,\epsilon}}\,\, ,\\
&(\mathrm{7})\quad \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(g_1,g_2,g_3)\lesssim \|g_1\|_{H^s}\|g_2\|_{H^s}\|g_3\|_{H^s}\,\, .
\end{split}$$
Since the proof of each inequality is an application of the corresponding inequality in Proposition \[multi-linear\] and Corollary \[Trilinear\], we only prove (1). Take another cutoff $\widetilde{\chi}_0(t)$ such that $\widetilde{\chi}_0(t)=1$ on the support of $\chi_0$. Thus for every $l\in\Z$, from Lemma \[inhomo-linear\] and (1) of Proposition \[multi-linear\], we estimate $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big\|\chi_0(t)\int_0^tS_{\alpha}(t-t')\mathcal{N}\big(S_{\alpha}(t'+l)f_1,S_{\alpha}(t'+l)g_2,S_{\alpha}(t'+l)g_3 \big)dt'\Big\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}} \\=&\Big\|\chi_0(t)\int_0^tS_{\alpha}(t-t')\mathcal{N}\big(\widetilde{\chi}_0^3(t')S_{\alpha}(t'+l)f_1,S_{\alpha}(t'+l)g_2,S_{\alpha}(t'+l)g_3 \big)dt'\Big\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\\
\lesssim & \|S_{\alpha}(l)f_1\|_{\mathcal{Z}^{q,\epsilon}} \|\widetilde{\chi}_0(t)S_{\alpha}(t+l)g_2\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}
\|\widetilde{\chi}_0(t)S_{\alpha}(t+l)g_3\|_{X^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\\
\lesssim &\|\chi_l(t)S_{\alpha}(t)f_1\|_{L_t^{\infty}\mathcal{F}L^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-\epsilon,\frac{2}{\epsilon}}\cap L_t^qW_x^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\epsilon,\frac{1}{\epsilon}} }\|g_2\|_{H^s}\|g_3\|_{H^s}.\end{aligned}$$ To complete the proof of Lemma \[multi-linearW\], we multiply by $\langle l\rangle^{-2}$ and sum over $l\in\Z$.
For $\phi,\psi$, we define the pseudo-distance $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pseuso-distance}
\mathbf{d}(\phi,\psi):=\sum_{f_2,f_3\in \{\phi,\psi \} } 2\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big(\phi-\psi,f_2,f_3\big)+\sum_{f_1,f_3\in\{\phi,\psi\} } \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big(f_1,\phi-\psi,f_3\big).\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\mathbf{d}(\phi,\psi)=\mathbf{d}(\psi,\phi)$. For $i_1,i_2,i_3\in\{0,1 \}$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pseudo-tail}
\Gamma_{N,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(f_1,f_2,f_3):=\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big(\big(\Pi_N^{\perp}\big)^{i_1}f_1,\big(\big(\Pi_N^{\perp}\big)^{i_2}f_2,
\big(\big(\Pi_N^{\perp}\big)^{i_3}f_3 \big).\end{aligned}$$ We denote by $\Gamma_{N,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(f):=\Gamma_{N,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(f,f,f)$. For any two fixed entries, $\Gamma_{N,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}$ satisfies the triangle inequality for the third entry. We will also need the following lemma.
\[abstract\] Let $V,W$ be two normed spaces. Let $(\phi_k)_{k\in\N}\subset V+W$ be a bounded sequence and $\phi\in V+W$. Assume that $\phi_k\rightarrow \phi$ in $V+W$. Then there exist subsequences $(\varphi_k)_{k\in\N}\subset V$ and $(\psi_k)_{k\in\N}\subset W$, $\varphi\in V, \psi\in W$, satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
&\limsup_{k\rightarrow\infty}\big(\|\varphi_k\|_V +\|\psi_k\|_W \big)\leq \|\phi\|_{V+W}+1,\\
& \|\varphi\|_V +\|\psi\|_W\leq \|\phi\|_{V+W}+1,
\end{aligned}$$ such that $\varphi_k\rightarrow \varphi$ in $V$ and $\psi_k\rightarrow \psi$ in $W$.
By definition, for any $k$, there exist $f_k\in V, g_k\in W$, such that $\phi_k-\phi=f_k+g_k$, $f_k\rightarrow 0$ in $V$ and $g_k\rightarrow 0$ in $W$. There exist $\varphi\in V,\psi\in W$, such that $$\|\varphi\|_V+\|\psi\|_W\leq \|\phi\|_{V+W}+1.$$ Let $\varphi_k=\varphi+f_k$ and $\psi_k=\psi+g_k$, then $$\|\varphi_k\|_V+\|\psi_k\|_{W}\leq \|\varphi\|_V+\|\psi\|_W+\|f_k\|_V+\|g_k\|_W\leq \|\phi\|_{V+W}+1+o(1)$$ as $k\rightarrow\infty$. This completes the proof of Lemma \[abstract\].
The key step to construct the invariant set and the global dynamics is the following enhanced local convergence result.
\[enhanced-localconvergence\] Assume that $\alpha,q,\epsilon$ be the numerical constants as in Proposition \[LWP-main\]. Let $(\phi_{k})\subset \mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s$, $\phi\in \mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s$ satisfying $$\|\phi_{k}\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}+\|\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}\leq R,\quad \lim_{k\rightarrow\infty} \|\phi_k-\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}=0.$$ Let $N_k\rightarrow\infty$ be a subsequence of $\N$. For $\mathcal{J}_k=\{\phi_k,\phi \}$, assume that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ugly1}
\sum_{\substack{f_{j}\in\mathcal{J}_k\\
i_1,i_2,i_3\in\{0,1\} } } \Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(f_1,f_2,f_3)\leq R^3.
\end{aligned}$$ Assume moreover that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ugly2}
\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{\substack{f_{j}\in\mathcal{J}_k\\
i_1,i_2,i_3\in\{0,1\}\\
i_1+i_2+i_3>0 } } \Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(f_1,f_2,f_3)=0,
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ugly3}
\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\mathbf{d}(\phi_k,\phi)=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Then there exist $c>0, \kappa>0$, such that for all $t\in [-\tau_R,\tau_R]$ with $\tau_R=c(R+2)^{-\kappa}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{convergence:iterated1}
\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\|\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_{k}-\Phi(t)\phi \|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, with $\mathcal{J}_{k,t}=\{\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k, \Phi(t)\phi \}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ugly5}
\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{ \substack{ f_j\in\mathcal{J}_{k,t}\\
i_1,i_2,i_3\in\{0,1\}\\ i_1+i_2+i_3>0 } } \Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(f_1,f_2,f_3)=0,
\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ugly6'}
\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\mathbf{d}\big(\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k,\Phi(t)\phi\big)=0.
\end{aligned}$$
As a consequence of and , we have $\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi_k-\phi)\rightarrow 0$. This convergence relation is enough to prove that $\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k-\Phi(t)\phi\rightarrow 0$ in $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s$. The closeness of the conditions , are important for the iteration.
Thanks to Lemma \[abstract\], there exist sequences $(\phi_{0,k})_{k\in\N}\subset \mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}, (r_{0,k})_{k\in\N}\subset H^s(\T)$, and $\phi_0\in \mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}, r_0\in H^s$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{decomposition}
\phi_k=\phi_{0,k}+r_{0,k}, \quad \phi=\phi_0+r_0,\end{aligned}$$ satisfying $$\|\phi_{0,k}\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}+\|r_{0,k}\|_{H^s}\leq R+2, \quad \|\phi_0\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}+\|r_0\|_{H^s}\leq R+2$$ and $$\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\big(\|\phi_{0,k}-\phi_0\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}+\|r_{0,k}-r_0\|_{H^s} \big)=0.$$ Moreover, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tail-r} \lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\|\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}r_0\|_{H^s}=0,\text{ and } \lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\|\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}r_{0,k}\|_{H^s}=0\end{aligned}$$ by writing $\|\Pi_{N_k}r_{0,k}\|_{H^s}\leq \|\Pi_{N_k}r_0\|_{H^s}+\|\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}(r_0-r_{0,k})\|_{H^s}$. Developing the trilinear expression of $\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi_{0,k}-\phi_0 )=\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big( (\phi_k-\phi_0)-(r_{0,k}-r_0) \big)$, from the hypothesis and Lemma \[multi-linearW\], we deduce that $$\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi_{0,k}-\phi_0)=0.$$ All the hypothesis of Proposition \[local-convergence\] are satisfied. We thus deduce that for all $t\in [-\tau_R,\tau_R]$, with $\tau_R=c(R+2)^{-\kappa}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k=&\underbrace{e^{\frac{it}{\pi}\|\Pi_{N_k}\phi_k\|_{L^2}^2 }\Pi_{N_k}S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_{0,k}+\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_{0,k}}_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon} \text{ part }}\\ + &\underbrace{ e^{\frac{it}{\pi}\|\Pi_{N_k}\phi_k\|_{L^2}^2 }\big(\Pi_{N_k}S_{\alpha}(t)r_{0,k}+w_k(t)) \big)+\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)r_{0,k}
}_{H^s\text{ part } },\\
\Phi(t)\phi=&\underbrace{e^{\frac{it}{\pi}\|\phi\|_{L^2}^2 }S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_{0}}_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon} \text{ part }} + \underbrace{ e^{\frac{it}{\pi}\|\phi\|_{L^2}^2 }\big(S_{\alpha}(t)r_{0}+w(t)) \big)
}_{H^s\text{ part } },
\end{aligned}$$ where $w_k(t)\in E_{N_k}$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{converge:wk} \lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{|t|\leq \tau_R}\|w_k(t)-w(t)\|_{H^s}=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Denote by $b_k(t)=e^{\frac{it}{\pi}\|\Pi_{N_k}\phi_k\|_{L^2}^2 } $, $b(t)=e^{\frac{it}{\pi}\|\phi\|_{L^2}^2 }$. Clearly, since $\phi_k\rightarrow \phi$ in $L^2(\T)$, $b_k(t)\rightarrow b(t)$ for all $t\in \R$. Taking the difference of $\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k$ and $\Phi(t)\phi$, we have $$\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k-\Phi(t)\phi=\varphi_k(t)+\psi_k(t),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\varphi_k(t)=&\big(b_k(t)-b(t) \big)\Pi_{N_k}S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_{0,k}+\big(1-b(t)\big)\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_0+\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)\big(\phi_{0,k}-\phi_0\big)\\
+&b(t)\Pi_{N_k}S_{\alpha}(t)(\phi_{0,k}-\phi_0),\\
\psi_k(t)=&b_k(t)\big(\Pi_{N_k}S_{\alpha}(t)(r_{0,k}-r_0)+w_k(t)-w(t) \big)+(b_k(t)-b(t))\big(\Pi_{N_k}S_{\alpha}(t)r_0+w(t)\big)\\
+&(1-b(t))\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)r_0+\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)(r_{0,k}-r_0).
\end{aligned}$$ From , we have for all $|t|\leq \tau_R$, $\psi_k(t)\rightarrow 0$ in $H^s$. To show that $\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k$ converges to $\Phi(t)\phi$ in $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s$, it will be sufficient to prove that $\varphi_k(t)\rightarrow 0$ in $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}$ for all $|t|\leq \tau_R$. We note that $\Pi_{N_k}, \Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}$ are uniformly bounded on $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}$, since they can be represented by Hilbert transformation, up to modulation. Thus from Lemma \[quasi-invarianceW\] we have $$\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\|\big(b_k(t)-b(t)\big)\Pi_{N_k}S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_{0,k} \|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}=0.$$ Next we prove that $\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_0$ converges to $0$ in $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}$. The Fourier-Lebesgue norm $\mathcal{F}L^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-\epsilon,\frac{2}{\epsilon} }$ of $\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_0$ converges to $0$ can be deduced easily from the fact that $S(t)\phi_0\in\mathcal{F}L^{\frac{\alpha}{2}-\epsilon,\frac{2}{\epsilon}}$. For the Sobolev norm $L_t^qW_x^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\epsilon,\frac{1}{\epsilon}}$, we first observe that for almost every $t'\in\R$, $\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t')S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_0\rightarrow 0$ in $W_x^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\epsilon,\frac{1}{\epsilon}}$. Indeed, the uniform boundeness of $\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}$ on $W_x^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\epsilon,\frac{1}{\epsilon}}$ allows us to first prove the convergence for smooth functions and then a density argument. By Lebesgue’s dominating convergence theorem, we have $\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}\chi_l(t')S_{\alpha}(t')S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_0\rightarrow 0$ in $L_t^qW_{x}^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\epsilon,\frac{1}{\epsilon}}$, for all $l\in\Z$. Consequently, $\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_0\rightarrow 0$ in $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}$. The convergence of the term $\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)(\phi_{0,k}-\phi_0)$ follows from the convergence of $\phi_{0,k}$ to $\phi_0$ in $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}$. Since the definition of $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}$ norm allows us to obtain a comparable norm after shifting $|t|\leq 1$. This proves .
Next we verify and . We first claim that after changing the constant $R$ to $R+(2R)^3$ and $\mathcal{J}_k$ to $\{\phi_{0,k},\phi_0 \}$, ,, still hold. Indeed, for each $f_j\in\{\phi_{0,k},\phi_0 \}$, by decomposition , there is a $\widetilde{f}_j\in\{\phi_{k},\phi \}$, such that $g_j=\widetilde{f}_j-f_j\in \{r_{0,k},r_0 \}$. Therefore, we can write $$\Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(f_1,f_2,f_3)\leq \Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(\widetilde{f}_1,f_2,f_3)+\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big((\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp})^{i_1} g_1,(\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp})^{i_2} f_2, (\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp})^{i_3}f_3 \big),$$ and the second term can be bounded by $R^3$ from Proposition \[multi-linearW\]. We successively replace $f_2$ by $\widetilde{f}_2$ and a term bounded by $R^3$. Thus we obtain the analogue for for $\phi_{0,k},\phi_0$ with the upper bound $R+2^3R^3$. Now if one of $i_1,i_2,i_3$ is non zero, say $i_1=1$, we have $$\Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{1,i_2,i_3}(f_1,f_2,f_3)\leq \Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{1,i_2,i_3}(\widetilde{f}_1,f_2,f_3)+\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big(\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp} g_1,(\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp})^{i_2} f_2, (\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp})^{i_3}f_3 \big).$$ From Proposition \[multi-linearW\] and , the second term of r.h.s can be bounded by $CR^2\|\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}g_1\|_{H^s}\cdot $, and it converges to $0$. Next, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{1,i_2,i_3}(\widetilde{f}_1,f_2,f_3)\leq&\Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{1,i_2,i_3}(\widetilde{f}_1,\widetilde{f}_2, f_3 )+ \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big(\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}\widetilde{f}_1, (\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp})^{i_2}g_2, (\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp})^{i_3} f_3 \big)\\
\leq & \Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{1,i_2,i_3}(\widetilde{f}_1,\widetilde{f}_2,\widetilde{f}_3)+\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big(\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}\widetilde{f}_1, (\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp})^{i_2}g_2, (\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp})^{i_3} f_3 \big)\\
+& \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big(\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}\widetilde{f}_1, (\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp})^{i_2}\widetilde{f}_2, (\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp})^{i_3} g_3 \big).\end{aligned}$$ Thus from Proposition \[multi-linearW\] and the assumption , $$\Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{1,i_2,i_3}(f_1,f_2,f_3)\leq o(1)+CR^2\|\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}\widetilde{f}_1\|_{\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}^{q,\epsilon}}.$$ Since by definition, $\|\Pi_{N}^{\perp}f\|_{\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}^{q,\epsilon} }\leq CN^{-\epsilon/2}\|\Pi_N^{\perp}f\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}$, we have $\Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{1,i_2,i_3}(f_1,f_2,f_3)=o(1)$, as $k\rightarrow\infty$. For the convergence of $\mathbf{d}(\phi_{0,k},\phi_0)$, by decomposition and using the triangle inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{d}(\phi_{0,k},\phi_0)\leq &\sum_{f_2,f_3\in \{\phi_{0,k},\phi_0 \} }\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi_k-\phi, f_2,f_3)+\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(r_{0,k}-r_0, f_2,f_3)\\
+&\sum_{f_1,f_3\in \{\phi_{0,k},\phi_0 \} }\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(f_1,\phi_k-\phi,f_3)+\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(f_1,r_{0,k}-r_0,f_3).\end{aligned}$$ From Proposition \[multi-linearW\], the terms containing the entries $r_{0,k}-r_0$ converge to $0$, and the rests containing only $\phi_k-\phi,\phi_k,\phi$ as entries, which can be bounded by $\mathbf{d}(\phi_k,\phi)$. Thus $\mathbf{d}(\phi_{0,k},\phi_0)\rightarrow 0$ as $k\rightarrow\infty$.\
Next we verify . Note that $$\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k=\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_{0,k}+\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)r_{0,k}$$ and $$\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}\Phi(t)\phi=b(t)\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)\phi+b(t)\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}w(t).$$ For any $f_1,f_2,f_3\in \{\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k, \Phi(t)\phi \}$, by the triangle inequality, $\Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{1,i_2,i_3}\big(f_1,f_2,f_3 \big)$ can be bounded by linear combinations of $$\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big(\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)\widetilde{f}_1, f_2,f_3 \big),\quad \widetilde{f}_1\in\{\phi_{0,k},b(t)\phi_0 \}$$ and $$\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big(\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)g_1,f_2,f_3 \big), \quad g_1\in\{ r_{0,k}, b(t)w(t) \}.$$ Since $\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}$ and $\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot )$ is quasi-invariant under an $S_{\alpha}(t)$ action for $|t|\leq 1$, we obtain after using the triangle inequalities, Proposition \[multi-linearW\] and the previous claim. Finally, to verify , we observe that $\mathbf{d}\big(\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k,\Phi(t)\phi \big)$ can be expressed as linear combinations of the forms $$\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big(\varphi_k(t)+\psi_k(t),f_2,f_3 \big),\quad \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big(f_1,\varphi_k(t)+\psi_k(t),f_3),\quad f_1,f_2,f_3\in \{\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k, \Phi(t)\phi \}$$ which contains the terms of the following forms: $$\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big(\psi_k(t),\cdot,\cdot \big), \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\cdot, \psi_k(t),\cdot);\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\varphi_k(t),\cdot,\cdot),\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\cdot,\varphi_k(t),\cdot).$$ From Proposition \[multi-linearW\], the first two type of terms containing $\psi_k(t)$ converge to $0$. For the other two terms, if there is one place $\cdot$ filled by some functions in $H^s$, it converges to $0$, by Proposition \[multi-linearW\] and the fact that $\varphi_k(t)\rightarrow 0$ in $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}$. The last possibility to treat is the term $\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\varphi_k(t),\varphi_k(t),\varphi_k(t) )$. By the triangle inequality, it can be bounded by the terms of the form $$\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\varphi_{1,k}(t),\varphi_{2,k}(t),\varphi_{3,k}(t) ),$$ where $\varphi_{j,k}(t)$ is one of the functions: $$\begin{aligned}
\big(b_k(t)-b(t) \big)\Pi_{N_k}S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_{0,k},\quad \big(1-b(t)\big)\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_0\\
\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)\big(\phi_{0,k}-\phi_0\big),\quad b(t)\Pi_{N_k}S_{\alpha}(t)(\phi_{0,k}-\phi_0).\end{aligned}$$ From the quasi-invariance of the quantity $\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$ under the $S_{\alpha}(t)$ action and hypothesis , , we deduce that $\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\varphi_{1,k}(t),\varphi_{2,k}(t),\varphi_{3,k}(t) )$ converges to $0$, hence is verified. The proof of Proposition \[enhanced-localconvergence\] is now complete.
Construction of the global flow
-------------------------------
\[longtime-1\] Assume that $s\in\big[\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4}-\alpha-1 \big)$ and $\sigma\leq\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\epsilon$. There exist constants $C>0, D>0$, $\delta>0$ such that for all $m\in\N, N\geq 1$, there exists a $\rho_N$ measurable set $\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^m\subset H^{\sigma}(\T)$, such that $$\rho_N(H^{\sigma}\setminus \widetilde{\Sigma}_N^m)\leq 2^{-m+1}.$$ For all $\phi\in\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^m$, $t\in\R$, $$\|\Phi_N(t)\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}+N^{\delta}\|\Pi_N^{\perp}\Phi_N(t)\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}\leq Cm^{3/2}\left(1+\log(1+|t|)\right)^{3/2},$$ and for all $i_1,i_2,i_3\in\{0,1 \}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{N,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}\big(\Phi_N(t)\phi \big) \leq CN^{-\delta(i_1+i_2+i_3)}m^{3/2}\left(1+\log(1+|t|)\right)^{3/2}.
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $$\|\Phi_N(t)\phi\|_{H^{\sigma}(\T)}\leq Cm^{3/2}\left(1+\log(1+|t|)\right)^{3/2}.$$ Moreover, for all $t_0\in\R$, $m\in\N, N\geq 1$, $$\label{including}
\Phi_N(t_0)(\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^m)\subset\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^{Dm(1+\log_2(1+|t_0|))}.$$
We need the following lemma.
\[decomposition1\] Assume that $\phi\in \mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s$ such that for some $R>0, \delta>0,$ $$\|\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}\leq R, \quad \|\Pi_{N}^{\perp}\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s }\leq N^{-\delta}R.$$ Then there exists $\phi_0\in\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}, r_0\in H^s$, such that $$\|\phi_0\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}+\|r_0\|_{H^s}\leq 2A_0(R+1), \quad \|\Pi_{N}^{\perp}\phi_0\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}+\|\Pi_{N}^{\perp}r_0\|_{H^s}\leq N^{-\delta}A_0(R+1),$$ where $A_0>0$ is a uniform constant.
By definition, there exists $\varphi_N,\varphi\in \mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}$ and $\psi_N,\psi\in H^s$, such that $$\phi=\varphi+\psi,\quad \Pi_{N}^{\perp}\phi=\varphi_N+\psi_N$$ and $$\|\varphi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}+\|\psi\|_{H^s}\leq R+1, \quad \|\varphi_N\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}+\|\psi_N\|_{H^s}\leq N^{-\delta}(R+1).$$ Note that in a priori, we do not know if $\varphi_N\in E_N^{\perp}$ and $\psi_N\in E_N^{\perp}$. Since $(\Pi_N^{\perp})^2\phi=\Pi_N^{\perp}\phi$, we can replace $\varphi_N,\psi_N$ by $\Pi_N^{\perp}\varphi_N, \Pi_N^{\perp}\psi_N$, from Lemma \[Dirichletkernel\], we have $$\|\Pi_{N}^{\perp}\varphi_N\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}+\|\Pi_N^{\perp}\psi_N\|_{H^s}\leq A_0N^{-\delta}(R+1), \quad \|\Pi_{N}\varphi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}+\|\Pi_N\psi\|_{H^s}\leq A_0(R+1).$$ Let $\phi_0=\Pi_N\varphi+\Pi_N^{\perp}\varphi_N, r_0=\Pi_N\psi+\Pi_N^{\perp}\psi_N$ and using the triangle inequality, the proof of Lemma \[decomposition1\] is complete.
The construction is slightly different compared to [@BTT-AIF], due to the multi-linear and sum space structures. For $m,k\in\N$ and $D>0$ to be chosen later, we define the set $$\label{BmkN}
\begin{split}
B_N^{m,k}(D):=&\big\{\phi\in H^{\sigma}(\T): \|\phi\|_{\mathcal{\mathcal{V}}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}\leq D(mk)^{3/2}, \|\Pi_N^{\perp}\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}\leq N^{-\delta}D(mk)^{3/2} \}\\
\cap &\big\{ \phi\in H^{\sigma}(\T): \forall i_1,i_2,i_3\in\{0,1 \}, \Gamma_{N,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(\phi) \leq N^{-\delta(i_1+i_2+i_3)}D^3(mk)^{9/2} \big\}.
\end{split}$$ By Lemma \[decomposition1\], for $\phi\in B_N^{m,k}(D)$, there exists a decomposition $ \phi=\phi_0+r_0 $, such that $$\|\phi_0\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}+\|r_0\|_{H^s}\leq 2A_0D(mk)^{3/2},
\quad \|\Pi_N^{\perp}\phi_0\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}+\|\Pi_N^{\perp}r_0\|_{H^s}\leq A_0N^{-\delta}D(mk)^{3/2}\,.$$ Arguing as in the proof of Proposition \[enhanced-localconvergence\], we deduce that there exists $C_0>0$, and $\delta<\frac{\epsilon}{6}$, such that $$\label{multilinearboundGamma}
\Gamma_{N,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(\phi_0)\leq C_0 N^{-\delta(i_1+i_2+i_3)}D^3(mk)^{9/2},\forall i_1,i_2,i_3\in\{0,1 \}.$$ From Proposition \[LWP-main\], the time for local existence is $ \tau_{m,k}=c(2A_0D)^{-\kappa}(mk)^{-\frac{3\kappa}{2}}.
$ Then for any $|t|\leq\tau_{m,k}$, we can write the solution as $$\begin{aligned}
&\Phi_N(t)\phi=\varphi_N(t)+\psi_N(t),\\
&\varphi_N(t)=e^{\frac{it}{\pi}\|\Pi_{N}\phi\|_{L^2}^2 }\Pi_{N}S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_{0}+\Pi_{N}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_{0}\in \mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}\,, \\ &\psi_N(t)= e^{\frac{it}{\pi}\|\Pi_{N}\phi\|_{L^2}^2 }\big(\Pi_{N}S_{\alpha}(t)r_{0}+w_N(t) \big)+\Pi_{N}^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)r_{0}\in H^s
\end{aligned}$$ with the property that $w_N(t)\in E_N$, and $$\label{boundeness}
\begin{split}
\sup_{|t|\leq \tau_{m,k}}\big(\|\varphi_N(t)\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}+\|\psi_N(t)\|_{H^s} \big)\leq 4A_0D(mk)^{3/2},
\end{split}$$ since $S_{\alpha}(t)$ keeps invariant of the $H^s$ norm, quasi-invariant the $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}$ and $\Pi_N^{\perp}w_N=0$. Therefore, for $|t|\leq \tau_{m,k}$ $$\label{boundeness1}
\begin{split}
\|\Phi_N(t)\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s }\leq 4A_0D(mk)^{3/2}.
\end{split}$$ Since $$\Pi_{N}^{\perp}\Phi_N(t)\phi=\Pi_N^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)(\phi_0+r_0),$$ from the quasi-invariance of the norm $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}$ under $S_{\alpha}(t), |t|\leq \frac{1}{2}$, we obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\Pi_N^{\perp}\Phi_N(t)\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}\leq A_1\|\Pi_N^{\perp}\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}\leq A_1N^{-\delta}D(mk)^{3/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Next, we estimate the quantities $\Gamma_{N,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(\Phi_N(t)\phi)$ for all $i_1,i_2,i_3\in\{0,1 \}$. By expanding $\Phi_N(t)\phi=\varphi_N(t)+\psi_N(t)$ and using the triangle inequality, we note that except for the term $ \Gamma_{N,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(\varphi_N(t))$, the other terms are of the form $$\Gamma_{N,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(\psi_N(t),\cdot,\cdot), \Gamma_{N,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(\cdot,\psi_N(t),\cdot),\Gamma_{N,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(\cdot,\cdot,\psi_N(t)).$$ Therefore, from Proposition \[multi-linearW\], the terms containing $\psi_N$ in one of their entries can be estimated by $$C\big\|\psi_N(t) \big\|_{H^s}^3+C\|\varphi_N(t)\|_{\widetilde{\mathcal{V}}^{q,\epsilon}}^3\leq CD^3(mk)^{3/2}.$$ Furthermore, if one of $i_1+i_2+i_3>0$, we gain $N^{-\delta}$ with $\delta<\frac{\epsilon}{6}$ from either $\|\Pi_N^{\perp}r_0\|_{H^s}\leq A_0N^{-\delta}D(mk)^{3/2} $ or $\|\Pi_N^{\perp}\phi_0\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}\leq A_0N^{-\delta}D(mk)^{3/2}$. For the term $\Gamma_{N,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(\varphi_N(t))$, we use the triangle inequality to estimate it by the sum of the terms $\Gamma_{N,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(f_1,f_2,f_3 )$, where $f_1,f_2,f_3\in \{e^{\frac{it}{\pi}\|\Pi_N\phi\|_{L^2}^2}\Pi_NS_{\alpha}(t)\phi_0, \Pi_N^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_0 \} $. From Lemma \[quasi-invarianceW\], we obtain that $$\Gamma_{N,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(\varphi_N(t))\leq 2^3C_0A_1N^{-\delta(i_1+i_2+i_3)}D^3(mk)^{9/2}.$$ Consequently, for all $|t|\leq \tau_{m,k}$ and $i_1,i_2,i_3\in\{0,1\}$, $$\Gamma_{N,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}\big(\Phi_N(t)\phi \big)\leq C_1N^{-\delta(i_1+i_2+i_3)}D^3(mk)^{9/2}.$$ Since $\|\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}\leq \|\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}$, we deduce from Corollary \[convergence:W\] and Lemma \[linear-convergence\] that $$\rho_N(H^{\sigma}\setminus B_N^{m,k}(D))\leq e^{-cD^{2/3}mk}.$$ Next, we set $$\label{dataset0}
\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^{m,k}(D):=\bigcap_{|j|\leq \frac{2^k}{\tau_{m,k}}}\Phi_N(-j\tau_{m,k})\big(B_N^{m,k}(D)\big),$$ from the invariance of $\rho_N$ under the flow $\Phi_N(t)$, we have $$\begin{split}
&\rho_N\big(H^{\sigma}\setminus \widetilde{\Sigma}_N^{m,k}(D) \big)\leq \sum_{|j|\leq \frac{2^k}{\tau_{m,k}}} \rho_N\big(H^{\sigma}\setminus \Phi_N(-j\tau_{m,k})\big(B_N^{m,k}(D) \big) \big)\\
\leq & \frac{2^{k+2}}{\tau_{m,k}}\rho_N\big(H^{\sigma}\setminus B_N^{m,k}(D) \big)
\leq \frac{2^{k+2}}{c}D^{\kappa}(mk)^{\frac{3\kappa}{2}} e^{-cD^{2/3}(mk)}\leq 2^{-mk},
\end{split}$$ provided that $D$ is chosen large enough. Now we define the desired data set by $$\label{dataset1}
\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^m:=\bigcap_{k\geq 1}\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^{m,k}(D).$$ It is clear that $\rho_N\big(H^{\sigma}\setminus\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^m\big)\leq 2^{-m+1}$.\
Finally, we prove . Let $m_0=Dm\log_2(1+|t_0|)$. Take any $\phi\in\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^m$, by definitions and , we need to show that for any $l\geq 1$ and $|j|\leq 2^l/\tau_{m_0,l}$, $\Phi_N(j\tau_{m_0,l})\Phi_N(t_0)\phi\in B_N^{m_0,l}(D)$. By definition of the set $B_N^{m,k}(D)$ in , we observe that for any $C_0\geq 1$ and $l_0\geq ,l_0\in\N$, $$\label{inclu}
B_N^{m,k}(C_0D)\subset B_N^{(\lfloor C_1^{\frac{2}{3}}\rfloor+1)m,k}(D),\quad B_N^{m,l_0k}(D)=B_N^{l_0m,k}(D).$$ Moreover, a previous argument (the local theory) yields $$\label{shorttime}
\Phi_N(t)(B_N^{m,k}(D))\subset B_N^{m,k}(C_2D),\forall |t|\leq \tau_{m,k}$$ where $C_2>4A_0+A_1+C_1$ is some uniform constant. For $t_0\neq 0$, without loss of generality, we assume that $|t_0|\geq 1$. Then there exists $k_0\in\N$, such that $2^{k_0}\leq |t_0|<2^{k_0+1}$. Denote by $k_1=k_0+2$. Take $\phi\in \widetilde{\Sigma}_N^m$. If $l< k_1$, then $|t_0+j\tau_{m_0,l}|\leq 2^{2k_1-1}$, and there exists $|j_2|\leq 2^{2k_1}/\tau_{m,2k_1}$, such that $|t_0+j\tau_{m_0,l}-j_2\tau_{m,2k_1}|\leq\tau_{m,2k_1}$. Thus by definition and $$\Phi_N(t_0+j\tau_{m_0,l})\phi=\Phi_N(t_0+j\tau_{m_0,l}-j_2\tau_{m,2k_1})\Phi_N(j_2\tau_{m,2k_1})\phi\in B_N^{m,2k_1}(C_2D).$$ Using , we have $$\Phi_N(t_0+j\tau_{m_0,l})\phi\in B_N^{(\lfloor C_2^{\frac{2}{3}}\rfloor+1)2mk_1,1}(D)\subset B_N^{m_0,l}(D),$$ provided that $D$ is chosen large enough. If $l\geq k_1$, then $|t_0+j\tau_{m_0,l}|\leq 2^{2l-1}$. Then without loss of generality, there exists $j_2\leq 2^{2l}/\tau_{m,2l}$, such that $$j_2\tau_{m,2l}\leq |t_0+j\tau_{m_0,l}|\leq (j_2+1)\tau_{m,2l},$$ and we can write $$\Phi_N(t_0+j\tau_{m_0,l})\phi=\Phi_N(t_0+j\tau_{m_0,l}-j_2\tau_{m,2l} )\Phi_N(j_2\tau_{m,2l})\phi\in B_N^{m,2l}(C_2D).$$ Again from , we have $\Phi_N(t_0+j\tau_{m_0,l})\phi\in B_N^{(\lfloor C_2^{\frac{2}{3}} \rfloor+1)2m,l}(D)\subset B_N^{m_0,l}(D)$. This completes the proof of Proposition \[longtime-1\].
Define $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma^m:=\Big\{ \phi\in \mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s\,:\, \,&\exists\, N_k\rightarrow\infty, \phi_k\in \widetilde{\Sigma}_{N_k}^m, \|\phi_k-\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}\rightarrow 0, \mathbf{d}(\phi_k,\phi)\rightarrow 0, \\
& \text{ and } \sum_{ \substack{f_j\in\{\phi_k,\phi \}\\ i_1+i_2+i_3>0} }\Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(f_1,f_2,f_3)\rightarrow 0 \Big\}.
\end{aligned}$$
Assume that $\sigma\leq \frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\epsilon$ as in Proposition \[longtime-1\]. Then $$\label{inclusion}
\begin{split}
\limsup_{N\rightarrow\infty}\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^m=\bigcap_{N=1}^{\infty}\bigcup_{N'=N}\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^m\subset \Sigma^m.
\end{split}$$ and $$\rho(\Sigma^m)\geq \rho(H^{\sigma})-2^{-m}.$$
We first prove the inclusion . Take $\phi\in \limsup_{N}\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^m$, there exists a sequence $N_k\rightarrow\infty$, such that $\phi\in \widetilde{\Sigma}_{N_k}^m$ for all $k$. We set $\phi_k=\phi$, then trivially we verify that $\phi\in\Sigma^m$. By Fatou’s lemma, $$\rho(\Sigma^m)=\rho\big(\limsup_{N\rightarrow\infty}\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^m \big)\geq \limsup_{N\rightarrow\infty}\rho\big(\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^m\big).$$ From the construction of the Gibbs measure, we know that $$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\big(\rho\big(\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^m\big)-\rho_N\big(\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^m\big) \big)=0.$$ Therefore, from Proposition \[longtime-1\], we have $$\limsup_{N\rightarrow\infty}\rho\big(\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^m\big)\geq \limsup_{N\rightarrow\infty}\rho_N\big(\widetilde{\Sigma}_N^m\big)\geq \rho(H^{\sigma})-2^{-m}.$$
Consequently, the set $$\Sigma:=\bigcup_{m=1}^{\infty}\Sigma^m$$ is of full $\rho$ measure. The last step to prove Theorem \[thm6\] is the following proposition, ensuring the global existence and the flow property of $\Phi(t)$.
\[longtime-2\] For every integer $m\in\N$ and every $\phi\in\Sigma^m$, the solution $\Phi(t)\phi$ with initial data $\phi$ is globally defined. Moreover, there exists $C>0$, such that for every $\phi\in\Sigma^m$ and $t\in\R$, we have $$\|\Phi(t)\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}+\big(\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\Phi(t)\phi )\big)^{\frac{1}{3}}\leq Cm^{\frac{3}{2}}\big(1+\log(1+|t|)\big)^{3/2}.$$ Furthermore, $\Phi(t)\Sigma=\Sigma$. In other words, the flow map $\Phi(t)$ is globally defined on $\Sigma$.
Take $\phi\in \Sigma^m$, by definition, there is a sequence $N_k\rightarrow\infty$, and a sequence $\phi_k\in\widetilde{\Sigma}_{N_k}^m$, such that $$\|\phi_k-\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}+\mathbf{d}(\phi_k,\phi)\rightarrow 0,\quad k\rightarrow\infty,$$ and $$\label{limit} \lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{ \substack{f_j\in\{\phi_k,\phi,\}\\ i_1+i_2+i_3>0 }}\Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(f_1,f_2,f_3)=0.$$ By definition, for all $k\in \N$ and $t\in\R$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \|\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}+N_k^{\delta}\|\Pi_{N_k}^{\perp}\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s} \leq Cm^{\frac{3}{2}}\big(1+\log(1+|t|)\big)^{3/2},\label{bound1}\\
&\Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k)\leq CN_{k}^{-\delta(i_1+i_2+i_3)}m^{\frac{9}{2}}\big(1+\log(1+|t|)\big)^{9/2}.\label{bound2}
\end{aligned}$$ At $t=0$, passing $k$ to the limit, we obtain that $\|\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}\leq C(m+1)^{3/2}$. Using triangle inequality, we deduce that for any $f_1,f_2,f_3\in\{\phi_k,\phi \}$, $$\Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{0,0,0}(f_1,f_2,f_3)\leq \Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{0,0,0}(\phi_k)+3\mathbf{d}(\phi_k,\phi).$$ Thus from and we have $$\sum_{ \substack{f_j\in\{\phi_k,\phi,\}\\ i_1,i_2,i_3\in\{0,1\} }}\Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(f_1,f_2,f_3)\leq C(m+1)^{9/2}.$$ Denote by $\Lambda_T=2Cm^{\frac{3}{2}}\big(1+\log(1+|t|)\big)^{3/2}$ for any given $T>0$. We need show that there exists a uniform constant $C'>0$, such that $\Phi(t)\phi$ exists on $[0,T]$ and satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\Phi(t)\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s }+\big(\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\Phi(t)\phi)\big)^{\frac{1}{3}}\leq C'\Lambda_T.
\end{aligned}$$ Let $\tau_T=c2^{-\kappa}(\Lambda_T+1)^{-\kappa}$, the time in Proposition \[enhanced-localconvergence\] for $R=2(\Lambda_T+1)$ and divide $[0,T]$ by $N_T\sim T/\tau_T$ intervals of size $\tau_T$. With $R=2(\Lambda_T+1)$, the hypotheses of Proposition \[enhanced-localconvergence\] are satisfied. Thus we have for $t\in[0,\tau_T]$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{convergencelinearnorm}
\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\|\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_{k}-\Phi(t)\phi \|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, with $\mathcal{J}_{k,t}=\{\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k, \Phi(t)\phi \}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\sum_{ \substack{ f_j\in\mathcal{J}_{k,t}\\
i_1,i_2,i_3\in\{0,1\}\\ i_1+i_2+i_3>0 } } \Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(f_1,f_2,f_3)=0,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{convergencepseudodisance}
\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\mathbf{d}\big(\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k,\Phi(t)\phi\big)=0.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k\in\widetilde{\Sigma}_{N_k}^{Dm(1+\log(1+|t|))}$, then by definition $$\Phi(t)\phi\in \Sigma^{Dm(1+\log_2(1+|t|))},\quad \forall |t|\leq \tau_T.$$ By passing $k$ to infinity, implies that $$\|\Phi(t)\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}\leq Cm^{\frac{3}{2}}(1+\log(1+|\tau_T|))^{3/2}\leq R/2.$$ Similarly, using and passing $k\rightarrow\infty$ of at $t=\tau_T$, we obtain that $$\sum_{ \substack{ f_j\in\mathcal{J}_{k,t}\\
i_1,i_2,i_3\in\{0,1\}\\ i_1+i_2+i_3>0 } } \Gamma_{N_k,s,\epsilon}^{i_1,i_2,i_3}(f_1,f_2,f_3)\leq R^3/2.$$ In particular, the hypotheses of Proposition \[enhanced-localconvergence\] are satisfied for the initial data $\Phi(\tau_T)\phi$ and the approximating sequence $(\Phi_{N_k}(\tau_T)\phi_k)_{k\in\N}$, with the same $R=2(\Lambda_T+1)$. This allows us to repeatedly use Proposition \[enhanced-localconvergence\] to the interval $[2\tau_T,3\tau_T],\cdots, [(N_T-1)\tau_T,N_T\tau_T] $. This procedure shows that the solution $\Phi(t)\phi$ exists globally in $t\in\R$. Moreover, $$\Phi(t)\phi\in \Sigma^{Dm(1+\log_2(1+|t|)) }$$ holds for all $t\in\R$. This implies that $\Phi(t)\Sigma^m\subset \Sigma$, hence $\Phi(t)\Sigma\subset \Sigma$. By reversibility, we have $\Phi(t)\Sigma=\Sigma$. Note that the structure of the solution allows us to pass to the limit of the relation $$\Phi_N(t+s)=\Phi_N(t)\circ\Phi_N(s),\forall t,s\in\R.$$ Therefore, the limit flow $\Phi(t)$ satisfies the group property. This completes the proof of Proposition \[longtime-2\].
Measure invariance
------------------
To prove the measure convergence, by reversibility of the flow $\Phi(t)$ and the reduction argument in [@BTT-AIF] (see also [@Tz-AIF; @Sun-Tz]), it suffices to show that for any $R>0$ any any $H^{\sigma}$ compact subset of $\mathcal{B}_R$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{invariance}
\rho(K)\leq\rho(\Phi(t)\rho(K)), \end{aligned}$$ where $$\mathcal{B}_R:=\big\{\phi\,:\, \|\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}\leq R, \,\,\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi)\leq R^3 \big\}.$$ We need the following approximation lemma.
\[approximation\] There exists $C_0>0$, such that the following holds true. For every large $R\geq 1$, small $\epsilon>0$, and every compact set $K\subset\mathcal{B}_R$ with respect to the $H^{\sigma}$ topology, there exists $N_0\geq 1,\kappa>0,c>0$, such that for all $N\geq N_0, \phi\in K,|t|\leq \tau_R=cR^{-\kappa}$, we have $$\|\Phi(t)\phi-\Phi_N(t)\phi \|_{H^{\sigma}}<\epsilon.$$
This is a simple consequence of the local well-posedness. Write $$\Phi(t)\phi=e^{\frac{it}{\pi}\|\phi\|_{L^2}^2 }\big(\Pi_N\Psi(t)\phi,\Pi_N^{\perp}\Psi(t)\phi \big), \quad \Phi_N(t)\phi=\big(e^{\frac{it}{\pi}\|\Pi_N\phi\|_{L^2}^2 }\Pi_N\Psi_N(t)\phi, \Pi_N^{\perp}\Psi_N(t)\phi \big),$$ where $\Psi_N(t)\phi$ ($\Psi(t)\phi$) is the local solution of the Wick-ordered truncated (non-truncated) equation. Note that from the compactness of $K$ in $H^{\sigma}$, the convergences of $ \|\Pi_N\phi\|_{L^2}$ to $ \|\phi\|_{L^2}
$ and $\|\Pi_N^{\perp}\phi\|_{H^{\sigma}}$ to $0$ are uniform. Therefore, it suffices to prove the uniform convergence of $\Psi_N(t)\phi$ to $\Psi(t)\phi$ in $H^{\sigma}$.
From Proposition \[LWP-main\], we have, for $|t|\leq\tau_R= cR^{-\kappa}$ $$\Psi_N(t)\phi=S_{\alpha}(t)\phi+w_N(t), \quad \Psi(t)\phi=S_{\alpha}(t)\phi+w(t),$$ where the nonlinear parts $w_N(t)\in E_N, w(t)\in H^s$ satisfy the integral equations: $$w_N(t)=-i\Pi_N\int_0^tS_{\alpha}(t-t')\mathcal{N}\big(\Psi_N(t')\phi\big)dt',\quad w(t)=-i\int_0^tS_{\alpha}(t-t')\mathcal{N}\big(\Psi(t')\phi\big)dt',$$ and $$\|w_N\|_{X_T^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}+\|w\|_{X_T^{s,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\leq T^{\theta}R^3,$$ if $T\leq\tau_R$. Expanding the trilinear expression $\mathcal{N}(\cdot)$ and using Proposition \[multi-linear\], we obtain that $$\|w_N(t)-w(t)\|_{X_T^{s_1,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\leq \|\Pi_N^{\perp}w\|_{X_T^{s_1,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}+CT^{\theta}R^3\|w_N-w\|_{X_T^{s_1,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}},$$ where $s_1\in[\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\alpha}{4},s)$. Taking $\kappa>0$ large enough and $T\leq T_R=cR^{-\kappa}$, we obtain that $$\|w_N-w\|_{X_{T_R}^{s_1,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\leq C\|\Pi_N^{\perp}w\|_{X_T^{s_1,\frac{1}{2}+2\epsilon}}\leq CN^{-(s-s_1)}T^{\theta}R^3.$$ This proves the uniform convergence of $\Psi_N(t)\phi-\Psi(t)\phi$ to $0$ in $H^{s_1}(\T)\hookrightarrow H^{\sigma}(\T)$. The proof of Lemma \[approximation\] is now complete.
To finish the proof of the measure invariance, we observe that for any $\epsilon>0$, from Fatou’s lemma and the approximation Lemma \[approximation\], we have $$\rho\big(\Phi(t)(K)+B_{\delta}^{H^{\sigma}} \big)\geq \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\rho_N\big(\Phi(t)(K)+B_{\delta}^{H^{\sigma}} \big)\geq \limsup_{N\rightarrow\infty}\rho_N\big(\Phi_N(t)(K)+B_{c\delta}^{H^{\sigma}} \big),$$ for all $|t|\leq \tau_R$. Thus from invariance of $\rho_N$ under $\Phi_N(t)$, we have $$\limsup_{N\rightarrow\infty}\rho_N(\Phi_N(t)(K)+B_{c\delta}^{H^{\sigma}} )\geq \limsup_{N\rightarrow\infty}\rho_N(K)=\rho(K).$$ Passing $\delta\rightarrow 0$, we obtain that for $|t|\leq T_R$, we have $\rho(\Phi(t)(K))\geq \rho(K)$. Iterating the argument, we obtain for all $t\in\R$. This proves the invariance of the Gibbs measure. The proof of Theorem \[thm6\] is then complete.
From the invariance of the Gibbs measure $d\rho=e^{-V}d\mu$ by $\Phi(t)$, the transported measure $\mu^t=\Phi(t)_*\mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$. By the Radon-Nikodym theorem, for every $t\in\R$ there exists a function $G(t)\in L^1(d\mu)$, $G\geq 0$ such that $\mu^t=G(t)d\mu$. Set $$d\nu_{j}(u)=f_{j}(u)d\mu(u),\quad j=1,2$$ and $d\nu_j^t(u)=\Phi(t)_*d\nu_j(u)$. Then for a test function $\Psi$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{H^\sigma} \Psi(u)d\nu^t_{j}(u) & = & \int_{H^\sigma} \Psi(\Phi(t)(u)) d\nu_{j}(t)
\\
& = &
\int_{H^\sigma} \Psi(\Phi(t)(u)) f_j(u)d\mu(u)
\\
& = &
\int_{H^\sigma} \Psi(u) f_j(\Phi(-t)(u))G(t,u) d\mu(u)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $d\nu^t_{j}(u)=F_j(t,u)d\mu(u)$ with $F_{j}(t,u)= f_j(\Phi(-t)(u))G(t,u)$. Next, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{H^\sigma}|F_1(t,u)-F_{2}(t,u)|d\mu(u) & = & \int_{H^\sigma} |f_1(\Phi(-t)(u))-f_{2}(\Phi(-t)(u))|G(t,u)d\mu(u)
\\
& = & \int_{H^\sigma}|f_1(u)-f_2(u)|d\mu(u).\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof of Corollary \[stability\].
Almost sure convergence of smooth solutions
-------------------------------------------
In this section, we prove Theorem \[thm5\]. The key point is the following local stability result, which is a version of the enhanced local convergence.
\[enhanced-localconvergenec2\] Assume that $\alpha,q,\epsilon$ be the numerical constants as in Proposition \[LWP-main\]. Let $(\phi_{k})\subset \mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s$, $\phi\in \mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s$ satisfying $$\|\phi_{k}\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}+\|\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}\leq R,\quad \lim_{k\rightarrow\infty} \|\phi_k-\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}=0.$$ Assume moreover that $$\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\mathbf{d}(\phi_k,\phi)=0$$ and for all $k\in\N$, $$\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi_k)\leq R^3, \quad \mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi)\leq R^3.$$ Then there exist $c>0, \kappa>0$, such that for all $t\in [-\tau_R,\tau_R]$ with $\tau_R=c(R+2)^{-\kappa}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{|t|\leq \tau_R}\|\Phi(t)\phi_{k}-\Phi(t)\phi \|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}=0.
\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, with $\mathcal{J}_{k,t}=\{\Phi(t)\phi_k, \Phi(t)\phi \}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\mathbf{d}\big(\Phi(t)\phi_k,\Phi(t)\phi\big)=0.
\end{aligned}$$
Comparing with Proposition \[enhanced-localconvergence\], the only difference here is that instead of comparing the flow $\Phi(t)\phi$ with the truncated truncated flow $\Phi_{N_k}(t)\phi_k$, we compare it with the real flow $\Phi(t)\phi_k$.
The proof is almost the same as the proof of Proposition \[enhanced-localconvergence\], and we only give a sketch. First we have the same decomposition $\phi_k=\phi_{0,k}+r_{0,k}, \phi=\phi_0+r_0$ as in with the same property. Arguing as before, we have $$\mathbf{d}(\phi_{0,k},\phi_0)\rightarrow 0.$$ On the same local existence time interval $[-\tau_R,\tau_R]$ as in Proposition \[enhanced-localconvergence\], we have for any $|t|\leq \tau_R$, the difference of $\Phi(t)\phi_k-\Phi(t)\phi$ can be written as $\varphi_k(t)+\psi_k(t)$, where the $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}$ part is $ \varphi_k(t)=b_k(t)S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_{0,k}-b(t)S_{\alpha}(t)\phi_0,$ with $b_k(t)=e^{\frac{it}{\pi}\|\phi_k\|_{L^2}^2 }, b(t)=e^{\frac{it}{\pi}\|\phi\|_{L^2}^2 }.
$ The $H^s$ part is $\psi_k(t)=b_k(t)S_{\alpha}(t)r_{0,k}-b(t)S_{\alpha}(t)r_0+b_k(t)w_k(t)-b(t)w(t)$, where $$\|r_{0,k}-r_0\|_{H^s}\rightarrow 0,\quad \sup_{|t|\leq \tau_R}\|w_k(t)-w(t) \|_{H^s}\rightarrow 0.$$ Thus by quasi-invariance of the $\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}$ norm and the quantity $\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\cdot)$ under $S_{\alpha}(t)$, we deduce that $$\sup_{|t|\leq \tau_R}\|\varphi_k(t)\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}\rightarrow 0, \quad \sup_{|t|\leq\tau_R}\|\psi_k(t)\|_{H^s}\rightarrow 0, \quad \mathbf{d}(\Phi(t)\phi_k, \Phi(t)\phi)\rightarrow 0.$$ This completes the proof of Proposition \[enhanced-localconvergenec2\].
Now we prove Theorem \[thm5\].
We follow the argument in [@Sun-Tz]. By the Borel-Cantelli lemma, it is sufficient to show that for any $T>0$, we have the almost convergence of the smooth solutions on the time interval $[0,T]$. We introduce an extra data set $$\widetilde{\Sigma}:=\bigcup_{l=1}^{\infty}\bigcap_{l'=l}^{\infty}\widetilde{\Sigma}_{l'},\quad$$ where $$\widetilde{\Sigma}_{l}:=\big\{\phi\,:\, N^{\epsilon_0(i_1+i_2+i_3)}\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}\big((\Pi_N^{\perp})^{i_1}\phi,(\Pi_N^{\perp})^{i_2}\phi,(\Pi_N^{\perp})^{i_3}\phi \big)\leq l^{\frac{3}{2}},\forall i_1,i_2,i_3\in\{0,1\} \big\},$$ with $\epsilon_0>0$ as in Corollary \[convergence:W\]. Consequently, $$\mu((\widetilde{\Sigma}_l)^c)<e^{-cl}$$ and by Borel-Cantelli, $\widetilde{\Sigma}$ has full $\mu$ and $\rho$ measure. Since $\Sigma$ constructed in Theorem \[thm6\] also has full $\rho$ measure, the proof will be finished once we show that for any $\phi\in\Sigma\cap\widetilde{\Sigma}$, the global solution $\Phi(t)(\Pi_N\phi )$ converges to $\Phi(t)\phi$ in $C([0,T];H^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\epsilon}(\T))$. We will in fact prove the convergence in the stronger topology $C\big([0,T];\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s\big)$.\
For any $\phi\in\Sigma\cap\widetilde{\Sigma}$, there exists $m\in\N$, such that $\phi\in\Sigma^m$. By Proposition \[longtime-2\], we have for all $|t|\leq T$, with $\Lambda_{m,T}= Cm^{3/2}(1+\log(1+|T|))^{3/2}$, we have $$\|\Phi(t)\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}+\big(\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\Phi(t)\phi)\big)^{\frac{1}{3}}\leq \Lambda_{m,T}.$$ Moreover, from the construction of $\widetilde{\Sigma}$, $$\|\phi-\Pi_N\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}\rightarrow 0,\quad \mathbf{d}(\Pi_N\phi,\phi)\rightarrow 0,\text{ as }N\rightarrow\infty.$$ Set $\phi_N=\Pi_N\phi$. We have that for $N\geq N_0$, large enough, $$\|\phi_N\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}}+\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\phi_N)\leq 2\Lambda_{m,T}.$$ Let $R=3\Lambda_{m,T}$ and we divide $[0,T]$ into $N_{R}\sim T/\tau_{R}$ intervals of equal length $\tau_{R}$. Applying Proposition \[enhanced-localconvergenec2\] to $\phi_N,\phi$ and $R$, we obtain that for all $t\in[0,\tau_R]$, $$\mathbf{d}(\Phi(t)\phi_N,\Phi(t)\phi )\rightarrow 0, \quad \sup_{t\in[0,\tau_R]}\|\Phi(t)\phi_N-\Phi(t)\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}\rightarrow 0.$$ In particular, $$\|\Phi(t)\phi\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}=\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\|\Phi(t)\phi_N\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}.$$ Furthermore, by definition and using the triangle inequality, we have $$\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\Phi(t)\phi)=\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\Phi(t)\phi_N).$$ Therefore, for some $N_1\geq N_0$ and for all $N\geq N_1$, $$\|\Phi(\tau_R)\phi_N\|_{\mathcal{V}^{q,\epsilon}+H^s}+\big(\mathcal{W}_{s,\epsilon}(\Phi(t)\phi_N)\big)^{\frac{1}{3}}\leq 2\Lambda_{m,T}.$$ This allows us to apply Proposition \[enhanced-localconvergenec2\] to $\Phi(\tau_R)\phi_N,\Phi(\tau_R)\phi$ on $[\tau_R,2\tau_R]$. Successively, after $N_R$ steps, we prove the convergence of $\Phi(t)\phi_N$ to $\Phi(t)\phi$ to the whole interval $[0,T]$.
Convergence of the whole sequence of solutions for the truncated equation when $\alpha>1$
==========================================================================================
Recall that we denote by $\Phi_N(t)$ the flow of the truncated equation $$i\partial_tu_N+|D_x|^{\alpha}u_N+\Pi_N(|u_N|^2u_N)=0,\quad u_N|_{t=0}= \phi,$$ defined on any Sobolev space $H^s(\T)$. The measure $\rho_N$ is invariant under $\Phi_N(t)$ and as a consequence we have the following statement.
New probabilistic a priori estimates
------------------------------------
\[pointwiseinvariance\] Let $F: H^{s_1}(\T)\rightarrow H^{s_2}(\T)$ ($s_1\geq s_2\geq 0$) be a measurable map with respect to the canonical Borel $\sigma$-algebras on $H^{s}(\T)$. Then for every $t\in\mathbb{R}$, and almost every $x\in\T$, we have $$\mathbb{E}_{\rho_N}\left[F(\Phi_N(t)\phi)(x)\right]=\mathbb{E}_{\rho_N}\left[F(\phi)(x)\right],$$ as soon as $$\mathbb{E}_{\rho_N}[\|F(\phi)\|_{L^1(\T)}]<\infty.$$ In particular, if for some Fourier multiplier $f(D_x)$ and some $1\leq q,r<\infty$, there holds $$\left\|\mathbb{E}_{\rho_N}\left[\left|f(D_x)\phi(x)\right|^q\right]\right\|_{L^r(\T)}<\infty,$$ then we have for $1\leq \nu<\infty$, $$\left\|\mathbb{E}_{\rho_N}\left[\left|f(D_x)(\Phi_N(t)\phi)(x)\right|^q\right]\right\|_{L^{\nu}([0,T];L^r(\T))}=T^{\frac{1}{\nu}}\left\|\mathbb{E}_{\rho_N}\left[\left|f(D_x)\phi(x)\right|^q\right]\right\|_{L^r(\T)}\,.$$
Actually, the matter is to make the definition of $x\mapsto \mathbb{E}_{\rho_N}[F(\phi)(x)]$ precise as an $L^1$ function on $\T$. Define a function $\widetilde{F}$ from $H^{s_1}\times \T$ to $\mathbb{C}$ by $$(\phi,x)\mapsto \widetilde{F}(\phi,x):=F(\phi)(x).$$ From the assumption and the Fubini theorem, the function $\widetilde{F}$ is a well-defined $L^1$ function on $H^{s_1}\times \T$. Moreover, for a.e. $x\in \T$, the function $$x\mapsto\mathbb{E}_{\rho_N}[F(\phi)(x)]:=\int_{H^{s_1}}\widetilde{F}(\phi,x)d\rho_N(\phi)$$ is defined as a $L^1$ function on $\T$.
Now from the invariance of Gibbs measure $\rho_N$ on $H^{s_1}(\T)$ along $\Phi_N(t)$, we have that $$\mathbb{E}_{\rho_N}[\|F(\Phi_N(t)\phi)\|_{L^1(\T)}]=\mathbb{E}_{\rho_N}[\|F(\phi)\|_{L^1(\T)}]<\infty.$$ Thus $\mathbb{E}_{\rho_N}\left[F(\Phi_N(t)\phi)(x)\right] $ is defined for almost every $x\in \T$ as an $L^1$ function. Now it remains to show the desired equality. For any $\theta\in C^{\infty}(\T)$, we have from the Fubini theorem that $$\begin{split}
\langle\mathbb{E}_{\rho_N}\left[F(\Phi_N(t)\phi)\right],\theta\rangle=&\int_{\T}\left(\int_{H^{s_1}}F(\Phi_N(t)\phi)(x)d\rho_N\right)\theta(x)dx\\
=&\int_{H^{s_1}}\left(\int_\T F(\Phi_N(t)\phi)(x)\theta(x)dx\right)d\rho_N\\
=&\int_{H^{s_1}}\langle F(\Phi_N(t)\phi),\theta\rangle d\rho_N\\
=&\int_{H^{s_1}}\langle F(\phi),\theta\rangle d\rho_N,
\end{split}$$ where in the last step we have used the invariance property by viewing $\phi\mapsto \langle F(\Phi_N(t)\phi),\theta\rangle$ as a continuous functional on $H^{s_1}(\T)$. Using Fubini again, we obtain that $$\mathbb{E}_{\rho_N}[\langle F(\phi),\theta\rangle]=\langle\mathbb{E}_{\rho_N}[F(\phi)(\cdot)],\theta\rangle.$$ This implies that for any $t\in\mathbb{R}$ and almost every $x\in\T$, $$\mathbb{E}_{\rho_N}[F(\Phi_N(t)\phi)(x)]=\mathbb{E}_{\rho_N}[F(\phi)(x)].$$ Similarly, we define $$\widetilde{G}(\phi,x):=\big(f(D_x)\phi\big)(x)$$ and $x\mapsto \mathbb{E}_{\rho_N}\big[\widetilde{G}(\phi,x)\big]$ as a measurable function on $\T$. The same invariance argument as before yields $ \mathbb{E}\big[\widetilde{G}(\Phi_N(t)\phi,x) \big]=\mathbb{E}\big[\widetilde{G}(\phi,x)\big],
$ for every $t\in\R$ and almost every $x\in\T$. The final conclusion is then immediate. This completes the proof of Lemma \[pointwiseinvariance\].
The following probabilistic estimate uses the invariant of the Gibbs measure for the truncated system.
\[apriori-prob\] Let $T>0,\sigma<\frac{\alpha-1}{2}$ and $2\leq q,r<\infty$. There exist positive constants $C_{\sigma,\alpha, T,q,r}$ and $c(\sigma,\alpha,T,q,r )$, such that for all $N\in\N$ and $\lambda>0$, $$\mu\left(\{\phi:\|\Phi_N(t)\phi\|_{L_t^qW_x^{\sigma,r}([0,T]\times \T) }>\lambda \}\right)<C_{\sigma,\alpha,T,q,r}\exp\big(-\lambda^{c(\sigma,\alpha,T,q,r )} \big).$$
To simplify the notation, we will use $L_t^qW_x^{\sigma,r}$ instead of $L_t^qW_x^{\sigma,r}([0,T]\times \T)$ in the argument below. Let $\lambda_1>0$ to be chosen later, we split $$\begin{split}
\mu\big(\{\phi: \|\Phi_N(t)\phi \|_{L_t^qW_x^{\sigma,r}}>\lambda \}\big)
\leq & \mu\big(\{\phi: \|\Phi_N(t)\phi \|_{L_t^qW_x^{\sigma,r}}>\lambda,\|\Pi_N\phi\|_{L_x^{4}}\leq \lambda_1 \}\big)
\\+&\mu\big(\{\phi: \|\Phi_N(t)\phi \|_{L_t^qW_x^{\sigma,r}}>\lambda,\|\Pi_N\phi\|_{L_x^{4}}> \lambda_1 \}\big).
\end{split}$$ Recall that $d\rho_N =\exp\big(-\frac{1}{4}\|\Pi_N\phi\|_{L_x^4}^4\big)d\mu$ is the associated Gibbs measure for the truncated system, and the first term on the right side of the last inequality is bounded from above by $$e^{\frac{1}{4}\lambda_1^4}\rho_N\big(\phi: \|\Phi_N(t)\phi\|_{L_t^qW_x^{\sigma,r} }>\lambda \big),$$ while the second term can be bounded above by $ \exp\left(-c\lambda_1^2\right).$ It remains to estimate $$\rho_N\big(\phi: \|\Phi_N(t)\phi\|_{L_t^qW_x^{\sigma,r} }>\lambda \big).$$ Let $q_1\geq \max\{q,r \}$ which will be fixed later. Using Chebyshev’s inequality and then Minkowski’s inequality, we have $$\label{interchange}
\rho_N\big(\big\{\phi: \|\Phi_N(t)\phi\|_{L_t^qW_x^{\sigma,r} }>\lambda \big\}\big)\leq \frac{1}{\lambda^{q_1}}\Big\|\Big(\int_{H^{\sigma}(\T)}\left|D^{\sigma}\Phi_N(t)\phi \right|^{q_1}d\rho_N\Big)^{\frac{1}{q_1}}\Big\|_{L_t^qL_x^r}^{q_1},$$ Applying Lemma \[pointwiseinvariance\], the right side of can be bounded above by $$\frac{T^{\frac{q_1}{q}}}{\lambda^{q_1}}\Big\|\Big(\int \Big|D^{\sigma}\phi(x) \Big|^{q_1}d\rho_N\Big) \Big\|_{L_x^r}\leq\frac{T^{\frac{q_1}{q}}}{\lambda^{q_1}}\Big\|\Big(\int \Big|D^{\sigma}\phi(x) \Big|^{q_1}d\mu_N\Big) \Big\|_{L_x^r} \leq \frac{C^{q_1} T^{\frac{q_1}{q} }q_1^{\frac{q_1}{2}} }{\lambda^{q_1}},$$ where we have used the Wiener chaos estimate for the random series $$\sum_{|n|\leq N}\frac{g_n(\omega)e^{inx}}{\langle n\rangle^{\alpha-2\sigma}},$$ and the constant $C$ depends on $\alpha,\sigma,q,r$.\
Putting everything together, we obtain that $$\mu\big(\{\phi: \|\Phi_N(t)\phi \|_{L_t^qW_x^{\sigma,r}}>\lambda \}\big)\leq e^{\frac{\lambda_1^4}{4}}\Big(\frac{CT^{\frac{1}{q}}\sqrt{q_1} }{
\lambda} \Big)^{q_1}+e^{-c\lambda_1^2}.$$ We take $q_1=\frac{\lambda^2}{A}$ with $A>C^2T^{\frac{q}{2}}$, then the first term on the right side is majorized by $\exp\left(\lambda_1^4/4-\lambda^2\log(A)/(2A) \right)$. Now we choose $\lambda_1=\lambda^{1/2}\left(\log A/A\right)^{1/4}$, thus $$\frac{\lambda_1^4}{4}-\frac{\lambda^2\log A}{2A}=-\frac{\lambda^2\log A}{4A}.$$ With this choice, the proof of Lemma \[apriori-prob\] is now complete.
The same argument as in the proof of Lemma \[apriori-prob\] yields the following statement.
\[apriori-prob-cor\] Under the same restriction on the numerologies, we have for all $M<N$ and $\lambda>0$, $$\mu\big(\big\{\phi:\|\Pi_M^{\perp}\Phi_N(t)\phi\|_{L_t^qW_x^{\sigma,r}([0,T]\times \T) }>\lambda \big\}\big)\leq C(\alpha,\sigma,T,q,r)\exp\big(-(\theta\lambda)^{c(\alpha,\sigma,T,q,r)}\big),$$ with $\theta=\theta(T,M)=T^{-\frac{1}{q}}M^{\alpha-1-2\sigma}$.
The convergence argument
------------------------
In this subsection, we prove the Theorem \[thm3\]. By a Borel-Cantelli type argument, it is sufficient to prove the convergence of the sequence $(u_N)_{N\in\N}$ of the truncated equations $$i\partial_tu+|D_x|^{\alpha}u+\Pi_N(|u|^2u)=0, \quad u|_{t=0}=\phi$$ on $C([0,T];H^{\sigma}(\T))$ for any given $T>0$, where $0<\sigma<\frac{\alpha-1}{2}$. To simplify the notation, we will denote by $u_N(t)=\Pi_N\Phi_N(t)\phi$, which is the low frequency portion of the solution $\Phi_N(t)\phi$. We will simply write $L_t^qW_x^{s,r}$ to stand for the space-time norm $L^q([0,T];W^{s,r}(\T))$, and $L_{t}^qW_x^{s,r}(I)$ the norm $L^q(I;W^{s,r}(\T))$, where $I\subset \R$ is a time interval.
$\bullet$ **Step 1: A deterministic estimate.**\
Pick $\sigma_1\in\left(\sigma,\frac{\alpha-1}{2}\right)$, $r>\frac{2}{\sigma_1-\sigma}$, $2<q<\infty$, large enough, and $B(N)<N$ to be determined later. For each $N$, we associate with a small number $\eta=\eta(N)>0$ and partition the interval $[0,T]$ into $T/\eta$ intervals enabled as $I_j=[t_j,t_{j+1}]$ with length $\eta$. Let $N_1\in [N,2N]$. With $F(v)=|v|^2v$, we write $$\begin{split}
u_{N_1}(t)-u_N(t)=&S_{\alpha}(t-t_j)(u_{N_1}(t_j)-u_N(t_j) )
-i\int_{t_j}^tS_{\alpha}(t-t')\Pi_{N}^{\perp}\Pi_{N_1}F(u_{N_1})(t')dt'\\
-&i\int_{t_j}^tS_{\alpha}(t-t')\Pi_N[F(u_{N_1}(t')-F(u_N)(t') ]dt'\\
=&:\mathrm{I}_j+\mathrm{II}_j+\mathrm{III}_j
\end{split}$$ with respectively. For I$_j$, we estimate it simply by $$\label{Ij}
\|\mathrm{I}_j\|_{L_t^{\infty}H_x^{\sigma}(I_j)}\leq \|u_{N_1}(t_j)-u_N(t_j)\|_{H_x^{\sigma}}.$$ For II$_j$, using Hölder’s inequality and the product rule, we have $$\label{II_j}
\begin{split}
\|\mathrm{II}_j\|_{L_t^{\infty}H_x^{\sigma}}\leq& N^{-(\sigma_1-\sigma)}\|F(u_{N_1})\|_{L_t^1H_x^{\sigma_1}(I_j)}\\
\lesssim & N^{-(\sigma_1-\sigma)}\|u_{N_1}\|_{L_t^{2q}H_x^{\sigma_1}(I_j)}\|u_{N_1}\|_{L_t^{2(2q)'}L_x^{\infty}(I_j)}^2.
\end{split}$$ To estimate III$_j$, note that by triangle inequality, we have $$\label{IIIj-1}
\begin{split}
\|\mathrm{III}_j\|_{L_t^{\infty}H_x^{\sigma}}\leq & \||u_{N_1}|^2(u_{N_1}-u_N) \|_{L_t^1H_x^{\sigma}(I_j)}+\|\ov{u}_{N_1}u_N(u_{N_1}-u_N) \|_{L_t^1H_x^{\sigma}(I_j)}\\
+&\|(\ov{u}_{N_1}-\ov{u}_N)u_N^2\|_{L_t^1H_x^{\sigma}(I_j)}
\end{split}$$ Applying Lemma \[nonlinear2\], the right side can be majorized by $$\|u_{N_1}-u_N\|_{L_t^{q'}H_x^{\sigma}(I_j)}\left(\||u_{N_1}|^2\|_{L_t^{q}B_{r,2}^{\sigma_2}(I_j) }+\||u_{N}|^2\|_{L_t^{q}B_{r,2}^{\sigma_2}(I_j) } \right)$$ where $\sigma_2=\frac{\sigma_1+\sigma}{2}$ and $r>\frac{2}{\sigma_1-\sigma}=\frac{1}{\sigma_2-\sigma}$. Applying Lemma \[nonlinear1\] and using the fact that $W^{\sigma_1,r}$ is embedded into $B_{r,2}^{\sigma_2}$, we have $$\begin{split}
\|\mathrm{III}_j\|_{L_t^{\infty}H_x^{\sigma}}\lesssim &\|u_{N_1}-u_N\|_{L_t^{q'}H_x^{\sigma}(I_j)}\|u_{N_1}\|_{L_t^{2q}L_x^{\infty}(I_j)}\|u_{N_1}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}(I_j)}\\+&\|u_{N_1}-u_N\|_{L_t^{q'}H_x^{\sigma}(I_j)} \|u_{N}\|_{L_t^{2q}L_x^{\infty}(I_j)}\|u_{N}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}(I_j)}.
\end{split}$$ Thus $$\label{III_j}
\|\mathrm{III}_j\|_{L_t^{\infty}H_x^{\sigma}(I_j)}\lesssim \eta^{\frac{1}{q'}}\|u_{N_1}-u_N\|_{L_t^{\infty}H_x^{\sigma}(I_j)}\sum_{\nu=0}^1\|u_{ N_{\nu}}\|_{L_t^{2q}L_x^{\infty}(I_j)}\|u_{ N_{\nu}}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}(I_j)}.$$ Note that $W^{\sigma_1,r}$ is embedded into $L^{\infty}$, combing , and , we have $$\label{BB-mainestimate}
\begin{split}
\|u_{N_1}-u_N\|_{L_t^{\infty}H_x^{\sigma}(I_j)}\leq &\|u_{N_1}(t_j)-u_N(t_j)\|_{H_x^{\sigma}}+C_TN^{-(\sigma_1-\sigma)}\|u_{N_1}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}}^2\\
+&C\eta^{1/q'}\|u_{N_1}-u_N\|_{L_t^{\infty}H_x^{\sigma}(I_j)}\sum_{\nu=0}^{1}\|u_{N_{\nu}}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}}^2,
\end{split}$$ provided that $2(2q)'<2q$, if $q$ is chosen large enough. Note that the constant $C$ depends on $\sigma_1,\sigma,q,r$.
Assume for the moment that $$\|u_{N}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}}<B(N),\quad \|u_{N_1}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}}<5B(N).$$ We take $\eta=(8CB(N))^{-q'}$, it follows from that $$\|u_{N_1}-u_N\|_{L_t^{\infty}H_x^{\sigma}(I_j)}\leq 2\|u_{N_1}(t_j)-u_N(t_j)\|_{H_x^{\sigma}}+C_T'N^{-(\sigma_1-\sigma)}B(N)^2.$$ Consequently, if $$B(N)<N^{\frac{\sigma_1-\sigma}{4}},$$ by iteration, we obtain that $$\begin{split}
\|u_{N_1}-u_N\|_{L_t^{\infty}H_x^{\sigma}}\leq & 2^{\frac{T}{\eta}+1}\left(\|u_{N_1}(0)-u_N(0)\|_{H_x^{\sigma}}+N^{-\frac{\sigma_1-\sigma}{2}} \right)\\
\leq &\exp\Big(2T\log_2(4CB(N)^2 )^{q'}\Big)N^{-\frac{\sigma_1-\sigma}{2}}.
\end{split}$$ We take $$B(N)=(c_1\log N)^{\frac{1}{2q'}},$$ for some suitable $c_1=c_1(T,\sigma,\sigma_1)$, small enough, the right hand side of the inequality above can be majorized by $N^{-\frac{\sigma_1-\sigma}{4}}$.
$\bullet$ [**Step 2: Good data set.**]{}
For any dyadic number $N$, we define the set $$\begin{split}
\Omega_{N}:=&\{\phi: \|\Pi_{N}^{\perp}\phi\|_{H_x^\sigma}<N^{-(\sigma_1-\sigma)},\|\Pi_N\Phi_N(t)\phi\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r} }+\|\Pi_{2N}\Phi_{2N}(t)\phi\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r} }<B(N) \}\\
\cap& \{\phi:\max_{N\leq N_1\leq 2N}\|\Pi_{M_0}^{\perp}\Phi_{N_1}(t)\phi\|_{L_t^qW_x^{\sigma_1,r}}\leq 1 \}
\end{split}$$ where $M_0=M_0(N)$ will be chosen later. From Lemma \[apriori-prob\] and Lemma \[apriori-prob-cor\], we have $$\mu(\Omega\setminus\Omega_N)<e^{-B(N)^c}+Ne^{-T^{\frac{c}{2q}}M_0^{(\alpha-1-2\sigma)c}}.$$ The choice of $B(N)$ and $M_0$ should assure that the series $$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\mu(\Omega\setminus\Omega_{2^k})$$ converges. We first choose $$M_0=(\log N)^{C_0}$$ with $C_0=C_0(q,r,\sigma_1,\sigma,T)$ large enough, such that $\displaystyle{\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}2^k\exp\big(-T^{\frac{c}{2q}}k^{C_0}\big)}<\infty$, while $$B(N)=(c_1\log N)^{\frac{1}{2q'}}$$ for some small constant $c_1>0$ to be fixed later. The good data set is then chosen as $$\mathcal{G}:=\bigcup_{m=0}^{\infty}\bigcap_{k=m}^{\infty}\Omega_{2^k},$$ which has full $\mu$ measure, thanks to Borel-Cantelli.
$\bullet$ [**Step 3:š Continuity argument.**]{}
Fix $\phi\in \mathcal{G}$, our goal is to show that the sequence $(\Phi_N(t)\phi)_N$ is Cauchy in $C([0,T];H^{\sigma}(\T))$. Recall the notation $u_N(t)=\Pi_N\Phi_N(t)\phi$. By definition, there exists $k_0\in\N$, such that $\phi\in \Omega_{2^k}$ for all $k\geq k_0$. Denote by $N_0=2^k$ for some $k\geq k_0$. We claim that for all large $N_0$ and $N_0\leq N_1\leq 2N_0$, $\|u_{N_1}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}}<4B(N_0)$.
Indeed, for fixed $N_0$ and $N_1$, we define the set $$S:=\{T'\in[0,T]:\|u_{N_1}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}([0,T'])}<4B(N_0) \}.$$ We first show that $S$ is not empty. Note that $u_{N_1}(t)$ takes value in a finite dimensional space and by conservation of $L^2$ norm, $\|u_{N_1}\|_{L_t^{\infty}L_x^2}=\|\Pi_{N_1}\phi\|_{L_x^2}.$ Then by the equivalence of the norm, there exists $K_{N_1}>0$, such that $$\|u_{N_1}\|_{L_t^{\infty}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}([0,\delta])}\leq K_{N_1}\|\Pi_{N_1}\phi\|_{L_x^2}.$$ Coming back to the definition of $\Omega_{N_0}$ Thus by Hölder’s inequality, $$\|u_{N_1}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}([0,\delta]) }\leq \delta^{\frac{1}{2q}}K_{N_1}\|\Pi_{N_1}\phi\|_{L_x^2}.$$ Hence if $\delta=\delta_N$ is small enough, $\|u_{N_1}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}([0,\delta_N])}<4B(N_0)$. In particular, $S\neq \emptyset$.
Next we show that $S=[0,T]$. We argue by contradiction. Suppose that $T_0=\sup S<T$. By continuity of the function $$t'\mapsto \|u_{N_1}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}([0,t'])},$$ there exists $\delta'>0$, $T_0+\delta'<T$, such that $$\|u_{N_1}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}([0,T_0+\delta'])}<5B(N_0).$$ Then from the argument in the last part of Step 1, we obtain that $$\|u_{N_1}-u_{N_0}\|_{L_t^{\infty}H_x^{\sigma}([0,T_0+\delta'])}<N_0^{-\frac{\sigma_1-\sigma}{4}}.$$ Notice that if $N_0\leq N_1<2N_0$, we have $$ \begin{split}
\|u_{N_1}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}([0,T_0+\delta'])}\leq & \|\Pi_{M_0}^{\perp}u_{N_1}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}([0,T_0+\delta'])}+ \|\Pi_{M_0}(u_{N_1}-u_{N_0})\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}([0,T_0+\delta'])}\\
+&\|\Pi_{M_0}^{\perp}u_{N_0}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}([0,T_0+\delta'])}+\|u_{N_0}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}([0,T_0+\delta'])} \\
\leq &2+T^{\frac{1}{2q}}M_0^{\sigma_1-\sigma+\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{r}}\|u_{N_1}-u_{N_0}\|_{L_t^{\infty}H_x^{\sigma}([0,T_0+\delta'])}+B(N_0)\\
\leq &2+2B(N_0)+T^{\frac{1}{2q}}(\log N_0)^{2C_0}\|u_{N_1}-u_{N_0}\|_{L_t^{\infty}H_x^{\sigma}([0,T_0+\delta'])}.
\end{split}$$ For $N_0\gg 1$, the first and third terms are strictly smaller than $B(N_0)$, thus $$\|u_{N_1}\|_{L_t^{2q}W_x^{\sigma_1,r}([0,T_0+\delta'])}<4B(N_0),$$ which is a contradiction.\
Now since $S=[0,T]$, we have that for any $N_1\in [N_0,2N_0]$, $$\|u_{N_1}-u_{N_0}\|_{L_t^{\infty}H_x^{\sigma}}<N_0^{-\frac{\sigma_1-\sigma}{4}}.$$ This implies that $(u_{N}(t))_{N}$ is a Cauchy sequence in $C([0,T];H^{\sigma}(\T))$. Since $\Pi_N^{\perp}\Phi_N(t)\phi=\Pi_N^{\perp}S_{\alpha}(t)\phi$ is linear, it is automatically a Cauchy sequence in $C([0,T]; H^{\sigma}(\T))$. The proof of Theorem \[thm3\] is now complete.
Weak dispersion case: $\alpha< 1$
=================================
Definition of Gibbs measure
---------------------------
Recall that the renormalized Hamiltonian $$H_N(u)=\int_{\T}||D_x|^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u|^2+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\T}|\Pi_Nu|^4-2\alpha_N\int_{\T}|\Pi_N u|^2+\alpha_N^2,$$ where $$\alpha_N=\mathbb{E}[\|\Pi_Nu\|_{L^2}^2].$$ Consider the equation $$i\partial_tu=\frac{\delta H_N}{\delta \ov{u}},$$ which reads $$\label{equation-renormalized}
i\partial_tu+|D_x|^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u+F_N(u)=0,$$ where $$F_N(u)=\Pi_N(|\Pi_Nu|^2\Pi_Nu)-2\alpha_N\Pi_Nu.$$ Let $\mathcal{X}=H^{\frac{\alpha-1}{2}-\epsilon}(\T)$. The first step is to show that the sequence $(F_N(u))_{N\geq 1}$ is a Cauchy sequence in $L^p\big(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{B},\mu; H^{-\sigma}(\T)\big)$. We need a large deviation lemma. Let $$b_N(u):=\|\Pi_Nu\|_{L^2}^2-\alpha_N.$$
\[large-deviation\] There exist $C,c>0$ so that for all $1\leq M<N$ large enough, and all $\lambda>0$, we have $$\mu(\{u: |b_N(u)-b_M(u)|>\lambda \})\leq Ce^{-c\lambda M^{\alpha}},\text{ if } \lambda\gtrsim M^{1-\alpha},$$ and $$\mu(\{u: |b_N(u)-b_M(u)|>\lambda \})\leq Ce^{-c\lambda^2 M^{2\alpha-1}},\text{ if } \lambda\ll M^{1-\alpha}.$$
[If we use Lemma 4.8 of [@Tz-ptrf] (based on Wiener chaos estimates) we obtain the rougher bound $Ce^{-\lambda M^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}$, which is enough for our purposes. Here we give an estimate which is of its own interest. ]{}
Denote by $$R_{M,N}(\omega):=\sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N} \frac{|g_n(\omega)|^2}{([n]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}})^2},$$ where $g_n(\omega)=\frac{h_n(\omega)+il_n(\omega)}{\sqrt{2}}$ and $\mathbb{E}[|g_n|^2]=1$. We have $$\label{a3}
\mu\{u: |b_N(u)-b_M(u)|>\lambda \}=\mathbb{P}\{\omega: |R_{M,N}(\omega)-\mathbb{E}[R_{M,N}]|>\lambda \},$$ where $$R_{M,N}(\omega)-\mathbb{E}[R_{M,N}]=\sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}a_nX_n(\omega),\quad a_n=([n]^{-\frac{\alpha}{2}})^2, X_n(\omega)=|g_n(\omega)|^2-1.$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}\Big\{\omega: \Big|\sum_{M\leq|n|\leq N} a_nX_n(\omega)\Big|>\lambda \Big\}\leq &\mathbb{P}\Big\{\omega: \sum_{M\leq|n|\leq N} a_nX_n(\omega)>\lambda \Big\}\\
+&\mathbb{P}\Big\{\omega: \sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}a_nX_n(\omega)<-\lambda \Big\}.
\end{aligned}$$ First we estimate the probability of the event $\{\sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}a_nX_n>\lambda\}$. For any $\theta>0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{exponentialProb}
\mathbb{P}\Big\{\omega: \sum_{M\leq|n|\leq N} a_nX_n(\omega)>\lambda \Big\}=\mathbb{P}\Big\{\omega: e^{\sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}\theta a_nX_n(\omega)}>e^{\theta\lambda} \Big\}
\end{aligned}$$ Using Chebyshev’s inequality, the r.h.s. of can be bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-\theta\lambda}\mathbb{E}\Big[e^{\sum_{M\leq|n|\leq N}\theta a_n (|g_n|^2-1) } \Big]\leq e^{-\theta\lambda} e^{-\sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}\theta a_n }\prod_{M\leq|n|\leq N}\mathbb{E}\big[e^{\theta a_n|g_n|^2} \big],
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the independence. Since each $g_n$ can be identified as a standard two dimensional Gaussian random variable, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{M\leq |n|\leq N} \mathbb{E}\big[e^{\theta a_n|g_n|^2} \big]=\prod_{M\leq|n|\le N}\Big(\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\R^2} e^{-\frac{ |z|^2}{2}(1-\theta a_n) }dz\Big)
=\prod_{M\leq |n|\leq N}\frac{1}{1-\theta a_n},
\end{aligned}$$ provided that $\theta a_n<1$. We will finally choose suitable $\theta$ such that $\theta a_n<\frac{1}{2}$. From the elementary inequality $$-y-\log(1-y)\leq C_0y^2,$$ uniformly in $0<y<\frac{1}{2}$, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-\theta\lambda-\sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}\theta a_n }\prod_{M\leq |n|\leq N} \mathbb{E}\Big[e^{\theta a_n|g_n|^2} \Big]
=& e^{-\theta\lambda+\sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}(-\theta a_n -\log (1-\theta a_n)) }\\
\leq & e^{-\theta\lambda +C_0\sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}\theta^2a_n^2 }\leq e^{-\theta \lambda +C_0\theta^2 \epsilon_M},
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\epsilon_M=\sum_{|n|\geq M} a_n^2\sim M^{-(2\alpha-1)}.$$ Similarly, for the event $\{\omega: \sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}a_nX_n(\omega)<-\lambda \}$, we can rewrite it as $$\big\{\omega: e^{\theta \sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}a_n(1-|g_n|^2) } >e^{\lambda\theta}\big\}.$$ Again by Chebyshev, the probability of this event is bounded by $$e^{-\lambda \theta}\mathbb{E}\Big[e^{\sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}\theta a_n(1-|g_n|^2) }\Big]=e^{-\lambda\theta+\sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}\theta a_n } \prod_{M\leq |n|\leq N }\mathbb{E}[e^{-\theta a_n|g_n|^2}]$$ Again from $$\mathbb{E}[e^{-\theta a_n|g_n|^2}]=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\R^2}e^{-\frac{|z|^2}{2}(1+\theta a_n)}dz=\frac{1}{1+\theta a_n},$$ we have $$\mathbb{P}\big\{\omega: \sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}a_nX_n(\omega)<-\lambda \big\}\leq e^{-\lambda\theta +\sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}[\theta a_n-\log(1+\theta a_n)] }.$$ From the inequality $$y-\log(1+y)\leq \frac{y^2}{2},\quad \forall \,0<y<1,$$ we have $$\mathbb{P}\big\{\omega: \sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}a_nX_n(\omega)<-\lambda \big\}\leq e^{-\lambda\theta+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{M\leq|n|\leq N}\theta^2a_n^2 }=e^{-\lambda\theta+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_M\theta^2}.$$ In summary, we have that, for all $\theta>0,\lambda>0$ $$\mathbb{P}\big\{\omega: \big|\sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}a_nX_n(\omega)\big|>\lambda \big\}\leq 2e^{-\lambda\theta+C_0\epsilon_M\theta^2}.$$ The function $\theta\mapsto -\lambda\theta+C_0\epsilon_M\theta^2$ attains its minimum at $\theta_0=\frac{\lambda}{2C_0\epsilon_M}\sim \lambda M^{2\alpha-1}$. If $$\frac{\lambda}{2C_0\epsilon_M}\leq \frac{M^{\alpha}}{4},\quad \text{i.e.} \quad\lambda\leq \frac{C_0\epsilon_MM^{\alpha}}{2}\sim M^{1-\alpha},$$ we choose $\theta=\theta_0$ (thus the condition $\theta a_n\leq \frac{1}{2}$ for all $M\leq|n|\leq N$ are satisfied), and we deduce that the desired probability is bounded by $ 2e^{-\frac{\lambda^2}{4C_0\epsilon_M}}\leq e^{-c'\lambda^2M^{2\alpha-1}}.
$ Otherwise $$\lambda>\frac{C_0\epsilon_M M^{\alpha}}{2},\quad\text{i.e.}\quad \frac{\lambda}{2}>\frac{C_0\epsilon_M M^{\alpha}}{4}\sim M^{1-\alpha}.$$ we take $\theta=\frac{M^{\alpha}}{4}$, and the desired probability is bounded by $$2e^{-\frac{\lambda M^{\alpha}}{4}+C_0\epsilon_M\frac{M^{2\alpha}}{4^2} }=2e^{-\frac{M^{\alpha}}{4}\big(\lambda-\frac{C_0\epsilon_MM^{\alpha}}{4} \big)}\leq 2e^{-\frac{M^{\alpha}\lambda}{8}}.$$ The proof of Lemma \[large-deviation\] is now complete.
\[Cauchysequence\] Assume that $\frac{2}{3}<\alpha<1$ and $\sigma>\frac{3(1-\alpha)}{2}$. For all $p\geq 2$, the sequence $(F_N(u))_{N\geq 1}$ is a Cauchy sequence in the space $L^p(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{B},\mu; H^{-\sigma}(\T )$. More precisely, there exists $\epsilon_0>0, C>0$, such that for all $1\leq M<N$, $$\int_{\mathcal{X}} \|F_N(u)-F_M(u)\|_{H^{-\sigma}(\T)}^pd\mu(u)\leq \frac{C}{M^{\epsilon_0}}.$$
We prove for $p=2$, and the estimate for the other values of $p$ will follow from Wiener chaos estimates. Note that $F_N(u)=G_N(u)+2b_N(u)\Pi_Nu$ where $$G_N(u)=\Pi_N\big(|\Pi_Nu|^2\Pi_Nu \big)-2\|\Pi_Nu\|_{L^2}^2\Pi_Nu.$$ Therefore, from Lemma \[Cauchysequence\] and Lemma \[large-deviation\], it suffices to obtain the same type of estimate for $$\int_{\mathcal{X}}\|G_N(u)-G_M(u)\|_{H^{-\sigma}(\T)}^2d\mu(u).$$ Write $$\chi_N:=|\phi_N^{\omega}|^2\phi_N^{\omega}-2\|\phi_N^{\omega}\|_{L^2(\T)}^2\phi_N^{\omega},$$ and it suffices to show that $$\label{a}
\mathbb{E}\left[
\|\chi_N-\chi_M\|_{H^{-\sigma}(\T)}^2 \right]\leq \frac{C}{M^{\epsilon_0}}.$$ From the definition of $\phi_N^{\omega}$, we have $$\begin{split}
\chi_N=\sum_{\substack{|n_1|,|n_2|,|n_3|\leq N \\ n_2\neq n_1,n_3} }\frac{g_{n_1}\ov{g}_{n_2}g_{n_3}}{[n_1]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_2]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_3]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}e^{i(n_1-n_2+n_3)x},
\end{split}$$ and $$\chi_N-\chi_M=\sum_{n\in\Z}e^{inx}\sum_{B_{M,N}^{(n)}} \frac{g_{n_1}\ov{g}_{n_2}g_{n_3}}{ [n_1]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_2]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_3]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} },$$ where $$\begin{split}
B_{M,N}^{(n)}=\{(n_1,n_2,n_3)\in \Z^3: & |n_1|,|n_2|,|n_3|\leq N, n_2\neq n_1,n_3\\
\textrm{ and }& |n_1|>M \textrm{ or }|n_2|>M \textrm{ or }|n_3|>M,\\
&n_1-n_2+n_3=n \}.
\end{split}$$ Since $(g_{n})$ are independent and centered, we deduce that $$\label{a1}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}[ \|\chi_N-\chi_M\|_{H^{-\sigma}(\T)}^2 ]=&\sum_{n\in\Z}\frac{1}{\langle n\rangle^{2\sigma}}\mathbb{E}\Big[ \Big|
\sum_{B_{M,N}^{(n)}}\frac{g_{n_1}\ov{g}_{n_2}g_{n_3}}{[n_1]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_2]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_3]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} }\Big|^2 \Big]\\
\leq &\sum_{n\in\Z}\frac{C}{\langle n\rangle^{2\sigma}}\sum_{\substack{n_1-n_2+n_3=n\\ M<\max\{|n_1|,|n_2|,|n_3|\}\leq N \\
n_2\neq n_1, n_3 }}\frac{1}{\langle n_1\rangle^{\alpha}\langle n_2\rangle^{\alpha}\langle n_3\rangle^{\alpha} }.
\end{split}$$ To estimate the second summation, without loss of generality, we may assume that $|n_1|\geq M$. Then applying Lemma \[lemme-summation\], the second summation can be estimated by $$\sum_{M<|n_1|\leq N}\frac{C_{\gamma}}{\langle n_1\rangle^{\alpha}\langle n-n_1 \rangle^{\gamma} }$$ for some $\gamma<2\alpha-1$. If $\alpha>\frac{2}{3}$, then $3\alpha-2>0$, and we can choose $\gamma>0$ such that $\alpha+\gamma>1$. If $|n|\ll M$, then $$\sum_{|n|\ll M,|n_1|>M}\frac{C_{\gamma}}{\langle n\rangle^{2\sigma}\langle n_1\rangle^{\alpha}\langle n-n_1\rangle^{\gamma} }\leq \sum_{|n|\ll M}\frac{C_{\gamma}}{\langle n\rangle^{2\sigma} M^{3\alpha-2}}\leq \frac{C_{\gamma}}{M^{\epsilon_0}},$$ provided that $\sigma>\frac{3(1-\alpha)}{2}$. If $|n|\gtrsim M$, we separate the region of summation into $|n-n_1|<\frac{|n_1|}{2}$, $\frac{|n_1|}{2}\leq|n-n_1|<2|n_1|$ and $|n-n_1|\geq 2|n_1|$. We have $$\sum_{|n_1|>M,|n-n_1|<\frac{|n_1|}{2}}\frac{C_{\gamma}}{\langle n\rangle^{2\sigma}\langle n_1\rangle^{\alpha}\langle n-n_1\rangle^{\gamma} }\leq \sum_{|n_1|>M}\frac{C_{\gamma}|n_1|^{1-\gamma}}{\langle n_1\rangle^{\alpha+2\sigma}}\leq \frac{C_{\gamma}}{M^{\epsilon_0}},$$ provided that $\sigma>\frac{3(1-\alpha)}{2}$. If $\frac{|n_1|}{2}\leq |n-n_1|<4|n_1|$, we have $$\sum_{\substack{|n_1|>M,|n|\gtrsim M,\\
\frac{|n_1|}{2}\leq|n-n_1|<4|n_1| } }\frac{C_{\gamma}}{\langle n\rangle^{2\sigma}\langle n_1\rangle^{\alpha}\langle n-n_1\rangle^{\gamma} }\leq \sum_{|n_1|>M}\frac{C_{\gamma}}{\langle n_1\rangle^{\alpha+\gamma}}\sum_{|n|\leq 5|n_1|}\frac{1}{\langle n\rangle^{2\sigma}}\leq \frac{C_{\gamma}}{M^{\epsilon_0}},$$ provided that $\sigma>\frac{3(1-\alpha)}{2}$. Finally, for $|n-n_1|>4|n_1|$, we have $|n_1|\leq \frac{|n|}{3}$ and $|n-n_1|\geq |n|-|n_1|\geq \frac{2|n|}{3}$, hence $$\sum_{|n_1|>M,|n-n_1|>4|n_1| }\frac{C_{\gamma}}{\langle n\rangle^{2\sigma}\langle n_1\rangle^{\alpha}\langle n-n_1\rangle^{\gamma}}\leq \sum_{|n|\gtrsim M, |n_1|\leq \frac{|n|}{3}}\frac{C_{\gamma}}{\langle n\rangle^{2\sigma+\gamma}\langle n_1\rangle^{\alpha}}\leq \frac{C_{\gamma}}{M^{\epsilon_0}},$$ provided that $\sigma>\frac{3(1-\alpha)}{2}$. This completes the proof of Proposition \[Cauchysequence\].
Denote by $$g_N(u):=\frac{1}{2}\|\Pi_Nu\|_{L^4}^4-\|\Pi_Nu\|_{L^2}^4,\textrm{ then } g_N(u)=f_N(u)-b_N(u)^2.$$
\[fN\] Assume that $\frac{3}{4}<\alpha\leq 1$, then the sequence $(g_N)_{N\geq 1}$ is a Cauchy sequence in $L^2(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{B};d\mu)$. More precisely, for all $p\geq 2$ and $1\leq M<N$, $$\label{f_Nlp}
\|g_N(u)-g_M(u)\|_{L^p(d\mu)}\leq C(p-1)^{2}M^{-\frac{4\alpha-3}{2}}.$$ Furthermore, for any $\lambda>0$, $$\label{distributionalf_N}
\mu\{u\in \mathcal{X}: |g_N(u)-g_M(u)|>\lambda \}\leq Ce^{-c\lambda^{1/2}M^{\frac{4\alpha-3}{4}}}.$$
We prove the estimate for $p=2$, and the general case will follow from Wiener chaos estimates. Introduce the set $$A_N:=\{(n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4)\in \Z^4:|n_1|,|n_2|,|n_3|,|n_4|\leq N, n_1-n_2+n_3-n_4=0,n_2\neq n_1,n_3 \}$$ and $$\begin{split}
A_{M,N}:=\{(n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4)\in \Z^4: & |n_1|,|n_2|,|n_3|,|n_4|\leq N, n_1-n_2+n_3-n_4=0,\\
&n_2\neq n_1,n_3,\max(|n_1|,|n_2|,|n_3|,|n_4|)>M \}.
\end{split}$$ From direct computation, we have $$f_N(\phi_N)=-\sum_{A_N} \frac{g_{n_1}\ov{g}_{n_2}g_{n_3}\ov{g}_{n_4}}{[n_1]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_2]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_3]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_4]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}
+\sum_{|n|\leq N}\frac{|g_n|^4}{([n]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}})^4},$$ and $$f_N(\phi_N)-f_M(\phi_M)=-\sum_{A_{M,N}}\frac{g_{n_1}\ov{g}_{n_2}g_{n_3}\ov{g}_{n_4}}{[n_1]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_2]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_3]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_4]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}
+ \sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}\frac{|g_n|^4}{([n]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}})^4}.$$ Now we estimate $$\label{a5}
\begin{split}
&\|f_N(u)-f_M(u)\|_{L^2(d\mu)}^2=\mathbb{E}\left[|f_N(\phi_N)-f_M(\phi_M)|^2\right]\\
\leq &C\sum_{(n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4)\in A_N}\sum_{(m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4)\in A_N }\mathbb{E}\Big[\frac{g_{n_1}\ov{g}_{n_2}g_{n_3}\ov{g}_{n_4}}{[n_1]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_2]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_3]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_4]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} }\frac{\ov{g}_{m_1}g_{m_2}\ov{g}_{m_3}g_{m_4}}{[m_1]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[m_2]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[m_3]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[m_4]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} }\Big]\\
+& C\sum_{M\leq |n|,|m|\leq N}\mathbb{E}\left[\frac{|g_{n}|^4|g_m|^4}{([n]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}})^4
([m]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}})^4}\right]
\end{split}$$ By the independence of the Gaussian variables, $$\mathbb{E}\Big[\frac{g_{n_1}\ov{g}_{n_2}g_{n_3}\ov{g}_{n_4}}{[n_1]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_2]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_3]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[n_4]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} }\frac{\ov{g}_{m_1}g_{m_2}\ov{g}_{m_3}g_{m_4}}{[m_1]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[m_2]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[m_3]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}[m_4]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} }\Big]=0$$ unless $\{n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4\}=\{m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4 \}$. Therefore, $$\label{a6}
\begin{split}
\eqref{a5}\leq &C\sum_{A_N} \frac{1}{([n_1]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}
[n_2]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}
[n_3]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}
[n_4]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}} )^2 }+C\Big(\sum_{M\leq |n|\leq N}\frac{1}{([n]^{\frac{\alpha}{2}})^4}\Big)^2
\end{split}$$ The second term on the right side can be bounded by $ \frac{C}{M^{2(2\alpha-1)}},
$ provided that $2\alpha>1$. For the first term, by symmetry of the sum, we may majorize it by $$\label{a7}
C\sum_{n_1,n_2,n_3\in \Z,|n_1|>M}\frac{1}{\langle n_1\rangle^{\alpha}\langle n_2\rangle^{\alpha}\langle n_3\rangle^{\alpha}
\langle n_1-n_2+n_3\rangle^{\alpha} }.$$ Applying Lemma \[lemme-summation\], we have $$\label{a8}
\begin{split}
\eqref{a7}\leq &C\sum_{n_1,n_2\in \Z, |n_1|>M}\frac{1}{\langle n_1\rangle^{\alpha}\langle n_2\rangle^{\alpha}\langle n_1-n_2\rangle^{2\alpha-1} }\\
\leq &C\sum_{|n_1|>M}\frac{1}{\langle n_1\rangle^{4\alpha-2}}\leq \frac{C}{M^{4\alpha-3}},
\end{split}$$ provided that $\alpha>\frac{3}{4}$, where from the first inequality to the second, we divide the region of summation as $|n_1-n_2|\leq\frac{|n_1|}{2}, \frac{|n_1|}{2}\leq |n_1-n_2|<4|n_1|$ and $|n_1-n_2|\geq 4|n_1|$ as in the proof of Proposition \[Cauchysequence\].
To prove , using Tchebyshev inequality and , for any $p>0$, we have $$\mu\{u\in X(\T):|g_N(u)-g_M(u)|>\lambda \}\leq \left(\frac{C}{\lambda M^{\frac{4\alpha-3}{2}}}\right)^p (p-1)^{2p}.$$ Choosing $p=\big(\frac{\lambda M^{\frac{4\alpha-3}{2}}}{C}\big)^{1/2}e^{-1}$, we obtain that . This completes the proof.
Following the argument in [@BTT-Toulouse], we prove Proposition \[convergence-Gibbs\].
We use Nelson type argument. First we prove the large deviation for $f_N(u)-f_M(u)$. Recall that $f_N(u)=g_N(u)+b_N(u)^2$, we have $$f_N(u)-f_M(u)=g_N(u)-g_M(u)+(b_N(u)-b_M(u))(b_N(u)+b_M(u) ).$$ Therefore, $\mu\{u:|f_N(u)-f_M(u)|>a \}$ can be bounded by $$\mu\{u: |g_N(u)-g_M(u)|>a/2 \}+\mu\{u:|b_N(u)-b_M(u)||b_N(u)+b_M(u)|>a/2 \}.$$ By Lemma \[fN\], the first measure can be bounded by $Ce^{-ca^{1/2}M^{\frac{4\alpha-3}{4}}}$. To estimate the second measure, we write $$(b_N(u)-b_M(u))(b_N(u)+b_M(u) )=(b_N(u)-b_M(u))^2+2b_M(u)(b_N(u)-b_M(u) ).$$ From Lemma \[large-deviation\], $$\mu\{u: |b_N(u)-b_M(u)|^2>a/4\}\leq Ce^{-ca^{1/2}M^{\alpha}}.$$ It remains to estimate $\mu\{u:|b_M(u)(b_N(u)-b_M(u))|>a/4 \}$. From Lemma \[large-deviation\], we have for any $a'\geq 1$, $$\mu\{u: |b_M(u)|>a' \}\leq Ce^{-ca'}.$$ Therefore, for any $a'>0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\mu\{u: |b_N(u)-b_M(u)||b_M(u)|>a/4 \}\\ \leq &\mu\{u:|b_M(u)|>a' \}+\mu\{u:|b_M(u)(b_N(u)-b_M(u))|>a/4,|b_M(u)|\leq a' \}\\
\leq & \mu\{u:|b_M(u)|>a' \}+\mu\{u: |b_N(u)-b_M(u)|>a/(4a') \}\\
\leq &Ce^{-ca'}+Ce^{-c\frac{a}{4a'}M^{\alpha}},\end{aligned}$$ provided that $\frac{a}{a'}\gtrsim M^{1-\alpha}$, where we have used Lemma \[large-deviation\]. When $\alpha>\frac{2}{3}$, we must have $M^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}>M^{1-\alpha}$. By optimally choosing $a'=a^{1/2}M^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$, we obtain that $$\mu\{u: |b_N(u)-b_M(u)||b_N(u)+b_M(u)|>a/2 \}\leq Ce^{-ca^{1/2}M^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}<Ce^{-ca^{1/2}M^{\frac{4\alpha-3}{4}}}.$$ Therefore, for $a\geq 1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mu\{u:|f_N(u)-f_M(u)|>a \}\leq Ce^{-c a^{1/2}M^{\frac{4\alpha-3}{4}}}.\end{aligned}$$ This yields the $L^p$ convergence of $f_N(u)$. To complete the proof, we need show that $$\|e^{-f_N(u)}\|_{L^p(d\mu)}\leq C,$$ independent of $N$. Since we can write $$-f_N(u)=\alpha_N^2-\frac{1}{2}\int_{\T}\big(|\Pi_Nu|^2-2\alpha_N \big)^2,$$ we have $$-f_N(u)\leq \alpha_N^2\leq CM^{2(1-\alpha)}.$$ For fixed $\lambda\geq 1$ large, we choose $M$ such that $M^{2(1-\alpha)}= \theta\log\lambda$ with $0<\theta\ll 1$ such that $ \log\lambda-CM^{2(1-\alpha)}\geq \frac{1}{2}\log\lambda,
$ thus $$-f_N(u)+f_M(u)\geq -f_N(u)-CM^{(1-\alpha)}\geq \frac{1}{2}\log\lambda.$$ Therefore, $$\mu\big\{u: -f_N(u)>\log\lambda \big\}\leq \mu\big\{u: -f_N(u)+f_M(u)>\frac{1}{2}\log\lambda \big\}\leq Ce^{-c(\log\lambda)^{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{4\alpha-3}{8(1-\alpha)} }}\leq C_L\lambda^{-L}$$ for all $L\in\N$, provided that $$\frac{1}{2}+\frac{4\alpha-3}{8(1-\alpha)}>1,\text{ i.e. } \alpha>\frac{7}{8}.$$ This completes the proof of Proposition \[convergence-Gibbs\].
Finally, the proof of Theorem \[thm2\] (the same for Theorem \[thm1\]) follows from the same probabilistic compactness argument as in [@BTT-Toulouse], and we omit the details here.
Appendix: General convergence theorem and deterministic nonlinear estiamtes on compact manifold
================================================================================================
It turns out that the argument of Bourgain-Bulut also works for the fractional NLS with a quite general nonlinearity on any compact Riemannian manifold. More precisely, let $(\mathcal{M},g_0)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold (without boundary) of dimension $d$. Denote by $\Delta_{g_0}$ the Beltrami-Laplace operator with eigenvalues $(-\lambda_n^2)_{n\in\N}$ and associated eigenfunctions $(\varphi_n(x))_{n\in\N}$ ($
-\Delta_{g_0} \varphi_n=\lambda_n^2\varphi_n
$). Consider the truncated fractional NLS $$\label{general:truncated-NLS}
\begin{cases}
& i\partial_tu+(-\Delta_{g_0} )^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u+\Pi_N(|u|^{p-1}u)=0,\\
&u|_{t=0}
=\displaystyle{\sum_{\lambda_n\leq N}\frac{g_n(\omega)}{\lambda_n^2+1}}\varphi_n(x),
\end{cases}$$ where $\Pi_{N}$ is the orthogonal projection (with respect to the $L^2(\mathcal{M})$ scalar product) on ${\rm span}(\varphi_n)_{1\leq \lambda_n \leq N}$. We have the following theorem[^9]:
\[thmA\] Assume that $\alpha>d$ and $\sigma<\frac{\alpha-d}{2}$. The sequence $(u^{\omega}_{N})_{N\in\N}$ of solutions of converges a.s. in $C(\R;H^{\sigma}({\mathcal M}))$ to some limit $u$ which solves $$i\partial_tu+(-\Delta_{g_0} )^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}u+|u|^{p-1}u=0$$ in the distributional sense.
The proof of Theorem \[thmA\] follows from the same lines as in the proof of Theorem \[thm3\]. We only sketch here the main ingredients. For the probabilistic side, to establish the analogues of Lemma \[apriori-prob\] and Corollary \[apriori-prob-cor\], we can not use that fact that $\varphi_n(x)$ are bounded, uniformly in $n$. We should use instead the following average effect of eigenfunctions due to Hörmander.
\[Hormander\] There exists $C=C(\mathcal{M},g_0)>0$, such that for any $N$, we have $$C^{-1}N^d\leq \sum_{N\leq \lambda_n\leq 2N}|\varphi_n(x)|^2\leq CN^d$$
For the deterministic side, we need to prove a relatively standard nonlinear estimate needed in the convergence argument. We present it here for its own interest. The following proposition proved in [@BGT] allows us to reduce the analysis to paraproduct type arguments in $\mathbb{R}^d$.
\[BGT\] Let $P$ be an elliptic self-adjoint differential operator of order $m>0$ on a compact manifold $\mathcal{M}$ of dimension $d$. Let $\psi\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$, $\kappa:U\subset\mathbb{R}^d\rightarrow V\subset \mathcal{M}$ a coordinate patch, and $\chi_1,\chi_2\in C_c^{\infty}(V)$ such that $\chi_2=1$ near the support of $\chi_1$. Then there exists a sequence $(\psi_j)_{j\geq 0}$ of $C_c^{\infty}(U\times\mathbb{R}^d)$ such that, for every $L\in\mathbb{N}$ and for every $h\in(0,1)$, $\nu\in[0,L]$, $f\in C^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})$, we have $$\label{BGT1}
\Big\|\kappa^*\left(\chi_1\psi(h^mP)f\right)-\sum_{j=1}^{L-1}h^j\psi_j(x,hD_x)\kappa^*(\chi_2f)\Big\|_{H^{\nu}(\mathbb{R}^d)}\leq C_Lh^{L-\nu}\|f\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}.$$ Moreover, $\psi_0(x,\xi)=\chi_1(\kappa(x))\psi(p_m(x,\xi))$ and $$\mathrm{supp}(\psi_j)\subset\{(x,\xi)\in U\times\mathbb{R}^d: \kappa(x)\in \mathrm{supp}(\chi_1),p_m(x,\xi)\in\mathrm{supp}(\psi)\},$$ where $p_m$ is the principle symbol of $P$.
We will use different notations for the Littlewood-Paley decomposition in this appendix. We denote by $\Delta_l=\psi(-2^{2l}\Delta_{g_0})$ for $l\geq 1$ and $\Delta_0=\psi_0(-\Delta_{g_0})$, where $\psi_0\in C_c^{\infty}(|\xi|\leq 2)$ and $\psi\in C_c^{\infty}(\frac{1}{2}<|\xi|\leq 2)$. The Besov space $B_{r,q}^{s}(\mathcal{M})$ is defined via the norm $$\|f\|_{B_{r,q}^{s}(\mathcal{M})}:=\big\|2^{ls}\|\Delta_l f\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})} \big\|_{l^q(\mathbb{N})}=\Big(\sum_{l\geq 0}2^{qls}\|\Delta_lf\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})}^q \Big)^{\frac{1}{q}}.$$ The Sobolev space $H^s(\mathcal{M})$ in then $B_{2,2}^s(\mathcal{M})$.
\[nonlinear1\] Let $F:\mathbb{C}\rightarrow C$ satisfies $F(0)=0$ and $$|F(z)|\leq C|z|^{\nu},\quad |\partial^{l} F(z)|\leq C|z|^{\nu-l},\quad l=1,2,$$ with $\nu\geq 2$. Then for any $\sigma\in(0,1)$, $2\leq r<\infty$ we have $$\|F(u)\|_{B_{r,2}^{\sigma}(\mathcal{M})}\leq C\|u\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})}^{\nu-1}\|u\|_{B_{r,2}^{\sigma}(\mathcal{M})}.$$
It is sufficient to estimate $\|\Delta_lF(u)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}$ in one coordinate patch. Applying Proposition \[BGT\] to the operator $\Delta_l=\psi(-2^{-2l}\Delta_{g_0})$, we have $$\kappa^*(\chi_1\Delta_lF(u))=\sum_{j=0}^{L-1}\psi_j(x,2^{-l}D_x)\kappa^*(\chi_2F(u))+R_{L,l}$$ with $$\psi_0(x,\xi)=\chi_1(\kappa(x))\chi\left(|\xi|_{g_0}^2\right),
\quad |\xi|_{g_0}^2:=\sum_{i,j}g_0^{i,j}(x)\xi_i\xi_j,$$ and $$\|R_{L,l}\|_{L^r(\R^d)}\lesssim \|R_{L,l}\|_{H^{\nu}(\R^d)}\lesssim 2^{-l(L-\nu)}\|F(u)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})},$$ where we take $L>\nu$ large enough such that $H^{\nu}(\R^d)\hookrightarrow L^r(\R^d)$. Let $$1=\theta_0(\xi)+\sum_{l=1}^{\infty}\theta(2^{-l}\xi)$$ be a dyadic partition of unity in $\mathbb{R}^d$, $\theta_0\in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d),\theta\in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d\setminus\{0\})$. Denote by $\theta_j(\cdot)=\theta(2^{-j}\cdot),$ for $j\geq 1$, we denote by $\widetilde{\Delta}_j=\theta_j(D)$ be the usual Littlewood-Paley dyadic projector in $\mathbb{R}^d$ and $$\widetilde{S}_j:=\sum_{k\leq j}\widetilde{\Delta}_k.$$ Note that on the support of $\chi_1$, $$a|\xi|^2\leq |\xi|_{g_0}^2\leq b|\xi|^2,$$ in view of the support property of $\psi_j$, the standard pseudodifferential calculus implies, if $|l'-l|\geq \nu_0$ for some fixed positive constant $\nu_0$, we have $$\|\theta_{l'}(D)\psi_j(x,2^{-l}D)\kappa^*(\chi_2F(u))\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}\lesssim 2^{-l}\|\rho(2^{-l'}D)\kappa^*(\chi_2F(u))\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}$$ for some $\rho\in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d\setminus\{0\})$. Therefore, we have $$\label{reductionE}
\begin{split}
\|\kappa^*(\chi_1\Delta_lF(u))\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}\lesssim & \sum_{|l'-l|\leq \nu_0}\|\widetilde{\Delta}_{l'}(\kappa^*(\chi_2F(u)))\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}+2^{-l}\|F(u)\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}.
\end{split}$$ We could replace the error by $2^{-l}\|F(u)\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})}$ since $L^r(\mathcal{M})\hookrightarrow L^2(\mathcal{M})$. Denote by $v=\kappa^*u=u\circ\kappa$, and $\widetilde{\chi}_j=\chi_j\circ\kappa$, $j=1,2$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $v$ has compact suppourt in $\mathbb{R}^d$. Observe that $$\|[\widetilde{\Delta}_l,\widetilde{\chi}_2]\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)\rightarrow L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}\lesssim 2^{-l},$$ we have $$\label{r1}
\begin{split}
\|\kappa^*(\chi_1\Delta_lF(u))\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}\lesssim & \sum_{|l'-l|\leq \nu_0}\|\widetilde{\chi}_2\widetilde{\Delta}_{l'}(F(v))\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}+2^{-l}\|F(u)\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})}.
\end{split}$$ Now we have reduced all the functions and operators to $\mathbb{R}^d$ and we can perform the standard analysis. We write $$F(v)=\sum_{j\geq 0}\Big[F(\widetilde{S}_jv)-F(\widetilde{S}_{j-1}v)\Big]:=\sum_{j\geq 0}m_j\widetilde{\Delta}_jv,$$ with the convention that $\widetilde{S}_{-1}=0$, where $$m_j=\int_0^1F'(\tau\widetilde{S}_jv+(1-\tau)\widetilde{S}_{j-1}v)d\tau.$$ We write the product as $$\sum_{j\geq 0}m_j\widetilde{\Delta_j}v=\sum_{j\geq 0}\widetilde{S}_{j-2}m_j\widetilde{\Delta_j}v+\sum_{k,j:k\geq j-2}\widetilde{\Delta}_km_j\widetilde{\Delta_j}v.$$ The first term on the right hand side can be estimated as $$\label{rhs1}
\begin{split}
&\Big\|\widetilde{\chi}_2\widetilde{\Delta}_l\Big(\sum_{j\geq 0}\widetilde{S}_{j-2}m_j\Delta_jv\Big)\Big\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}\\
\leq &\Big\|\sum_{|j-l|\leq 2}\widetilde{S}_{j-2}m_j\cdot\widetilde{\chi}_2\widetilde{\Delta}_jv\Big\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}
+2^{-l}\Big\|\sum_{|j-l|\leq 2}\widetilde{S}_{j-2}m_j\cdot\widetilde{\Delta}_jv\Big\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}\\
\lesssim &\sup_{j}\|\widetilde{S}_{j-2}m_j\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)}\Big(\sum_{|j-l|\leq 2}\|\widetilde{\chi}_2\widetilde{\Delta}_jv\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}+2^{-l}\|v\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}\Big)
\\
\lesssim &\|u\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})}^{p-1}\Big(\sum_{|j-l|\leq 2}\|\Delta_ju\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})}+C2^{-l}\|u\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})}\Big),
\end{split}$$ where in the last inequality, we have used the estimates $$\|\widetilde{S}_{j-2}m_j\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)}\lesssim \|v\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)}^{p-1}\lesssim \|u\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})}^{p-1},\quad \|v\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}\leq \|u\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})}.$$ Moreover, we have also applied Proposition \[BGT\] to replace $\|\widetilde{\chi}_2\widetilde{\Delta}_jv\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}$ by $\|\Delta_ju\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})}$ and an error term absorbed in $2^{-j}\|u\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})}$, as in the argument we have used just now.
Therefore, $$\label{lowhigh}
\sum_{l\geq 0 }2^{2l\sigma}\Big\|\widetilde{\chi}_2\widetilde{\Delta}_l\Big(\sum_{j\geq 0 }\widetilde{S}_{j-2}m_j\widetilde{\Delta}_jv\Big)\Big\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}^2\lesssim \Big(\|u\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})}^{p-1}\|u\|_{B_{r,2}^{\sigma}(\mathcal{M})}\Big)^2.$$ To estiamte the other term, we write $$\begin{split}
\widetilde{\chi}_2\widetilde{\Delta}_l\Big(\sum_{k,j:k\geq j-2}{\widetilde}{\Delta}_km_j{\widetilde}{\Delta_j}v\Big)={\widetilde}{\chi}_2{\widetilde}{\Delta}_l\Big(\sum_{k\geq l-10}\sum_{j\leq k+2}{\widetilde}{\Delta}_km_j{\widetilde}{\Delta}_jv\Big).
\end{split}$$ Thanks to Bernstein, we apply the following type of control $$\Big\|\sum_{k\geq l-10}\sum_{j\leq k+2}{\widetilde}{\Delta}_kG\cdot{\widetilde}{\Delta}_jH\Big\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}\lesssim \sum_{k\geq l-10}\sum_{j\leq k+2}2^{-k}\|\nabla_x\left({\widetilde}{\Delta}_kG\cdot{\widetilde}{\Delta}_jH\right)\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}$$ and obtain that $$\label{highhigh}
\begin{split}
&\Big\|{\widetilde}{\chi}_2{\widetilde}{\Delta}_l\Big(\sum_{k\geq l-10}\sum_{j\leq k+2}{\widetilde}{\Delta}_km_j{\widetilde}{\Delta}_jv\Big)\Big\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}\\
\lesssim & \sum_{k\geq l-10}\sum_{j\leq k+2}2^{-k}\Big(\|{\widetilde}{\Delta}_k\nabla m_j\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)}\|{\widetilde}{\Delta}_jv\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}+\|{\widetilde}{\Delta}_km_j\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)}\|{\widetilde}{\Delta}_j\nabla v\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}\Big).
\end{split}$$ Note that $v=\widetilde{\chi}_3v$ for some $\widetilde{\chi}_3\in C_c^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)$, and we have from commutator estimate that $$\|{\widetilde}{\Delta}_jv\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}\lesssim \|{\widetilde}{\chi}_3{\widetilde}{\Delta}_jv\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}+2^{-j}\|u\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})},$$ $$\|{\widetilde}{\Delta}_j\nabla v\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}\lesssim 2^j\|{\widetilde}{\chi}_3{\widetilde}{\Delta}_jv\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}+\|u\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})}.$$ Now from the pointwise estimate $$\|{\widetilde}{\Delta}_k\nabla m_j\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)}\lesssim 2^j\left(\|{\widetilde}{S}_{j}v\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)}^{p-1}+\|{\widetilde}{S}_{j-1}v\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)}^{p-1}\right)\lesssim 2^{j}\|u\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})}^{p-1},$$ we have $$\begin{split}
\eqref{highhigh}\lesssim &\|u\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})}^{p-1}\sum_{k\geq l-10}\sum_{j\leq k+2}\Big(2^{-(k-j)}\|{\widetilde}{\chi}_3{\widetilde}{\Delta}_jv\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}+2^{-k}\|u\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})}\Big)\\
\lesssim &\|u\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})}^{p-1}\sum_{k\geq l-10}\sum_{j\leq k+2}\Big(2^{-(k-j)}\|\Delta_ju\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})}+2^{-k}\|u\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})}\Big)\\
\lesssim &\|u\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})}^{p-1}\sum_{k\geq l-10}2^{-k\sigma}\sum_{j\leq k+2}2^{-(k-j)(1-\sigma)}2^{j\sigma}\|\Delta_ju\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})}\\+&l2^{-l}\|u\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})}^{p-1}\|u\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})}.
\end{split}$$ Thus Young’s convolution inequality on $l^2$ yields $$\sum_{l\geq 0}2^{2l\sigma}\Big\|{\widetilde}{\chi}_2{\widetilde}{\Delta}_l\Big(\sum_{k\geq l-10}\sum_{j\leq k+2}{\widetilde}{\Delta}_km_j{\widetilde}{\Delta}_jv\Big)\Big\|_{L^r(\mathbb{R}^d)}^2\lesssim \|u\|_{B_{r,2}^{\sigma}(\mathcal{M})}^2\|u\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})}^{p-1}.$$ This completes the proof of Lemma \[nonlinear1\].
We also need the following type of paraproduct estimate.
\[nonlinear2\] We have $$\|fg\|_{H^s(\mathcal{M})}\leq C_{s,\sigma_1,r}\|f\|_{H^s(\mathcal{M})}\|g\|_{B_{r,2}^{\sigma_1}(\mathcal{M})}$$ for any $0<s<\sigma_1<1$ and $r>\frac{d}{\sigma_1-s}$.
Applying by replacing $F(u)$ to $f\cdot g$, we have $$\begin{split}
\|\kappa^*(\chi_1\Delta_l(fg))\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}\leq & C\sum_{|l'-l|\leq \nu_0}\|\widetilde{\Delta}_{l'}(\kappa^*(\chi_2(fg)))\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}+C2^{-l}\|fg\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}.
\end{split}$$ Again, we denote by ${\widetilde}{\chi}_1=\chi_1\circ\kappa$, $v=f\circ\kappa={\widetilde}{\chi}_3v,$ and $ w=g\circ\kappa={\widetilde}{\chi}_3w$ with ${\widetilde}{\chi}_3\in C_c^{\infty}(U)$. Now we write $$v\cdot w=T_vw+T_wv+R(v,w),$$ with $$T_vw=\sum_{j\geq 0}{\widetilde}{S}_{j-2}v{\widetilde}{\Delta}_jw,\quad T_wv=\sum_{j\geq 0}{\widetilde}{S}_{j-2}w{\widetilde}{\Delta}_jv,
\text{ and }
R(v,w)=\sum_{|j-k|\leq 2}{\widetilde}{\Delta}_jv{\widetilde}{\Delta}_kw.$$ We estimate $$\label{3}
\begin{split}
\|{\widetilde}{\chi}_1{\widetilde}{\Delta}_l(T_wv)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}\leq &\Big\|{\widetilde}{\Delta}_l\Big(\sum_{|j-l|\leq 2}{\widetilde}{S}_{j-2}w{\widetilde}{\Delta}_jv\Big)\Big\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}\\
\leq &\sum_{|j-l|\leq 2}\|{\widetilde}{S}_{j-2}w\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)}\|{\widetilde}{\Delta}_j({\widetilde}{\chi}_3v)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}\\
\lesssim & \|g\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})}\sum_{|j-l|\leq 2}\Big(\|\Delta_j f\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}+2^{-l}\|f\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}\Big),
\end{split}$$ where in the last inequality, we have used the $\|[{\widetilde}{\Delta}_j,{\widetilde}{\chi}_3]\|_{L^2\rightarrow L^2}\leq C2^{-j}$ and Proposition \[BGT\] as in the proof of Lemma \[nonlinear1\]. Therefore, from the embedding $B_{r,2}^{\sigma_1}\hookrightarrow L^{\infty}$, we have $$\|{\widetilde}{\chi}_1(T_{w}v)\|_{H^{s}(\mathbb{R}^d)}\lesssim \|g\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})}\|f\|_{H^s(\mathcal{M})}\lesssim \|g\|_{B_{r,2}^{\sigma_1}(\mathcal{M})}\|f\|_{H^s(\mathcal{M})}.$$ Similarly, $$\begin{split}
2^{ls}\|{\widetilde}{\chi}_1{\widetilde}{\Delta}_lR(v,w))\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}\leq &2^{ls}\Big\|{\widetilde}{\Delta}_l\Big(\sum_{|j-k|\leq 2,j\geq l-10}{\widetilde}{\Delta}_jv{\widetilde}{\Delta}_kw\Big)\Big\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}\\
\lesssim &2^{ls}\sum_{|j-k|\leq 2,j\geq l-10}\|{\widetilde}{\Delta}_kw\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)}\|{\widetilde}{\Delta}_j({\widetilde}{\chi}_3v)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}\\
\lesssim &2^{ls}\|g\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})}\sum_{j\geq l-10}\left(\|\Delta_jf\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}+2^{-j}\|f\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}\right)\\
\lesssim &\|g\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})}\Big(\sum_{j\geq l-10}2^{js}\|\Delta_jf\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}\cdot 2^{-(j-l)s}+2^{-(1-s)l}\|f\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}\Big).
\end{split}$$ Young’s convolution inequality gives $$\|{\widetilde}{\chi}_1R(v,w)\|_{H^{s}(\mathbb{R}^d)}\leq C\|g\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathcal{M})}\|f\|_{H^s(\mathcal{M})}.$$ The treatement for the term $T_vw$ is a little different, since we still need put $L^2$ norm on $f$. We estimate $$\begin{split}
2^{ls}\|{\widetilde}{\chi}_1{\widetilde}{\Delta}_l(T_vw)\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}\leq &C2^{ls}\sum_{|j-l|\leq 2}\|{\widetilde}{S}_{j-2}v\|_{L^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}\|{\widetilde}{\Delta}_j({\widetilde}{\chi}_3w)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)}\\
\leq &C2^{ls}\|f\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}\sum_{|j-l|\leq 2}\|{\widetilde}{\Delta}_j({\widetilde}{\chi}_3w)\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^d)}\\
\leq &C2^{ls}\|f\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}\sum_{|j-l|\leq 2}2^{\frac{jd}{r}}\|{\widetilde}{\Delta}_j({\widetilde}{\chi}_3w)\|_{L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^d)},
\end{split}$$ where we have used Bernstein in the last inequality. Thanks to $s+\frac{d}{r}< \sigma_1<1$, we can bound the right hand side by $$C2^{l\left(s+\frac{d}{r}\right)}\|f\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}\sum_{|j-l|\leq 2}\|\Delta_jg\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})}+C2^{-l(1-\sigma_1)}\|f\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}\|g\|_{L^r(\mathcal{M})}.$$ Finally, we complete the proof of Lemma \[nonlinear2\] by taking the $l^2$ norm of the above quantity.
Thanks to the established estimates, the proof of Theorem \[thmA\] can be done exactly as we did in the proof of Theorem \[thm3\].
[10]{}
S. Albeverio, A. Cruzeiro, [*Global flows with invariant (Gibbs) measures for Euler and Navier-Stokes two dimensional fluids*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys., 129 (1990) 431–444.
J. Bergh, J. Löfström, [*Interpolation spaces, an introduction*]{}, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften 223 (1976) Springer.
J. Bourgain, [*Fourier transform restriction phenomena for certain lattice subsets and applications to nonlinear evolution equations. I. Schrödinger equations*]{}, Geom. Funct. Anal., 3 (1993) 107–156.
J. Bourgain, [*Periodic nonlinear [S]{}chr[ö]{}dinger equation and invariant measures*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys., 166 (1994) 1–26.
J. Bourgain, [*Invariant measures for the 2d-defocusing nonlinear [S]{}chr[ö]{}dinger equation*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys., 176 (1996) 421–445.
J. Bourgain, A. Bulut, [*Invariant Gibbs measure evolution for the radial nonlinear wave equation on the 3d ball,*]{} J. Funct. Anal., 266 (2014) 2319–€“2340.
J. Bourgain, A. Bulut, [*Almost sure global well posedness for the radial nonlinear Schrödinger equation on the unit ball I: the 2D case,*]{} Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire, 31 (2014) 1267–1288.
J. Bourgain, A. Bulut, [*Almost sure global well posedness for the radial nonlinear Schrödinger equation on the unit ball II:*]{} the 3D case, J. Eur. Math. Soc., 16 (2014) 1289–1325.
N. Burq, P. G[é]{}rard, N. Tzvetkov, [*Strichartz inequalities and the nonlinear [S]{}chrödinger equation on compact manifolds*]{}, Amer. J. Math., 126 (2004) 569–605.
N. Burq, L. Thomann, N. Tzvetkov, [*Long time dynamics for the one dimensional non linear Schrödinger equation*]{}, Annales de l’Institut Fourier, 63 (2013) 2137–2198.
N. Burq, L. Thomann, N. Tzvetkov, [*Remarks on the Gibbs measures for nonlinear dispersive equations*]{}, Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math., (6) 27 (2018) 527–597.
N. Burq, N. Tzvetkov, [*Invariant measure for a three dimensional nonlinear wave equation*]{}, Int. Math. Res. Not. (2007) 26 pp.
N. Burq, N. Tzvetkov, [*Random data Cauchy theory for supercritical wave equations I. Local theory*]{}, Invent. Math., 173 (2008) 449–475.
N. Burq, N. Tzvetkov, [*Probabilistic well-posedness for the cubic wave equation*]{}, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 16 (2014) 1–30.
Y. Cho, G. Hwant, S. Kwon, S. Lee, [*Well-posedness and ill-posedness for the cubic fractional Schrödinger equations,*]{} Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems, 35 (2015) 2863–€“2880.
J. Colliander, T. Oh, [*Almost sure well-posedness of the cubic nonlinear Schrödinger equation below $L^2(\T)$*]{}, Duke Math. J., 161 (2012) 367–414.
A.S. de Suzzoni, [*Invariant measure for the cubic wave equation on the unit ball of $\R^3$*]{}, Dyn. Partial Differ. Equ., 8 (2011) 127–147.
S. Demirbas, [*Almost sure global well-posedness for the fractional cubic Schrödinger equation on the torus*]{}, Canad. Math. Bull., 58 (2015) 471–485.
Y. Deng, [*Invariance of the Gibbs measure for the Benjamin-Ono equation*]{}, J. Eur. Math. Soc., 17 (2015) 1107–1198.
Y. Deng, A-R. Nahmod, H. Yue, [*Invariant Gibbs measures and global strong solutions for nonlinear Schrödinger equations in dimension two*]{}, arXiv: 1910.98492.
C. Fan, Y. Ou, G. Staffilani, H. Wang, [*$2D$-Defocusing Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation with Random Data on Irrational Tori*]{}, arXiv:1910.03199.
F. Flandoli, [*Weak vorticity formulation of $2D$ Euler equations with white noise initial condition*]{}, Comm. PDE, 43 (2018) 1102-1149.
J. Forlano, W. Trenberth, [*On the transport property of Gaussian measures under the one-dimensional fractional nonlinear Schrödinger equations*]{}, arXiv:1812.06877.
L. Friedlander, [*An invariant measure for the equation $u_{tt}-u_{xx}+u^3=0$*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys., 98 (1985) 1–16.
J. Ginibre, Y. Tsutsumi, G. Velo, [*On the Cauchy problem for the Zakharov system,*]{} J. Funct. Anal., 151 (1997) 384–436.
L. Hörmander, [*The spectral function of an elliptic operator*]{}, Acta Math. 121 (1968) 193–218.
A. Ionescu, F. Pusateri, [*Nolinear fractional Schrödinger equations in one dimension*]{}, J. Func. Anal., 266 (2014) 139-176.
K. Kirkpatrick, E. Lenzmann, G. Staffilani, [*On the continuum limit for discrete NLS with long-range lattice interactions*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys., 317 (2013) 563–591.
N. Laskin, [*Fractional quantum mechanics and Lévy path integrals*]{}, Phys. Lett. 268 (2000) 298–305.
J. Lebowitz, R. Rose, E. Speer, [*Statistical dynamics of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation*]{}, J. Stat. Physics, 50 (1988) 657–687.
A. Nahmod, T. Oh, L. Rey-Bellet, G. Staffilani, [*Invariant weighted Wiener measures and almost sure global well-posedness for the periodic derivative NLS*]{}, J. Eur. Math. Soc., 14 (2012) 1275–1330.
A. Nahmod, G. Staffilani, [*Almost sure well-posedness for the periodic 3D quintic nonlinear Schr" odinger equation below the energy space*]{}, J. Eur. Math. Soc., 17 (2015) 1687–1759.
T. Oh, [*Invariance of the Gibbs measure for the Schrödinger-Benjamin-Ono system*]{}, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 41 (2009) 2207–2225.
T. Oh, [*Invariant Gibbs measures and a.s. global well-posedness for coupled KdV systems*]{}, Diff. Integ. Eq., 22 (2009) 637–668.
T. Oh, L. Thomann, [*Invariant Gibbs measures for the 2-$d$ defocusing nonlinear wave equations*]{}, to appear in Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math.
G. Richards, [*Invariance of the Gibbs measure for the periodic quartic gKdV*]{}, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire, 33 (2016) 699–766.
B. Simon, [*The $P(\phi)_{2}$ Euclidean (Quantum) Field Theory*]{}, Princeton Series in Physics, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J., 1974.
C.-M. Sun, N. Tzvetkov, [*New examples of probabilistic well-posedness for nonlinear wave equations*]{}, to appear in J. Func. Anal.
T. Tao, [*Nonlinear dispersive equations, Local and Global Analysis,*]{}Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, No. 106.
J. Thirouin, [*On the growth of Sobolev norms of solutions of the fractional defocusing NLS equation on the circle*]{}, Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré (C) Analyse non linéaire, (2017) 509–531.
N. Tzvetkov, [*Construction of a Gibbs measure associated to the periodic Benjamin-Ono equation*]{}, Probab. Theory Related Fields., 146 (2010) 481–514.
N. Tzvetkov, [*Invariant measures for the defocusing Nonlinear Schrödinger equation*]{}, Annales de l’Institut Fourier, 58 (2008) 2543–2604.
P. Zhidkov, [*An invariant measure for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation*]{} (Russian) Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 317 (1991) 543–546.
P. Zhidkov, [*An invariant measure for a nonlinear wave equation*]{}, Nonlinear Anal. 22 (1994) 319–325.
P. Zhidkov, [*On invariant measures for some infinite-dimensional dynamical systems*]{}, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Phys. Théor., 62 (1995) 267–287.
[^1]: In an appendix we shall extend Theorem \[thm3\] to higher dimensions.
[^2]: By convention, $\Pi_{\infty}=\mathrm{Id}$.
[^3]: Since we will only use $X^{s,b}$ type norms in this case, we can replace each Fourier coefficient in the expression of $\mathcal{N}_1(\cdot,\cdot,\cdot)$ by its absolute value and then apply Corollary \[Trilinear\] for the full multiplication $v_1\ov{v}_2v_3$.
[^4]: The term $\mathcal{N}_0$ has been treated in the last subsection.
[^5]: Here we insert some time-localization of size 1 for $v_{(3)}$.
[^6]: Note that we have inserted implicitly time cutoff functions to perform the integration in $t$ over finite intervals.
[^7]: In the situation where $\Phi(\ov{n})\in\Z$, namely $\alpha=2$, we can simply reduce the constraint by $\Phi(\ov{n})=\mu$. However, for $\alpha<2$, the values of $\Phi(\ov{n})$ maybe dense in an interval, and this will be responsible for the loss of derivatives when we perform the counting argument.
[^8]: Other cases are similar or better.
[^9]: For simplicity we consider only the polynomial nonlinearity here, our argument applies to more general nonlinearities having polynomial growth and defocusing feature.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We demonstrate a close connection between observed field-induced antiferromagnetic (AFM) order and quantum critical fluctuation (QCF) in the Zn7%-doped heavy-fermion superconductor CeCoIn$_5$. Magnetization, specific heat, and electrical resistivity at low temperatures all show the presence of new field-induced AFM order under the magnetic field $B$ of 5–10 T, whose order parameter is clearly distinguished from the low-field AFM phase observed for $B < 5\ {\rm T}$ and the superconducting phase for $B < 3\ {\rm T}$. The 4f electronic specific heat divided by the temperature, $C_e/T$, exhibits $-\ln T$ dependence at $B\sim 10\ {\rm T}$ ($\equiv B_0$), and furthermore, the $C_e/T$ data for $B \ge B_0$ are well scaled by the logarithmic function of $B$ and $T$: $\ln[(B-B_0)/T^{2.7}]$. These features are quite similar to the scaling behavior found in pure CeCoIn$_5$, strongly suggesting that the field-induced QCF in pure CeCoIn$_5$ originates from the hidden AFM order parameter equivalent to high-field AFM order in Zn7%-doped CeCoIn$_5$.'
author:
- Makoto Yokoyama
- Hiroaki Mashiko
- Ryo Otaka
- Yoshiki Oshima
- Kohei Suzuki
- Kenichi Tenya
- Yusei Shimizu
- Ai Nakamura
- Dai Aoki
- Akihiro Kondo
- Koichi Kindo
- Shota Nakamura
- Toshiro Sakakibara
title: 'Observation of a new field-induced phase transition and its concomitant quantum critical fluctuations in CeCo(In$_{\bm{1-x}}$Zn$_{\bm{x}}$)$_{\bm{5}}$'
---
Introduction
============
Understanding the role of quantum critical fluctuations (QCFs) in unconventional superconductivity is a longstanding subject in condensed matter physics. Superconducting (SC) order commonly emerges near the magnetic phases in most of the strongly correlated electron systems, such as high-$T_c$ cuprates [@rf:Lee2006], FeAs-based alloys [@rf:Stewart2011], and heavy-fermion compounds [@rf:Mathur98; @rf:Pfleiderer2009]. Thus, it is considered that QCFs arising from magnetic correlation play a crucial role in the Cooper pairing in these compounds. Heavy fermion superconductors are particularly suitable for research on the interplay between QCFs and SC order, because magnetic and SC orders can be easily tuned by the magnetic field and the pressure, as well as chemical substitutions, owing to the small energy scales of these orders.
The ternary tetragonal compound CeCoIn$_5$ is one of the most extensively investigated heavy fermion superconductor ($T_{sc}=2.3\ {\rm K}$) from the perspective of the interplay between antiferromagnetic (AFM) QCF and SC order [@rf:Petrovic2001]. This compound shows non-Fermi-liquid (NFL) behaviors in various quantities just above the SC upper critical field $\mu_0H_{c2}$ ($=5\ {\rm T}$), such as nearly $T$-linear dependence in magnetization and electrical resistivity [@rf:Tayama2002; @rf:Paglione2003], and $-\ln T$ divergence in the specific heat divided by the temperature [@rf:Bianchi2003-2], by applying magnetic field $B$ along the $c$ axis. It is widely recognized that AFM-QCF enhanced near $H_{c2}$ is responsible for these NFL behaviors. However, relevant AFM order is never found in CeCoIn$_5$, except for SC order coupled with AFM spin modulation, called the Q phase, located in small temperature and magnetic field ranges just below $H_{c2}$ for $B\perp c$ [@rf:Kakuyanagi2005; @rf:Young2007; @rf:Kenzelmann2008].
Instead, long-range AFM orders with various spin modulations are actually induced by substituting ions in the elements of CeCoIn$_5$, such as Nd for Ce [@rf:Hu2008; @rf:Raymond2014], Rh for Co [@rf:Zapf2001; @rf:Yoko2006; @rf:Ohira-Kawamura2007; @rf:Yoko2008], and Cd, Hg, and Zn for In [@rf:Pham2006; @rf:Nicklas2007; @rf:Yoko2014], although it is still unclear how they are related to the QCF observed around $H_{c2}$ in CeCoIn$_5$ [@rf:Seo2014; @rf:Nair2010]. We reported that the mixed compound CeCo(In$_{0.93}$Zn$_{0.07}$)$_5$ shows AFM order below $T_N\sim 2.2$ K, along with the reduction of $T_{sc}$ down to 1.3 K [@rf:Yoko2014; @rf:Yoko2015]. In a previous study, however, the issue of the relationship between QCF and AFM order was left unresolved. In particular, the specific heat divided by the temperature for Zn7%-doped CeCoIn$_5$ shows $-\ln T$ dependence at $B\sim$ 10 T for $B\,||\,c$, whose temperature dependence coincides fairly well with that observed around $H_{c2}$ in pure CeCoIn$_5$ [@rf:Yoko2015]. The origin of this NFL anomaly has not yet been clarified, because the applied field range for yielding this NFL anomaly ($B\sim$ 10 T) is much larger than the critical fields of AFM order (5 T) and SC order (3 T).
In this paper, we report the finding of another new AFM order in proximity to the field-induced NFL anomaly in Zn7%-doped CeCoIn$_5$, which is clearly distinguished from the low-field AFM order previously observed for $B \le 5\ {\rm T}$, as revealed by thermodynamic evidence. This is the first manifestation of the close connection between field-induced QCF and AFM order in CeCoIn$_5$ and its substituted systems. Furthermore, the scaling analysis for specific heat demonstrates that the NFL behavior around the observed AFM order is quite similar to that seen around $H_{c2}(T\to 0)$ in CeCoIn$_5$. This resemblance strongly suggests that field-induced QCFs in pure and Zn-doped CeCoIn$_5$ have almost the same origin.
Experiment Details
==================
Single crystals of CeCo(In$_{1-x}$Zn$_x$)$_5$ with $x=0.07$ were grown with the indium-flux technique, whose details are described elsewhere [@rf:Yoko2015]. Note that the actual Zn concentration, $y$, estimated from the energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) measurements was roughly $0.025$, although it involves the fairly large uncertainty unavoidable in EDS measurements [@rf:Yoko2015]. Here, we use the nominal concentration $x$ for clarity and simplicity. The magnetization $M$ measurement was performed down to 0.08 K using a capacitively-detected Faraday force magnetometer [@rf:Sakakibara94]. The $a$-axis electrical resistivity $\rho$ was measured in the temperature range of 0.06–0.26 K, using the standard four-wire technique. The specific heat $C_p$ measurement was carried out down to 0.5 K with the thermal relaxation method using a commercial measurement system (PPMS, Quantum Design). In all measurements, magnetic field $B$ ($\mu_0H$) was applied up to 14 T along the $c$ axis.
Results and Discussion
======================
Figure 1(a) shows the $c$-axis magnetization curve, $M(B)$, at 0.08 K, measured under increasing and decreasing field processes. The SC upper critical field and the subsequent change in the AFM structure are recognized by the closing of the large hysteresis loop at $\mu_0H_{c2} =3\ {\rm T}$ and a step-like anomaly at $B_{M1}=5\ {\rm T}$ in $M(B)$, respectively [@rf:Yoko2015]. The present $M(B)$ measurement further finds a weak kink or bending at $B_{M2}=9.8(6)\ {\rm T}$. This anomaly is also confirmed by the broad step-like decrease in the field variation of $dM/dB$ \[the inset of Fig. 1(a)\].
To clarify the origin of the kink at $B_{M2}$ in $M(B)$, we examine the temperature variations of the specific heat, $C_p(T)$, for $B \ge B_{M1}$. As shown in Fig. 1(b), $C_p(T)$ for $B=7$ T exhibits a jump-like anomaly at $T_{M2}\sim 0.9\ {\rm K}$, evidencing the emergence of an ordered phase below $T_{M2}$ for $B > B_{M1}$. The jump in $C_p$ moves toward a lower temperature with increasing $B$, and its magnitude becomes small at $B=8\ {\rm T}$. The jump finally disappears at least for $T> 0.5\ {\rm K}$ at $B=9\ {\rm T}$ ($\sim B_{M2}$). Because $T_{M2}$ is reduced toward zero as $B$ approaches $B_{M2}$, the kink seen at $B_{M2}$ in $M(B)$ is considered to be ascribed to the breakdown of the same ordered phase.
The development of the ordered phase for $B \ge B_{M1}$ also yields a broad peak at $T_{M2}=0.9\ {\rm K}$ ($B=7\ {\rm T}$) and 0.6 K (8 T) in the temperature variations of $M/B$ \[Fig. 1(c)\]. Because the magnitude of $M/B$ is reduced below $T_{M2}$, it is natural to consider that the ordered phase for $B \ge B_{M1}$ is attributed to the AFM ordering. For $B > B_{M2}$, however, $M/B$ follows the $-T^n$ function, and the best fit in the temperature range below 2.2 K gives the exponent $n$ of 1.38(1) at $B=10\ {\rm T}$. The $n$ value increases with increasing $B$ and becomes 1.58(1) at $B=14\ {\rm T}$.
{width="45.00000%"}
{width="45.00000%"}
The magnetic field dependences of the electrical resistivity $\rho(B)$ for $B\,||\,c$ and $T\le 0.26\ {\rm K}$ are plotted in Fig. 2. The $\rho(B)$ curve has a shoulder-like structure at $B_{M1}$ and an inflection point at $\sim B_{M2}$. The latter anomaly is confirmed by the minimum in $d\rho/dB$ (the upper inset of Fig. 2). The inflection point in $\rho(B)$ moves from 9.8(3) T ($T=0.06\ {\rm K}$) to 9.3(3) T ($T=0.26\ {\rm K}$) with increasing temperature, and this temperature variation is consistent with the tendency in the field variations of $T_{M2}$ derived from $C_p$ and $M/B$. $\rho(B)$ is found to show hysteretic behavior (the lower inset of Fig. 2). Hysteresis appears at $\sim B_{M1}$ in $\rho(B)$ and then gradually becomes small with increasing $B$. At 0.1 K, hysteresis is still observed at least up to 7.7 T but cannot be detected at $B_{M2}$ within the experimental resolution. The absence of the hysteresis at $B_{M2}$ in $\rho(B)$ implies the second-order nature of the phase transition at $B_{M2}$. The continuous changes in $M(B)$ and $\rho(B)$ at $B_{M2}$ are also characteristic of the second-order transition.
In Fig. 3, we summarize the magnetic field versus temperature ($B-T$) phase diagram obtained from the specific heat, electrical resistivity, and dc magnetization measurements. Large parts of the boundaries of low-field AFM and SC phases were clarified in a previous study [@rf:Yoko2015]. The present investigation reveals, for the first time, the emergence of another high-field AFM phase located between $B_{M1}$ and $B_{M2}$. Its boundary with the paramagnetic (PM) state, $B_{M2}(T)$, decreases with the increasing temperature and seems to meet the boundary between the low-field AFM and PM states around $T=1.5\ {\rm K}$ and $B=4.5\ {\rm T}$. The phase transition at $B_{M1}$, observed as the step-like anomaly in $M(B)$, separates the high-field AFM phase from the low-field AFM phase. In addition, the shapes of the high-field and low-field AFM regions in the $B-T$ phase diagram are qualitatively different from each other. These two features suggest a discrepancy in the AFM spin structures between these AFM orders.
![ (Color online) $B-T$ phase diagram of CeCo(In$_{0.93}$Zn$_{0.07}$)$_5$ for $B\,||\,c$, derived from the specific heat, electrical resistivity, and dc magnetization measurements [@rf:Yoko2015]. The inset shows the enlargement of the $B-T$ phase diagram around 10 T. The lines on the phase boundaries are guides for the eye. ](fig3.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
We now focus on the relationship between the observed high-field AFM order and the NFL behavior seen around $B_{M2}$ in the specific heat, by performing precise $C_p$ measurements and analyses. Figure 4(a) shows the temperature dependence of the 4f electronic specific heat divided by the temperature, $C_e/T$. In these data, the phonon and nuclear-spin contributions are carefully subtracted using $C_p$ data of the non-4f compound LaCoIn$_5$ at $B=0$ and calculations based on the natural abundance of nuclear spins, respectively. Note that the phonon contribution in $C_p$ is about 10% even at 4 K, and therefore, the effect of Zn doping ($y\sim 0.025$) is considered to be negligible at low temperatures. However, we do not estimate $C_e$ below 0.5 K because the nuclear spin contribution is expected to be very large and become more than 95% of $C_p$ at 0.1 K for $B \ge 10\ {\rm T}$. $C_e/T$ shows clear $-\ln T$ dependence at 10 T ($\simeq B_{M2}$) below 4 K, and this $T$ dependence is gradually suppressed for $B> 10\ {\rm T}$. This suppression is considered to be a crossover from the NFL to Fermi-liquid (FL) states for $B > B_{M2}$. The appearance of the NFL-FL crossover may also yield the increase in the exponent $n$ in $M/B \propto -T^n$. We define the crossover temperature $T_{cr}$ as the onset of the deviation from the $-\ln T$ function in $C_e/T$. As seen in the inset of Fig. 3, the curve corresponding to $T_{cr}$ approaches the high-field AFM boundary for $T\to 0$. This feature suggests that the QCF responsible for the NFL behavior in $C_e/T$ still exists at $T\sim 0$ and $B\sim B_{M2}$, and thus, the phase boundary of the high-field AFM phase at $T=0$ and $B=B_{M2}$ is regarded as the quantum critical point.
![ (Color online) (a) Temperature variations of the 4f electronic specific heat divided by the temperature, $C_e/T$, for CeCo(In$_{0.93}$Zn$_{0.07}$)$_5$, obtained under magnetic fields above 10 T for $B\,||\,c$. The broken line indicates a guide for the $-\ln T$ function. (b) The plot of $[C_e-C_e(B_0)]/(T \Delta B^\alpha)$ versus $\Delta B/T^\beta$ obtained with scaling analysis of the $C_e/T$ data, where $\Delta B$ indicates $B-B_0$ with $B_0=10\ {\rm T}$. The inset of (b) is the image plot of the correlation coefficient $r$, resulting from the least squares fitting of the $C_e/T$ data for the scaling analysis. The position of the maximum $r$ ($\alpha=0.36$ and $\beta=2.7$) is given by the arrow, and the fitting curve with these $\alpha$ and $\beta$ values is shown as the broken line in (b). ](fig4.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
It is interesting to perform scaling analysis for the $C_e/T$ data in order to find similarities and differences in field-induced QCFs between pure and Zn7%-doped CeCoIn$_5$. Here, the scaling function with the form of $[C_e-C_e(B_0)]/(T\Delta B^\alpha)= f[\ln(\Delta B/T^\beta)]$ with $\Delta B=B-B_0$ is assumed in accordance with the procedure executed for pure CeCoIn$_5$ [@rf:Bianchi2003-2]. We set $B_0$ to 10 T and tentatively use a fourth-order polynomial function for $f[\ln(\Delta B/T^\beta)]$ to perform the curve fitting with least squares. The correlation coefficient of the fits, $r$, for the given scaling parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are plotted in the inset of Fig. 4(b). In Fig. 4(b), we show the best scaling result with the scaling parameters $\alpha=0.36$ and $\beta=2.7$, which are determined so that $r$ becomes the maximum. It covers the NFL and nearly FL features in the $C_e/T$ data between 10 and 14 T. The obtained $\beta$ value is comparable to the reported value ($\beta=2.5$) for pure CeCoIn$_5$, whereas $\alpha$ is significantly smaller than the reported value ($\alpha=0.71$). The discrepancy in the $\alpha$ value would simply arise from the large difference in $B_0$ between the Zn7%-doped alloy ($B_0=10\ {\rm T}$) and the pure compound ($B_0=5\ {\rm T}$), since $\alpha$ concerns $\Delta B$ as its exponent and is not included in $ f[\ln(\Delta B/T^\beta)]$. However, the correspondence in $\beta$ leads to a quite interesting result; $C_e/T$ in pure and Zn7%-doped CeCoIn$_5$ obey the same variable, $\ln(\Delta B/T^\beta)$, for $B \ge B_0$.
This scaling analysis strongly suggests that field-induced QCFs in pure and Zn7%-doped CeCoIn$_5$ have almost the same origin. Furthermore, the present $C_p$ study of the latter compound reveals that the QCF appears around the quantum critical point of the high-field AFM phase. We thus consider that the QCF enhanced at $\sim H_{c2}$ in pure CeCoIn$_5$ also originates from the “hidden" order parameter of the high-field AFM phase in CeCo(In$_{0.93}$Zn$_{0.07}$)$_5$.
Thus far, two possible scenarios concerning the quantum critical point have been suggested in pure CeCoIn$_5$. The scaling analysis for the magnetic Grüneisen parameter suggests that the quantum critical point exists at $B\sim 0$ [@rf:Tokiwa2013], although the $C_p$ and $\rho$ measurements propose that it is located at $\sim H_{c2}$ [@rf:Paglione2003; @rf:Bianchi2003-2]. In this regard, the present study shows common characteristics of field-induced QCFs between pure and Zn7%-doped compounds and thus supports the latter suggestion. However, the QCF enhanced at $\sim B_{M2}$ is not coupled with low-field AFM order in the Zn7%-doped alloy, because this order is broken by the phase transition at $B_{M1}$ $(\ll B_{M2})$. We observed no indication of a QCF related to low-field AFM order in the Zn7%-doped alloy. Instead, the QCF may be hidden deep inside the SC phase ($B \ll \mu_0H_{c2}$) in pure CeCoIn$_5$, because the $T_N$ of the low-field AFM transition decreases with the decreasing Zn concentration $x$ and seems to approach zero at $x\sim 0$ [@rf:Yoko2015]. This trend is also observed in CeCo(In,Cd)$_5$ [@rf:Pham2006].
The emergence of AFM order, coupled with the field-induced QCF, in the Zn7%-doped alloy is in stark contrast to the absence of AFM order in the pure compound. We expect that this finding paves the way for microscopic research on the relationship between the AFM correlation and SC order. Research on the spin structures and excitations in AFM order of the Zn7%-doped alloy is the key to understanding the microscopic nature of QCFs in pure and Zn-doped CeCoIn$_5$. At the same time, such research is expected to provide a clue for resolving the unusual SC properties related to the AFM spin correlations in CeCoIn$_5$, such as the Q phase [@rf:Kakuyanagi2005; @rf:Young2007; @rf:Kenzelmann2008] and spin resonance excitation [@rf:Stock2008; @rf:Eremin2008; @rf:Raymond2015; @rf:Song2016; @rf:Chubukov2008].
A possible spin structures of high-field AFM order in CeCo(In$_{1-x}$Zn$_x$)$_5$ is the incommensurate spin modulation identical to that seen in the Q phase. In this case, the present experimental results suggest that the spin arrangement of the Q phase does not have to coexist with superconductivity in Zn-doped CeCoIn$_5$, although the Q phase always coexists with the SC state in pure CeCoIn$_5$. Alternatively, it is also probable that high-field AFM order in CeCo(In$_{1-x}$Zn$_x$)$_5$ has a spiral spin structure similar to that seen in isostructural CeRhIn$_5$ [@rf:Bao2000], or is composed of canted spins with the same wave vector as that of low-field AFM order. Elastic neutron scattering and nuclear magnetic resonance experiments will be the key to determining the high-field AFM structure. In addition, it would be interesting to investigate spin excitations in low- and high-field AFM phases for CeCo(In$_{1-x}$Zn$_x$)$_5$ using the inelastic neutron scattering technique. In pure CeCoIn$_5$, it was previously suggested that the spin resonance peak appears in connection with SC gap symmetry [@rf:Stock2008; @rf:Eremin2008]. However, subsequent studies proposed that this peak originates from the instability of commensurate AFM order or the Q phase [@rf:Raymond2015; @rf:Song2016; @rf:Chubukov2008]. Comparing the characteristics of spin excitations between pure and Zn-doped CeCoIn$_5$ will provide a clue for resolving the issue of the spin resonance peak. In addition, measuring quantum oscillations and photoemission for CeCo(In$_{1-x}$Zn$_x$)$_5$ may elucidate how the occurrence of two AFM orders is coupled with the change in the electronic structure.
Conclusion
==========
In conclusion, our $M$, $C_p$, and $\rho$ measurements for CeCo(In$_{0.93}$Zn$_{0.07}$)$_5$ revealed the emergence of field-induced AFM order between $B_{M1}=5\ {\rm T}$ and $B_{M2}=9.8\ {\rm T}$ for $B\,||\,c$. The specific heat exhibits characteristic NFL behavior ($C_e/T\propto -\ln T$) around $B_{M2}$, and then the FL state recovers with further increasing $B$. This variation in $C_e/T$ can be well scaled by the variable, $\ln(\Delta B/T^\beta)$, which is quite similar to the scaling behavior found in pure CeCoIn$_5$. This correspondence strongly suggests that the field-induced QCF near $H_{c2}$ in pure CeCoIn$_5$ comes from the instability of the hidden AFM order parameter, which emerges as high-field AFM order in Zn7%-doped CeCoIn$_5$. To clarify the connection of the QCFs between pure and Zn-doped CeCoIn$_5$ more precisely, we plan to investigate the doping dependence of high-field AFM order and its fluctuations in CeCo(In$_{1-x}$Zn$_{x}$)$_5$ for $x<0.07$.
M.Y. is grateful to I. Kawasaki, Y. Homma, and S. Kittaka for their experimental support. This study was supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research on Innovative Areas “J-Physics" (15H05883) from MEXT and KAKENHI (15H03682 and 17K05529) from JSPS.
[99]{} P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**78**]{}, 17 (2006). G. R. Stewart, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**83**]{}, 1589 (2011). N. D. Mathur, F. M. Grosche, S. R. Julian, I. R. Walker, D. M. Freye, R. K. W. Haselwimmer and G. G. Lonzarich, Nature (London) [**394**]{}, 39 (1998). C. Pfleiderer, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**81**]{}, 1551 (2009). C. Petrovic, P. G. Pagliuso, M. F. Hundley, R. Movshovich, J. L. Sarrao, J. D. Thompson, Z. Fisk, and P. Monthoux, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**13**]{}, L337 (2001). T. Tayama, A. Harita, T. Sakakibara, Y. Haga, H. Shishido, R. Settai, and Y. Onuki: Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 180504(R) (2002). J. Paglione, M. A. Tanatar, D. G. Hawthorn, E. Boaknin, R. W. Hill, F. Ronning, M. Sutherland, L. Taillefer, C. Petrovic, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 246405 (2003). A. Bianchi, R. Movshovich, I. Vekhter, P. G. Pagliuso, and J. L. Sarrao: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 257001 (2003). K. Kakuyanagi, M. Saitoh, K. Kumagai, S. Takashima, M. Nohara, H. Takagi, and Y. Matsuda, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 047602 (2005). B.-L. Young, R. R. Urbano, N. J. Curro, J. D. Thompson, J. L. Sarrao, A. B. Vorontsov, and M. J. Graf, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 036402 (2007). M. Kenzelmann, Th. Strassle, C. Niedermayer, M. Sigrist, B. Padmanabhan, M. Zolliker, A. D. Bianchi, R. Movshovich, E. D. Bauer, J. L. Sarrao, J. D. Thompson, Science [**321**]{}, 1652 (2008). R. Hu, Y. Lee, J. Hudis, V. F. Mitrovic, and C. Petrovic, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 165129 (2008). S. Raymond, S. M. Ramos, D. Aoki, G. Knebel, V. P. Mineev, and G. Lapertot, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**83**]{}, 013707 (2014). V. S. Zapf, E. J. Freeman, E. D. Bauer, J. Petricka, C. Sirvent, N. A. Frederick, R. P. Dickey, and M. B. Maple, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 014506 (2001). M. Yokoyama, H. Amitsuka, K. Matsuda, A. Gawase, N. Oyama, I. Kawasaki, K. Tenya, and H. Yoshizawa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**75**]{}, 103703 (2006). S. Ohira-Kawamura, H. Shishido, A. Yoshida, R. Okazaki, H. Kawano-Furukawa, T. Shibauchi, H. Harima, and Y. Matsuda, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 132507 (2007). M. Yokoyama, N. Oyama, H. Amitsuka, S. Oinuma, I. Kawasaki, K. Tenya, M. Matsuura, K. Hirota, and T. J. Sato, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 224501 (2008). L. D. Pham, T. Park, S. Maquilon, J. D. Thompson, and Z. Fisk, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 056404 (2006). M. Nicklas, O. Stockert, T. Park, K. Habicht, K. Kiefer, L. D. Pham, J. D. Thompson, Z. Fisk, and F. Steglich, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 052401 (2007). M. Yokoyama, K. Fujimura, S. Ishikawa, M. Kimura, T. Hasegawa, I. Kawasaki, K. Tenya, Y. Kono, and T. Sakakibara, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**83**]{}, 033706 (2014). S. Seo, Xin Lu, J-X. Zhu, R. R. Urbano, N. Curro, E. D. Bauer, V. A. Sidorov, L. D. Pham, Tuson Park, Z. Fisk and J. D. Thompson, Nat. Phys. [**10**]{}, 120 (2014). Sunil Nair, O. Stockert, U. Witte, M. Nicklas, R. Schedler, K. Kiefer, J. D. Thompson, A. D. Bianchi, Z. Fisk, S. Wirth, and F. Steglich, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA [**107**]{}, 9537 (2010). M. Yokoyama, H. Mashiko, R. Otaka, Y. Sakon, K. Fujimura, K. Tenya, A. Kondo, K. Kindo, Y. Ikeda, H. Yoshizawa, Y. Shimizu, Y. Kono, and T. Sakakibara, Phys. Rev. B [**92**]{}, 184509 (2015). T. Sakakibara, H. Mitamura, T. Tayama and H. Amitsuka, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. [**33**]{}, 5067 (1994). Y. Tokiwa, E. D. Bauer, and P. Gegenwart, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 107003 (2013). C. Stock, C. Broholm, J. Hudis, H. J. Kang, and C. Petrovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 087001 (2008). I. Eremin, G. Zwicknagl, P. Thalmeier, and P. Fulde, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 187001 (2008). S. Raymond and G. Lapertot, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 037001 (2015). Y. Song, J. van Dyke, I. K. Lum, B. D. White, S. Jang, D. Yazici, L. Shu, A. Schneidewind, P. Čermák, Y. Qiu, M. B. Maple, D. K. Morr and P. Dai, Nat. Commun. [**7**]{}, 12774 (2016). A. V. Chubukov and L. P. Gor’kov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 147004 (2008). W. Bao, P. G. Pagliuso, J. L. Sarrao, J. D. Thompson, Z. Fisk, J. W. Lynn and R. W. Erwin, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, R14621 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that the centrality dependence of the multiplicity is identical in Pb+Pb and Xe+Xe collisions at the LHC, up to a constant factor. This geometric scaling is revealed if one defines centrality according to impact parameter, as opposed to the usual experimental definition, which is in terms of multiplicity. We reconstruct the impact parameter dependence of the multiplicity from experimental data using a recently-developed inversion method, which turns out to describe ALICE Xe+Xe multiplicity data much better than usual Monte Carlo Glauber fits. The multiplicity as function of impact parameter extracted from ALICE data is compared to model calculations.'
address:
- 'Institut de physique théorique, Université Paris Saclay, CNRS, CEA, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France'
- 'MINES ParisTech, PSL Research University, 60 Boulevard Saint-Michel, 75006 Paris, France'
author:
- Rudolph Rogly
- Giuliano Giacalone
- 'Jean-Yves Ollitrault'
bibliography:
- 'qmbib.bib'
title: 'Geometric scaling in symmetric nucleus-nucleus collisions'
---
heavy ions ,nucleus-nucleus collisions ,LHC ,centrality ,bayesian inference
Introduction {#s:intro}
============
The impact parameter, $b$, of a nucleus-nucleus collision at ultrarelativistic energy is a well-defined quantity, in the sense that its quantum uncertainty is negligible. It is a key input to model calculations, such as hydrodynamic calculations. However, $b$ cannot be directly measured. Therefore, measuring a quantity as simple as the average multiplicity at fixed $b$ is not straightforward. This is unfortunate, as such a quantity is actually very useful: It is typically used to fix the initial temperature [@Luzum:2008cw] or entropy [@Noronha-Hostler:2013gga] in hydrodynamic calculations.
We show that this quantity can be extracted from data under general assumptions. The impact parameter is related to the multiplicity, in the sense that more central collisions produce on average more particles, but the relation between multiplicity and impact parameter is probabilistic, not one to one. We have shown that this relation can be inferred from data [@Das:2017ned; @Rogly:2018ddx] without relying on any specific microscopic model. The problem of reconstructing impact parameter from multiplicity is a typical inverse problem, which is solved by a deconvolution method. The main ingredient is the fluctuation kernel which is used to model multiplicity fluctuations at a fixed impact parameter. This kernel is presented in Sec. \[s:gamma\]. We then recall briefly the principle of the inversion method and apply it to recent Xe+Xe data at $5.44$ TeV in Sec. \[s:xexe\]. In Sec. \[s:scaling\], the outcome of our procedure is used to perform a comparison of the variation of the mean multiplicity as a function of the true centrality (defined by the impact parameter) between Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb collisions. The resulting variation of multiplicity is then compared to model calculations.
Parametrizing multiplicity fluctuations: negative binomial and gamma distributions {#s:gamma}
==================================================================================
![(Color online) \[fig:kernel\] Symbols: Negative binomial distribution used by the ALICE collaboration in their Glauber Monte Carlo fit to Pb+Pb data [@Abelev:2013qoq]. Solid line: gamma distribution with the same mean and variance. Note that Glauber fits typically assume NBD fluctuations of the multiplicity for a fixed number of ancestors, while we assume gamma fluctuations for a fixed impact parameter. ](figure1.pdf){width="0.68\linewidth"}
The multiplicity of particles, $n$, seen in a detector fluctuates event to event for fixed $b$. These fluctuations are partly due to dynamical fluctuations, and to statistical fluctuations which depend on the detector acceptance. The principle of our method is to parametrize these fluctuations—or, more precisely, the probability of $n$ at fixed $b$, denoted by $P(n|b)$—in the most general way. If fluctuations are small, one expects them to be Gaussian [@Das:2017ned]. Since the multiplicity is positive, however, a more accurate parametrization of its fluctuations is provided by the gamma distribution [@Rogly:2018ddx] which, unlike the Gaussian, has positive support. The gamma distribution [@Broniowski:2007nz; @Moreland:2014oya] can be viewed as a continuous version of the negative binomial distribution (NBD), which has long been used to fit multiplicity distributions in high-energy collisions [@Giovannini:1985mz]. We choose the continuous version because it also applies to the case when one uses an energy, instead of a multiplicity, to estimate the centrality. The similarity between the gamma distribution and the NBD is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:kernel\].
Inversion method and application to Xe+Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.44$ TeV {#s:xexe}
================================================================================
The observed multiplicity distribution, $P(n)$, is obtained by summing the contributions to multiplicity at all impact parameters: $$\label{convolution}
P(n)=\int_0^{\infty} P(n|b)P(b)db=\int_0^1 P(n|c)dc,$$ where $P(b)$ is the probability distribution of impact parameter, and $c$ denotes the centrality, defined as the cumulative distribution of impact parameter: $c\equiv\int_0^bP(b')db'$. We write $P(n|c)=P(n|b)$ the probability of $n$ at fixed centrality, that is, at fixed $b$. As explained above, $P(n|c)$ is assumed to be a gamma distribution. The gamma distribution has two parameters corresponding to the mean, $\bar n$, and to the variance, $\sigma^2$. Both depend on $c$. We assume that $\bar n$ is a smooth, monotonously decreasing function of $c$. We also assume for simplicity that the ratio of the variance to the mean, $\sigma^2/\bar n$, is independent of $c$, but the results presented below are robust with respect to this assumption [@Broniowski:2001ei]. We then fit $\bar n(c)$ and $\sigma^2(c=0)$ so that $P(n)$ defined by Eq. (\[convolution\]) matches experimental data. In practice, we shall take $\bar n$ as the exponential of a polynomial. The exponential guarantees positivity, and the degree of the polynomial (i.e., the number of fit parameters) is chosen large enough to yield a perfect fit of data (below, a polynomial of degree 6 is used).
![(Color online) \[fig:ALICE\] Top panel: circles: ALICE data for the distribution of the multiplicity in the V0 detector [@beomkyu_kim]. Solid line: fit using Eq. (\[convolution\]) (see text), where $n$ denotes the V0 amplitude. The vertical line is the position of the knee, defined as the mean value of V0 for $b=0$. Bottom panel: ratio fit over data for our fit (solid line) and for the MC Glauber fit used by ALICE (dashed line). ](figure2.pdf){width="0.87\linewidth"}
We now apply this procedure to ALICE data on Xe+Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}=5.44$ TeV [@beomkyu_kim]. In the case of ALICE data, $n$ is the multiplicity of hits in the V0 detector, which we shall simply denote by V0. We exclude values of $V0$ below the “anchor point” [@Abelev:2013qoq] where a fraction of events are missed. We normalize $P(V0)$ in such a way that the fraction of events above the anchor point matches the value specified by ALICE. We fit the measured $P(V0)$ using Eq. (\[convolution\]). Our fit is displayed together with ALICE data in the top panel of Fig. \[fig:ALICE\]. The bottom panel displays the ratio fit/data. This ratio is very close to 1 for our fit, but deviates by up to 10% for the fit performed by the ALICE collaboration using a Monte Carlo Glauber model [@Loizides:2014vua]. This shows that our inversion method provides a more accurate representation of data than specific models of the collision. Note that our procedure neglects the deformation of the $^{129}$Xe nucleus. Deformation is important for elliptic flow [@Giacalone:2017dud; @Eskola:2017bup], but plays a modest role for multiplicity distributions [@Moreland:2014oya]. This is confirmed by the excellent quality of our fit.
Comparison between Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb collisions {#s:scaling}
=============================================
Figure \[fig:scaling\] (a) displays the mean multiplicity as a function of centrality percentile, as given by our fit to data. We again emphasize that this is the true centrality, defined from impact parameter (called “$b$-centrality”, and denoted by $c_b$, in Refs. [@Das:2017ned; @Rogly:2018ddx]), which differs from the usual centrality, as defined experimentally from the cumulative distribution of the multiplicity. On the vertical axis, we divide the mean multiplicity by its value at $b=0$. When plotted in this way, Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb collisions essentially fall on the same curve. This means that colliding larger nuclei amounts to multiplying the multiplicity by a constant factor, which is independent of centrality. We call this phenomenon geometric scaling for obvious reasons. (It should not be confused with the geometric scaling observed in deep inelastic electron-proton scattering [@Stasto:2000er].) It would be interesting to measure the proportionality factor between two different colliding systems at the same energy, and check whether the multiplicity is proportional to the mass number of colliding nuclei.
![(Color online) \[fig:scaling\] (a) Mean multiplicity versus centrality, rescaled by the value at $b=0$, for Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.02$ TeV (dashed line) and Xe+Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}=5.44$ TeV (solid line). (b) Ratios model/data for [T$\mathrel{\protect\raisebox{-2.1pt}{R}}$ENTo]{} with $p=1$ and $p=0$. ](figure3.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
We now show how the quantity displayed in Fig. \[fig:scaling\] (a) can be used to test models. One can calculate the same quantity in a model of the collision. We test the [T$\mathrel{\protect\raisebox{-2.1pt}{R}}$ENTo]{} model [@Moreland:2014oya], which generates initial conditions for hydrodynamic calculations, and assume that the final multiplicity of an event is the total entropy calculated in [T$\mathrel{\protect\raisebox{-2.1pt}{R}}$ENTo]{}. The [T$\mathrel{\protect\raisebox{-2.1pt}{R}}$ENTo]{} model has a parameter $p$ which determines how the multiplicity depends on the thickness functions $T_A$ and $T_B$ of colliding nuclei. We test the choices $p=1$ and $p=0$, which correspond respectively to $T_A+T_B$ (equivalent to the wounded nucleon model [@Bialas:1976ed], that is, to the Glauber model with participant scaling [@Miller:2007ri]) and $\sqrt{T_AT_B}$ (similar to models inspired by high-energy QCD [@Schenke:2012wb; @Moreland:2014oya]). Fig. \[fig:scaling\] (b) displays the ratio of model over data, where data are from panel (a). With both values of $p$, geometric scaling is satisfied to a good approximation, in the sense that Xe+Xe and Pb+Pb results are close. This is not surprising as scale invariance is one of the starting assumptions in the [T$\mathrel{\protect\raisebox{-2.1pt}{R}}$ENTo]{} model. Note that scale invariance, on the other hand, is not satisfied by the two-component Glauber model (it is broken by the term proportional to the number of collisions). The agreement of the [T$\mathrel{\protect\raisebox{-2.1pt}{R}}$ENTo]{} model with data is better with $p=0$ than with $p=1$, as already noted in the context of flow studies [@Giacalone:2017uqx].
The [T$\mathrel{\protect\raisebox{-2.1pt}{R}}$ENTo]{} model also implements gamma fluctuations of the multiplicity. These fluctuations are switched off in the calculations presented in Fig. \[fig:scaling\] (b), but we have checked explicitly that results are essentially unchanged if fluctuations are included. This is not surprising, since we evaluate the mean multiplicity at a fixed impact parameter, which is averaged over fluctuations.
In conclusion, we have applied a Bayesian inversion method to infer from data the variation of the mean multiplicity as a function of the true centrality, defined as a function of impact parameter. We have shown that this variation is essentially independent of the nuclear size for symmetric collisions between large nuclei, thus revealing a geometrical scaling. This simple observable allows to constrain models of particle production.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Alberica Toia for useful discussions, and for sending us ALICE data.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Vanishing of $\ell^p$-cohomology and transportation cost[^1]
Antoine Gournay[^2]
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Abstract</span>
Introduction {#s-intro}
============
The study of $\ell^p$-cohomology for discrete spaces has been introduced by Gromov in [@Gro §8] as an asymptotic invariant of groups (it turns out it is a quasi-isometry invariant, see below). The subject matter of this paper is the reduced $\ell^p$-cohomology in degree one of finitely generated groups. Let $\Gamma= ({X}, E)$ be a Cayley graph (for a finite generating set), the reduced $\ell^p$-cohomology in degree one is the quotient $${\underline{\ell^p H}}^1(\Gamma) := ( \ell^p(E) \cap \nabla {\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}}^{X}) / {\overline{\nabla \ell^p({X})}}^{\ell^p(E)},$$ where the gradient of a function on the vertices $g$ is defined by $\nabla g(\gamma,\gamma') = g(\gamma') - g(\gamma)$.
When $G$ is a finitely generated group, this is isomorphic to the reduced cohomology of the left-regular representation on $\ell^p(G)$, see Puls’ paper [@Puls-harm] or Martin & Valette [@MV]. Another important result is that $\ell^p$-cohomology is an invariant of quasi-isometry:
*(see Élek [@El-qi §3] or Pansu [@Pan-qi])* If two graphs of bounded valency $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma'$ are quasi-isometric, then they have the same $\ell^p$-cohomology (in all degrees, reduced or not).
The result is actually much more powerful, in the sense that it holds for a large category of measure metric spaces (see above mentioned references). For shorter proofs in more specific situations see Puls [@Puls-pharmbnd Lemma 6.1] or Bourdon & Pajot [@BP Théorème 1.1]. As a consequence, if $G$ is a finitely generated group, the $\ell^p$-cohomology of any two Cayley graphs (for a finite generating set) are isomorphic. Thus, one may speak of the $\ell^p$-cohomology of a group without making reference to a Cayley graph.
The present paper gives a partial answers to a question (dating back at least to Gromov [@Gro §8.$A_1$.($A_2$), p.226]):
\[laquestion\] Let $G$ be an amenable group, is it true that for all $1<p<\infty$, ${\underline{\ell^pH}}^1(G)=\{0\}$?
For $p=2$, the positive answer is a famous result of Cheeger & Gromov [@CG] (see also Lück’s book [@Luck]). The results presented here will cover other partial (positive) answers due to Kappos [@Kap], Martin & Valette [@MV] and Tessera [@Tes].
The problem is reduced to a question of transport cost for measures tending to a left-invariant mean in $G$.
A finitely generated group $G$ is called transport amenable if there exists $S$ a finite generating set, a positive constant $K \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and a sequence of finitely supported probability measure $\xi_n$ converging to a left-invariant mean such that, $\forall s \in S$ and $\forall \alpha$, the transport cost $${\mathrm{T}\!\mathrm{C}}(\rho_s \xi_n^\vee, \xi_n^\vee) = {\textrm{\raisebox{.5ex}{\mbox{$\underset{m \in M(\rho_s \xi_n^\vee, \xi_n^\vee)}{\inf}$}}} \:} \int_{{G}\times {G}} d_\Gamma(x,y) {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}\!}}m(x,y) \leq K,$$ where $d_\Gamma$ is the distance in the Cayley graph $\Gamma = {\mathrm{Cay}\!}(G,S)$, $\xi^\vee(x) = \xi(x^{-1})$ (so that $\rho_s \xi^\vee = (\lambda_s \xi)^\vee$), and $M(\xi,\phi)$ is the collection of finitely supported measures on ${G}\times {G}$ with marginals $\xi$ and $\phi$.
\[tvantran-t\] Let $G$ be a finitely generated group. If $G$ is transport amenable then the degree one reduced $\ell^p$-cohomology of $G$ vanishes for all $p \in ]1,\infty[$.
The proof relies almost solely on classical functional analysis; the exception being a lemma from Holopainen & Soardi [@HS Lemma4.4].
This theorem extends a result of Tessera [@Tes Theorem 2.2] (when the $L^p$-representation is the left-regular representation, see theorem \[tconfol-t\] in the present text) concerning groups with controlled F[ø]{}lner sequence (henceforth abbreviated by CF). Tessera’s result implies these have trivial reduced degree one $\ell^p$-cohomology. The simplest example of a F[ø]{}lner sequence which is not CF is a sub-sequence of balls in a group of intermediate growth.
The exact range (in the class of amenable groups) of Tessera’s result (and, consequently, of theorem \[tvantran-t\]) is unclear, though Tessera’s article [@Tes-iso] gives a temptingly complete description of such groups. This class contains groups of polynomial growth, polycyclic groups and wreath products $F \wr {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ where $F$ is a finite group.
However, theorem \[tvantran-t\] applies to groups where it is known that [@Tes Theorem 2.2] does not apply. To see this, one must invoke the results of Erschler [@Ers] (or look again in [@Tes-iso]). Indeed, groups with CF have an isoperimetric profile in $\log v$, so that ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\wr {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_2 \wr {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^2$ may not have CF.
In examples \[ex-reverb\] and \[ex-reverb2\], a small class of groups is shown to be transport amenable (though they are not CF, as explained in the previous paragraph). These groups are wreath products $H' \wr H$ where $H'$ is amenable (finite or infinite) and $H$ is infinite Abelian. In particular, this means that theorem \[tvantran-t\] applies to ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\wr {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_2 \wr {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^2$.
It was known that groups with infinitely many finite conjugacy classes ([*e.g.* ]{}an infinite centre, [*e.g.* ]{}groups of polynomial growth[^3]) have trivial reduced $\ell^p$-cohomology in degree $1$ (see Kappos’ preprint [@Kap Theorem 6.4]; the case of infinite centre is explained in Gromov [@Gro §8] and detailed in Puls [@Puls-prem §5] and Martin & Valette’s paper [@MV Theorem.(iii)]). Note that the same method used for theorem \[tvantran-t\] may be applied to recover this vanishing result, see theorem \[tcentrinf-t\]).
In [@moi-poiss] the author developed another method to show (among other results) that groups with trivial Poisson boundary (for a SRW on the Cayley graph, [*i.e.* ]{}Liouville) and superpolynomial growth have trivial reduced $\ell^p$-cohomology (see [[@moi-poiss Theorem 1.1]]{}). Though all groups with CF have trivial Poisson boundary, groups like ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\wr {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_2 \wr {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^3$ have non-trivial Poisson boundary[^4] the (see Kaimanovich [@Kaimano Theorem 3.3]). Thus \[tvantran-t\] is not covered by [[@moi-poiss Theorem 1.1]]{}.
The methods presented here may be of use in non-amenable groups, but apart for groups with infinitely many finite conjugacy classes, the author could not find any other case. They also apply to graphs, but the proper conditions on graphs are not so convenient to formulate ([*e.g.* ]{}quasi-transitive action by quasi-isometries).
When $1<p<\infty$, it is known (see Puls [@Puls-harm §3] or Martin & Valette [@MV §3]) that the existence of non-constant $p$-harmonic function ([*i.e.* ]{}$h \in {\mathsf{D}}^p(\Gamma)$ with $\nabla^* {\mu}_{p,p'} \nabla h = 0$, where ${\mu}_{p,p'}$ is the Mazur map defined by $({\mu}_{p,p'} f)(\gamma) = |f(\gamma)|^{p-2} f(\gamma)$) is equivalent to the non-vanishing of reduced cohomology in degree $1$. Other known consequences of the triviality of the reduced $\ell^p$-cohomology include the triviality of the $p$-capacity between finite sets and $\infty$ (see [@Yam] and [@Puls-pharmbnd]).
[*Acknowledgments:*]{} The author is grateful to M. de la Salle, P. Pansu, J. C. Sikorav and R. Tessera for comments and corrections.
Notations and preliminary definitions
=====================================
Given a finitely generated group $G$ and a finite set $S$, the Cayley graph ${\mathrm{Cay}\!}(G,S)$ is the graph whose vertices are the element of $G$ and $(\gamma,\gamma') \in E$ if $\exists s \in S$ such that $s^{-1} \gamma = \gamma'$. (Consequently, all Cayley graphs will be assumed to be of bounded valency.) In order for the resulting graph to have a symmetric edge set, $S$ is always going to be symmetric ([*i.e.* ]{}$s \in S {\Rightarrow}s^{-1} \in S$). Also, Cayley graphs are always going to be asumed connected ([*i.e.* ]{}$S$ is generating).
The set of edges is thus thought of as a subset of ${X}\times {X}$. Functions will take value in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}}$, a complete normed field where classical theorems about Banach spaces hold, [*e.g.* ]{}${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ or $\mathbb{C}$. Thus $\ell^p(G)$ is the Banach space of functions on the vertices which are $p$-summable, while $\ell^p(E)$ will be the subspace of functions on the edges which are $p$-summable.
The gradient $\nabla:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}}^{X}\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}}^E$ is defined by $\nabla g(\gamma,\gamma') = g(\gamma') - g(\gamma)$, as the graphs are of bounded valency it is a bounded (and injective) operator from $\ell^p(G)$ into $\ell^p(E)$. Its kernel in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}}^G$ is the space of constant functions. It is worthwhile to observe that the gradient is made of $ \{(\lambda_s - {\mathrm{Id}}) g\}_{s \in S}$ where $\lambda$ is the left-regular representation. As for the right-regular representation, it is a (injective) homomorphism from $G$ into $\mathrm{Aut}\big({\mathrm{Cay}\!}(G,S) \big)$, the automorphism group of the Cayley graph.
The Banach space of $p$-Dirichlet functions is the space of functions $f$ on ${X}$ such that $\nabla f \in \ell^p(E)$. It will be denoted ${\mathsf{D}}^p(\Gamma)$. In order to introduce the ${\mathsf{D}}^p(\Gamma)$-norm on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}}^{X}$, it is necessary to choose a vertex $e$ (in a Cayley graph, it is convenient to choose the neutral element). This said $\|f\|_{{\mathsf{D}}^p(\Gamma)}^p = \|\nabla f\|_{\ell^p(E)}^p + |f(e)|^p$. By taking the primitive of the gradients, one may also prefer to define the reduced $\ell^p$-cohomology as $${\underline{\ell^p H}}^1(\Gamma):= {\mathsf{D}}^p(\Gamma) / {\overline{ \ell^p({X}) + {\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}}}}^{{\mathsf{D}}^p}.$$
Lastly, $p'$ will denote the Hölder conjugate exponent of $p$, [*i.e.* ]{}$p' = p/(p-1)$ (with the usual convention that $1$ and $\infty$ are conjugate).
A sequence of finite sets $\{F_n\}$ in $G$ will be called a left-F[ø]{}lner sequence (resp. right-F[ø]{}lner sequence) if $$\forall \gamma \in G, \frac{|\gamma F_n \Delta F_n|}{|F_n|} {\overset{n}{\to}} 0, \quad \textrm{ (resp. } \forall \gamma \in G, \frac{|F_n \gamma \Delta F_n|}{|F_n|} {\overset{n}{\to}} 0 \textrm{ )}.$$ A finitely generated group is amenable if and only if it has a F[ø]{}lner sequence. Following Tessera [@Tes], the F[ø]{}lner sequence will be called *controlled*, if the above ratio is less than $K ({\mathrm{diam}\!}F_n)^{-1}$ for some constant $K$.
Existence of a left- (resp. right-) F[ø]{}lner sequence is equivalent to the existence of an invariant mean, [*i.e.* ]{}a positive, linear, continuous, left- (resp. right-) translation invariant map $\mu: \ell^\infty(G) \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, often normalised so that $\mu({1 \!\! \mathrm{l}}_G)=1$. This, in turn, implies the existence of a sequence of finitely supported positive probability measures $\xi_n$ satisfying $\|\lambda_\gamma \xi_n - \xi_n\|_{\ell^1(G)} \to 0$ (resp. $\|\rho_\gamma \xi_n - \xi_n\|_{\ell^1(G)} \to 0$). It is a standard trick to construct a bi-invariant ([*i.e.* ]{}left- *and* right-) version of any of the previous items from a left- (resp. right-) invariant one. There are many possible references on this topic, [*e.g.* ]{}Paterson’s [@amen] or Pier’s [@amen2] book.
Throughout this text, $\delta_\gamma$ is the Dirac mass at $\gamma$: $\delta_\gamma(\eta) = 0 $ if $\eta \neq \gamma$ and $1$ if $\eta = \gamma$. The following convention for the (left-)convolution of function will be in use: $$\xi * f (\eta) = \sum_{\gamma \in G} \xi(\gamma) \lambda_\gamma f(\eta) = \sum_{\gamma \in G} \xi(\gamma) f(\gamma^{-1} \eta)$$ Also, since this section deals exclusively with Cayley graphs of a group $G$, the vertex set ${X}$ is equal to (and thus replaced by) ${G}$.
A criterion for convergence in ${\mathsf{D}}^p$ {#ss-trique}
===============================================
Assume $\Gamma = {\mathrm{Cay}\!}(G,S)$ is the Cayley graph of $G$ for the set $S$. The gradient $\nabla$ is made up of the partial gradients $\nabla_s:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}}^{G}\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}}^{G}$ defined by $$\nabla_s f = (\lambda_s - {\mathrm{Id}}) f = (\delta_s - \delta_e) * f.$$ Thus, if $f \in {\mathsf{D}}^p(\Gamma)$ then $\lambda_\gamma f$ represents the same class in ${\underline{\ell^p H}}^1(\Gamma)$. Indeed, $\lambda_s f - f = \nabla_s f \in \ell^p({G})$ so, writing $\gamma$ as a word in $S$, $\lambda_\gamma f$ is also in the same class. Furthermore, a convex combination of such functions will always represent the same class. Actually, if $\xi \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}}(\Gamma)$ is of a function finite support with $\sum_{\gamma \in {G}} \xi(\gamma) = 1$ then $[\xi * f] = [f]$.
Next recall that if a sequence $f_n \in {\mathsf{D}}^p$ converges point-wise (that is its value at $e$ and the values of the gradient on the edges) to $0$ and is bounded, then it weak$^*$-converges to $0$. This is relatively general fact. Indeed, assume $f_n \in \ell^p({\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}})$ is a bounded sequence which converges point-wise. Let $h$ be in the pre-dual, for any ${\varepsilon}>0$, there is a finite set $F \subset {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$ such that, if $h|_F$ is the restriction of $h$ to $F$, then $\|h - h|_F\| < {\varepsilon}$. In particular, $|{\langle f_n,h \rangle}| < |{\langle f_n,h|_F \rangle}| + \|f_n\| {\varepsilon}\leq |{\langle f_n, h|_F \rangle}| + K {\varepsilon}$.
Next, if $p \in ]1,\infty[$, weak$^*$-convergence of $f_n$ implies weak-convergence of $f_n$, which in turns implies norm-convergence of some sequence $h_k$ where each $h_k$ is a convex combination of the $f_n$ for $n \in \{1,2,\ldots ,k\}$ (a consequence of the Hahn-Banach theorem, see [@Rud Theorem 3.13]). Putting these two facts together one gets
\[tcondvan-l\] Let $f \in {\mathsf{D}}^p(\Gamma)$. If there exists a sequence $\xi_n$ of finitely supported functions such that:
1. $\sum_{\gamma \in {G}} \xi_n = 1$;
2. $\forall s \in S, (\delta_s - \delta_e) * \xi_n * f$ converge point-wise to $0$;
3. and $\exists K>0$ such that $\forall s \in S, \| (\delta_s - \delta_e) * \xi_n * f\|_{\ell^p({G})} <K$,
then $[f] = 0 \in {\underline{\ell^p H}}^1(\Gamma)$.
Indeed if [**1**]{} holds, then all the $\xi_n * f$ represent the same cohomology class. One may also add a constant function at every step, so that in addition to [**2**]{} these converges point-wise (at $e$). [**3**]{} implies that up to taking a convex combination, there is a sequence $y_n$ with $[y_n]=[f]$ (being convex combinations of $\xi_n * f$ and since $[\xi_n * f] = [f]$) and $y_n \to 0$ in the norm of ${\mathsf{D}}^p(\Gamma)$. This implies that the reduced class trivial.
This gives the following theorem, which may also be found in Kappos’ preprint [@Kap] (where the conclusion extends to higher degrees if $G$ is of type ${\mathrm{F}\!\mathrm{P}\!}_n$).
\[tcentrinf-t\] Let $G$ be a finitely generated group with infinitely many finite conjugacy classes. Then ${\underline{\ell^p H}}^1(\Gamma)=0$ for any Cayley graph $\Gamma$ of $G$.
Take a sequence of $C_n \subset G$ of finite conjugacy class such that the distance to the identity tends to infinity and let $\xi_n = {1 \!\! \mathrm{l}}_{C_n}/|C_n|$ be the normalised characteristic function. Then, the condition of the above lemma are satisfied for any $f \in {\mathsf{D}}^p(\Gamma)$ as
1. $\xi_n$ is positive and has $\|\xi_n\|_{\ell^1(G)} =1$;
2. Functions in $\ell^p(E)$ decay at infinity. Since $(\delta_s -\delta_e) * \xi_n * f = \xi_n * (\delta_s -\delta_e) * f$ the point-wise convergence to $0$ follows;
3. Again $(\delta_s -\delta_e)* \xi_n * f = \xi_n * (\delta_s -\delta_e)* f$ and since $\|\xi_n\|_{\ell^1(G)} = 1$ it has norm $1$ as a convolution on $\ell^p$, thus lemma \[tcondvan-l\] may be applied with $K=1$.
Since the above holds for any $f \in {\mathsf{D}}^p$, the $\ell^p$-cohomology ($1<p<\infty$) of groups with infinitely many finite conjugacy classes is trivial.
As noted by Kappos in [@Kap], the previous theorem covers nilpotent groups. For more amusing examples of groups with this property, see [@BCD].
By a lemma of Holopainen & Soardi [@HS Lemma 4.4] (and the equivalence between non-existence of non-constant $p$-harmonic maps and vanishing of the reduced $\ell^p$-cohomology in degree one due to Puls [@Puls-harm §3], see also Martin & Valette [@MV §3]), it is actually sufficient to show the vanishing of cohomology on bounded functions, [*i.e.* ]{}for $f \in {\mathsf{B}\!\mathsf{D}}^p(\Gamma) := \ell^\infty({G}) \cap {\mathsf{D}}^p(\Gamma)$. This is quite useful, as one is tempted to take $\xi_n$ to be a sequence which tends to an invariant mean.
\[tconvoper-l\] Let $G$ be an amenable group, $\Gamma= {\mathrm{Cay}\!}(G,S)$ and $\xi_n$ is a sequence of measures tending to a left-invariant mean. If there is a $K>0$ such that $$\forall s \in S, \quad \| (\delta_s - \delta_e) * \xi_n * \cdot \|_{{\mathsf{D}}^p(\Gamma) \to \ell^p(G)} \leq K$$ then ${\underline{\ell^pH}}^1(\Gamma)$=0.
Indeed, assume $f \in {\mathsf{B}\!\mathsf{D}}^p(\Gamma)$, then the first two points of lemma \[tcondvan-l\] are automatically satisfied. Indeed, **1** is a consequence that $\xi_n$ is a probability measure and **2** follows from $$|(\delta_s - \delta_e) * \xi_n * f (\eta)| \leq \|\lambda_s \xi_n - \xi_n \|_{\ell^1({G})} \|f\|_{\ell^\infty({G})},$$ as $\|\lambda_s \xi_n - \xi_n \|_{\ell^1({G})} \to 0$. Finally, the hypothesis is a restatement of **3**.
In general, a computation gives: $$\begin{array}{rl}
(\delta_s - \delta_e) * \xi_n * f (\eta)
&= \displaystyle \sum_{\gamma \in s X_n} \xi_n(s^{-1} \gamma) \lambda_\gamma f(\eta) - \displaystyle \sum_{\gamma \in X_n} \xi_n(\gamma) \lambda_\gamma f(\eta) \\
&= \displaystyle \sum_{\gamma \in X_n} \xi_n(\gamma) f(\gamma^{-1} s^{-1} \eta) - \displaystyle \sum_{\gamma \in X_n} \xi_n(\gamma) f(\gamma^{-1} \eta),
\end{array}$$ where $X_n$ is the support of $\xi_n$. In order to express the above sum in terms of the gradient, it is necessary to express the difference as integrating the gradient on the paths. In the simpler case where $\xi_n = {1 \!\! \mathrm{l}}_{F_n} / |F_n|$ and $F_n$ is a left-F[ø]{}lner sequence, the above sum is a the sum of values of $f$ on $F_n^{-1} s^{-1} \eta \setminus F_n^{-1} \eta$ minus the values of $f$ on $ F_n^{-1} \eta \setminus F_n^{-1} s^{-1} \eta$, all this divided by $|F_n|$. So, from now on, the aim will be to bound the transport of a uniform mass on $F_n^{-1} s^{-1} \eta \setminus F_n^{-1} \eta$ towards a uniform mass on $ F_n^{-1} \eta \setminus F_n^{-1} s^{-1} \eta$ if the cost of transport is given by the gradient of $f$.
Proof of the theorem \[tvantran-t\] {#ss-preuve}
===================================
The previous computation is an incentive to look at how one transports a probability measure to another.
Let $\xi$ and $\phi$ be two finitely supported functions with $\sum_{\gamma \in {G}} \xi(\gamma) = \sum_{\gamma \in {G}} \phi(\gamma)$. Fix a “price” function $f':E \to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{K}}}$ on the edges (not necessarily positive). Let $\wp$ be the set of (finite) paths in the graph. Let $M_\wp(\xi,\phi)$ be the collection of (finitely supported) measures on $\wp$ such that the marginals are $\xi$ and $\phi$, [*i.e.* ]{}$$\sum_{P \in \wp, \textrm{source}(P)=x} m(P) = \xi(x) \qquad \textrm{and} \qquad \sum_{P \in \wp, \textrm{target}(P)=y} m(P) = \phi(y).$$ Let $m \in M_\wp(\xi,\phi)$, $m$ is a transportation pattern or, for short, a pattern. Define the “flattened” measure $m^\flat$ on edges by the quantity of mass transported through that edge, [*i.e.* ]{}$$a \in E, \quad m^\flat(a) = \sum_{P \ni a} m(P),$$ where the sum is to be made with multiplicities (if $a$ appears twice in $P$). The transportation cost of the measure $\xi$ to the measure $\phi$ according to the pattern $m$ and price $f'$ is $${\mathrm{T}\!\mathrm{C}}_{f',m}(\xi,\phi) = \int_{E} f'(a) {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}\!}}m^\flat(a).$$ The infimal transportation cost of the measure $\xi$ to the measure $\phi$ is $$\begin{array}{rll}
{\mathrm{T}\!\mathrm{C}}(\xi,\phi)
& := \displaystyle \inf_{m \in M_\wp(\xi,\phi)} {\mathrm{T}\!\mathrm{C}}_{{1 \!\! \mathrm{l}},m}(\xi,\phi)
& = \displaystyle \inf_{m \in M_\wp(\xi,\phi)} \displaystyle \int_{E} 1 {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}\!}}m^\flat(a) \\
& = \displaystyle \inf_{m' \in M_{G}(\xi,\phi) } \displaystyle \int_{{G}\times {G}} d_\Gamma(x,y) {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}\!}}m'(x,y).
\end{array}$$ where ${1 \!\! \mathrm{l}}$ is the function with constant value $1$, $M_{G}(\xi,\phi)$ is the space of finitely supported measures on ${G}\times {G}$ with (usual) marginals $\xi$ and $\phi$ and $d_\Gamma(x,y)$ is the graph distance. $\Diamond$
Assume without loss of generality that we are dealing with probability measures. Notice that if $f' = \nabla f$, then for any pattern $m$, $$\begin{array}{rl}
{\mathrm{T}\!\mathrm{C}}_{\nabla f,m}(\xi,\phi)
&= \displaystyle \int_{E} \nabla f(a) {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}\!}}m^\flat(a) \\
&= \displaystyle \int_{\wp} \sum_{a \in P} \nabla f(a) {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}\!}}m(P) \\
&= \displaystyle \int_{\wp} ( f(\text{target}(P)) - f(\text{source}(P)) ) {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}\!}}m(P) \\
&= \displaystyle \int_{{G}} f(y) {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}\!}}\phi(y) - \int_{{G}} f(x) {\ensuremath{\mathrm{d}\!}}\xi(x). \\
\end{array}$$ Using this language one has that, for any pattern $m$, $$(\delta_s - \delta_e) * \xi_n * f (\eta) = {\mathrm{T}\!\mathrm{C}}_{\rho_\eta \nabla f,m}\big( (\lambda_s \xi_n)^\vee, \xi_n^\vee \big)$$ where $\rho_\eta$ is the right regular representation and $\xi^\vee(\gamma) = \xi(\gamma^{-1})$ (so $(\lambda_s \xi)^\vee = \rho_s \xi^\vee$).
The goal is to obtain the bound in lemma \[tconvoper-l\]. By hypothesis, for every $n$, there is a pattern $m_n$ such that ${\mathrm{T}\!\mathrm{C}}_{{1 \!\! \mathrm{l}},m_n}(\rho_s \xi_n^\vee, \xi_n^\vee) \leq 2K$. For each $n$, this pattern will be used to get a bound on the map $T$ which sends a function $f' \in \ell^p(E)$ to $(Tf')(\eta) = {\mathrm{T}\!\mathrm{C}}_{\rho_\eta f',m_n}\big( (\lambda_s \xi_n)^\vee, \xi_n^\vee \big)$ (which will be in $\ell^p(G)$). The bound will be obtained for $p=1$ and $p=\infty$, and deduced by Riesz-Thorin interpolation for intermediate $p$. In an attempt to alleviate notations the index $n$ will be omitted.
To get a $\ell^\infty$ bound, it suffices, to look at ${\mathrm{T}\!\mathrm{C}}_{{1 \!\! \mathrm{l}},m}(\rho_s \xi^\vee, \xi^\vee)$: right multiplication is an automorphism and replacing $f'$ by $\| f'\|_{\ell^\infty(E)}$ on each edges may only increase these sums. The $\ell^1$-bound is in appearance more intricate as one should not dispose so carelessly of the values of $f'$. Indeed, if the weight function on the edges is $f' \in \ell^1(E)$ then the graph can be seen as a bounded (but not compact) metric space (*via* $|f'|$).
The question can then be reduced to determining whether it is possible to solve (with $\xi = \rho_s \xi_n^\vee$ and $\phi = \xi_n^\vee$) the transport problem (and all its translates) so that $\forall a \in E, \sum_{\eta \in {G}} m^\flat_{\rho_\eta f'; \xi,\phi}(a) < K \| f' \|_{\ell^1(E)}$ for any $f' \in \ell^1(E)$. This seems quite daunting. However, this bound is automatic if one has that $m^\flat_{{1 \!\! \mathrm{l}}; \xi , \phi} (E) \leq K$. Indeed, if one knows that the total quantity of mass is transported over all edges is bounded in one transport, then in all translations, any given edge will be used at most $|S|$ times this amount (the factor $|S|$ is necessary as the action of $G$ on non-oriented edges is not always faithful). In other words, $$\sum_{\eta \in {G}} m^\flat_{\rho_\eta f'; \xi,\phi}(a) \leq |S| {\mathrm{T}\!\mathrm{C}}_{{1 \!\! \mathrm{l}}} (\xi,\phi) \| f' \|_{\ell^1(E)}.$$ Thus, using the Riesz-Thorin theorem, one gets a uniform bound on $\| (\delta_s - \delta_e) * \xi_n * \cdot \|_{{\mathsf{D}}^p(\Gamma) \to \ell^p(G)}$ for all $p \in [1,\infty]$ and, using lemma \[tconvoper-l\], shows that the only class in reduced cohomology is the trivial one.
Note that using $\xi_n = {1 \!\! \mathrm{l}}_{F_n} / |F_n|$ in theorem \[tvantran-t\] (here $F_n$ are F[ø]{}lner sets), one sees immediately vanishing of cohomology for Abelian groups: there is a bijection between $F_n^{-1} s = s F_n^{-1}$ and $F_n^{-1}$ which sends every vertex to a neighbour using only one edge, so the above may be applied with $K=1$.
The hypothesis of theorem \[tvantran-t\] are always satisfied when $G$ has a controlled F[ø]{}lner sequence, [*i.e.* ]{}a sequence of finite sets such that $\forall s \in S,$ $$\frac{|F_n \Delta s F_n|}{|F_n|} \leq \frac{K}{ {\mathrm{diam}\!}F_n }.$$ Since $F_n$ may be translated to be contained in the ball of radius ${\mathrm{diam}\!}F_n$. This gives back a special case (when the $L^p$-representation is the left-regular representation) of a result of Tessera [@Tes Theorem 2.2]:
\[tconfol-t\] If $G$ is a finitely generated group with a controlled F[ø]{}lner sequence, then its degree one reduced $\ell^p$-cohomology is trivial.
If $\xi_n = {1 \!\! \mathrm{l}}_{F_n} /|F_n|$ one sees, up to translating $F_n$ into a ball of radius ${\mathrm{diam}\!}F_n$ around $e_G$, that the transport problem may be solved by picking any bijection from $F_n^{-1} s \setminus F_n^{-1}$ to $F_n^{-1} \setminus F_n^{-1} s$ and looking at the corresponding transport cost (at most $(2 {\mathrm{diam}\!}F_n + 2) |s F_n \Delta F_n| / |F_n|$).
Examples {#ss-exemple}
========
However, there are examples of groups which are not covered by Theorem \[tconfol-t\] but where Theorem \[tvantran-t\] applies. This is the case for many wreath products. The conventions for the wreath product (of two finitely generated groups) $H' \wr H$ will be as follows. $H'$ is the “lamp state” group and $H$ is the “lamplighter position” group. The generators are going to be of the form: $S= \{e_H \to S_{H'}\} \times \{e_H \} \cup \{0\} \times S_H$ where $S_{H'}$ and $S_H$ are some set of generators for $H'$ and $H$ (respectively), $\{e_H \to S_{H'} \}$ is the set of functions supported on $e_H$ with value in $S_{H'}$ and $\{0\}$ is the trivial function ([*i.e.* ]{}sending all $H$ to $e_{H'}$).
Multiplication on the left by $(e_H \to s_{H'}, e_H )$ changes the lamp state where the lamplighter is, whereas multiplication on the right changes the lamp state at the position $e_H$. Multiplication on the left by $(0, s_H)$ moves the lamplighter, whereas multiplication on the right moves the lamplighter together with all the lamps.
\[ex-reverb\] Let $\Gamma$ be the Cayley graph of $H' \wr H$ where $H'$ is finite and $H$ is Abelian.
A F[ø]{}lner sequence is given as follows: let $A_n$ be a controlled F[ø]{}lner sequence of diameter $d_n$ in $H$ and let $B_k$ be the functions $H \to H'$ which are supported on $A_k$ ([*i.e.* ]{}all the non-trivial lamp states supported by $A_k$). Then $F_n := B_n \times A_n$ is a (left- but not right-) F[ø]{}lner sequence. The transport problem is particularly easy to solve for $\xi_n = {1 \!\! \mathrm{l}}_{F_n} / |F_n|$, the normalised characteristic function of the F[ø]{}lner sets.
Indeed, $r \in \{e_H \to S_{H'} \} \times \{e_H\}$ does not displace the F[ø]{}lner set at all. If $z \in \{0\} \times S_H$, then the problem is to displace elements from $F_n^{-1} z$ to $F_n^{-1}$ with a cost which is bounded by a constant multiple of $|F_n|$.
Since the $F_n$ are particularly easy to describe and the $F_n^{-1}$ more ungainly, it turns out to be easier to write down the problem by inverting everything: namely displace $z^{-1} F_n$ to $F_n$, where the cost of displacing $\gamma$ to $\gamma'$ is the length of the element $\eta$ such that $\gamma \eta = \gamma'$.
Elements in $z^{-1} F_n \setminus F_n$ are those where the lamplighter moved out of $A_n$. Since $H$ is assumed Abelian, for elements where the lamp states are all off on $A_n \setminus z^{-1} A_n$ it is possible to displace all these element back to elements in $F_n$ by multiplying on the right by $z$. This will contribute to the final total cost (after division by $|F_n|$) for less than $\dfrac{|A_n \setminus z^{-1} A_n| }{ |A_n| c^{|A_n \setminus z^{-1}A_n|}}$.
The aim is now to send elements with some non-trivial lamp states on $\Delta_z A_n := z A_n \setminus A_n$ to similar elements with non-trivial lamp states on $\Delta'_z A_n := A_n \setminus z A_n $. Let $\phi: A_n z \setminus A_n \to A_n \setminus A_n z$ be a bijection. Proceed as follows:
- If there are $i$ non-trivial lamp states, move the lamplighter (and the lamps, since the multiplication is on the right) so that $i$ lamps are successively at the identity and change their states to the trivial one, then turn on the $i$ corresponding (by $\phi$) lamps before coming back to a neighbouring position; this takes at most $2i(d_n+k)+d_n$ steps as $A_n$ is of diameter $d_n$ and the diameter of the “lamp states group” $F$ is $k$;
- For $i$ fixed, the number of such elements is $c^{|A_n|-|\Delta_z A_n|} (c-1)^i \binom{|\Delta_z A_n|}{i}$ where $c=|F|$;
- So the total of used edges is at most (recall $\sum_{i=1}^{N} (c-1)^i i \binom{N}{i} = N c^{N-1}$) $$\begin{array}{l}
c^{|A_n|-|\Delta_z A_n|} \displaystyle \sum_{i=0}^{|\Delta_z A_n|} (c-1)^i \binom{|\Delta_z A_n|}{i} \big( 2i(d_n+k) + d_n ) \\
\qquad \leq c^{|A_n|-1} \bigg( 2 (d_n+k) |\Delta_z A_n| + d_n c \bigg);
\end{array}$$
- As $|F_n| = c^{|A_n|} |A_n|$, one gets a bound of $\dfrac{2 |\Delta_z A_n| (d_n + k) + d_n c}{|A_n| c}$.
Since $A_n$ may be chosen to be a controlled F[ø]{}lner sequence ($H$ is assumed Abelian), $d_n / |A_n| \leq 1$ and $k/c \leq 1$ is fixed, this is uniformly bounded by $1+{\varepsilon}+2K/c$ where ${\varepsilon}> 0$ is arbitrarily small and $K$ comes from the controlled F[ø]{}lner ratio. (Actually, if $H \neq {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$, then the constant is ${\varepsilon}+2K/c$.) Hence, theorem \[tvantran-t\] applies.
The sequence $F_n$ is not itself a controlled F[ø]{}lner sequence (unless $H = {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$): ${\mathrm{diam}\!}F_n \geq |A_n|$, $|F_n| = |A_n| k^{|A_n|}$ and $|z F_n \Delta F_n| \geq |\Delta_z A_n| k^{|A_n|}$. $\Diamond$
The strategy may very well extend to more general wreath products. Considering $\xi_n = {1 \!\! \mathrm{l}}_{F_n} *{1 \!\! \mathrm{l}}_{F_n^{-1}} / |F_n|^2$ to get some sort of bi-CF sequence might also be a good idea. The parameters $k={\mathrm{diam}\!}H'$ and $c=|H'|$ have been carefully brought along in the above example, the reason being:
\[ex-reverb2\] Let $H'$ and $H$ be infinite amenable groups with respective F[ø]{}lner sequences $A_n'$ and $A_n$ and respective generating sets $S_{H'}$ and $S_H$. Let $d_n={\mathrm{diam}\!}A_n$ and $k_i={\mathrm{diam}\!}A'_i$. Assume $H$ is Abelian and and that there is a sequence $i_n \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$ such that
- $\forall z \in S_{H'}, {\textrm{\raisebox{.5ex}{\mbox{$\underset{n \to \infty}{\lim}$}}} \:} \dfrac{2(d_n+k_{i_n}) |\Delta_z A'_{i_n}|}{|A_n| \, |A'_{i_n}|} \leq 2$.
- $\forall z \in S_{H}, {\textrm{\raisebox{.5ex}{\mbox{$\underset{n \to \infty}{\lim}$}}} \:} \dfrac{2(d_n+k_{i_n}) |\Delta_z A_n| + d_n |A'_{i_n}|}{|A_n| \, |A'_{i_n}|} \leq 2$.
Then theorem \[tvantran-t\] applies to $H' \wr H$ (for the generating set $S= \{e_H \to S_{H'}\} \times \{e_H \} \cup \{0\} \times S_H$).
To see this repeat the preceding example with $F_n$ being functions with support in $A_n$ and taking values in $A'_{i_n}$. (In doing so, $k$ becomes $k_i={\mathrm{diam}\!}A'_i$ and $c$ becomes $c_i=|A'_i|$). The first condition comes up when solving the transport problem for the generators $(\{e_H \to h'\},e_H)$ (which no longer leave the set invariant). There are $|\Delta_z A'_{i_n}|$ which escape the F[ø]{}lner set, and each of them may be returned by a cost of at most $2(d_n+k_{i_n})$. The second is used when solving the transport problem for the generators $(e_{H'},h)$.
The required sequence $i_n$ always exists. The first ratio always tends to $0$ if $i_n$ grows slowly enough, and, if $A_n$ is taken to be CF, the second ratio tends to either $1$ (when $H ={\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$) or $0$ (otherwise). $\Diamond$
This means one may apply theorem \[tvantran-t\] to $H' \wr {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^k$ for any $H'$ amenable and $k >0$.
[10]{}
G. Baumslag, Wreath products of finitely presented groups, *Math. Z.* **75**:22–28, 1961.
M. Bourdon and H. Pajot, Cohomologie $\ell^p$ et espaces de Besov, *J. reine angew. Math.*, **558**:85–108, 2003.
N. Brady and M. Clay and P. Dani, Morse theory and conjugacy classes of finite subgroups, *Geom. dedicata*, **147**(1):1–14, 2010.
J. Cheeger and M. Gromov, -cohomology and group cohomology, *Topology*, **25**:189–215, 1986.
G. Élek, Coarse cohomology and $\ell_p$-cohomology, $K$-*Theory*, **13**:1–22, 1998.
A. Erschler, On isoperimetric profiles of finitely generated groups, *Geom. Dedic.* **100**(1):157–171, 2003.
A. Gournay, Boundary values of random walks and $\ell^p$-cohomology in degree one, Ar$\chi$i$\nu$:1303.4091
M. Gromov, Groups of Polynomial growth and Expanding Maps. *Publications mathematiques I.H.É.S.*, [**53**]{}:53–73 , 1981.
M. Gromov, Asymptotic invariants of groups, *in* *Geometric group theory ([V]{}ol. 2)*, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, Vol. [**182**]{}, Cambridge University Press, 1993, viii+295.
I. Holopainen and P. Soardi, $p$-harmonic functions on graphs and manifolds. *Manuscripta Math.*, **94**, 95–110, 1997.
I. Holopainen and P. Soardi, A strong Liouville theorem for $p$-harmonic functions on graphs. *Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Math.*, **22**, 205–226, 1997.
E. Kappos, $\ell^p$-cohomology for groups of type ${\mathrm{F}\!\mathrm{P}\!}_n$. ar$\chi$i$\nu$:math/0511002 (v2), 2006.
V. A. Kaimanovich, Poisson boundaries of random walks on discrete solvable groups, *Probability measures on groups, X*, (Oberwolfach, 1990):205–238, Plenum, New York, 1991.
W. Lück, *$L^2$-invariants: theory and applications to geometry and $K$-theory*, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge., 44. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002. F. Martin and A. Valette, On the first ${\mathsf{L}}^p$ cohomology of discrete groups. *Groups Geom. Dyn.*, **1**:81–100, 2007.
P. Pansu, Cohomologie $\ell^p$: invariance sous quasi-isométrie. Unpublished, but available on P. Pansu’s webpage `http://www.math.u-psud.fr/~pansu/liste-prepub.html`, 1995 (updated in 2004).
A. L. T. Paterson, *Amenability*, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, **29**. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1988. J. P. Pier, *Amenable locally compact groups*, Pure and Applied Mathematics (New York). Wiley-Interscience Publication. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1984. M. J. Puls, Group cohomology and ${\mathsf{L}}^p$-cohomology of finitely generated groups, *Canad. Math. Bull.*, **46**(2):268–276, 2003.
M. J. Puls, The first ${\mathsf{L}}^p$-cohomology of some finitely generated groups and $p$-harmonic functions, *J. Funct. Anal.*, **237**(2):391–401, 2006.
M. J. Puls, Graphs of bounded degree and the $p$-harmonic boundary, *Pac. J. Math.*, **248**(2):429–452, 2010.
W. Rudin, “Functional analysis”. International Series in Pure and Applied Mathematics. Second edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1991.
R. Tessera, Vanishing of the first reduced cohomology with values in an ${\mathsf{L}}^p$-representation. *Ann. Inst. Fourier*, **59**(2):851–876, 2009.
R. Tessera, Isoperimetric profile and random walks on locally compact solvable groups, to appear in *Rev. Mat. Iberoam.*, see also ar$\chi$i$\nu$:0706.4257.
M. Yamasaki, Parabolic and hyperbolic infinite networks. *Hiroshima Math. J.*, **7**:135–146, 1977.
[^1]: MSC: Primary 20J06; Secondary: 20E22, 31C05, 43A07, 43A15
[^2]: Université de Neuchâtel, Rue É.-Argand 11, 2000 Neuchâtel, Suisse.
[^3]: Groups of polynomial growth are nilpotent by Gromov’s famous result [@Gro-polyn], and nilpotent groups possess infinitely many finite conjugacy classes.
[^4]: Wreath products $H' \wr H$ are also never finitely presented, unless $H' = \{1\}$ or $H$ is finite, see [@Baumslag-wrpasfinpres].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In [@ABPS98a] we introduced the imperative programming language [[Alma-0]{}]{} that supports declarative programming. In this paper we illustrate the hybrid programming style of [[Alma-0]{}]{} by means of various examples that complement those presented in [@ABPS98a]. The presented [[Alma-0]{}]{} programs illustrate the versatility of the language and show that “don’t know” nondeterminism can be naturally combined with assignment.'
author:
- |
Krzysztof R. Apt\
\
\
and\
\
\
Andrea Schaerf\
\
\
title: 'Programming in [[Alma-0]{}]{}, or Imperative and Declarative Programming Reconciled'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Logic programming languages, notably Prolog, rely on two important features: nondeterminism and unification. The form of nondeterminism used is usually called “don’t know” nondeterminism. According to it [*some*]{} path in the computation tree should lead to a correct outcome.
There have been some efforts to incorporate this form of nondeterminism into the imperative programming paradigm. For early references see [@Coh79]. More recent examples are the languages Icon of [@GG83]) and SETL of [@SDDS86].
In [@ABPS98a] we pursued this approach to programming by proposing another, simple, imperative language [[Alma-0]{}]{} that supports this form nondeterminism.
Our rationale was that almost 25 years of experience with logic programming led to an identification of the programming techniques that make it a distinct programming paradigm. The imperative programming constructs that support nondeterminism should support these programming techniques in a natural way.
And indeed, we found that a number of logic programming jewels could be reproduced in [[Alma-0]{}]{} even though unification in the language is limited to bare minimum and the language offers no support for symbolic programming.
But we also found that other programs, such as the solution to the [*Eight Queens*]{} problem, could be coded in [[Alma-0]{}]{} in a more natural way than the logic programming paradigm permits. Also, some programs, such as the solution to the [*Knapsack*]{} problem, seem to be very natural even though they use both nondeterminism and assignment.
So the hybrid programming style of [[Alma-0]{}]{} apparently calls for new programming techniques that need to be better understood and explored. This is the aim of this paper that can be seen as a companion article of [@ABPS98a].
To this end we provide here a number of [[Alma-0]{}]{} programs that show versatility of the language and provide further evidence that the constructs of the language encourage a natural style of programming. In particular, [[Alma-0]{}]{} programs without assignment are declarative in the sense that they admit a dual reading as a logic formula.
It should be clarified that in general two types of nondeterminism have been considered in programming languages, “don’t know” nondeterminism and “don’t care” nondeterminism. According to the latter one [*each*]{} path in the computation tree should lead to a correct outcome. This form of nondeterminism is present in the guarded command language of [@Dij75]. It leads to different issues and different considerations.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:alma-0\] we recall the basic elements of [[Alma-0]{}]{}. In the remainder of the paper we provide selected examples of [[Alma-0]{}]{} programs that complement those presented in [@ABPS98a] and illustrate its use in different contexts. More specifically, in Section \[sec:graph\] we present two versions of a classical graph traversal problem, namely the [*longest path*]{} problem. In Section \[sec:negation\] we show how a typical feature of the logic programming paradigm, namely [*negation as failure*]{}, can be also profitably exploited in [[Alma-0]{}]{}. Next, in Section \[sec:executable-specs\] we illustrate how executable specifications can be written in [[Alma-0]{}]{}. In Section \[sec:timetabling\] we provide a more complex example of [[Alma-0]{}]{} programming by describing a solution to a classical scheduling problem. Finally, in Section \[sec:conclusions\] we draw some conclusions and describe the current status of the [Alma]{} project.
The language [[Alma-0]{}]{} {#sec:alma-0}
===========================
[[Alma-0]{}]{} is an extension of a subset of Modula-2 that includes nine new features inspired by the logic programming paradigm. We briefly recall most of them here and refer to [@ABPS98a] for a detailed presentation.
- Boolean expressions can be used as statements and vice versa. A boolean expression that is used as a statement and evaluates to [FALSE]{} is identified with a [*failure*]{}.
- [*Choice points*]{} can be created by the two nondeterministic statements [ORELSE]{} and [SOME]{}. The former is a dual of the statement composition and the latter is a dual of the [FOR]{} statement. Upon failure the control returns to the most recent choice point, possibly within a procedure body, and the computation resumes with the next branch in the state in which the previous branch was entered.
- The created choice points can be erased or iterated over by means of the [COMMIT]{} and [FORALL]{} statements. [COMMIT S END]{} removes the choice points created during a successful execution of [S]{}. [FORALL S DO T END]{} iterates over all choice points created by [S]{}. Each time [S]{} succeeds, [ T]{} is executed.
- The notion of [*initialized*]{} variable is introduced and the equality test is generalized to an assignment statement in case one side is an uninitialized variable and the other side an expression with known value. The [KNOWN]{} relation is introduced to test whether a variable of a simple type is initialized.
- A new parameter passing mechanism, called [*call by mixed form*]{}, is introduced for variables of simple type. It works as follows: If the actual parameter is a variable, then it is passed by variable. If the actual parameter is an expression that is not a variable, its value is computed and assigned to a new variable $v$ (generated by the compiler): it is $v$ that is then passed by variable. So in this case the call by mixed form boils down to call by value.
This parameter mechanism, denoted by [MIX]{}, is introduced to allow us to pass both values and uninitialized variables as actual parameters.
To clarify these extensions and [[Alma-0]{}]{} programming style consider the following problem from [@Gar79].
Ten cells numbered $0,..,9$ inscribe a 10-digit number such that each cell, say $i$, indicates the total number of occurrences of the digit $i$ in this number. Find this number.
Here is a simple solution to it in [[Alma-0]{}]{}.
MODULE tendigit;
VAR i, j, k, l, count, sum: INTEGER;
a: ARRAY [0..9] OF INTEGER;
BEGIN
FORALL
sum := 0;
FOR i := 0 TO 9 DO
SOME j := 0 TO 10-sum DO
a[i] = j;
sum := sum + j
END;
END;
sum = 10;
FOR k := 0 TO 9 DO
count := 0;
FOR l := 0 TO 9 DO
IF a[l] = k THEN count := count + 1; a[k] >= count END;
END;
a[k] = count
END
DO
FOR i := 0 TO 9 DO WRITE(a[i]) END
END
END tendigit.
To better understand this program first note that any 10-digit number that is a solution to this problem has the property that the sum of its digits is 10.
Now, the first [FOR]{} loop nondeterministically generates 10-digit numbers, written as an array, with this property. This is done by means of a [SOME]{} statement. The equality [a\[i\] = j]{} is used here as an assignment, while the equality [sum = 10]{} is used as a test.
The second [FOR]{} loop tests whether a candidate array is a possible solution. The testing can be abandoned if for some [k]{} the count exceeds the value [a\[k\]]{}. This explains the use of the test [a\[k\] >= count]{}.
The above described code is within the [FORALL]{} statement, so all solutions to the problem are generated and each of them is printed. The program yields the unique solution, namely 6210001000.
The still unexplained features of [[Alma-0]{}]{} will be discussed later.
Graph Traversal {#sec:graph}
===============
We now illustrate by means of two examples how [[Alma-0]{}]{} can be used in a natural way for graph-related problems.
Knight’s Tour {#subsec:knight-tour}
-------------
We begin with the following well-known problem.
\[pro:knight-tour\] Find a knight’s tour on the $n\times n$ chess board in which each field is visited is exactly once.
Here is a solution in [[Alma-0]{}]{}.
MODULE KnightTour;
CONST
N = 5;
TYPE
[1..N] = [1..N];
Board = ARRAY [1..N], [1..N] OF [1..N*N];
PROCEDURE Next(VAR row, col: INTEGER);
VAR i, j: INTEGER;
BEGIN
EITHER i = 2; j = 1
ORELSE i = 1; j = 2
ORELSE i = -1; j = 2
ORELSE i = -2; j = 1
ORELSE i = -2; j = -1
ORELSE i = -1; j = -2
ORELSE i = 1; j = -2
ORELSE i = 2; j = -1
END;
row := row + i;
col := col + j;
(1 <= row) AND (row <= N);
(1 <= col) AND (col <= N)
END Next;
VAR i, j, k: INTEGER;
x: Board;
BEGIN
x[1,1] = 1;
i = 1; j = 1;
FOR k := 2 TO N*N DO
Next(i,j);
x[i,j] = k
END;
Print(x)
END KnightTour.
Here the [Next]{} procedure nondeterministically generates the coordinates of the next field, given the current one. This is done now by means of an [ORELSE]{} statement that explores all eight possibilities in turn.
After a call to [Next]{} the (implicitly) incremented value of [k]{} is assigned to this new field. Note that this assignment, [a\[i,j\] = k]{}, is performed by means of an equality. This is crucial, as it also prevents that a field is visited again. Indeed, if this is the case then [a\[i,j\]]{} has already a value and the equality fails. In this case the backtracking takes place and the next, if any, candidate field is generated.
Longest Path {#subsec:longest-path}
------------
In the [*Knight’s tour*]{} problem the $n\times n$ chess board can be viewed as a graph in which the squares are the nodes and the possible knight moves are the arcs. In this way the knight tour problem accounts to finding a simple path of maximal length. The length of this path equals $n^2$, the number of nodes.
Consider now a more general problem of finding the longest path in an arbitrary directed graph.
Given a directed graph $G=(V,E)$ and two nodes $v_1,v_2\in V$ find the longest simple path that starts in $v_1$ and ends in $v_2$.
Recall that this decision problem is NP-complete (see [@GJ79 problem ND29, page 213]).
We assume that the graph is represented by its adjacency matrix. We also employ an array for marking the visited nodes and for storing the current longest path. In what follows we use the following type declarations.
Graph = ARRAY [1..N],[1..N] OF BOOLEAN;
PathMark = ARRAY [1..N] OF INTEGER;
The basic building block that we use for traversing the graph is the following function `Successor` that upon backtracking generates all successors of a given node. The function fails if the node has no successor.
PROCEDURE Successor(G: Graph; X: Node): Node;
VAR i: Node;
BEGIN
SOME i := 1 TO N DO
G[X,i]
END;
RETURN i
END Successor;
The following procedure `LongestPath` consists of some initializations followed by a `FORALL` loop that explores all possible paths. Inside the `FORALL` loop, each path is constructed by an inner loop that searches exhaustively for unvisited successors until it gets to the requested final node.
In contrast to Problem \[pro:knight-tour\], we do not know the length of the longest path in advance. Therefore we use here a `WHILE` statement rather than a `FOR` statement for constructing the path. In addition, for each generated path we need to check its length against the currently longest one.
A node `X` is viewed as unvisited as long as `Path[X] = 0`. When `X` is visited, `Path[X]` gets the value `k` which represents the position of `X` in the path.
PROCEDURE LongestPath(G: Graph; InitNode, FinalNode: Node): PathMark;
VAR k, max: INTEGER;
i: Node;
Path, LongPath: PathMark;
BEGIN
FOR i := 1 TO N DO Path[i] := 0 END;
i := InitNode;
k := 0;
max := 0;
FORALL
WHILE (Path[i] = 0) AND (i <> FinalNode) DO
k := k+1;
Path[i] := k;
i := Successor(G,i) (* generate a successor
nondeterministically *)
END
DO
IF (i = FinalNode) AND (k > max)
THEN max := k; LongPath := Path END
END;
RETURN LongPath
END LongestPath;
The longest path is delivered by means of the return value of the procedure. If no path between [InitNode]{} and [FinalNode]{} exists, then the variable [LongPath]{} remains uninitialized, and thus the value returned is also an uninitialized array, which can be tested within the calling procedure by using the built-in procedure [KNOWN]{}.
Use of Negation {#sec:negation}
===============
One of the important notions in logic programming is [*negation by failure*]{}. It is, in a nutshell, a meta-rule that allows us to conclude a negation of a statement from the fact that it cannot be proved (using the resolution method used in logic programming). Negation by failure is a very useful concept that allows us to write some remarkably concise Prolog programs. Also, it supports non-monotonic reasoning. Actually, the negation by failure mechanism provides a computational interpretation of the latter, a feature other main approaches to non-monotonic reasoning lack.
Negation by failure is supported in [[Alma-0]{}]{}, as well. In fact, as in logic programming, it is the mechanism used to evaluate negated statements. Consequently, we can use it in [[Alma-0]{}]{} in the same way as in logic programming and Prolog.
In [@ABPS98a] we already presented a number of programs that used negation. Here we show an [[Alma-0]{}]{} solution to the proverbial [*Tweety problem*]{}, one of the classical benchmarks for non-monotonic reasoning. Let us recall it.
The problem is to reason in the presence of default assumptions. In the natural language they are often expressed by means of the qualification “usually”. In what follows the “usual” situations are identified with those which are not “abnormal”.
We stipulate the following assumptions.
- The birds which are not abnormal fly (i.e., birds usually fly).
- The penguins are abnormal.
- Penguins and eagles are birds.
- Tweety is a penguin and Toto is an eagle.
The problem is to deduce which of these two birds flies. Here is a solution in [[Alma-0]{}]{}, where the code for `Print` is omitted.
MODULE penguin;
TYPE Animal = (Tweety, Toto);
PROCEDURE penguin(MIX x: Animal);
BEGIN
x = Tweety
END penguin;
PROCEDURE eagle(MIX x: Animal);
BEGIN
x = Toto
END eagle;
PROCEDURE ab(MIX x: Animal);
BEGIN
penguin(x)
END ab;
PROCEDURE bird(MIX x: Animal);
BEGIN
EITHER penguin(x) ORELSE eagle(x) END
END bird;
PROCEDURE fly(MIX x: Animal);
BEGIN
bird(x);
NOT ab(x)
END fly;
VAR x: Animal;
BEGIN
FORALL fly(x)
DO Print(x)
END
END penguin.
The use of the [MIX]{} parameter mechanism allows us to use each procedure both for testing and for computing, as in Prolog. In particular, the call [fly(x)]{} yields to a nondeterministic computing of the value of [x]{} using [bird(x)]{} and subsequent testing of it using [NOT ab(x)]{}.
It is instructive to compare this program with the more compact Prolog program (see, e.g., [@Apt97 page 303]):
penguin(tweety).
eagle(toto).
ab(X) :- penguin(X).
bird(X) :- penguin(X).
bird(X) :- eagle(X).
fly(X) :- not ab(X), bird(X).
While logically both programs amount to equivalent formulas we see that it is difficult to compete with Prolog’s conciseness.
Other natural uses of negation in [[Alma-0]{}]{} can be found in some other programs in this article.
Executable Specifications {#sec:executable-specs}
=========================
The next example shows that in some circumstances [[Alma-0]{}]{} yields programs that are more intuitive than those written in Prolog.
In general, specifications can and do serve many different purposes. The issue whether specifications should be executable or not has been for a long time a subject of a heated discussion, see, e.g. [@Fuc92]. We do not wish to enter this discussion here but we show how [[Alma-0]{}]{} supports executable specifications in a very natural way.
As an example, consider the problem of finding the lexicographically next permutation, discussed in [@Dij76].
To specify this problem recall that by definition a sequence $out_1,
\dots, out_N$ is a permutation of $in_1, \dots, in_N$ if for some function $\pi$ from $[1..N]$ onto itself we have $$out_1, \dots, out_N = in_{\pi(1)}, \dots, in_{\pi(N)}.$$
This definition directly translates into the following [[Alma-0]{}]{} program:
TYPE Sequence = ARRAY [1..N] OF INTEGER;
PROCEDURE Permutation(VAR in, out: Sequence);
VAR pi: Sequence;
i, j: INTEGER;
BEGIN
FOR i := 1 TO N DO
SOME j := 1 TO N DO
pi[j] = i
END
END; (* pi is a function from 1..N onto itself and ... *)
FOR i := 1 TO N DO
out[i] = in[pi[i]]
END (* out is obtained by applying pi to the indices of in *)
END Permutation;
The procedure `Permutation` provides, upon backtracking, all permutations of the given input sequence.
Next, we need to define the lexicographic ordering. Let us recall the definition: the sequence $a_1, \dots, a_N$ precedes lexicographically the sequence $b_1, \dots, b_N$ if some $i$ in the range $[1..N]$ exists such that for all $j$ in the range $[1..i-1]$ we have $a_j = b_j$, and $a_i < b_i$.
In [[Alma-0]{}]{} we write these specifications as follows:
PROCEDURE Lex(a,b: Sequence);
VAR i, j: INTEGER;
BEGIN
SOME i := 1 TO N DO
FOR j := 1 TO i-1 DO
a[j] = b[j]
END;
a[i] < b[i]
END
END Lex;
Now $b$ is the lexicographically next permutation of $a$ if
- $b$ is a permutation of $a$,
- $a$ precedes $b$ lexicographically,
- no permutation exists that is lexicographically between $a$ and $b$.
This leads us to the following procedure [Next]{} that uses an auxiliary procedure [Between]{}, which checks whether a permutation exists between `a` and `b`:
PROCEDURE Between(a,b: Sequence);
VAR c: Sequence;
BEGIN
Permutation(a,c);
Lex(a,c);
Lex(c,b)
END Between;
PROCEDURE Next(VAR a, b: Sequence);
BEGIN
Permutation(a,b);
Lex(a,b);
NOT Between(a,b)
END Next;
This concludes the presentation of the program. Note that it is fully declarative and it does not use any assignment. It is obviously hopelessly inefficient, but still it could be used on the example given in Dijkstra’s book, to compute that [1 4 6 2 9 7 3 5 8]{} is the lexicographically next permutation of [1 4 6 2 9 5 8 7 3]{}.
It is interesting to see that the above program is invertible in the sense that it can be also used to specify and compute the lexicographically previous permutation. In fact, we can use for this purpose the same procedure [Next]{} — it just suffices to pass now the given permutation as the second parameter of the procedure [ Next]{}. For this purpose both parameters are passed by variable in the procedures `Next` and `Permutation`.
In this way we can compute for instance that [1 4 6 2 9 5 8 3 7]{} is the lexicographically previous permutation of [1 4 6 2 9 5 8 7 3]{}.
A Scheduling Application {#sec:timetabling}
========================
We now show how [[Alma-0]{}]{} can be employed to solve scheduling problems. In particular, we introduce a specific scheduling problem known as the *university course timetabling* problem and discuss its solution in [[Alma-0]{}]{}.
Problem Definition
------------------
The course timetabling problem consists in the weekly scheduling for all the lectures of a set of university courses in a given set of classrooms, avoiding the overlaps of lectures having common students. We consider the basic problem (which is still NP-complete). Many variants of this problem have been proposed in the literature. They involve more complex constraints and usually consider an objective function to be minimized (see [@Scha99]).
There are $q$ courses $K_1,\dots,K_q$, and each course $K_i$ consists of $k_i$ required lectures, and $p$ periods $1..p$. For all $i\in 1..q$, all lectures $l\in 1..k_i$ must be assigned to a period $k$ in such a way that the following constraints are satisfied:
Conflicts:
: There are $c$ curricula $S_1,\dots,S_c$, which are groups of courses that have common students. Lectures of courses in $S_l$ must be all scheduled at different times, for each $l\in 1..c$.
Availabilities:
: There is an availability binary matrix $A$ of size $q\times p$. If $a_{ij} = 1$ then lectures of course $i$ cannot be scheduled at period $j$.
Rooms:
: There are $r$ rooms available. At most $r$ lectures can be scheduled at period $k$, for each $k\in 1..p$.
A solution in [[Alma-0]{}]{}
----------------------------
We now provide a solution of this problem in [[Alma-0]{}]{}. We start with the constant and type definitions necessary for the program.
CONST
Courses = 10; (* p *)
Periods = 20; (* q *)
Rooms = 3; (* r *)
TYPE
AvailabilityMatrix = ARRAY [1..Courses],[1..Periods] OF BOOLEAN;
ConflictMatrix = ARRAY [1..Courses],[1..Courses] OF BOOLEAN;
RequirementVector = ARRAY [1..Courses] OF INTEGER;
TimetableMatrix = ARRAY [1..Courses],[1..Periods] OF BOOLEAN;
Conflicts are represented by a $q\times q$ matrix of the type [ConflictMatrix]{} such that the element $(i,j)$ of the matrix is *true* if courses $K_i$ and $K_j$ belong simultaneously to at least one curriculum.
The solution is returned by means of a $q\times p$ boolean matrix of the type `TimetableMatrix`. Each element $(i,j)$ of the matrix is [*true*]{} if a lecture for the course $K_i$ is given at period $j$ and *false* otherwise.
The procedure `Timetabling` provides the solution of this problem in [[Alma-0]{}]{}. It follows faithfully the specification of the problem and it performs an exhaustive backtracking search for a feasible solution.
For each course $K_i$ the procedure looks for a number of periods equal to the number of lectures $k_i$ of the course. The array `BusyRooms` counts the number of rooms already used for each period, and is used to check the room occupation constraints.
In order to avoid exploring symmetric solutions for the lectures of a course, each lecture is always scheduled later than the previously scheduled lectures of the same course. This is done by using the variable `PeriodOfPreviousLecture` which keeps track of the period of the most recently scheduled lecture.
PROCEDURE Timetabling(Available: AvailabilityMatrix;
Conflict: ConflictMatrix;
Requirements: RequirementVector;
VAR Timetable: TimetableMatrix);
VAR
BusyRooms : ARRAY [1..Periods] OF INTEGER;
C, C1, L, P : INTEGER;
PeriodOfPreviousLecture : INTEGER;
BEGIN
FOR P := 1 TO Periods DO
BusyRooms[P] := 0;
END;
FOR C := 1 TO Courses DO
PeriodOfPreviousLecture := 0;
FOR L := 1 TO Requirements[C] DO
SOME P := PeriodOfPreviousLecture+1 TO Periods DO
Available[C,P];
BusyRooms[P] < Rooms;
FOR C1 := 1 TO C-1 DO
NOT (Conflict[C1,C] AND Timetable[C1,P])
END;
Timetable[C,P] := TRUE;
BusyRooms[P] := BusyRooms[P] + 1;
PeriodOfPreviousLecture := P;
END
END
END
END Timetabling;
The proposed procedure can solve only relatively small instances of the problem. For larger ones more complex algorithms and heuristic procedures are needed (see [@Scha99]).
Additional Functionalities
--------------------------
If no solution to the given problem instance exists, it is in general necessary to relax some of the constraints. The following procedure checks whether a solution exists when one single conflict constraint is relaxed. If the solution of the relaxed instance of the problem is found, its solution is returned along with the constraint which has been relaxed. This constraint is returned by means of two courses `c1` and `c2` which are no more considered in conflict.
PROCEDURE RelaxedTimetabling(Available: AvailabilityMatrix;
VAR Conflict: ConflictMatrix;
Requirements: RequirementVector;
VAR Timetable: TimetableMatrix;
MIX c1, c2: INTEGER);
VAR
i, j: INTEGER;
BEGIN
EITHER
Timetabling(Available, Conflict, Requirements, Timetable)
ORELSE
SOME i := 1 TO Courses-1 DO
SOME j := i+1 TO Courses DO
Conflict[i,j];
c1 = i; c2 = j;
Conflict[i,j] := FALSE;
Timetabling(Available, Conflict, Requirements, Timetable)
END
END
END
END RelaxedTimetabling;
Finally, the following procedure produces all relaxed and non-relaxed solutions of the problem. The simple code for the procedures `Initialize` and `PrintSolution` is omitted.
PROCEDURE CreateTimetable;
VAR
Available: AvailabilityMatrix;
Conflict: ConflictMatrix;
Requirements: RequirementVector;
Timetable: TimetableMatrix;
NbrSolutions: INTEGER;
c1, c2: INTEGER;
BEGIN
Initialize(Available,Conflict,Requirements,Timetable);
NbrSolutions := 0;
FORALL
RelaxedTimetabling(Available,Conflict,Requirements,Timetable,c1,c2)
DO
NbrSolutions := NbrSolutions + 1;
WRITELN('Solution number ',NbrSolutions);
PrintSolution(Available,Timetable);
IF KNOWN(c1)
THEN WRITELN('Conflict between course ', c1,' and ',c2,' relaxed')
ELSE WRITELN('No constraint relaxed for this solution');
END
END;
IF NbrSolutions > 0
THEN WRITELN('Number of solutions : ',NbrSolutions)
ELSE WRITELN('No solution found.');
END;
WRITELN
END CreateTimetable;
Note the use of the built-in procedure `KNOWN` that checks whether the variable `c1` is initialized or not. This test allows us to check whether a constraint has been relaxed.
Finally, note that `c1` and `c2` are passed by `MIX`. This way, not only a variable but also a constant can be supplied as an actual parameter. For example, the following call searches for a solution in which the possible relaxation involves course $K_1$:
RelaxedTimetabling(Available,Conflict,Requirements,Timetable,1,c);
Here `c` is an uninitialized variable.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this paper we presented a number of programs written in [[Alma-0]{}]{}. They were chosen with the purpose of illustrating the versatility of the resulting programming style. The solution to some other classical problems, such as $\alpha$-$\beta$ search, STRIPS planning, knapsack, and Eight Queens, have been already provided in [@ABPS98a].
These programs show that imperative and logic programming can be combined in a natural and effective way. The resulting programs are in most cases shorter and more readable than their counterparts written in imperative or logic programming style.
Let us review now the work carried out on [[Alma-0]{}]{}. The implementation of the language [[Alma-0]{}]{} is based on an abstract machine, called [[AAA]{}]{}, that combines the features of a RISC architecture and the WAM abstract machine. In the current version the [[AAA]{}]{} instructions are translated into C code. The implementation is described in [@ABPS98a] and explained in full detail in [@Par97]. The [[Alma-0]{}]{} compiler is available via the Web at `http://www.cwi.nl/alma`.
An executable operational specification of a large fragment of [[Alma-0]{}]{} is provided using the ASF+SDF Meta-Environment of [@Kli93]. This is described in [@ABPS98a] and comprehensively explained in [@Bru98].
An extension of [[Alma-0]{}]{} that integrates constraints into the language is the subject of an ongoing research. Various issues related to such integration are highlighted in [@AS99a]. In particular, the role of logical and customary variables, the interaction between the program and the constraint store, the local and global unknowns, and the parameter passing mechanisms are considered there.
Finally, in [@AB99] a computational interpretation of first-order logic based on a constructive interpretation of satisfiability w.r.t. a fixed but arbitrary interpretation is studied. This work provides logical underpinnings for a fragment of [[Alma-0]{}]{} that does not include assignment and allows us to reason about [[Alma-0]{}]{} programs written in this fragment.
K. R. Apt and M. A. Bezem. Formulas as programs. In K.R. Apt, V.W. Marek, M. Truszczyński, and D.S. Warren, editors, [*The Logic Programming Paradigm: A 25 Year Perspective*]{}, pages 75–107, 1999. Available via `http://xxx.lanl.gov/archive/cs/`.
K. R. Apt and A. Schaerf. The [Alma]{} project, or how first-order logic can help us in imperative programming. In E.-R. Olderog and B. Steffen, editors, [*Correct System Design*]{}, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1710, pages 89–113, 1999.
K. R. Apt, J. Brunekreef, V. Partington, and A. Schaerf. : An imperative language that supports declarative programming. , 20(5):1014–1066, 1998.
K. R. Apt. . Prentice-Hall, London, U.K., 1997.
J. Brunekreef. Annotated algebraic specification of the syntax and semantics of the programming language [[Alma-0]{}]{}. Technical Report P9803, Programming Research Group, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1998. Available online at\
[ http://www.wins.uva.nl/research/prog/reports/reports.html.]{}
J. Cohen. Non-[D]{}eterministic algorithms. , 11(2):79–94, 1979.
E. W. Dijkstra. Guarded commands, nondeterminacy and formal derivation of programs. , 18:453–457, 1975.
E. W. Dijkstra. . Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1976.
N. Fuchs. Specifications are (preferably) executable. , 7(5):323–334, 1992.
M. Gardner. . Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1979.
M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson. . W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1979.
R. E. Griswold and M. T. Griswold. . Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, 1983.
P. Klint. A meta–environment for generating programming environments. , 2(2):176–201, 1993.
V. Partington. Implementation of an imperative programming language with backtracking. Technical Report P9712, Department of Mathematics, Computer Science, Physics & Astronomy, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1997. Available online at\
[ http://www.wins.uva.nl/research/prog/reports/reports.html.]{}
A. Schaerf. A survey of automated timetabling. , 13(2):87–127, 1999.
J. T. Schwartz, R. B. K. Dewar, E. Dubinsky, and E. Schonberg. . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present the results of an extragalactic point source search using the five-year WMAP 41, 61 and 94 GHz (Q-, V- and W-band) temperature maps. This work is an extension of our designing and applying a CMB-free technique to extract point sources in the WMAP maps. Specifically, we have formed an internal linear combination (ILC) map of the three-band maps, with the weights chosen to remove the CMB anisotropy signal as well as to favor the selection of flat-spectrum sources. We have also constructed a filter to recover the true point source flux distribution on the sky. A total of 381 sources are found in our study at the $> 5\sigma$ level outside the WMAP point source detection mask, among which 89 are “new” (i.e., not present in the WMAP catalogs). Source fluxes have been calculated and corrected for the Eddington bias. We have solidly identified 367 ($96.3\%$) of our sources, the 1$\sigma$ positional uncertainty of which is 2$^\prime$. The 14 unidentified sources could be either extended radio structure or obscured by Galactic emission. We have also applied the same detection approach to simulated maps, which yielded 364$\pm$21 detections on average. The recovered source distribution $N(>S)$ agrees well with the simulation input, which proves the reliability of this method.'
author:
- 'X. Chen & E. L. Wright'
title: 'Extragalactic Point Source Search in Five-year WMAP 41, 61 and 94 GHz Maps'
---
Introduction
============
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) is designed to advance observational cosmology by making precise measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy (@2003ApJ...583....1B). The characterizing and removing of foreground emission play a vital role in the interpretation of CMB temperature maps. At small angular scales, extragalactic radio sources, especially those with flat spectra, constitute the most important foreground. Therefore, it is essential to have efficient source detection techniques developed and applied to the WMAP maps. Meanwhile, since WMAP provides the only all-sky millimeter survey, source extraction in its maps also opens a window to study extragalactic radio sources in the millimeter wavelength region.
With every WMAP data release, a catalog is provided of the brightest point sources in the WMAP maps. The detection procedure used by the WMAP science team features a filtering of the integration-time-weighted maps with $b_{\ell}/(b_{\ell}^{2}C_{\ell}^{CMB}+C_{\ell}^{noise})$ in harmonic space and a search for $> 5\sigma$ peaks, where $b_{\ell}$ is the transfer function of the WMAP beam response (@2003ApJS..148...39P, @2007ApJS..170..263J, @2009ApJS..180..246H), $C_{\ell}^{CMB}$ is the CMB angular power spectrum and $C_{\ell}^{noise}$ is the noise power. This procedure successfully generated 208, 323 and 390 point sources in the WMAP first year, three-year and five-year maps, respectively (@2003ApJS..148...97B, @2007ApJS..170..288H, @2008arXiv0803.0577W; hereafter, WMAP1, WMAP3 and WMAP5 catalogs). However, because of the limited angular resolution of WMAP, positive CMB excursions can be confused with point sources. In addition, the $C_{\ell}^{CMB}$ term in the filter counts as a systematic noise that does not integrate down with observing time. This largely limits the increasing of the number of detections with increased sensitivity of the maps. To circumvent the CMB “noise”, @2008ApJ...681..747C introduced a CMB-free technique, which involves forming internal linear combination (ILC) of multi-frequency maps to suppress the CMB signal. The number of sources N found by applying this technique to the WMAP V- and W-band maps alone varied as $t^{0.72}$ from one year to five years, in comparison to $N \sim t^{0.39}$ between the WMAP1 and WMAP5 catalogs (@2009ApJS..180..283W).
In this paper, we extend this CMB-free technique and employ it to the WMAP five-year Q-, V- and W-band temperature maps. The main goal is to utilize the high signal-to-noise ratio Q-band data to find more flat-spectrum sources, which are known to dominate the 30 - 100 GHz frequency regime.
Methodology
===========
Point Source Detection
----------------------
The WMAP temperature maps at HEALPix[^1] Res 9 are used in this study. To minimize the noise difference between maps, we first smooth the high resolution V- and W-band maps to match the Q-band resolution. We construct the smoothing functions using a polynomial of an infinitely smooth function with compact support, i.e., $$S(\theta)~=~\sum_n~a_nS_n~(\theta),$$ where $$S_n~(\theta) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\exp(- \frac {n \theta^2}{\theta_{Rc}^{2} - \theta^2}) & \theta < \theta_{Rc} \\
0 & \theta > \theta_{Rc}.
\end{array}\right.
\label{eq:smooth}$$ The coefficients $a_{n}$’s are fitted by requiring the Legendre transform of the smoothing functions to match the ratios of Q-band beam transfer function to V-band and W-band beam transfer functions separately. And a cutoff radius $\theta_{R_{c}}$ of 1.25$\degr$ is chosen for the solid angle integrations.
We then form the ILC map out of the Q-band map, V-band smoothed map and W-band smoothed map, $$T^{ILC} ~=~ \omega_Q T_Q + \omega_V T_V^{SM} + \omega_W T_W^{SM}.$$ The weights are determined by canceling out the CMB anisotropy signal $$\omega_Q + \omega_V + \omega_W = 0,$$ normalizing the flat-spectrum source flux to the Q-band $$\omega_Q + \omega_V (\frac {\partial B_Q}{\partial T} / \frac{\partial B_V}{\partial T})|_{T_0} + \omega_W (\frac {\partial B_Q}{\partial T} / \frac{\partial B_W}{\partial T})|_{T_0} = 1,$$ and minimizing the variance of the combination map, which can be approached by minimizing ($\omega_Q^2 + \omega_V^2 + \omega_W^2$) since the variance at each pixel is approximately the same for Q, V and W bands. Here $B_{\nu}$ is the Planck function and $T_{0}$ = 2.725$\pm$0.002 K is the CMB temperature (@1999ApJ...512..511M). The three-band ILC map is shown in Figure \[ILC\]a.
For any pixel $i$ within the Q-band beam to a point source, assuming negligible contribution from the overlap of point sources, its temperature $T_i^{ILC}$ in the ILC map can be fitted into the point source intensity $f$, multiplied by the beam response at that pixel location $b^Q_i$, plus a local baseline $c$, i.e., $$T_i^{ILC} ~=~ f b^Q_i ~+~ c.
\label{eq:srcfit}$$ Deviation from the fit is evaluated using the $\chi^2$, $$\chi^2 ~=~ \sum_{ij} \epsilon_i ( N^{-1}_{ij} ) \epsilon_j,$$ where $$\epsilon_i ~=~ T_i^{ILC} ~-~ (f b^Q_i + c)$$ and $$N_{ij} ~=~\delta_{ij} \sigma_Q^2 \omega_Q^2 ~+~ \sum_k S^{V2Q}_{ik} S^{V2Q}_{jk} \sigma_V^2 \omega_V^2 ~+~ \sum_k S^{W2Q}_{ik} S^{W2Q}_{jk} \sigma_W^2 \omega_W^2.$$ Here $S^{V2Q}$ and $S^{W2Q}$ are the smoothing functions used to smooth the V-band and W-band maps previously; the summation over $k$ is a sum over all the pixels within $\theta_{R_{c}}$ of pixel $i$ and $j$; $\sigma_Q$, $\sigma_V$ and $\sigma_W$ are the noise at pixel $k$ in the Q-, V- and W-band maps, respectively. The best fit is defined when the $\chi^2$ reaches a minimum, which gives $$\sum_{i j} N^{-1}_{i j} \left(
\begin{array}{c}
b_i^Q \\
1
\end{array} \right) \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
b_j^Q & 1 \end{array} \right) \left(
\begin{array}{c}
f \\
c
\end{array} \right) =
\sum_{i j} N^{-1}_{i j} T_j^{ILC} \left(
\begin{array}{c}
b_i^Q \\
1
\end{array} \right).$$ Solving the above equation, we find that the intensity of the point source can be written as a weighted sum of the intensities of its surrounding pixels, i.e., $$f = \sum_{j} \left[\sum_{i} (M^{-1})_{00} b_i^Q N^{-1}_{i j} + \sum_{i} (M^{-1})_{01} N^{-1}_{i j}
\right] T_j^{ILC},
\label{eq:kernel}$$ where $$M =
\sum_{i j} N^{-1}_{i j} \left(
\begin{array}{c}
b_i^Q \\
1
\end{array} \right) \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
b_j^Q & 1 \end{array} \right).$$ Since the weights inside the square brackets of Equation (\[eq:kernel\]) are essentially a function of the angular distance to the considered source, this suggests that we can probe the point source flux in the ILC map by fitting the function and filter the map locally. As a first attempt, we generate 32 random source positions in the sky and for each position calculate the weights to a distance of 1.25$\degr$. We plot the weights against the angular distances at each selected random spot, and note that they all share the same profile. This leads us to fit a single function using the collective weights from the 32 random positions. Convolving the all-sky ILC map with this global filter, we are able to recover the point source flux distribution on the entire sky, shown in Figure \[ILC\]b. The extreme negative regions in the map are regions surrounding the brightest sources, where fluxes in the pixels are depleted and restored into their central point sources by filtering.
We adopt the same Kp0+LMC+SMC detection mask used by the WMAP team (@2009ApJS..180..283W, shown as contours in Figure \[ILC\]b) to exclude extended foreground emission. Following the WMAP scan pattern that gives non-uniform observation numbers among pixels: greatest at the ecliptic poles, high at latitude $\pm45\degr$, and least in the ecliptic plane, we divide the masked sky into rings that cover 1 degree in ecliptic latitude. We then compute $\sigma$ individually within each ring and look for peaks greater than $5\sigma$. When more than one $> 5\sigma$ pixel lay within a 3 $\times$ 3 pixels area, the brightest one is chosen as a source detection. The accurate source position is approached by fitting a point source profile to the 9-pixel grid centered on the brightest pixel and defined at where the peak is. We find 381 sources in our study. The distribution of these sources on the sky is given in Figure \[overview\]; Blue, green and red dots indicate, respectively, sources in the WMAP catalogs, newly detected and identified, and newly detected but unidentified (See §\[id\] for a detailed discussion of source identification).
Flux Estimation
---------------
We estimate the Q-, V- and W-band flux densities of our sources by calculating $$F_{\nu} = \int I_{\nu}~\psi(\theta) \cos \theta d\Omega~=~\frac {\partial B_{\nu}}{\partial T} |_{T_{0}} \int T ~\psi(\theta)
\cos \theta d\Omega,$$ where $B_{\nu}$ is again the Planck function and $T_{0}$ is the CMB temperature of 2.725$\pm$0.002 K. $T$ is the temperature measurement in each band; the solid angle is integrated to a radius of 1.25 degree. We have introduced a weighting function $\psi(\theta)$ in our flux estimator to help enhance the contrast of the point source flux to the background. This function is constructed individually in each band with the corresponding beam profile in the center and a negative Gaussian ring in the outer field. We require $$\int \psi(\theta) d\Omega = 0,$$ in order to ignore any flux that spreads uniformly across the whole integration field. The mean and variance of the Gaussian functions are optimized to preserve the source flux while minimizing the fluctuation in the integration field: $$\sigma^2 = \sum_i \sum_j \psi_i \psi_j (C(\theta_{ij}) + \delta_{ij} N_i),$$ where $$C(\theta) = \sum_{\ell} \frac {2\ell + 1}{4 \pi} C_{\ell} \omega_{\ell} P_{\ell} (cos \theta).$$ Here i and j denote pixels within the integration field; N is the radiometer noise in the five-year maps; $C_{\ell}$ is the best fit power spectrum of WMAP5 data assuming a $\Lambda$CDM model; $\omega_{\ell}$ is the window function which encodes the beam smoothing (@2003ApJS..148...39P); $P_{\ell}$ is the Legendre function. We see negative fluxes for some sources, which is likely caused by our source sitting on the top of a negative CMB fluctuation. The error on the flux density is calculated as the flux rms value of the background pixels that are close to the target source but are not “contaminated” by it. Specifically, we select a ring of pixels around the source with an inner radius equal to 1$\degr$ to exclude pixels affected by the source fluxes, and an outer radius of 2$\degr$ to include sufficient number of pixels to estimate the background fluctuation level.
Since flux estimates of sources in noisy fields are on average overestimated (Eddington Bias, @1940MNRAS.100..354E), we have applied the Bayesian approach described in the Appendix B of @2007ApJS..170..108L to correct for the bias. The estimated slopes of the differential number counts are 2.67, 2.68 and 2.30 for the Q, V, and W bands separately. We compare the uncorrected fluxes of each band with the corrected ones in Figure \[eddington\]. The agreement is generally good, and the correction makes almost no difference for fluxes $\ga$ 1.5 Jy in Q and V bands.
Identification {#id}
--------------
We search in the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED[^2]) and the source catalogs from two recent all/large sky radio surveys: CRATES (8.4 GHz, @2007ApJS..171...61H) and the Australia Telescope 20 GHz Survey (AT20G, @2008MNRAS.384..775M), for radio sources within 15$^\prime$ ($\theta^{Q}_{FWHM} \sim 30.6^\prime$) to our sources. We retrieve the available photometric data and make the spectral energy distribution (SED) plots for these radio sources. If the flux densities of our source can be reasonably fitted into the SED of a known radio source, we associate them. This SED approach identifies 367 (i.e. 96.3$\%$) sources on our list, the majority of which are found to have a flat spectrum, i.e., ${\alpha} \sim 0 $ in $F_{\nu} \sim \nu^{\alpha}$. This is consistent with our knowledge of the dominance of flat-spectrum sources in this wavelength regime, and with the weights we chosen for the ILC map that favors flat-spectrum sources. Nevertheless, we do detect some steep-spectrum sources as well as sources with spectra peaked at $\sim$10 GHz (see Figure \[sedexample\] for some SED examples). We have also searched NED for the optical identifications of our sources and found 269 QSOs, 61 galaxies, 1 galaxy pair, 1 galaxy triple, 1 planetary nebula and 34 unclassified radio sources among the identified ones. Additionally, NED provides redshifts for 306 identified sources. A plot of the redshift distribution of these sources is given in Figure \[redshift\], the median of z is 0.85.
We then cross-correlate our list of identified sources with the WMAP catalogs. If a source is within 15$^\prime$ of a WMAP cataloged source, we tag it. We find 287 of our sources present in the WMAP5 catalog, and five more sources (J0734+5026, J1513-1013, J1553-7914, J1644-7713, J1648+4109) are in the WMAP3 catalog but missing from the WMAP5 catalog. The high associate rate clearly demonstrates that our method can generate results consistent with the method adopted by the WMAP team. In Figure \[fluxcompare\], we compare our flux estimates with the ones given in the WMAP catalogs. These two sets of fluxes agree very well with each other at $F_{\nu} \ga$ 1 Jy. Our estimates are in general lower than the WMAP ones for faint sources, which is partially due to the flux correction we made. The most deviated point in both Q and V bands is Fornax A, known as an extended source with a relatively weak core and two large extended lobes. A complete list of all the identified sources is given in Table \[src\_id\], sorted in ascending order of right ascension. For each source, we give its WMAP5 ID (if available), optical identification, flux densities along with 1$\sigma$ errors at the WMAP Q-, V- and W-band, its 5 GHz ID as given in GB6 (@1996ApJS..103..427G), PMN (@1994ApJS...90..179G [@1995ApJS...97..347G], @1994ApJS...91..111W [@1996ApJS..103..145W]), S5 (@1981AJ.....86..854K) or catalogs, and the angular distance to its 5 GHz counterpart. For four of our sources (J0422+0212, J0721+0403, J0805+6143, J1015+2258), we have assigned different 5GHz IDs than given in the WMAP5 catalog based on the SEDs of the 5 GHz sources. The position errors of our detections are evaluated with respect to the positions of their 5 GHz counterparts since the 5 GHz surveys have in general higher angular resolutions. Assuming the source deviations from their 5 GHz counterparts in both the galactic longitude and latitude axes are normally distributed, the angular distance $r$ to the 5 GHz IDs should satisfy a Rayleigh distribution and the radial positional uncertainty of our sources can then be estimated as $\sigma_r = median(r)/ \sqrt {\ln 4} = 2^\prime$. We conclude that our 5 GHz IDs are more reliable since we obtain a better positional accuracy than the WMAP5 survey (4$^\prime$ in both longitudes and latitudes).
There are 14 sources left without any solid identification, as listed in Table \[src\_uid\] and noted in red in Figure \[overview\]. Looking back into the filtered ILC map (Figure \[ILC\]b), we do see bright emission features at the corresponding locations. We suggest that these sources could be either extended radio structure or obscured by Galactic emission. Considering the low or negative flux densities obtained for some of these sources, it is likely that some of them are located on the top of negative CMB fluctuations so that they do not show as strong sources in each band but show up in the CMB-free ILC map. We cross-correlate this list with the GB6, PMN, S5 and catalogs. If a 5 GHz source is within 15$^\prime$, we suggest it as the possible counterpart of our source. In cases when no 5 GHz source is found nearby, we use the closest 1.4 GHz NVSS (@1998AJ....115.1693C) source or 843 MHz SUMSS (@1999AJ....117.1578B, @2003MNRAS.342.1117M) source instead.
Discussion
==========
Source Number Counts
--------------------
We have calculated the source number counts in bins of $\Delta$log S = 0.2 at Q-, V- and W-band[^3] and compared them with the predictions of the cosmological evolution model by . As illustrated in Figure \[numcnt\], the agreement is generally good above $\sim$ 2 Jy (i.e., log S = 0.3) in the Q and V bands. The low data points at lower fluxes are due to the incompleteness of our sources at these flux ranges. In the W-band, our data points agree more with a model rescaled by 0.86. The source counts derived from WMAP5 catalog in the corresponding bands are also plotted for comparison. They are mostly consistent with the source counts in this work.
Chance-Coincidence Rate
-----------------------
To estimate the influence of false identifications from random coincidences, we have generated an equal number (i.e., 381) of random positions outside the WMAP source detection mask. We repeat the same near-position search in NED. If a 5 GHz source is found to have $F_{\nu} \ga$ 100 mJy within 15$^\prime$ of a fake source position, we calculate the spectral index $\alpha$ using the 5 GHz flux estimate along with the 1.4 GHz flux estimate from the NVSS catalog or 843 MHz flux estimate from the SUMSS catalog (all such 5 GHz sources have a NVSS or SUMSS counterpart). We then use the spectral index to extrapolate this source’s 5 GHz flux to the WMAP 41 GHz channel (Q-band). We consider a source as identified when its Q-band flux is above 100 mJy. Following this approach, we associate 14 random sources with known radio sources, corresponding to a chance-coincidence rate of 3.7$\%$. In Figure \[posierr\], we plot the distribution of position offsets of real detections to their 5 GHz counterparts, in comparison with the distribution of the identified random sources. It is evident that the false identifications with random sources generally have a larger position error than the real peak positions. Based on this plot, we suggest that our source identifications within 5$^\prime$ are probably real.
Analysis of Simulated Maps
--------------------------
We repeat the same point source analysis on simulated maps constructed with point sources, CMB fluctuations, and radiometer noise. $10^6$ sources are sampled from a power law distribution $N(>S)$ at the WMAP Q-band (centered at 40.7 GHz), derived from WMAP5 sources with $F_Q > 1$ Jy as they appear to be complete to $\sim 1$ Jy (Figure \[intcnt\]). Spectral indices are chosen from a Gaussian with mean -0.09 and standard deviation 0.176 (@2009ApJS..180..283W), and the fluxes are scaled to the V- and W-band centers (60.8 GHz and 93.5 GHz). In each band, we calculate the appropriate temperature of every source and assign it to a random HEALPix pixel at Res 11 (a total of $12\times4^{11}$ pixels). These point source maps are then smoothed with the beam window function at each band and converted to Res 9 maps. Finally, we add in the Res 9 maps of CMB fluctuations produced using the best fit $C_{\ell}^\prime$s from WMAP5 data assuming a $\Lambda$CDM model, and of radiometer noise generated from the WMAP5 noise variance in each pixel. The point source detection process is then applied to these simulated maps, yielding on average 364$\pm$21 point sources for the 10 simulations we completed. When compared with the input point source maps, we find only 2 spurious sources out of the total detections from our simulations. The recovered $N(>S)$ agree remarkably well with the simulation input for fluxes $> 1$ Jy, which infers that our method is robust and the source counts we get from the WMAP5 ILC map are reliable for fluxes $> 1$ Jy.
Conclusions
===========
We present catalogs of point sources found in an ILC map constructed from the WMAP five-year Q-, V- and W-band maps. We have recovered 287 WMAP5 sources and five WMAP3 sources in our survey. Bypassing of CMB “noise” in the detection process brings us 89 new sources (23.4$\%$ of the total). We have obtained flux density estimates for our sources in each of the three bands. Most of the new sources are found to have low or even negative flux estimates in at least one band, which is probably due to the coincidence of their locations with negative CMB fluctuations. This will generally lead to missing of these sources in single frequency band searches. We identify our sources by searching in NED for nearby low frequency radio sources and fitting the fluxes of our sources to their SEDs. Of all the sources we detected, we lack of solid identifications for 14. The flux estimates and number count distribution of our identified sources are comparable with those from the WMAP5 catalog, which proves our method to be complimentary to as well as consistent with the WMAP approach. Since this CMB-free technique responds rapidly as observing time increases (@2009ApJS..180..283W), we expect a fast increase of new detections in more years of WMAP maps.
We acknowledge the use of the Legacy Archive for Microwave Background Data Analysis (LAMBDA) to retrieve the WMAP data set. Support for LAMBDA is provided by the NASA Office of Space Science. This research has also made use of the VizieR catalog service and the HEALPix (@2005ApJ...622..759G) package.
Bennett, C. L., et al. 2003a, , 583, 1
Bennett, C. L., et al. 2003c, , 148, 97
Bock, D. C.-J., Large, M. I., & Sadler, E. M. 1999, , 117, 1578
Chen, X., & Wright, E. L. 2008, , 681, 747
Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., Yin, Q. F., Perley, R. A., Taylor, G. B., & Broderick, J. J. 1998, , 115, 1693
de Zotti, G., Ricci, R., Mesa, D., Silva, L., Mazzotta, P., Toffolatti, L., & Gonz[á]{}lez-Nuevo, J. 2005, , 431, 893
Eddington, A. S., Sir 1940, , 100, 354
G[ó]{}rski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., Wandelt, B. D., Hansen, F. K., Reinecke, M., & Bartelmann, M. 2005, , 622, 759
Gregory, P. C., Scott, W. K., Douglas, K., & Condon, J. J. 1996, , 103, 427
Griffith, M. R., Wright, A. E., Burke, B. F., & Ekers, R. D. 1994, , 90, 179
Griffith, M. R., Wright, A. E., Burke, B. F., & Ekers, R. D. 1995, , 97, 347
Healey, S. E., Romani, R. W., Taylor, G. B., Sadler, E. M., Ricci, R., Murphy, T., Ulvestad, J. S., & Winn, J. N. 2007, , 171, 61
Hill, R. S., et al. 2009, , 180, 246
Hinshaw, G., et al. 2007, , 170, 288
Jarosik, N., et al. 2007, , 170, 263
Kuehr, H., Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K., Witzel, A., & Schmidt, J. 1981a, , 86, 854
Kuehr, H., Witzel, A., Pauliny-Toth, I. I. K., & Nauber, U. 1981b, , 45, 367
L[ó]{}pez-Caniego, M., Gonz[á]{}lez-Nuevo, J., Herranz, D., Massardi, M., Sanz, J. L., de Zotti, G., Toffolatti, L., & Arg[ü]{}eso, F. 2007, , 170, 108
Massardi, M., et al. 2008, , 384, 775
Mather, J. C., Fixsen, D. J., Shafer, R. A., Mosier, C., & Wilkinson, D. T. 1999, , 512, 511
Mauch, T., Murphy, T., Buttery, H. J., Curran, J., Hunstead, R. W., Piestrzynski, B., Robertson, J. G., & Sadler, E. M. 2003, , 342, 1117
Page, L., et al. 2003, , 148, 39
Wright, A. E., Griffith, M. R., Burke, B. F., & Ekers, R. D. 1994, , 91, 111
Wright, A. E., Griffith, M. R., Hunt, A. J., Troup, E., Burke, B. F., & Ekers, R. D. 1996, , 103, 145
Wright, E. L., et al. 2009, , 180, 283
[^1]: The Hierarchical Equal Area isoLatitude Pixelization (HEALPix) of the sphere is used to define WMAP map pixels on the sky in Galactic coordinates. Res 9 corresponds to 3,145,728 pixels over the full sky with a pixel resolution of $0.115\degr$. See more of HEALPix at http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov/ .
[^2]: See <http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/>.
[^3]: By convention, S is often used to represent the flux density in the discussion of number counts distribution; it is equivalent to $F_{\nu}$ that is used throughout this paper.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent work has demonstrated that the interior material layout of a 3D model can be designed to make a fabricated replica satisfy application-specific demands on its physical properties such as resistance to external loads. A widely used practice to fabricate such models is by layer-based additive manufacturing (AM) or 3D printing, which however suffers from the problem of adding and removing interior supporting structures. In this paper, we present a novel method for generating support-free elliptic hollowing for 3D shapes which can entirely avoid additional supporting structures. To achieve this, we perform the ellipse hollowing in the polygons on parallel section planes and protrude the ellipses of one plane to its neighboring planes. To pack the ellipses in a polygon, we construct the Voronoi diagram of ellipses to efficiently reason the free-space around the ellipses and other geometric features by taking advantage of the available algorithm for the efficient and robust construction of the Voronoi diagram of circles. We demonstrate the effectiveness and feasibility of our proposed method by generating interior designs for and printing various 3D shapes.'
address:
- 'School of Mechanical Engineering, Hanyang University, Korea'
- 'School of Mathematical Science, University of Science and Technology of China, China'
- 'Molecular Geometry and Voronoi Diagram Research Center, Hanyang University, Korea'
author:
- Mokwon Lee
- Qing Fang
- Joonghyun Ryu
- Ligang Liu
- 'Deok-Soo Kim'
bibliography:
- 'EllipseHollowing.bib'
title: 'Support-Free Hollowing for 3D Printing via Voronoi Diagram of Ellipses'
---
3D Printing,support-free hollowing,ellipse packing,Voronoi diagram.
Introduction
============
Additive manufacturing (AM), also called 3D printing, has been advanced rapidly to make customized 3D models. Comparing to traditional manufacturing techniques, it offers enormous geometrical freedom for designers to create highly optimized components with various functionality.
Model hollowing is a typical practice for purposes of reducing printing material and time in 3D printing of light-weighted artifacts and various methods on generating optimized interior have been developed during the last few years [@Stava:2012; @Wang:2013; @Lu:2014]. The mainstream of 3D printing technologies, such as Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) and Stereolithography (SLA), requires additional supporting structures to avoid the falling of relatively large overhanging parts during the printing process [@Strano:2013; @Dumas:2014; @Vanek:2014]. Generally the extra supporting structures have to be removed either manually or by dissolving dissolvable material from the printed objects.
However, there is no way at all to remove the supporting material inside interior voids of a printed object. A naïve method is to first decompose the model into a few subparts, print them and remove the supporting material individually, and then glue them together. Obviously it may largely affect the computed physical properties. Recently, there are quite a few attempts to create support-free interior voids or structures by constraining boundary slopes [@Langelaar:2016; @Wu:2016; @Reiner:2016].
A noticeable work adopts rhombic cell structures, where the slope angles of all rhombic cells are smaller than a prescribed maximum overhang-angle, as a infill pattern to generate support-free interior voids inside the objects [@Wu:2016]. However, the rhombic cells have only $C^0$ boundaries, which suffers serious problem of stress concentration [@Walter:2008]. The stress around a discontinuity, e.g., a $C^0$ corner, will be excessively high when compared to the stresses at the other smooth areas as shown in Figure \[fig:stress-concentration\]. For example, hatches and doorways in airplanes are oval to stay away from being broken easily [@GeekStress:2016]. Rounded corners are structurally more beneficial than sharp corners and also reduce the probability of crack development unlike sharp corners.
#### Our Work
To this end, we present a novel method for hollowing 3D shapes with support-free smooth elliptic interior voids. To make it simple, we first derive a class of support-free ellipses in 2D case, based on the observation on sticky property of printing material. Then we develop a novel approach for packing these support-free ellipses in the interior of 2D shapes, which is a very challenging problem. To achieve this goal, we develop a greedy but efficient algorithm on adding these ellipses successively in 2D shapes via the Voronoi diagram of ellipses in polygons using that of circular disks. Then the hollowed ellipses are extruded into 3D volume and thus a support-free hollowed 3D shape is generated. Various experimental results have demonstrated the feasibility and applicability of our proposed method.
#### Contributions
Our contributions are summarized as follows.
- We develop efficient algorithms for computing the Voronoi diagram of polygon and that of ellipses within a polygon;
- We develop an efficient method for packing 2D ellipses with derivation of support-free constraint;
- We propose a method for generating support-free elliptic voids for 3D shapes.
To the best of our knowledge, our work is the first to offer a framework to generate a smooth, elliptic support-free interior voids for printing 3D shapes via an efficient computational scheme. This provides a practically feasible operator for support-free hollowing of 3D shapes and exemplifies research along this direction.
0
The production cost of the resulting model is determined by material volume in printing. During the last few years, model hollowing is widely used in cost-effective 3D printing. Applications vary from material and time reduction to physical properties optimization such as structure strength and balance when models stand in gravity or float on the water[@Stava:2012:SRI:2185520.2185544; @Prevost:2013:MSB:2461912.2461957; @wang:eg:2016]. Researchers have designed different hollowing structures for interior material carving[@:CPO:2508363.2508382; @Lu:2014:BSW:2601097.2601168; @Li2016].Most of them don’t consider the support constraints when building by powder-based material.
A model fabricated by common AM technologies like fused deposition modeling (FDM) and stereolithography (SLA) often requires extra supports for large overhang parts. MeshMixer builds a tree-like structure supporting overhangs in a sparse, limited number of points[@Schmidt:2014:BSS:2619195.2656293]. While outer supports can be ticked automatically or manually in the post-process, sacrificial supports in interior can’t be removed directly which causes model physics properties become invalid. Hence, self-support filling structures have already been studied in the past year to eliminate large overhangs[@DBLP:journals/cad/WuWZW16; @Langelaar201660].All present work focus on the overhang angle restriction and assume parts’ surface sloping below a threshold can be accumulated without adding supports below.
Actually using overhang constraint in layer-based AM only can inevitably cause $C^0$ continuous void-material boundaries, like rhombus corners[@DBLP:journals/cad/WuWZW16]. More seriously, sharp discontinuities will cause larger stress concentration in strength optimization[@GeekStress]. Hollowing with oval hole distribute stress dispersedly and make finished products behave stronger in the same given load[@StressConcentration]. For example, hatches and doorways in airplanes are oval to stay away from being broken easily. Therefore, carving with ellipsoid is a much better choice than $C^0$ overhang boundary constraint in stress-driven hollowing.
In this paper, we classify a family of ellipsoids which are support free in observation and experiments. We study the constraints for these ellipsoids and use them for model interior hollowing. A heuristic method to hollow objects with support-free ellipses (ellipsoids) is proposed to save printing material and time cost. In literature, this optimization can be considered as an ellipsoids-packing problem, which is an NP-hard problem. Voronoi diagram (VD) is often applied in packing problem due to the revelation of void space between packing object[@Benabbou2008]. However, ellipsoids VD generation is not easy. Instead, we approximate the ellipse with a set of disks and take advantage of the Voronoi diagram of disks[@LmwEtal16] to handle the problem. The specific contributions of our work are as follows:
- We are the first to derive the support-free ellipse and use it for cost-effective hollowing;
- We develop an efficient method for this problem, which is NP-hard.
The remainder of this paper is organized as followings. We review the related work in Section 2. And following that a preliminary of disk-approximated ellipse in error controlling is introduced in Section 3. We describe our packing algorithm in details in Section 4.Stress combined optimization is given in Section 5. Results and conclusions are shown in Section 6.
Related Work
============
3D printing technology has drawn a lot of attention in geometric and physical modeling and optimization in computer graphics community. We discuss about the work closely related to our study and give specific discussion about their strength and limitations.
#### Supporting Structures for 3D Printing
Extra supporting structures are required to make 3D shapes printable for shapes with large overhanging parts, which leads to material waste and longer printing time. Some methods, which adopt various supporting structures such as scaffold-like structures [@Dumas:2014] and tree-like ones [@Vanek:2014], have been developed to generate economic usage of supporting structure for 3D models. Vanek et al. [@Vanek:2014] searches an optimal printing direction by reducing the total area of facing down regions where require additional supporting structures while Zhang et al. [@Zhang:2015] develops a training-and-learning model to determine the optimal printing direction considering multiple factors such as contact area, viewpoint preference, and visual saliency. The work of [@Hu:2015] optimizes the shape of an input model to reduce the area of facing down regions for less supporting structures. However, adding supporting structure for interior voids will suffer the serious problem that it is impossible to remove these extra structures without breaking the object into pieces. Instead, we generate interior support-free voids, which completely avoids the usage of extra supports.
#### Interior Hollowing
Significant work has been done in generating interior structure of a model to meet various geometric and/or physical properties. Stava et al. [@Stava:2012] hollows a 3D-printed object while maintaining its structural strength by adding some internal struts. The interior is optimized by a reduced-order parameterization of offset surfaces in [@Musialski:2015]. Various internal structures, such as the skin-frame structure [@Wang:2013], the honeycomb-like structure [@Lu:2014], and the medial axis tree structure [@Zhang:2015], were developed for cost-effective purposes while preserving the structural strength of printed objects. Both static balance and dynamic balance have been studied by designing the interior infills as well as changing the model shapes [@Prevost:2013; @Christiansen:2015; @Bacher:2014]. Instead of designing hollowing structure explicitly, a lot of efforts have been put on topology optimization to obtain distributions of material according to certain performance criteria during the last three decades [@Deaton:2014; @Wu:2016-TVCG]. However, these works have not handled the problem of avoiding large overhangs. We study this problem by developing a carving operator via support-free elliptic voids.
#### Support-Free Structure
Hu et al. [@Hu:2014-Pyramidal] proposes a method to decompose a 3D object into support-free pyramidal subparts. Reiner and Lefebvre [@Reiner:2016] proposes an interactive sculpting system for designing support-free models. Recent attempts have been put on creating support-free interior structure for 3D printing. Wu et al. [@Wu:2016] develops a method to generate support-free infill structures on adaptive rhombic cells. A concurrent work of Langelaar [@Langelaar:2016] considers an overhang angle threshold in topology optimization and generates a support-free material distribution. However, these works only involve overhang angle and generate $C^0$ boundaries inevitably, resulting in large stress concentration in discontinuities. In this paper, we develop a special class of support-free ellipses and adopt them as an interior carving operator to create infill structures.
#### Ellipse Packing
Our method of ellipse carving is quite related to the problems of ellipse and ellipsoid packing which are NP-hard. In science, the problem was prevalently approached from the packing ratio, particle size distribution, or jamming point of view to understand material properties by enforcing contacts between ellipses and using Monte Carlo method [@BuchalterBradley92; @SchreckEtal10], Molecular Dynamics [@DonevEtal04; @DonevEtal07], local and greedy algorithms [@Hitti:2013; @Birgin:2016] with sampling points on the ellipse boundary [@DelaneyEtal05] in either regular containers or arbitrary domains [@Lozano:2016]. However, these methods do not balance the computation cost and packing density outcome well because research interests were primarily on the discovery of new phenomena. This is quite different from the circle packing problem which have been extensively studied from the view points of both solution quality (i.e. packing ratio) and computation time, from early study using an event-driven algorithm with a bucket acceleration [@Jodrey:1985; @Lubachevsky:1990; @Lubachevsky91] to recent ones using a systematic reasoning of empty space [@Specht15; @SugiharaEtal04]. However, the infilled ellipses in our work have special constraints which make current methods infeasible to use. In this work, we develop a new method for packing ellipses in arbitrary shapes with the mathematical tool of Voronoi diagram (VD). Specifically, we perform an ellipse packing in the polygons on parallel section planes of a 3D model and protrude the ellipses of one plane to its neighboring planes in the shape volume to generate the hollowed results. To better pack the ellipses in a polygon, we construct the Voronoi diagram of ellipses to efficiently reason the free-space around the ellipses and other geometric features by taking advantage of the available algorithm for the efficient and robust construction of the Voronoi diagram of circular disks which approximate the ellipses [@LmwEtal16]. The algorithm inherits the disk packing algorithm using the VD of disks [@SugiharaEtal04].
0 Being able to fabricate objects with complex shapes, AM technologies have received a lot of attention in geometry and physics modeling research areas. Interior hollowing and model topology optimization become more and more popular in recent years. The literature review there focus on the work closely related to our study and gives specific discussion about their strength and limitations.
#### Interior Hollowing
Significant work has been done in material distribution and interior structure optimization using model hollowing method. Stava improve the structural strength and relieve high stress caused by model self material gravity through hollowing[@Stava:2012:SRI:2185520.2185544] and Wang first introduce a skin-frame and replace solid interior by truss scaffoldings to minimize the used material[@Wang:2013:CPO:2508363.2508382]. A honeycomb-like hole carving is developed to provides an optimal strength to weight ratio[@Lu:2014:BSW:2601097.2601168]. Corresponding to design hollowing structure explicitly, a lot of efforts have been spent on Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and topology optimization to get implicit distribution of stress and material[@Wu:2016:SHT:2913991.2914150]. Another physical property determined by interior distribution is model balance under gravity. Both static[@Prevost:2013:MSB:2461912.2461957; @Christiansen2015236] and dynamic balance[@Bacher:2014:SOM:2601097.2601157] are achieved by changing the model shape and infills together.
#### Support-free Structure
Layer-based 3D print mechanism requires extra supports under large area overhangs. However, inner supports can’t be removed and hence different self-support hollowing structures arise in last few years. Charlie design a subdividable rhombus structure and refine it adaptively in FEA and stress guidance[@DBLP:journals/cad/WuWZW16]. Xie carves models with unit support-free voxels and implements a wall thickness optimization and voxels merging for model static balance in gravity. An overhang angle threshold has been added in topology optimization and generate a support-free material distribution with consider of stress minimization[@Langelaar201660]. Similarly, one no need of support interactive modeling method is provided with overhang constraint added in brush-like operators[@reiner:hal-01401470]. All of these only involve overhang angle and generate $C^0$ boundaries inevitably, which cause more stress concentration in discontinuities. In this paper, we take advantage of the ability that a proper sphere (ellipsoid) can be fabricated in common AM technologies and hollow interior with a certain class ellipsoid instead.
#### Ellipsoid packing
Hollowing with ellipsoids is a traditional unsized ellipsoids packing problem of model-like container in a certain sense. Unfortunately, packing with spheres or ellipsoids (identical or unsized) in a certain container is an NP-hard problem, which means an effective global method is lacking. Local optimization or greedy algorithms has been employed to get higher packing density in last few decades[@Hitti20135715; @Birgin:2016:PEN:2975217.2975229]. Another common strategy is random generation packing when packing a lot of spherical or ellipsoidal particles in regular containers[@Lubachevsky1990; @PhysRevA.32.2347; @doi:10.1080/08927028908031373]. Lozano generates spheres packing with a prescribed sphere size distribution inside complex arbitrary domains[@Lozano:2016:EAG:2912582.2912664]. All these methods can’t balance the computation cost and packing density outcome well. Voronoi diagram (VD) is an exciting math tool for local optimizing and analysing relationships between packed items and remain voids[@Benabbou2008]. Lee develops one incremental algorithm to calculate disks VD fast[@LmwEtal16]. However, the generation of ellipsoids VD is difficult and we handle this in sphere VD approximation inspired by [@refId0]. In this paper an extension of Lee’s method is introduced and ellipsoid VD can be calculated rapidly to guide the ellipsoids hollowing.
Notations and Overview
======================
For the sake of simplicity, we first elaborate on our method in a 2D setting. The extension to 3D is realized by extrusion in Section \[sec:extrusion\].
Support-Free Ellipses
---------------------
#### Fabrication and Material Parameters
Denote $\sigma_0$ as the printing precision, i.e., the thickness of each fabrication layer, which is $0.1-0.4 \texttt{mm}$ for general FDM printers. Due to the sticky property of printing material, a short length $\delta_0$ of horizontal hangover can be successfully printed without extra supporting structure. Denote $\theta_0$ as the maximally allowed overhang-angle. The material-dependent parameters $\theta_0$ and $\delta_0$ can be measured by experiments, for example, $\theta_0=60^{\circ}$ and $\delta_0=5 \texttt{mm}$ for plastic PLA material. The minimum wall thickness is set as $\delta = 5\delta_0$.
#### Support-Free Ellipses
Denote $a$ and $b$ as the horizontal axis and vertical axis of an ellipse $E$, respectively. A hollowed ellipse is called *support-free* if it can be printed without any extra supporting structure. Given an ellipse shown in Figure \[fig:Ellipse-SupportFree\](a), denote $P_1$ and $P_2$ as the two points whose tangent lines have an overhang angle of $\theta_0$. By many experiments we have proved the following observation: if the distance between $P_1$ and $P_2$ is no larger than $\delta_0$, then this ellipse is support-free, that is, the elliptic arc between $P_1$ and $P_2$ (shown in red) can be safely printed without any extra support. On the other hand, too small interior ellipses cannot be printed and thus we set a lower bound of $a$ as $5\delta_0$. Based on the observations, we have derived the conditions for a support-free ellipse as: $$\label{eq:EQSPFCondition}
\begin{cases}
b\ge a, \text{if}\ \ 5\sigma_0 \le a \le \frac{\delta_0}{2\cos\theta_0},\\
b\ge a\frac{\sqrt{4a^2-\delta_0^2}}{\delta_0\tan\theta_0}, \text{if}\ \ a\ge \frac{\delta_0}{2\cos\theta_0}.
\end{cases}$$ It is worthwhile to mentioning that a uniform shrinking of a support-free ellipse is still support-free as the support-free conditions in Equation are convex.
0 Generally we do not use very large ellipses and we denote $(a_{max},b_{max})$ as the parameters of the largest ellipses allowed to be used, respectively. To avoid very narrow ellipses, we assume that $b\leq6a$. Thus the maximum ellipses (with the constraint of $b=6a$) are $$\begin{cases}
a_{max}=\frac{\sqrt{109}}{2} \delta_0=0.1305m(default)\\
b_{max}=3\sqrt{109}\delta_0=0.783m(default)
\end{cases}$$
Ellipse Packing Method
----------------------
#### Problem
Given a polygon $\mathcal{P}$, our goal is to find an optimal hollowing, i.e., packing, of a set of $m$ ellipses $\mathcal{E}=\{E_1,E_2,\ldots,E_m\}$ within $\mathcal{P}$ so as to maximize the sum of the areas all ellipses (the packing ratio) while satisfying mechanical and physicochemical constraints.
#### 2D Polygon
Given a 3D mesh $\mathcal{M}$ representing the boundary of an oriented solid, possibly with handles and interior voids, and a fabrication orientation ($z$-axis), we project $\mathcal{M}$ onto planes parallel to $z$-axis and choose the projection direction with the largest projected silhouette area. Then $\mathcal{M}$ is represented as a sequence of parallel cross-sections, i.e., 2D polygonal shapes $\mathcal{P}^{*} = \{\mathcal{P}_1, \mathcal{P}_2, \cdots, \mathcal{P}_k \}$, along the chosen projection direction. We choose the polygon in $\mathcal{P}^{*}$ with the largest area and denote it as $\mathcal{P}$ which may have internal holes (voids). Denote $\mathcal{P}=(V,E)$ where $V$ and $E$ are the sets of vertices and edges, thus denoted as P-vertices and P-edges, respectively. If $\mathcal{P}$ contains holes inside, its boundary is represented as a few closed loops: One outer loop (with counter-clockwise vertices) and a few inner ones (with clockwise vertices). There can be more than one polygon on a section plane. In the following, we present our method on hollowing $\mathcal{P}$ with support-free ellipses, i.e., packing of support-free ellipses in $\mathcal{P}$.
#### Voronoi Diagrams (VD)
We use Voronoi diagrams (VD) to compute the hollowed ellipses because it is the most efficient and compact data structure for spatial reasoning among particles. The VD of a generator set is the tessellation of space such that each cell of the tessellation consists of the locations closer to a corresponding generator than to others. Various types of VD can be defined by generalizing the generator type, the distance definition, and the dimension. For details, see [@OkabeEtal99].
#### Voronoi Diagrams of Disks and Ellipses
In this study, we use the VDs of disks and ellipses within a polygon $\mathcal{P}$ with the Euclidean $l_2$-distance in 2D. See Figure \[fig:VD-illustration\]: (a) The VD of the polygon $\mathcal{P}$ ($\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P})$); (b) The VD of a disk set $\mathcal{D}$ within $\mathcal{P}$ ($\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{D})$); (c) The VD of the disk approximation $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ of $\mathcal{P}$ ($\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}})$); (d) The VD of ellipses within the approximation $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ ($\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}}, \mathcal{E})$). Note that both $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P})$ and $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{D})$ can be correctly, efficiently, and robustly computed. However, we compute $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}}, \mathcal{E})$ instead of $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{E})$ because of the challenges involved in the computation of V-vertices and V-edges of $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{E})$, which will be explained in detail in Section \[sec:extrusion\]. Hence, we construct the approximation $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}})$ instead of $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P})$ where each P-vertex is associated with a disk called at-disk (the red filled-circles in Figure \[fig:VD-illustration\](c,d)) and each P-edge is associated with more than two disks called on-disks (the blue filled-circles). In Figure \[fig:VD-illustration\](d), the blue thick circle is the maximum clearance probe $\pi_{max}$, centered at a V-vertex of $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}}, \mathcal{E})$, that guarantees its inscribing ellipse is intersection-free with any other existing ellipses and the red thick circle is 70% shrunken probe $\tilde{\pi}_{max}$ in which the actual ellipse is created. The shrinking ratio is given by users according to their intention to control the overall distribution of ellipse heights. Be aware that $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}$ is associated with a disk set $\mathcal{D}^{\mathcal{P}}=\{\mathcal{D}_{at},\mathcal{D}_{on}\}$ where $\mathcal{D}_{at}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{on}$ are the sets of at-disks and on-disks, respectively.
#### Idea of the Packing Algorithm
Let $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}})$ be the VD of the interior of $\mathcal{P}$ (Figure \[fig:idea-overview-5-bunnies\] (b)) obtained by trimming the exterior part of the entire VD in Figure \[fig:idea-overview-5-bunnies\] (a) and $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E})$ that of $\mathcal{E}$ within $\mathcal{P}$. Let $\pi_v$ be the biggest empty circle centered at a V-vertex $v$ of $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}})$ where its radius is given by the distance from $v$ to the boundary of its generators. Let $\pi_{max}$ be the possible biggest one, called the maximum clearance probe, among all such empty circles from the V-vertices of $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}})$. Let $v_{max}$ be the V-vertex corresponding to $\pi_{max}$. Starting from $\mathcal{E}=\{\emptyset\}$, we first find the V-vertex $v_{max}$ with $\pi_{max}$ (the blue solid circle in Figure \[fig:idea-overview-5-bunnies\](c)) and its shrunken probe $\tilde{\pi}_{max}$ (the red one) and place one new ellipse $E$ within $\tilde{\pi}_{max}$ (Figure \[fig:VD-illustration\](d) and \[fig:idea-overview-5-bunnies\](c)). Then, we construct $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E} \cup \{E\})$ by inserting $E$ into $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E})$. We repeat the clearance-probe-finding, the ellipse-placement, and Voronoi diagram update processes for a sufficient number of times until a termination condition is met, as shown in Figure \[fig:idea-overview-5-bunnies\](d,e).
0 Specifically, we compute the Voronoi diagram (VD) of $\mathcal{P}$. Then we find the largest clearance disk $D$ inside $\mathcal{P}$ and fill in an ellipse in $D$. We then compute the VD of $\mathcal{P} \setminus D$, find the largest clearance disk in it, and fill in another ellipse in it. We iteratively add more ellipses one by one until no more ellipse can be carved in $\mathcal{P}$. After we generate the carved $\mathcal{P}$, we extrude the carved ellipses in $\mathcal{P}$ into the other cross sections and thus generate a hollowed volume of $\mathcal{M}$ which can be printed directly without adding any extra interior supporting structures.
Ellipse Hollowing via Voronoi Diagram
=====================================
#### Problem
There are two major computational phases for using VD in the ellipse hollowing: first, the construction of $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P})$ and second, the construction of $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{E})$.
Voronoi Diagram of a Polygon
----------------------------
#### Challenges
It is well-known that the algorithm for an efficient and robust construction of $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P})$ is *not* trivial due to the influence of numerical error on maintaining correct topology of Voronoi diagram [@KdsEtal95; @OkabeEtal99]. In this study we developed and implemented a new, simple, and efficient yet robust algorithm based on the topology-oriented approach [@SugiharaIri92; @Held01; @HeldHuber09; @LmwEtal16] for $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P})$. This is because we eventually need to construct $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{E})$ which is lacking in existing codes such as CGAL [@CGALHome; @AlliezEtal07] and VRONI [@Held01].
#### TOI-D Algorithm
The proposed algorithm takes advantage of the Voronoi diagram of circular disks [@KdsEtal01; @KdsEtal01b], particularly the recently reported topology-oriented incremental (TOI) algorithm for computing the Voronoi of circular disks, thus abbreviated as the TOI-D algorithm, which takes $O(n^2)$ time in the worst case but $O(n)$ time on average for $n$ disks [@LmwEtal16]. The idea is to approximate target geometric entities using circular disks in a sufficient resolution, construct the VD of the disks using the TOI-D algorithm, and merge some V-cells. While a similar idea was used to curved objects using the ordinary Voronoi diagram of points which were sampled from curves [@Sugihara93; @Held01; @EmirisEtal13], the proposed algorithm using the TOI-D algorithm is much powerful as circles can significantly reduce problem size and complexity.
#### Approximating Polygon with Disks
We represent a polygon $\mathcal{P}=(V,E)$ as follows. Let $e^* \in E$ be the shortest P-edge with its length $L^*$. Suppose that we cover $e^*$ with two open disks with the diameter $L^*/2$ by placing their centers on $e^*$ and the boundary of each disk coincides either one of the two extreme points of $e^*$. For each of the other P-edges with the length $L \ge L^*$, we place $\lfloor 2L/L^* \rfloor$ non-overlapping open disks in a sequel on the P-edge ($\lfloor · \rfloor$ denotes a floor function). The uncovered remaining segment with the length $L - \lfloor 2L/L^* \rfloor L^*/2$ on the P-edge is then covered by one, and only one, smaller open disk. We place this smaller disk in the middle of the P-edge for algorithmic simplicity. Hence, the P-edge is entirely covered by $\lfloor 2L/L^* \rfloor + 1$ mutually exclusive open disks called an on-disk (The blue ones in Figure \[fig:VD-illustration\](c)). A disk $d$ is a child of an associated P-edge $e$ and $e$ the parent of $d$. We also place a same size disk, called at-disk, $d_v$ at each P-vertex $v$ (The red ones in Figure \[fig:VD-illustration\](c)): $v$ and $d_v$ also have a child-parent relationship. Each disk knows its parent and each parent knows its children disks via pointers. We eventually have a set $\mathcal{D}^{\mathcal{P}}$ of children disks representing $\mathcal{P}$ where no disk contains any other while two disks may intersect, $|\mathcal{D}^{\mathcal{P}}|>n$.
The computation speed of the idea above, which is sensitive to the shortest P-edge, can be improved by enforcing fewer on-disks for each P-edge. We initially allocate only three on-disk: two near the extreme points of the P-edge with the radii identical to the at-disks for P-vertices and the third with the diameter covering the entire rest segment of the P-edge. If the third on-disk intersects any other disk, either an at-disk or on-disk, we subdivide it (to avoid computational complications) until the intersection is resolved by employing a bucket system to accelerate the intersection check. In this way, the number of children disks can be significantly reduced. This approach of using on-disks with non-uniform sizes works well for the polygons produced from fine mesh models such as bunny.
However, there are models such that $L^* \gg \delta$ for the the minimum wall thickness $\delta$. In such a case, the proposed algorithm both leaves an undesirable bulk material in printed artifacts and may run into a computational complication and thus we subdivide each P-edge into multiple shorter P-edges with $2\delta$. Some engineering models with $L^* < \delta$ may have frequently large planar facets possibly with smaller ones. We also subdivide long P-edges into several short ones with the same rule above.
#### TOI-P Algorithm
We construct $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{D}^{\mathcal{P}})$ of the disk set $\mathcal{D}^{\mathcal{P}}=\{\mathcal{D}_{at},\mathcal{D}_{on}\}$ where $\mathcal{D}_{at}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{on}$ using the TOI-D algorithm (Figure \[fig:VD-illustration\](c)) and merge the V-cells of the children on-disks of each P-edge (Figure \[fig:VD-illustration-further\](a,b)). As shown from the figure, the resulting VD structure has a unique V-cell for both each P-edge and each P-vertex and thus its structure is close to $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P})$ from both topology and geometry point of views. However, some V-vertices are off P-vertices which play the role of V-vertices (Figure \[fig:VD-illustration-further\](b)). Hence, they should be moved to the related P-vertices. Figure \[fig:VD-illustration-further\](c,d) shows the VD after relocating those V-vertices to the polygon boundary and flipping some V-edges to get the correct topology, both taking at most $O(m)$ time for $m$ disks. Note that a V-edge flipping is required to get the correct topological structure of $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P})$ (Compare Figure \[fig:VD-illustration-further\](b) and (d)). Then, removing the exterior part of the VD and computing the V-vertex coordinates and the V-edge equations transforms the intermediate VD structure to the correct $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P})$ (Figure \[fig:VD-illustration-further\](e,f)). Note that some previously linear V-edges are curved. Removing the at-disks and on-disks results in the VD of Figure \[fig:VD-illustration\](a).
There are three cases of V-edges: i) If a V-edge $e$ is defined between two P-vertices, $e$ is a line segment; ii) Between two P-edges, $e$ is also a line segment; iii) Between a P-vertex and P-edge, $e$ is a parabolic arc. As the V-edges of $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P})$ are quadratic curve segments, they can be represented as a rational quadratic Bézier curve [@KdsEtal95]. There are four cases of V-vertices: i) Among three line segments; ii) Among two line segments and one point; iii) Among one line segment and two points; iv) Among three points. Each V-vertex coordinate and V-edge equation can be correctly computed in $O(1)$ time [@KdsEtal95].
#### Time Complexity
The TOI-D algorithm for the construction of the VD of $m$ disks takes $O(m)$ time on average and $O(m^2)$ time in the worst case [@LmwEtal16]. With the polygon $\mathcal{P}$ of $n$ P-vertices and $n$ P-edges, $n<m$, the merge process takes $O(m-n)$ time because each merge of two adjacent V-cells takes $O(1)$ time. As V-vertex shift and coordinate correction takes $O(n)$ time, the entire process for $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P})$ takes $O(m)$ time provided that $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{D})$ is given. As $m$ depends either on the length of the shortest P-edge or on the minimum wall thickness, the proposed TOI-P algorithm is input-sensitive. All time complexities in this paper are in the worst case sense unless otherwise stated.
Voronoi Diagram of Ellipses in a Polygon
----------------------------------------
Regarding $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}})$ for $\mathcal{D}^{\mathcal{P}}$ as $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E}=\{\emptyset\})$, we first find the V-vertex $v_{max}$ with the maximum clearance probe $\pi_{max}$ and place an ellipse $E$ which inscribes $\tilde{\pi}_{max}$ so that its center coincides $v_{max}$. We incrementally insert $E$ at $v_{max}$ of $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E})$ to get $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E} \cup \{E\})$. Instead of directly inserting $E$ into $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E})$, we insert each in-disk, one by one, into $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{D})$ where $\mathcal{D} \equiv \mathcal{D}^{\mathcal{P}}$. As the ellipse increment process goes on, $\mathcal{D}$ contains all the in-disks of the ellipses incremented so far in addition to $\mathcal{D}^{\mathcal{P}}$.
#### Challenges
Construction of $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{E})$ involves the computation of V-vertices and V-edges and the topological structure among them where each of these tasks is challenging. Consider a V-vertex defined by three ellipses. It is known that there can be up to 184 complex circles that are simultaneously tangent to three conics in the plane and each corresponds to a root of a polynomial of degree 184 [@EmirisTzoumas05]. It is hard to expect to find the roots of a polynomial of such a high degree both exactly and efficiently. Given 10-bit precision to represent the coefficients of three random ellipses, each coefficient of the resultant necessary for the exact computation of a V-vertex $v$ is, on average, 4603-bit integers [@EmirisTzoumas05]. Hence, the exact and efficient computation of the correct coordinate of $v$ itself is not an easy problem at all. We are not aware of any method to solve this resultant exactly and efficiently and thus an exact computation approach to construct the VD of ellipses seems impractical. The V-edge between two ellipses can be more complicated than one might expect. Even the bisector between a point and an ellipse can be very complicated [@FaroukiJohnstone94]: It may have cusps and self-intersections and is disconnected if the point is located outside the ellipse. The bisector between two rational curves can be non-rational and even a two-dimensional object [@AltEtal05]. Therefore, the computation of V-vertices, V-edges, and the their association through the topological structure among ellipses in a free-space is a challenge, not to mention about the ellipses within a polygon. As far as we know, no study has been reported for constructing $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{E})$.
#### Approximating an Ellipse with Circles
We represent an ellipse $E$ as an approximation with a set $\mathcal{D}^E$ of an odd number of disks, called in-disks which inscribes $E$ (The yellow ones in Figure \[fig:VD-illustration\](d) and Figure \[fig:idea-overview-5-bunnies\](c)). In-disks may intersect but none is contained by another. The in-disks are generated as follows. The first in-disk $d_1$ is the maximal inscribing disk which is centered at the center of $E$. Let $\epsilon$ be an approximation error defined as the horizontal distance between $\partial E$ and $\partial d_1$. Then, a point $p \in \partial d_1$ can be located for an *a priori* defined error, say $\epsilon_0$. Hence, a second in-disk $d_2$ passes through $p$ while inscribing $E$. We alternate this calculation up and down of $d_1$ to get $d_2$ and $d_3$, respectively. Repeating this calculation produces in-disks with a strictly controlled error bound $\epsilon_0$. Given $\epsilon_0$, a shorter ellipse has fewer in-disks than a longer one does.
#### TOI-EinP Algorithm
The idea is very simple as follows. We insert each in-disk in $\mathcal{D}^E$ into $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{D})$ of existing disks and then merge the V-cells of the in-disks of $\mathcal{D}^E$. If a sufficient number of in-disks approximates each ellipse, the VD of the disks well-approximate the VD of ellipses from both topology and geometry point of views. As ellipses do not intersect, the in-disks from distinct ellipses do not intersect and the in-disks do not intersect both on-disks and at-disks on the polygon boundary, either.
The increment of an in-disk is done using the TOI-D algorithm. When we increment an in-disk, we maintain a dual representation of both $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E})$ and $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{D})$. In other words, $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E})$ and $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{D})$ are carefully synchronized in the following sense. We first incrementally update $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{D})$ until all in-disks of in $\mathcal{D}^E$ (thus those of $E$) are exhausted to get $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{D} \cup \mathcal{D}^E)$. Then, we merge the V-cells of the in-disks of $E$ to produce the topology of $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E} \cup \{E\})$. After the merge process, each of the remaining V-vertices of $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{D} \cup \mathcal{D}^E)$ becomes the V-vertices of $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E})$ and a connected subset of some appropriate remaining V-edges becomes the V-edge of $\mathcal{D}^{\mathcal{P}}$. Hence, we carefully maintain the correspondence of the V-vertices and V-edges between $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{D} \cup \mathcal{D}^E)$ and $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E} \cup \{E\})$. Note that the merge can also be done incrementally as soon as after an in-disk is incremented. Figure \[fig:sequential-illustration-hollow-6-dogs\] shows the process of incrementing ellipses: (a) The clearance probe $\pi_{max}$ (the large blue circle), its shrunken probe $\tilde{\pi}_{max}$ (the red circle), the ellipse within $\tilde{\pi}_{max}$, and the biggest in-disk (blue filled circle) is incremented into the VD; (b) The second in-disk (the blue filled circle) is incremented into the VD (The previously incremented in-disk is yellow now); (c) After four in-disks are incremented; (d) After all in-disks of the first ellipse are incremented; (e) After the second ellipse is incremented; (f) After the third ellipse is incremented.
The V-vertices of $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E} \cup \{E\})$ remaining after the V-cell merge have their coordinates inheriting from $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{D} \cup \mathcal{D}^E)$ which are computed from a triplet of in-disks. Thus, they are not necessarily correct for ellipses and it is necessary to compute their correct coordinates for the successful packing of next ellipse because the maximum clearance probe needs to be found from these V-vertices. The six cases of generator combination for a V-vertex in $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P}, \mathcal{E} \cup \{E\})$ among ellipses, line segments (i.e. P-edges), and points (i.e. P-vertices) becomes a unified case of among three ellipses in $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}}, \mathcal{E} \cup \{E\})$ because of $\mathcal{D}_{at}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{on}$. The six cases are as follows: among three ellipses, among two ellipses and one line segment, among two ellipses and one point, among one ellipse and two line segments, among one ellipse and two points, and among one ellipse, one line, and one point.
#### V-vertex Coordinate among Three Ellipses
Consider a V-vertex $v$ defined by three ellipse generators. We iteratively find the correct location of $v$ in $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E})$ starting with its initial coordinate provided by $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{D})$. In other words, $v$ is initially equidistant from three in-disks where each is a child of each of three ellipses. We project $v$ to each of the three ellipses to find its footprint (which is the closest location on an ellipse from $v$). Then, we compute the circumcircle, say $\xi$, which passes through the three footprints and use the center of $\xi$ as the new coordinate of $v$. Provided that each ellipse is approximated by a sufficient number of in-disks, the iteration of this footprint-projection and circumcircle-finding process quickly converges to the correct coordinate of $v$ due to the convexity of ellipse. Experiment shows that the initial coordinate of $v$ is already very close to the converged coordinate. The situation that a generator(s) of $v$ is at-disk or on-disk can be handled as an easier special case
#### V-edge Between Two Ellipses
Due to the current theoretical limitations, it is practically inevitable to approximate a V-edge with a sequence of passing points computed through the envelopes of families of point/curve bisectors [@FaroukiJohnstone94; @FaroukiJohnstone94b] or a sequence of curve segments [@FaroukiRamamurthy98]. There exist other approaches to trace bisectors for VD and medial axis transformations [@OmirouDemosthenous06; @CaoLiu08; @CaoEtal09].
We emphasize that the topological structure of $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{E})$ is already known. In other words, for each V-edge $e$, its starting and ending V-vertices are known with correct coordinates along with its two elliptic generators. We approximate each V-edge as a sequence of points by tracing the V-edge in a way conceptually similar to the tracing algorithm of the intersection curve between two free-form surfaces [@BarnhillEtal87]. Tracing V-edges in this study is, however, much simpler than tracing general intersection curve in that i) the coordinates of two V-vertices of each V-edge are known, ii) V-edges are planar, and iii) each V-edge is $C^1$-continuous between two V-vertices. The case that $e$ is defined between one ellipse and one at-disk (or on-disk) is an easier special case.
#### Finding Footprints
Finding footprints is a key building block. Suppose that $p$ is a point outside an ellipse $E$ and $L$ is a line passing through $p$. It is known that there are four, three, or two locations on $E$ that $L$ perpendicularly intersects $E$ depending on whether $p$ lies inside the evolute, lies on the evolute but not at a cusp, or lies on a cusp or outside the evolute, respectively [@EmirisTzoumas05]. Finding the perpendicular intersection between $L$ and $E$ can be formulated as a root-finding problem of a quartic polynomial thus taking $O(1)$ time. The footprint of $p$ is obviously one of these locations which determines the minimum distance.
#### Time Complexity
Suppose that $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E})$ has $n$ elements of $P$ and $m_{\mathcal{E}}$ ellipses and suppose that $\mathcal{D}^{\mathcal{P}}$ has $N$ children disks and there are $M$ in-disks for all incremented ellipses so far. Given a new ellipse $E$, with $C$ in-disks in $\mathcal{D}^E$, the increment of all in-disks into $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{D})$ takes $O(C(N+N))$ time. Then, it is followed by the merges of the V-cells among the in-disks of $E$ taking $O(C)$ time. This completes the computation of the topological structure of $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E} \cup \{E\})$. Then, the computation of the geometry of each of $O(n + m_{\mathcal{E}})$ V-vertices and V-edges takes $O(1)$ time. Hence, given the synchronized $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E})$ and $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{D})$, the increment of an ellipse takes $O(C(N+M) + n + m_{\mathcal{E}})$ time. As $N \gg n$ and $M \gg m_{\mathcal{E}}$, the increment of one ellipse takes $O(N+M)$ time in the worst case. Hence, the increment of $m_{\mathcal{E}}$ ellipses takes $O(m_{\mathcal{E}}N + C m_{\mathcal{E}}^2))$ time.
0
0
Computing the Topology of VD
----------------------------
Now we can compute the topology of the VD.
#### Tracing Bisectors
See Fig. XXX. Tracing starts at the correct V-vertex $p_s$ and ends at the correct V-vertex $p_e$ of the V-edge $e$ which is defined by two ellipses $E_{left}$ and $E_{right}$. The V-edge $e$, shown as the dotted curve, whose equation of the corresponding bisector curve is unknown and is to be traced. In the figure, $E_{right}$ has a higher curvature than $E_{left}$ and thus the V-edge is curved toward $E_{right}$. Let $\phi^{left}_{p_s}$ and $\phi^{right}_{p_s}$ be the footprints of $p_s$ on $E_{left}$ and $E_{right}$, respectively. Let $t^{left}_{p_s}$ be the tangent vector of $E_{left}$ at $\phi^{left}_{p_s}$. The tangent vector $t^{right}_{p_s}$ is similarly defined. Then, the tangent vector $t$ of $e$ at $p_s$ is determined by adding $t^{left}_{p_s}$ and $t^{right}_{p_s}$ in a similar fashion for the case of the Voronoi diagram of disks [@KdsEtal01b].
We make a step of size $\delta$ forward to the direction of $t$ from $p = p_s$ to define a point $p'$. As $p'$ is not necessarily located on $e$, we refine $p'$ to coincide $e$ as follows. Let $\phi^{left}_{p'}$ and $\phi^{right}_{p'}$ be the footprints of $p'$ on the left and right ellipses, respectively. Let $d_{left} = |p' - \phi^{left}_{p'}|$ and $d_{right} = |p' - \phi^{right}_{p'}|$. Then, $d_{left} < d_{right}$ because the V-edge is curved toward the higher curvature ellipse $E_{right}$.
Let $n^{left}_{p'}$ be the ray from $\phi^{left}_{p'}$ to the normal vector direction of $E_{left}$. Suppose that a ray $n^{right}_{x}$ is defined from a point $x$ to the normal direction of $E_{right}$ where $x$ is chosen between $\phi^{right}_{p_s}$ and $\phi^{right}_{p'}$. Then, we compute the intersection $y$ between $n^{left}_{p'}$ and $n^{right}_{x}$. Let $d_{left} = |y - \phi^{left}_{p'}|$ and $d_{right} = |y - x|$. In the figure, $d_{left} > d_{right}$. Hence, we relocate the point $x$ in the middle between $x$ and $\phi^{right}_{p'}$ and repeat the process once more. Iterating this bisection search a sufficient number of times until $|d_{left} - d_{right}|$ becomes sufficiently small, we can find $p'$ converged onto the V-edge.
When $p'$ is within the distance $\delta$ from the ending V-vertex $v_e$, the edge-tracing is completed. By controlling the step size $\delta$, we can control the quality of the V-edges with a cost of computation.
0
0
Optimization of Ellipse Packing
===============================
Given the Voronoi diagrams and the ellipse-placement operator, an algorithm for optimization can be devised. The objective function is to maximize the packing ratio in that the sum of areas taken by the ellipses is maximized so that the material to fill the polygon, except the elliptic voids, is minimized. Hence, the objective function is indeed equivalent to maximize the total area of packed elliptic voids as a polygonal area is fixed. It is inevitable to devise a heuristic algorithm for the ellipse packing problem which is a well-known NP-hard problem. We have two modes of optimization: A greedy local optimization and an improvement of the local optimizer using a stochastic global optimization based on hill-climbing with a simulated annealing.
#### Local optimization of ellipse packing
The local optimization step is done via a greedy-method in that we increment each new ellipse placed within the maximal clearance probe. We repeat this clearance-circle-finding and ellipse-insertion processes a sufficient number of times until a termination condition is encountered. Therefore, the size of incremented ellipse is a non-increasing function of increment step and the termination condition is the minimum ellipse size to insert. We fix a priori the aspect ratio of the ellipses in the local optimization in the middle of the aspect ratio interval and adjust the aspect ratio during the hill-climbing global optimization process.
There can be variations for the greedy local optimization. A first variation might be, each time after an ellipse is placed, we might want to increase its size and move the location until it touches three of its neighbor ellipses or the polygon boundary. Another might be to fill the maximal clearance probe with more than one ellipses.
We performed an experiment and found that ....
aa\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
aa\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
#### Global optimization of ellipse packing
Given a local optimization of the packing of ellipses $\mathcal{E}=\{\mathcal{E}_1,\mathcal{E}_2,\ldots,\mathcal{E}_m\}$, we wish to improve the objective function of the packing ratio. The idea is a hill-climbing with a possible extension to a stochastic approach using a simulated annealing. The ellipses in the arrangement from the local optimization may or may not touch each other; they may or may not touch the polygon boundary. Two ellipses are said to be no-touch if they are separated more than the minimum wall thickness. The same notion is used between an ellipse and the polygon boundary.
The hill-climbing is done by changing the shapes of ellipses while they satisfy the aspect ratio constraint. We have three operators for the hill-climbing:
- (Operator I) With the aspect ratio fixed, an ellipse can be enlarged to touch one or more neighbor.
- (Operator II) With the aspect ratio fixed, an ellipse can be translated to touch one or more neighbors.
- (Operator III) With the ellipse center fixed, an ellipse can be fatter, thinner, shorter, or taller. In this operation, its neighbors might have to change their shapes to get thinner or shorter, respectively.
We first apply the operators in the order of I, II, and III. All these operators are implemented efficiently using the information stored in the Voronoi diagram $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{E})$.
The hill-climbing can be extended to a stochastic optimization using the simulated annealing as follows. For Operator I (or II), we enlarge (or translate) an ellipse chosen at random with a probability $\pi_{enlarge}$ (or $\pi_{translate}$). For Operator III, we choose an ellipse $E$ at random and we apply either the fatting operation with a probability $\pi_{fat}$ or the thinning operation with a probability $\pi_{thin}$ or do nothing, where $0 \geq \pi_{fat} + \pi_{thin} \geq 1$. With the probability of $1 - \pi_{fat} - \pi_{thin}$, we do not apply any operation on $E$. We iterate it until no further improvement can be done.
aa\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
FOLLOWING MIGHT NEED TO BE CITED SOMEWHERE IN THIS PAPER
========================================================
[@BischoffKobbelt02] Ellipsoid decomposition of 3D-models, Stephan Bischoff and Leif Kobbelt, Proceedings, IEEE
\[2005 The Voronoi diagram of curved objects H Alt, O Cheong, A Vigneron - Discrete Computational Geometry, 2005 - Springer\]
Packing Platonic and Archimedean solids.. [@TorquatoJiao09] \[2009 Nature: Dense packings of the Platonic and Archimedean solids S. Torquato, Y. Jiao4\]
Report on the densest-known packings of congruent ellipsoids. A remarkable maximum density of $\approx$ 0:7707 is achieved for maximal aspect ratios larger than $\sqrt{3}$, when each ellipsoid has 14 touching neighbors. [@DonevEtal04] \[2004 PRL: Unusually Dense Crystal Packings of Ellipsoids Aleksandar Donev,1,2 Frank H. Stillinger,4 P. M. Chaikin,2,3 and Salvatore Torquato1,2,4\]
[@PachAgarwal95] \[J. Pach and P. K. Agarwal, Combinatorial Geometry (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1995).\] In two dimensions, it can easily be shown that the densest packing of congruent ellipses has the same density as the densest packing of circles, $\phi = \pi / \sqrt{12}$ = 0:9069 \[9\]. This maximal density is realized by an affine (linear) transformation of the triangular lattice of circles. Such a transformation leaves the density unchanged.
[@LoWang05] \[2005 Engineering with computers; S. H. Lo Æ W. X. Wang Generation of anisotropic mesh by ellipse packing over an unbounded domain\]
Implementation Issues
---------------------
#### Criteria of Adding Ellipses
During the ellipse increment, the distance between two adjacent interior ellipses should be no less than the minimum wall thickness $\delta = 5 \delta_0$. An intuitive scheme is to maximally pack the polygon with ellipses and shrink each ellipse by $\delta/2$. As an ellipse is not offset-invariant, the shrunk ellipse needs to be approximated but can be effectively computed.
We instead use a computationally easier yet equally effective scheme as follows. We have two parameters to control the height of each ellipse: the minimum wall thickness $\delta$ and the shrink ratio $\rho \in (0,1)$ of the maximal clearance probe $\pi_{max}$. Given $\pi_{max}$, we multiply $\rho$ to $\pi_{max}$ to get a shrunken probe $\tilde{\pi}_{max}$ with the shrunken radius $\gamma$. If $\gamma > \delta/2$, we use $\tilde{\pi}_{max}$ to produce an inscribing ellipse and increment in the VD. Otherwise, we reduce the radius of $\pi_{max}$ by $\delta/2$ and produce the inscribing ellipse. The purpose of $\rho$ is to provide users a convenient handle to control the overall distribution of ellipse heights because, in addition to the NP-hardness of the optimal ellipse packing, we never know which way is best even if we only consider geometry. Moreover, experienced users may want to have a control of overall shape distribution by tuning $\rho$. 0 Note that $\pi_{max}$ may touch either at-disk(s) or on-disk(s). In our algorithm, such a case has the effect that the radius of the disk plays the role of further safety factor to thicken the wall thickness between the boundary and elliptic voids.
#### Terminating Condition
An ellipse should not be too small to be printed. We regard $a < \delta = 5 \delta_0$ (see Equation \[eq:EQSPFCondition\]) as the terminating condition of inserting new ellipses. In other words, whenever $\pi_{max}$ is produced and shrunken, we check its horizontal axis $a$ and terminate if it is less than $\delta$.
0
Optimization of Ellipse Packing
===============================
Given the Voronoi diagrams and the ellipse-placement operator, an algorithm for optimization can be devised. The objective function is to maximize the packing ratio in that the sum of areas taken by the ellipses is maximized so that the material to fill the polygon, except the elliptic voids, is minimized. Hence, the objective function is indeed equivalent to maximize the total area of packed elliptic voids as a polygonal area is fixed. It is inevitable to devise a heuristic algorithm for the ellipse packing problem which is a well-known NP-hard problem. We have two modes of optimization: A greedy local optimization and an improvement of the local optimizer using a stochastic global optimization based on hill-climbing with a simulated annealing.
#### Local optimization of ellipse packing
The local optimization step is done via a greedy-method in that we increment each new ellipse placed within the maximal clearance probe. We repeat this clearance-circle-finding and ellipse-insertion processes a sufficient number of times until a termination condition is encountered. Therefore, the size of incremented ellipse is a non-increasing function of increment step and the termination condition is the minimum ellipse size to insert. We fix a priori the aspect ratio of the ellipses in the local optimization in the middle of the aspect ratio interval and adjust the aspect ratio during the hill-climbing global optimization process.
There can be variations for the greedy local optimization. A first variation might be, each time after an ellipse is placed, we might want to increase its size and move the location until it touches three of its neighbor ellipses or the polygon boundary. Another might be to fill the maximal clearance probe with more than one ellipses.
We performed an experiment and found that ....
aa\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
aa\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
#### Global optimization of ellipse packing
Given a local optimization of the packing of ellipses $\mathcal{E}=\{\mathcal{E}_1,\mathcal{E}_2,\ldots,\mathcal{E}_m\}$, we wish to improve the objective function of the packing ratio. The idea is a hill-climbing with a possible extension to a stochastic approach using a simulated annealing. The ellipses in the arrangement from the local optimization may or may not touch each other; they may or may not touch the polygon boundary. Two ellipses are said to be no-touch if they are separated more than the minimum wall thickness. The same notion is used between an ellipse and the polygon boundary.
The hill-climbing is done by changing the shapes of ellipses while they satisfy the aspect ratio constraint. We have three operators for the hill-climbing:
- (Operator I) With the aspect ratio fixed, an ellipse can be enlarged to touch one or more neighbor.
- (Operator II) With the aspect ratio fixed, an ellipse can be translated to touch one or more neighbors.
- (Operator III) With the ellipse center fixed, an ellipse can be fatter, thinner, shorter, or taller. In this operation, its neighbors might have to change their shapes to get thinner or shorter, respectively.
We first apply the operators in the order of I, II, and III. All these operators are implemented efficiently using the information stored in the Voronoi diagram $\mathcal{VD}(P,\mathcal{E})$.
The hill-climbing can be extended to a stochastic optimization using the simulated annealing as follows. For Operator I (or II), we enlarge (or translate) an ellipse chosen at random with a probability $\pi_{enlarge}$ (or $\pi_{translate}$). For Operator III, we choose an ellipse $E$ at random and we apply either the fatting operation with a probability $\pi_{fat}$ or the thinning operation with a probability $\pi_{thin}$ or do nothing, where $0 \geq \pi_{fat} + \pi_{thin} \geq 1$. With the probability of $1 - \pi_{fat} - \pi_{thin}$, we do not apply any operation on $E$. We iterate it until no further improvement can be done.
aa\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
FOLLOWING MIGHT NEED TO BE CITED SOMEWHERE IN THIS PAPER
========================================================
[@BischoffKobbelt02] Ellipsoid decomposition of 3D-models, Stephan Bischoff and Leif Kobbelt, Proceedings, IEEE
\[2005 The Voronoi diagram of curved objects H Alt, O Cheong, A Vigneron - Discrete Computational Geometry, 2005 - Springer\]
Packing Platonic and Archimedean solids.. [@TorquatoJiao09] \[2009 Nature: Dense packings of the Platonic and Archimedean solids S. Torquato, Y. Jiao4\]
Report on the densest-known packings of congruent ellipsoids. A remarkable maximum density of $\approx$ 0:7707 is achieved for maximal aspect ratios larger than $\sqrt{3}$, when each ellipsoid has 14 touching neighbors. [@DonevEtal04] \[2004 PRL: Unusually Dense Crystal Packings of Ellipsoids Aleksandar Donev,1,2 Frank H. Stillinger,4 P. M. Chaikin,2,3 and Salvatore Torquato1,2,4\]
[@PachAgarwal95] \[J. Pach and P. K. Agarwal, Combinatorial Geometry (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1995).\] In two dimensions, it can easily be shown that the densest packing of congruent ellipses has the same density as the densest packing of circles, $\phi = \pi / \sqrt{12}$ = 0:9069 \[9\]. This maximal density is realized by an affine (linear) transformation of the triangular lattice of circles. Such a transformation leaves the density unchanged.
[@LoWang05] \[2005 Engineering with computers; S. H. Lo Æ W. X. Wang Generation of anisotropic mesh by ellipse packing over an unbounded domain\]
Extrusion to 3D {#sec:extrusion}
===============
3D Hollowing
------------
#### Extrusion of Ellipses
The hollowed polygon $\mathcal{P}^{*}$ is lifted to 3D by extruding the ellipses orthogonal to the 2D plane in both directions. Denote $i$ as the index of $\mathcal{P}^{*}$, i.e., $\mathcal{P}_{i} = \mathcal{P}^{*}$. For each ellipse $E$ in $\mathcal{P}_{i}$, we project it onto $\mathcal{P}_{i+1}$. If $E$ totally lies in $\mathcal{P}_{i+1}$ within a distance of minimal wall thickness $\sigma$, we keep it in $\mathcal{P}_{i+1}$. Otherwise, we shrink it with a factor so as to the shrunk ellipse lies in $\mathcal{P}_{i+1}$ within a distance of $\sigma$. We can also enlarge the ellipse if there is much space around it. Note that the enlargement of the ellipse should meet the support-free condition (Equation \[eq:EQSPFCondition\]). This operation is successively applied for the other cross sectional polygons.
#### Hollowing Other Polygons
After we complete the extrusion of all ellipses for all cross sectional polygons, we check each polygon and choose the one with the largest available region which can insert more ellipses. Then we set it as input and add more support-free ellipses in it using our method, and then extrude the newly-added ellipses to its neighborhood polygons. The above process is iteratively performed until there is no any ellipse which can be added into the polygons.
#### Hollowed Volume
After we obtain the hollowed polygons, we connect the corresponding ellipses on successive polygons and thus generate a hollowed volume of $\mathcal{M}$. As each polygon is support-free, the obtained hollowed 3D volume is also support-free.
Functional Constraints
----------------------
The printed objects are generally required to meet some functional constraints such as static balance and mechanical stiffness [@Wang:2013; @Wu:2016]. However, integration of these constraints into the VD computation is computationally expensive. Thus we handle them as a postprocess after we generate the support-free hollowed volume.
#### Design Variables
We define a design variable $\gamma_E \in [0,1]$, as a shrinking factor, for each ellipse $E$ inside $\mathcal{M}$. A value $\gamma_E =0 $ means that $E$ is totally filled with solid. The basic idea is that shrinking of ellipses can shift the center of gravity of the model and can improve its mechanical stiffness as more material is filled. Thus we can easily formulate the optimization according to a specific objective function. In particular, we discuss about the optimization with respect to static balance as an example. The optimization for other constraints can be similarly achieved.
#### Static Balance
An object is self-balanced when the vertical projection of its gravity center lies in the convex hull of its contact points with the ground. As shown in Figure \[fig:balance\], it is intuitive that shrinking ellipses on the left hand side of the gravity center will shift it leftwards, i.e., closer to the convex hull of its contact points. It is easy to formulate an optimization of minimizing the horizontal distance between the gravity center and the boundary of the convex hull. Our optimizer thus tries to reach a balance by shrinking some ellipses and thus shifting the gravity center into the convex hull.
0
#### Stiffness
Similar to previous works [@Wang:2013; @Wu:2016], the objective is to minimize the strain energy which is the maximization of the stiffness. The stiffness equation can be obtained by discretizing the computational domain by the general finite element method. We adopt a memory-efficient multigrid solver [@Wu:2016-TVCG] to this optimization as there are a large number of hexahedral finite elements in the regions of thin walls. A 2D example of the optimization process is illustrated in Figure \[fig:stiffness\] .
Experimental Results
====================
#### Computational Platform
We have implemented our algorithm in C++ on a standard desktop PC with Intel(R) Core(Tm) i7-4790K [email protected] GHz and 16 GB of RAM. Thanks to the efficient implementation of TOI-EinP, the VD generation of polygons and ellipses is fast and the ellipse hollowing is less than 30 seconds for all examples.
#### Printer Configuration and Parameters
We fabricate the objects using a commercial FDM 3D printer: The Ultimaker 2+ with tray size of $223 \texttt{mm}\times 223\texttt{mm}\times 205\texttt{mm}$. The printable layer thickness of the printer (printing precision) ranges from $0.1 \texttt{mm}$ to $0.4 \texttt{mm}$ and we use a value of $\sigma_0 = 0.2\texttt{mm}$. We test the plastic PLA material used in the 3D printing and set the maximally allowed overhang-angle as $\theta_0=60^{\circ}$ and the maximal length of printable horizontal hangover as $\delta_0=5 \texttt{mm}$.
#### Manufacture Setting
After we generate the hollowed models, we add supporting structures for the exterior part of the models but do not add any interior support. After the models are fabricated, we manually remove the exterior supports. All models have been successfully printed which reveals that the hollowed interior of the models is printed without any problem. We also validate this by printing and checking only half of the models which will be shown later.
#### Experiments
Figure \[fig:hollowing-volume\] shows an example of hollowed bunny model with different cross-sections. Figure \[fig:cross-sections-hollowing\] shows a 3D hollowed volume of kitten model with a set of cross-sections, and then adding more in later passes. Figure \[fig:balance-3D\] shows two hollowed hanging balls. The left one cannot stand by itself. After using our optimizer, it can be optimized to be well balanced in the right by filling material in the elliptic voids of the column. Figure \[fig:gallery\] shows photos of the fabricated bunny model and kitten model which are hollowed by our method. The models are successfully fabricated without adding any extra support in the interior voids.
#### Performance of the TOI-EinP Algorithm for Constructing VD
We conducted computational efficiency test using two models: the bunny and the hanging ball models. From the bunny model, we produced 121 planes resulting 219 polygons as some planes contain more than one polygon. The smallest and the largest polygons have 8 and 655 P-edges, respectively. For experimental purpose, we enforced to pack 100 ellipses into each polygon ignoring the mechanical and physicochemical constraints. Figure \[fig:computation-time-profile\](a) shows computation time vs. polygon size in terms of the input P-edges. The top-most black curve: the total time; The next red one: the time for incrementing all the in-disks of the ellipses into the VD structure; The next green one: that for finding the maximum clearance probe; The blue one: that for constructing the VD of the at-disks and on-disks. Note that the total time is weakly super-linear mainly due to the increment process of in-disks which is believed to be caused by the mapping mechanism of equivalent V-vertices between $\mathcal{VD}(\mathcal{D})$ and $\mathcal{VD}(\tilde{\mathcal{P}},\mathcal{E})$. We used the map in the C++ template which is implemented by a binary search tree, taking $O(\log n)$ time for each query for $n$ entities. With this model, we used non-uniform on-disk generation method using a bucket system for the acceleration.
From the hanging ball model, we produced 88 planes resulting 141 polygons: The smallest and the largest polygons have 25 and 232 P-edges, respectively. As this model consists of several large planar faces together with smaller ones, the polygons have several long P-edges together with short ones. This is common in many engineering products. Hence, we subdivided each P-edge into a set of P-edges of the length defined by the previously stated rule. Figure \[fig:computation-time-profile\](b) also shows computation time vs. polygon size in terms of the input P-edges. Note that the correlation is very weak compared to the bunny model as is expected because of the big variation of the P-edge lengths. Figure \[fig:computation-time-profile\](c) shows computation time vs. the number of subdivided P-edges: The curves are fairly well correlated in a slightly super-linear fashion. The big gab between the two clusters of data is due to many subdivided P-edges through very long input P-edges. For example, the left-most data in the right cluster in Figure \[fig:computation-time-profile\](c) corresponds to a polygon with 234 input P-edges which was subdivided into 513 shorter P-edges. Figure \[fig:computation-time-profile\](d) shows the number of subdivided P-edges vs. the number of input P-edges. The bunny model is expectedly a straight line whereas the hanging ball model shows bumpy curve which is similar to the curves in Figure \[fig:computation-time-profile\](b). The relationship between Figure \[fig:computation-time-profile\](b) and (c) can be explained by Figure \[fig:computation-time-profile\](d). Figure \[fig:computation-time-profile\](e) shows the packing ratio of the 100 ellipses in each polygon. The bunny model is expectedly smooth with decreasing pattern for bigger polygons as we incremented only 100 ellipses whereas the curve of the hanging ball model is bumpy.
#### Comparison to rhombic cell structure
The work of [@Wu:2016] adopts rhombic cell structure, which have $C^0$ discontinuity on boundaries, to generate support-free interior voids for 3D shapes. We compare our method with this method as shown in Figure \[fig:Comparison-P-Model\]. We apply two methods on the same P model with similar hollowing ratios. Then we fix the bottom of the model and conduct an identical external load on it, respectively. From the stress map we can see that the result generated by [@Wu:2016] suffers the problem of stress concentration at the region marked in red, which generally happens in discontinuity. This does not happen in our method.
Conclusions and Future Work
===========================
In this paper we propose a novel approach for generating support-free interior hollowing for general 3D shapes. The generated 3D shapes can be directly fabricated with FDM 3D printers without any usage of extra supports in interior voids. This is based on the observation of a family of support-free ellipses and is achieved by hollowing 2D shapes with these ellipses. Then the interior ellipses are extruded into volume for generating hollowed 3D shapes. We also develop a new, efficient and robust algorithm for the Voronoi diagram polygons and the first algorithm for the Voronoi diagram of ellipses within a polygon, both based on the topology-oriented incremental approach, which are quite useful for generating the ellipse packing in 2D shapes. With the sizes of ellipses as design variables, the optimization according to a specific objective function, e.g., static stability, can be easily formulated. Experimental results have shown the practicability and feasibility of our proposed approach.
#### Limitation and Future work
Our research opens many directions for future studies. First, the packing results can be further optimized by optimizing the positions and sizes of the ellipses for the purpose of increasing packing ratio. Second, it is expected to extend our approach for generating support-free ellipsoids for 3D shapes. This is feasible but needs more effort. Last but not the least, we are interested in studying general support-free shapes for additive manufacturing, which is a promising direction for geometric modeling and processing.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF) grant funded by the Korea government(MSIP) (No. 2017R1A3B1023591).
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce [*perfect resolving algebras* ]{}and study their fundamental properties. These algebras are basic for our theory of differential graded schemes, as they give rise to [*affine* ]{}differential graded schemes. We also introduce [*étale morphisms*]{}. The purpose for studying these, is that they will be used to glue differential graded schemes from affine ones with respect to an étale topology.'
author:
- 'K. Behrend'
date: 'December 16, 2002'
title: |
[**Differential Graded Schemes I:**]{}\
[**Perfect Resolving Algebras**]{}
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
This is the first in a series of papers devoted to establishing a workable theory of differential graded schemes.
Here we lay the necessary algebraic foundations for this theory. Differential graded schemes will be glued with respect to an étale topology from affine differential graded schemes, very much like usual schemes are glued with respect to the Zariski topology from usual affine schemes, or algebraic spaces are glued with respect to the étale topology from affine schemes.
Thus our goal in this paper is twofold: we introduce an appropriate class of differential graded algebras providing us with a good class of affine differential graded schemes, and we introduce the notion of étale morphism between such differential graded algebras.
The first principle we follow, is that all differential graded algebras which represent geometric objects, are
\(i) graded commutative with 1, over a field of characteristic 0,
\(ii) graded [*in non-positive degrees*]{}, if the differential has degree $+1$, which is the convention we will follow.
A consequence of this is that every such differential graded algebra $A$ has a morphism of differential graded algebras $A\to h^0(A)$, where $h^0(A)$ is the 0-th cohomology module of $A$.
A [*quasi-isomorphism* ]{}of differential graded algebras is a morphism $A\to B$ which induces an isomorphism on cohomology modules $h^i(A)\to h^i(B)$, for all $i\leq0$.
Another principle is, that quasi-isomorphic differential graded algebras should give rise to identical geometric objects. Thus we may replace the arbitrary differential graded algebra $A$ (concentrated in non-positive degree) by a quasi-isomorphic differential graded algebra $A'$, which is free as a graded algebra, disregarding its differential (a property which has been referred to as [*quasi-free* ]{}in the literature). (See Scholum \[skol\] for a proof of the existence of [*resolutions* ]{}$A'\to A$.)
Thus, we are able to restrict our attention do differential graded algebras which are free as graded commutative algebras with 1, free on a set of generators all of which have non-positive degree. We call algebras satisfying this property [*resolving algebras*]{}, because their purpose is to resolve more general differential graded algebras (see Definition \[def.res\]). We also required a term which is shorter than ‘quasi-free on a set of generators in non-positive degree’, and can more easily be qualified.
For purposes of our geometric theory, we need finiteness assumptions on resolving algebras. Thus we call a resolving algebra [*finite* ]{}if we can find a finite set of quasi-free generators for it. The finite resolving algebras will serve as a category of local models for differential graded schemes. In other words, every differential graded scheme will be locally (with respect to the étale topology) given by a finite resolving algebra. Put another way, every differential graded scheme will locally determine up to quasi-isomorphism a finite resolving algebra as an analogue of ‘affine coordinate ring’.
On the other hand, it turns out that (the differential graded schemes associated to) finite resolving algebras form too small a class to be considered as [*affine* ]{}differential graded scheme. More specifically, a fundamental (and too useful to forgo) property of affine morphisms of usual schemes is, that the affine property is [*local* ]{}in the base, or target, of the morphism. (If local means local with respect to the étale topology, this is one of the most important results of étale descent theory.)
Thus we are led to relax the requirement of finiteness on resolving algebras. We call a resolving algebra $A$ [*perfect* ]{}(see Definition \[def.per\]) if
\(i) it is [*quasi-finite*]{}, i.e., we can find a set of quasi-free generators, with finitely many elements of every degree,
\(ii) its differential graded module of differentials $\Omega_A$ (see Section \[difcot\]) tensored with $h^0(A)$ is a perfect complex of $h^0(A)$-modules, i.e., is Zariski locally in ${\mathop{\rm Spec}\nolimits}h^0(A)$ quasi-isomorphic to a finite complex of finite rank free modules.
Note that every finite resolving algebras is perfect.
Using perfect resolving algebras to define affine differential graded schemes, the notion of affine morphism of differential graded schemes is local in the étale topology on the base (see [@dgsII]). Thus we choose perfect resolving algebras as our affine models for differential graded schemes.
We prove two fundamental facts about perfect resolving algebras, showing that they are, in fact, not very far from finite resolving algebras:
\(i) Every perfect resolving algebra $A$ is locally with respect to the Zariski topology on ${\mathop{\rm Spec}\nolimits}h^0(A)$ quasi-isomorphic to a finite resolving algebra (see Theorem \[loc.fin\]).
\(ii) The derivations of a perfect resolving algebra are in a certain sense compatible with the derivations of its truncations (the subalgebras generated by finite subsets of a generating set). See Theorem \[plim\] for the precise statement. A similar result also holds for homotopy groups (see Corollary \[greatc\]).
### The main results
There is a natural structure of simplicial closed model category on the category of differential graded algebras. Resolving algebras are cofibrant objects for this closed model category structure and for any two resolving algebras $A$, $B$, the simplicial set of morphisms from $B$ to $A$, denoted ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)$, is fibrant, i.e., has the Kan property, and can thus be considered as a (topological) space. In particular, we have homotopy groups $\pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)$, for $\ell>0$. These facts are reviewed in \[sec.scmc\]. In \[sec.homo\], we prove that a morphism of resolving algebras is a quasi-isomorphism if and only if it is a homotopy equivalence.
Given two resolving algebras $A$, $B$, we also have the differential graded $A$-module ${\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,A)$: an element $D:B\to A$ of degree $n$ in ${\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,A)$ is a degree $n$ homomorphism of graded vector spaces, which satisfies the graded Leibniz rule (see Definition \[def.imd\]).
The main results of this paper relate the homotopy groups $\pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)$ to the $h^0(A)$-modules $h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,A)$:
Let $A$ and $B$ be perfect resolving algebras. Then, for every $\ell>0$, there is a canonical bijection $$\Xi_\ell:h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,A)\longrightarrow \pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)\,.$$ The bijection $\Xi_\ell$ is an isomorphism of groups in the following two cases:
\(i) if $\ell\geq2$,
\(ii) if $B$ is generated by a set of homogeneous generators, all of which have the same degree.
There is also a relative version of this theorem, making Case (ii) more interesting and useful. In fact, the relative version and Case (ii) are the key results, as they allow proofs by induction. The relative version of Case (ii) also extends to $\ell=0$ (see Corollary \[soepf\]).
The map $\Xi_\ell$ is defined by Formula (\[def.xil\]) in \[sec.lin\]. The theorem is Theorem \[Bij\] and its Corollary \[greatc\].
### Overview
In Section \[sec.DGA\] we start by reviewing basic definitions involving differential graded algebras and differential graded modules. We introduce resolving algebras. We also study derivations, differentials and the cotangent complex.
In Section \[sec.etale\] we introduce the notion of étale morphism between quasi-finite resolving algebras (see Definition \[defetale\]). There are many different ways to characterize étale morphisms. The most important are as follows. A morphism $A\to B$ is étale, if and only if any of the following equivalent conditions holds:
\(i) the relative cotangent complex $L_{B/A}$ is acyclic,
\(ii) ${\mathop{\rm Spec}\nolimits}h^0(B)\to{\mathop{\rm Spec}\nolimits}h^0(A)$ is an étale morphism of usual affine schemes and $h^i(A)\otimes_{h^0(A)}h^0(B)\to h^i(B)$ is an isomorphism, for all $i\leq0$, (in particular, any quasi-isomorphism is étale),
\(iii) (if $A$ and $B$ are perfect) the induced morphism of completions $\widehat A\to \widehat B$ is a quasi-isomorphism, for the completions at every augmentation of $B$ (see Theorem \[et.com.crit\]),
\(iv) (if $A$ and $B$ are perfect) for every $B\to C$, the map ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,C)\to{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(A,C)$ induces isomorphisms on homotopy groups $\pi_\ell$, for all, or for one fixed $\ell>0$ (see Proposition \[etahom\]).
The most important example of an étale morphism is the [*standard* ]{}étale morphism $A\to B$, where $B$ is generated over $A$ by formal variables $x_1,\ldots,x_r$ in degree 0 and $\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_r$ in degree -1. The differential on $B$ is given by $dx_i=0$ and $d\xi_j=f_j\in A^0[x_1,\ldots,x_r]$. Moreover, $\det(\frac{{\partial}f_j}{{\partial}x_i})$ is a unit in $h^0(A)[x_1,\ldots,x_r]/(f_1,\ldots,f_r)$.
We prove that every étale morphism is locally standard (see Proposition \[loc.str\], for the exact statement). Thus the study of étale morphisms can often be reduced to the study of standard étale morphisms.
As a byproduct of the equivalence of (i) and (ii) we get a very useful quasi-isomorphism criterion: $A\to B$ is a quasi-isomorphism if and only if $L_{B/A}$ is acyclic and $h^0(A)\to h^0(B)$ an isomorphism. (See Corollary \[qiscondition\].)
In Section \[sec.perfect\], we introduce perfect resolving algebras and prove the two fundamental facts alluded to, above.
Section \[sec.linear\], is devoted to the proof of the main theorem mentioned above, to the effect that we can ‘linearize’ homotopy groups.
Finally, in Section \[sec.fibered\], we prove that any morphism $A\to B$ between finite resolving algebras admits a factorization $A\to B\to B'$, where $A\to B$ makes $B$ a finite resolving algebra over $A$ and $B'\to B$ is a quasi-isomorphism. As an application, we prove that the fibered homotopy coproduct (or derived tensor product, as we prefer to call it) of a diagram of finite (perfect) resolving algebras can be represented, again, by a finite (perfect) resolving algebra.
### Acknowledgements
I wish to thank the Research Institute for the Mathematical Sciences in Kyoto, for providing a wonderful work environment during my visit in 1999/2000. I would especially like to thank my host, Professor K. Saito, for the warm hospitality. Most of the work on étale morphisms was done while I was at RIMS for a sabbatical in 1999/2000.
I would also like to thank the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley. During a stay there in early 2002, I discovered the importance of perfect resolving algebras and worked out the results on linearization of homotopy groups.
This work was also continuously supported by a Research Grant from the National Science and Engineering Council of Canada.
Finally, I would like to thank I. Ciocan-Fontanine, E. Getzler, M. Kapranov, B. Toen and G. Vezzosi for helpful discussions.
Differential Graded Algebras
============================
\[sec.DGA\]
Review and terminology
----------------------
We will fix a base field of characteristic zero, denoted $k$, throughout. All rings and algebras are assumed to be commutative with unit (if they are graded, then commutative means graded commutative). Algebra without qualifier means $k$-algebra. If $a$ is a homogeneous element of a graded $k$-vector space, we denote by $\bar{a}$ its degree.
#### Differential graded algebras
A [*differential graded* ]{}$k$-algebra $A$ is a graded $k$-algebra $$A^\natural=\bigoplus_{n\in{{\mathbb Z}}}A^n$$ endowed with a differential $d:A^\natural\to A^\natural$ of degree 1, i.e., a degree 1 homomorphism of graded $k$-vector spaces satisfying $d^2=0$ and the graded Leibniz rule $$d(ab)=(da)b+(-1)^{\bar{a}}a\, db.$$ We always use the notation $A^\natural$ for the underlying graded algebra of the differential graded algebra $A=(A^\natural,d)$.
For a differential graded algebra $A$, the cohomology $h{^{\ast}}(A)=\ker
d/{\mathop{\rm im}}d$ is a graded $k$-algebra. The degree 0 cohomology $h^0(A)$ is a subalgebra. If $A$ is concentrated in non-positive degrees, then there is a morphism of differential graded algebras $A\to h^0(A)$.
#### Modules
A [*differential graded module* ]{}$M$ over the differential graded algebra $A$ is a (left) graded $A^\natural$-module $M^\natural$ endowed with a differential $d_M:M^\natural\to M^\natural$ of degree 1, i.e., a degree 1 homomorphism of graded $k$-vector spaces satisfying $d_M^2=0$ and the graded Leibniz rule $$d_M(am)=(da)m+(-1)^{\bar{a}}a\, d_M m,$$ for $a\in A$ and $m\in
M$. Note that $h{^{\ast}}(M)$ is a graded $h{^{\ast}}(A)$-module.
Sometimes, we will write the action of $A$ on the right. In this case the notation $ma$ is understood to mean $$\label{understood}
ma:=(-1)^{\bar{a}\bar{m}}am\,.$$
Note that every differential graded $A$-module has an underlying complex of $k$-vector spaces.
Let $M$ and $N$ be differential graded $A$-modules. Tensor product and internal hom are defined as follows. The [*tensor product* ]{}$M\otimes_A
N$ has underlying graded $A^\natural$-module $$M^\natural\otimes_{A^\natural}N^\natural$$ and the differential is given by $$d_{M\otimes N}(m\otimes n)=d_Mm\otimes n + (-1)^{\bar{m}}m\otimes
d_Nn.$$ The [*internal hom* ]{}${\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(M,N)$ has underlying graded $A^\natural$-module $${\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(M,N)^\natural=\bigoplus_n
{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits}^n_{A^\natural}(M^\natural,N^\natural)$$ and differential given by $$d_N\phi(m)=d_{{\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}(M,N)}(\phi)(m)+(-1)^{\bar{\phi}}\phi(d_Mm),$$ for $m\in M$ and $\phi\in{\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(M,N)$. The $k$-vector space of differential graded $A$-module homomorphisms $M\to N$ is the set of 0-cocycles in ${\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(M,N)$: $${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits}_A(M,N)=Z^0{\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(M,N)$$
Note that differential graded $A$-modules form an abelian category with kernels, cokernels, images and direct sums taken degree-wise. In fact, the category of differential graded $A$-modules is an abelian subcategory of the category of complexes of $k$-vector spaces.
We have the following formulas: $${\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(M,N)\otimes_AP={\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(M,N\otimes_AP)\,,$$ $${\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(M\otimes_AN,P)={\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A\big(M,{\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(N,P)\big)\,,$$ for differential graded modules $M$, $N$, $P$ over the differential graded algebra $A$, $${\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(M,N)={\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_B(M\otimes_AB,N)\,,$$ for a morphism of differential graded algebras $A\to B$ and a differential graded modules $M$ over $A$ and $N$ over $B$.
#### Cones
Given a differential graded $A$-module $M$, the shift $M[1]$ is defined by shifting the underlying complex of $k$-vector spaces: $$(M[1])^i=M^{i+1};\quad d_{M[1]}=-d_M.$$ The shift is again a differential graded $A$-module in a natural way.
The cone over the homomorphism $\phi:M\to N$ of differential graded $A$-modules is defined by $$C(\phi)=C(M\to N)=N\oplus M[1].$$ Thus $C(M\to N)$ is again a differential graded $A$-module. There is a canonical triangle $$M\stackrel{\phi}{\longrightarrow}N\longrightarrow
C(\phi)\longrightarrow M[1]$$ of differential graded $A$-modules, which induces a long exact sequence of cohomology groups.
Given two homomorphisms of differential graded $A$-modules $$M\stackrel{\phi}{\longrightarrow}N\stackrel{\rho}{\longrightarrow}
P,$$ then, if $\rho{\mathbin{{\scriptstyle\circ}}}\phi=0$, there is a canonical homomorphism $C(\phi)\to P$ (induced by the second projection) making $$\begin{diagram}
N\rto\drto_\rho & C(\phi)\dto\\
& P\end{diagram}$$ commute. If $$0\longrightarrow M\stackrel{\phi}{\longrightarrow} N\longrightarrow
P\longrightarrow 0$$ is exact, then $C(\phi)\to P$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
#### Spectral Sequence
Let $M$ be a differential graded $A$-module. Then $M$ is filtered by differential graded submodules $F^pM= A\cdot M^{\geq p}$. Thus we get an associated spectral sequence, which converges if both $A$ and $M$ are bounded above.
\[spec.se\] Assume the differential graded algebra $A$ is concentrated in non-positive degrees. Let $M$ be a differential graded $A$-module which is bounded above, and such that $M^\natural$ is a free $A^\natural$-module. Then we have a spectral sequence of $h^0(A)$-modules $$E_2^{p,q}=h^q(A)\otimes_{h^0(A)}h^p\big(M\otimes_A h^0(A)\big)
\Longrightarrow h^{p+q}(M)\,.\quad\Box$$
As an application, we may for example deduce, that $M$ is acyclic if and only if $M\otimes_A h^0(A)$ is acyclic.
Resolving algebras
------------------
#### Symmetric algebras
Given a complex of $k$-vector spaces $V$, the $n$-th symmetric power, notation $S^nV$, is defined to be the quotient of $V^{\otimes n}$ by all relations of the form $$x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes x_p\otimes x\otimes y\otimes
y_1\otimes\ldots\otimes y_q=(-1)^{{\overline}{x}{\overline}{y}}x_1\otimes\ldots\otimes
x_p \otimes
y\otimes x\otimes y_1\otimes\ldots\otimes y_q\,,$$ for $x$, $y$, $x_1,\ldots,x_p$, $y_1\ldots,y_q$ homogeneous elements of $V$ and $p+q+2=n$. Thus $S^nV$ is again a complex of $k$-vector spaces, for all $n\geq0$. The direct sum $SV=\bigoplus_{n\geq0}S^nV$ is a differential graded algebra. The functor $V\mapsto SV$ is a left adjoint for the forgetful functor $$(\text{differential graded algebras})\longrightarrow(\text{complexes
of $k$-vector spaces})\,.$$
\[free.alg\] A differential graded algebra $A$ which is isomorphic to $SV$, for some complex of $k$-vector spaces $V$, is called [**free**]{}. If $V\subset A$ is a subcomplex inducing an isomorphism $SV\to A$, we call $V$ a [**free basic complex** ]{}for $A$.
If $A\to B$ is a morphism of differential graded algebras and there exists a subcomplex $V\subset B$ such that $A\otimes_k SV\to B$ is an isomorphism, then we call $A\to B$ [**free**]{}, or we say that $B$ is free over $A$. Moreover, $V$ is called a [**free basic complex** ]{}for $B$ over $A$.
The importance of free differential graded algebras for us is that they occur as tangent spaces of differential graded schemes.
#### Quasi-free algebras
As a special case of symmetric algebras, we may consider symmetric algebras $SV$, on a graded $k$-vector spaces $V$. This is the case of complexes $V$ with zero differential. In this case $SV$ is simply a graded $k$-algebra, as it has vanishing differential, too. The functor $V\mapsto SV$ is a left adjoint for the forgetful functor $$(\text{graded $k$-algebras})\to(\text{graded $k$-vector
spaces})\,.$$ Another common notation for $SV$ is $k[V]$. If $(x_i)$ is a homogeneous basis for the graded $k$-vector space $V$, then we denote $k[V]$ also by $k[x]$.
Let $A$ be a differential graded algebra. Suppose that $V\subset
A$ is a graded sub-$k$-vector space, such that $SV\to A^\natural$ is an isomorphism of graded $k$-algebras. Then we say that the differential graded algebra $A$ is [**quasi-free** ]{}and we call $V$ a [**basic** ]{}space for $A$.
Let $V\subset A$ be a basic space for the quasi-free differential graded algebra $A$. If $(x_i)$ is a homogeneous $k$-basis for the graded $k$-vector space $V$, then we call $(x_i)$ a [**basis** ]{}for $A$.
Let $A\to B$ be a morphism of differential graded algebras. If $V\subset B$ is a graded subspace such that $A^\natural\otimes_k SV\to
B^\natural$ is an isomorphism, then $B$ is [**quasi-free** ]{}over $A$ and $V$ is a [**basic** ]{}space for $B$ over $A$. If $(x_i)$ is a homogeneous basis for $V$, then it is called a [**basis** ]{}for $B$ over $A$.
Thus any basis $(x_i)$ of a quasi-free differential graded algebra $A$ defines an isomorphism $k[x]\to A^\natural$.
We have chosen the terms [*basic* ]{}and [*basis*]{}, rather than the more logical terms [*quasi-basic* ]{}and [*quasi-basis*]{}, because these terms will be used much more often than the terms defined in Definition \[free.alg\], and we do not want the prefix ‘quasi’ to take over the paper.
Let $B$ be quasi-free over $A$ and $(x_i)$ a basis. If $A\to C$ is a morphism of differential graded algebras, then any family $(c_i)$ of homogeneous elements of $C$, such that $\deg c_i=\deg x_i$ for all $i$, induces a unique morphism of graded algebras $B^\natural
\to C^\natural$, extending $A^\natural\to C^\natural$. This morphism $B\to C$ is a morphism of differential graded algebras if and only if it maps $dx_i$ to $dc_i$ for all $i$.
The notion of quasi-freeness itself is not very useful for us. Its main purpose is to enable the definition of [*resolving algebra*]{}, which is next.
#### Resolving algebras
We now come to be most important set of concepts for this work.
\[def.res\] We call a differential graded algebra $A$ a [**resolving algebra**]{}, if it is quasi-free and there exists a basis $(x_i)$ for $A$, such that $\deg x_i\leq0$, for all $i$.
A morphism of differential graded algebras $A\to B$ is called a [**resolving morphism**]{}, if $B$ is quasi-free over $A$ and there exists a basis $(x_i)$ for $B$ over $A$, such that $\deg x_i\leq0$, for all $i$.
If we speak of a [**basis** ]{}for a resolving algebra or a resolving morphism, it is understood that it consists of elements $x_i$ such that $\deg x_i\leq0$, for all $i$.
The main purpose of resolving morphisms for us is that they are [*cofibrations* ]{}for the natural simplicial closed model category structure on the category of differential graded algebras. For geometric purposes, we have to put some additional finiteness assumptions:
A resolving algebra $A$ is called [**quasi-finite**]{}, if there exists a basis $(x_i)$ for $A$ satisfying
\(i) for every $n>0$, the set $\{i{\mathrel{\mid}}\deg x_i=n\}$ is empty,
\(ii) for every $n\leq0$, the set $\{i{\mathrel{\mid}}\deg x_i=n\}$ is finite.
Any basis for $A$ satisfying these two properties is called a [**quasi-finite** ]{}basis or a [**coordinate system** ]{}for $A$.
A resolving morphism $A\to B$ is called [**quasi-finite**]{}, if there exists a [**quasi-finite** ]{}basis for $B$ over $A$, i.e., a basis $(x_i)$, satisfying (i) and (ii).
A resolving algebra $A$ is called [**finite**]{}, if there exists a finite basis $(x_i)$ for $A$ such that $\deg x_i\leq0$, for all $i$. Any such basis for $A$ is called a [**finite** ]{}basis, or a [**finite coordinate system**]{}.
A resolving morphism $A\to B$ is called [**finite**]{}, if there exists a [**finite** ]{}basis for $B$ over $A$, i.e., a basis $(x_i)$ which is finite and satisfies $\deg x_i\leq 0$, for all $i$.
The purpose of finite resolving algebras for us is, that they provide local models for differential graded schemes. There is another important class of resolving algebras which are somewhere between finite and quasi-finite resolving algebras. These are the [*perfect* ]{}resolving algebras introduced in Definition \[def.per\]. Perfect resolving algebras serve as affine differential graded schemes.
Let $A$ be a finite resolving algebra. If we can find a finite basis $(x_i)$ for $A$ such that $\deg x_i\geq -n$, for all i, then we say that $A$ is of [**amplitude** ]{}$n$.
If $A\to B$ is a finite resolving morphism and we can find a finite basis $(x_i)$ for $B$ over $A$ such that $\deg x_i\in[-n,0]$, for all $i$, then we say that $A\to B$ has [**amplitude** ]{}$n$.
The reason for the terminology is that resolving algebras serve as resolutions:
If $C$ is a differential graded algebra and $A\to C$ is a morphism of differential graded algebras, where $A$ is a resolving algebra, then we call $A\to C$ a [**resolution** ]{}of $C$, if $A\to C$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
If $A\to C$ is a morphism of differential graded algebras, $A\to B$ a resolving morphism, and $B\to C$ a quasi-isomorphism over $A$, then $A\to B\to C$ is a [**resolution** ]{}of $A\to C$.
Let us show that morphisms between resolving algebras always admit resolutions:
\[res.ex\] For any morphism of resolving algebras $A\to C$, there exists a resolution $A\to B\to C$. If $A$ and $C$ are quasi-finite, we may choose $A\to B$ quasi-finite.
We construct inductively a sequence of partial resolutions $A\to
B_{(n)}\to C$ with the properties:
\(i) $A\to B_{(n)}$ is resolving and the composition $A\to B_{(n)}\to
C$ is equal to $A\to C$,
\(ii) $h^{-n}(B_{(n)})\to h^{-n}(C)$ is surjective,
\(ii) $h^{1-n}(B_{(n)})\to h^{1-n}(C)$ is bijective.
We may take $A$ for $B_{(-1)}$. Once we have constructed $B_{(n)}\to C$, we choose elements $b_i\in Z^{-n}(B_{(n)})$ generating the kernel of $h^{-n}(B_{(n)})\to h^{-n}(C)$, and $e_i\in C^{-n-1}$ such that $de_i$ is the image of $b_i$ under $B_{(n)}\to C$, for all $i$. We also choose $c_j\in Z^{-n-1}(C)$ generating $h^{-n-1}(C)$. Then we define $B_{(n+1)}$ by adjoining to $B_{(n)}$ formal variables $x_i$ and $y_j$ of degree $-n-1$ and setting $dx_i=b_i$ and $dy_j=0$. We define the morphism $B_{(n+1)}\to
C$ by extending $B_{(n)}\to C$ by $x_i\mapsto
e_i$ and $y_j\mapsto c_j$.
Finally, we let $B={\mathop{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longrightarrow}}\limits}B_{(n)}$.
To deal with the quasi-finite case, let us make the remark that if $A$ is a quasi-finite resolving algebra, then $h^0(A)$ is a finite type $k$-algebra and $h^i(A)$ is a finitely generated $h^0(A)$-module, for all $i$. Now we examine the above proof more closely, and specify more carefully what we mean by ‘generating’. In fact, to construct $B_{(0)}$ we choose generators for $h^0(C)$ as an $h^0(A)$-algebra. To construct all $B_{(n+1)}$ for $n\geq0$, we choose generators of $\ker\big(h^{-n}(B_{(n)})\to h^{-n}(C)\big)$ and $h^{-n-1}(C)$ as $h^0(B_{(n)})$-modules. Since $h^0(B_{(n)})\to h^0(C)$ is onto if $n\geq0$, we see that in all cases we have finite generation.
\[skol\] If $A$ is a differential graded algebra concentrated in non-positive degrees, such that $h^0(A)$ is a $k$-algebra of finite type and $h^i(A)$ is a finitely generated $h^0(A)$-module, for every $i$, then there exists a resolution $A'\to A$, where $A'$ is quasi-finite.
The simplicial closed model category structure {#sec.scmc}
----------------------------------------------
For the definitions and properties of simplicial sets and closed model categories, the reader may consult, for example, the recent text book by Goerss-Jardine [@simhomthe]. We will commit the common abuse of calling a simplicial set a [*space*]{}.
A [**simplicial category** ]{}is a category enriched over simplicial sets. Thus a simplicial category ${{\mathfrak S}}$ is given by
\(i) a class of objects ${\mathop{\rm ob}}{{\mathfrak S}}$,
\(ii) for any two objects $U$, $V$ of ${{\mathfrak S}}$ a simplicial set ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(U,V)$,
\(iii) for any three objects $U$, $V$, $W$ of ${{\mathfrak S}}$ a simplicial map $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbin{{\scriptstyle\circ}}}:{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(V,W)\times{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(U,V)& \longrightarrow {\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(U,W)\\*
(f,g)&\longmapsto f{\mathbin{{\scriptstyle\circ}}}g\end{aligned}$$
\(iv) for every object $U$ of ${{\mathfrak S}}$, a 0-simplex ${\mathop{\rm id}\nolimits}_U$ in ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(U,U)$, which we can also view as a simplicial map $$\ast \stackrel{{\mathop{\rm id}\nolimits}_U}{\longrightarrow} {\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(U,U),$$ such that
\(i) the composition ${\mathbin{{\scriptstyle\circ}}}$ is associative, i.e., for four objects $U$, $V$, $W$, $Z$ of ${{\mathfrak S}}$ the diagram of simplicial sets $$\begin{diagram}
{{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(W,Z)\times{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(W,V)\times{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(V,U)}\dto\rto &
{{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(V,Z)\times{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(U,V)}\dto\\
{{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(W,Z)\times{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(U,W)}\rto & {{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(U,Z)}
\end{diagram}$$ commutes,
\(ii) the objects ${\mathop{\rm id}\nolimits}_U$ act as identities for ${\mathbin{{\scriptstyle\circ}}}$, i.e., the diagrams $$\xymatrix@C=1pc{
{{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(U,V)}\dto\drto & {{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(U,V)}\drto\rto &
{{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(V,V)\times{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(U,V)}\dto\\
{{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(U,V)\times{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(U,U)}\rto& {{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(U,V)} & {{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(U,V)}}$$ commute.
Passing from ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(U,V)$ to the set of 0-simplices ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_0(U,V)$ we get the underlying category ${{\mathfrak S}}_0$ of the simplicial category ${{\mathfrak S}}$.
Assume that the underlying category of the simplicial category ${{\mathfrak S}}$ has a closed model category structure. The following property (which ${{\mathfrak S}}$ might enjoy, or not) is called the [*simplicial model category axiom*]{}
\[ax\] If $j:A\to B$ is a cofibration and $q:X\to Y$ a fibration then $${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,X)\longrightarrow{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(A,X)\times_{{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(A,Y)}{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,Y)$$ is a fibration of simplicial sets, which is trivial if $j$ or $q$ is trivial.
If the underlying category of the simplicial category ${{\mathfrak S}}$ is a closed model category and the simplicial model category axiom is satisfied, then we call ${{\mathfrak S}}$ a [**simplicial closed model category**]{}. (Note that this notion is weaker than the one treated in [@simhomthe].)
Differential graded algebras form a simplicial closed model category: Let ${{\mathfrak A}}$ be the category of all differential graded $k$-algebras.
\[dgascmc\] Call a morphism $f:A\to B$ in ${{\mathfrak A}}$ a [***fibration*** ]{}if $f$ is degree-wise surjective. Call $f$ a [***weak equivalence*** ]{}if it is a quasi-isomorphism, i.e., if it induces bijections on cohomology groups. Finally, call $f$ a [***cofibration*** ]{}if it satisfies the [left lifting property ]{}with respect to all trivial fibrations. With these definitions ${{\mathfrak A}}$ is a closed model category.
Let $\Omega_n=\Omega(\Delta^n)$ be the algebraic de Rham complex of the algebraic $n$-simplex $${\mathop{\rm Spec}\nolimits}k[x_0,\ldots,x_n]/{\textstyle\sum} x_i=1,$$ (which is a differential graded $k$-algebra). For two differential graded algebras $A$, $B$ define the simplicial set ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(A,B)$ to have the $n$-simplices $${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_n(A,B)={\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits}(A,B\otimes\Omega_n).$$ With this definition, ${{\mathfrak A}}$ is a simplicial closed model category.
This (and much more) is proved in [@hinich].
\[fin.tensor\] By definition, we have $${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits}\big(\Delta^n,{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(A,B)\big)=
{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits}\big(A,B\otimes\Omega(\Delta^n)\big)\,.$$ More generally, for every finite simplicial set $K$ we have an algebraic de Rham complex $\Omega(K)$ and there is a natural bijection $${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits}\big(K,{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(A,B)\big)={\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits}\big(A,B\otimes\Omega(K)\big)\,.$$ For the definition of $\Omega(K)$, see [@BoG].
We shall now identify a class of cofibrations in ${{\mathfrak A}}$.
\[res.cof\] Any resolving morphism $\iota:A\to B$ of differential graded algebras is a cofibration.
We have to show that $\iota:A\to B$ satisfies the left lifting property with respect to all surjective quasi-isomorphisms. So let $\pi:C\to D$ be a surjective quasi-isomorphism of differential graded algebras. Assume given the commutative diagram of solid arrows $$\begin{diagram}
{A\dto_\iota \rto^g} & {C\dto^\pi}\\
{B\rto_f\urdotted|>\tip^h} & D.
\end{diagram}$$ We need to show the existence of the dotted arrow $h$.
Let $(y_i)_{i\in I}$ be a basis for $B$ over $A$. By induction, we may assume that all $y_i$, $i\in I$, have the same degree, say $n\leq0$. This implies that $dy_i\in A$, for all $i\in I$, or more precisely, that there exist $a_i\in A$ such that $\iota a_i=d y_i$. Moreover, $da_i=0$. (Note that this is where we use the assumption of non-positive degree.)
Since $C{^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}\to D{^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}$ is a quasi-isomorphism, the diagram $$\begin{diagram}
{C^n/dC^{n-1}\dto\rto^d} & {Z^{n+1}(C{^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}})\dto}\\
{D^n/dD^{n-1}\rto^d} & {Z^{n+1}(D{^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}})}
\end{diagram}$$ of $k$-vector spaces is cartesian. So by surjectivity of $\pi:C^{n-1}\to D^{n-1}$ we have that $C^n$ maps onto the fibered product $$\begin{diagram}
{C^n\rto|>>\tip} &
{{\phantom{d}\cdot\phantom{d}}\dto_\pi\rto^{d\phantom{MM}}} &
{Z^{n+1}(C{^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}})\dto^\pi}\\
& {D^n\rto^{d\phantom{MM}}} & {Z^{n+1}(D{^{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}})}.
\end{diagram}$$ Thus we can choose elements $h(y_i)\in C^n$ such that
1. \[hypo\] $d\, h(y_i)=g(a_i)$,
2. \[hypt\] $\pi\, h(y_i)=f(y_i)$,
for all $i\in I$. (Note that $\pi\big(g(a_i)\big)=f\big(\iota(a_i)\big)=f(dy_i)=d\big(f(y_i)\big)$.) By the freeness of $B^\natural$ over $A^\natural$ on $(y_i)_{i\in I}$ this defines a morphism of graded $A^\natural$-algebras $h:B^\natural\to C^\natural$. In particular, $h{\mathbin{{\scriptstyle\circ}}}\iota=g$. Property \[hypt\] implies $\pi{\mathbin{{\scriptstyle\circ}}}h=f$. Finally, $hd=dh$ follows from Property \[hypo\].
\[qfreefib\] If $A\to B$ is a resolving morphism of differential graded algebras, then $$\label{fibr}
{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,C)\longrightarrow{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(A,C)$$ is a fibration of simplicial sets, for all differential graded algebras $C$.
Take $X=C$ and $Y=0$ in Axiom \[ax\].
\[res.fib.cof\] Every resolving algebra if fibrant-cofibrant in ${{\mathfrak A}}$.
Let $A\to B$ be a resolving morphism of differential graded algebras and $A\to C$ a fixed morphism of differential graded algebras. Then we denote the fiber of the fibration (\[fibr\]) over the point $A\to
C$ of ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(A,C)$ by ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_A(B,C)$. This fiber is a fibrant simplicial set, and we may think of it as the space of $A$-algebra morphisms from $B$ to $C$.
If $A\to B'\to B$ are two resolving morphisms and $A\to C$ any fixed morphism of differential graded algebras, then we have a fibration $${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_A(B,C)\longrightarrow{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_A(B',C)\,.$$
Homotopies {#sec.homo}
----------
The following expresses another compatibility between the closed model category structure and the simplicial category structure on differential graded algebras.
\[pathobject\] Let $B$ be a differential graded algebra. The canonical commutative diagram $$\label{path.o}
\vcenter{\xymatrix{
& & {B\otimes\Omega_1}\dto\\
{B\urrto\rrto_{\text{\tiny\rm diagonal}}}&&{B\times B}}}$$ which is induced by the commutative diagram of algebraic simplices $$\begin{diagram}
& & {\Delta^1}\dllto\\
{\Delta^0}&&{\Delta^0\amalg\Delta^0\llto\uto_{{\partial}_0\amalg{\partial}_1}}
\end{diagram}$$ is a path object for $B$.
By the definition of path object (see [@simhomthe], Section II.1.) we need only check that
\(i) $B\to B\otimes \Omega_1$ is a weak equivalence,
\(ii) $B\otimes\Omega_1\to B\times B$ is a fibration.
Both claims reduce immediately to the case $B=k$ (by flatness of $B$ over $k$). Then (i) is the algebraic de Rham theorem and (ii) is obvious.
Assume that $A$ is a cofibrant differential graded algebra and $B$ a fibrant differential graded algebra. Two morphisms of differential graded algebras $f,g:A\to B$ are homotopic (with respect to the closed model category structure on ${{\mathfrak A}}$) if and only if there exists a 1-simplex $h\in {\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_1(A,B)$ such that ${\partial}_0 h=f$ and ${\partial}_1
h=g$.
By Corollary 1.9 of [@simhomthe Chapter II], the notion of homotopy between $f$ and $g$ is well-defined. We may use the path object of Lemma \[pathobject\] to check if $f$ and $g$ are homotopic.
In particular, for morphisms between resolving algebras the two notions of homotopic are equivalent.
\[qiseq\] Let $A\to B$ be a quasi-isomorphism of resolving algebras. Then $A\to
B$ is a homotopy equivalence.
By the Theorem of Whitehead (Theorem 1.10 in [@simhomthe Chapter II]) $A\to B$ is a homotopy equivalence with respect to the closed model category structure on ${{\mathfrak A}}$.
If two morphisms of resolving algebras $f,g:A\to B$ are homotopic, then they induce the same homomorphisms on cohomology $h^\ast(A)\to
h^\ast(B)$.
Let $H:A\to B\otimes\Omega_1$ be a homotopy from $f$ to $g$. Then we have a commutative diagram of differential graded algebras $$\begin{diagram}
& & {B\otimes\Omega_1}\dto&\\
A\urrto^H\rrto_{f\times g}&&{B\times B}& B\,,\ulto\lto
\end{diagram}$$ whose right half is our path object (\[path.o\]). Applying $h^\ast$, we get the commutative diagram $$\begin{diagram}
& & {h^\ast(B\otimes\Omega_1)}\dto&\\
h^\ast(A)\urrto^{h^\ast(H)}\ar[rr]_-{{h^\ast(f)\times
h^\ast(g)}}&&{h^\ast(B)\times h^\ast(B)}&
h^\ast(B)\,,\ulto_{\text{\tiny isomorphism}}\lto
\end{diagram}$$ which implies that, indeed, $h^\ast(f)=h^\ast(g)$.
Let $f:A\to B$ be a morphism of resolving algebras. If $f$ is a homotopy equivalence, then $f$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
Derivations and differentials {#difcot}
-----------------------------
Let $B\to A$ be a morphism of differential graded $k$-algebras.
For an $A$-module $M$, a [**$B$-derivation** ]{}$D:A\to M$ is a homomorphism of complexes of $k$-vector spaces vanishing on $B$ and satisfying the Leibniz rule (see (\[understood\])) $$D(ab) = Da\,b+ a\,Db,$$ for all $a,b\in A$.
\[omeg\] Assume that $A$ is resolving over $B$ on the basis $(x_i)_{i\in
I}$. Then there exists a [*universal* ]{}$B$-derivation ${{{\mathfrak d}}}:A\to\Omega_{A/B}$. It may be constructed as follows:
\(i) As underlying graded $A^\natural$-module take $$\Omega^\natural_{A/B}=\bigoplus_{i\in I}A^\natural{{{\mathfrak d}}}x_i,$$ for formal generators ${{{\mathfrak d}}}x_i$, which have the same degrees as the $x_i$.
\(ii) Construct the unique $B$-derivation ${{{\mathfrak d}}}:A^\natural\to\Omega^\natural_{A/B}$, satisfying ${{{\mathfrak d}}}(x_i)={{{\mathfrak d}}}x_i$, for all $i\in I$.
\(iii) Define the differential $d$ on $\Omega^\natural_{A/B}$ by $$d(a{{{\mathfrak d}}}x_i)=da\,{{{\mathfrak d}}}x_i + (-1)^{\bar{a}} a\,{{{\mathfrak d}}}(dx_i).$$
Then
\(i) $\Omega_{A/B}$ is an $A$-module, i.e., $$d(a\omega)=da\,\omega + (-1)^{\bar{a}} a\,d\omega,$$
\(ii) ${{{\mathfrak d}}}:A\to\Omega_{A/B}$ is a derivation, i.e., $d{{{\mathfrak d}}}={{{\mathfrak d}}}d$,
\(iii) ${{{\mathfrak d}}}:A\to\Omega_{A/B}$ is a universal derivation.[[$\,\,\Box$]{}]{}
If $C\to B$ is a resolving morphism of differential graded algebras, then for every differential graded algebra in non-positive degrees $A$, we have a convergent spectral sequence $$h^q(A)\otimes_{h^0(A)} h^p\big( \Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(A)\big)
\Longrightarrow h^{p+q}(\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_BA)\,.$$
By Lemma \[omeg\] we know that $\Omega_{B/C}^\natural$ is free over $B^\natural$. Since $\Omega_{B/C}$ is automatically bounded above, we can apply Proposition \[spec.se\].
\[def.imd\] The [**internal module of derivations** ]{}of $A$ over $B$, notation ${\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_B(A,M)$, is defined to be the subcomplex of ${\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_B(A,M)$, consisting of all elements $D:A\to M$, vanishing on $B$, and satisfying the graded Leibniz rule $$D(ab)=Da\,b + (-1)^{\bar{a}\bar{D}}a\,Db,$$ for all $a,b\in A$. Thus a $B$-derivation $D:A\to M$ is a 0-cocycle in the complex ${\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_B(A,M)$.
The internal module of derivations ${\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_B(A,M)$ is a differential graded $A$-module. If $A$ is resolving over $B$, we have a natural isomorphism $${\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_B(A,M)={\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(\Omega_{A/B},M).$$ Derivations correspond to homomorphisms under this isomorphism. [[$\,\,\Box$]{}]{}
Let $A\to C$ be a morphism of differential graded algebras. Then ${\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_B(A,C)$ is a differential graded $C$-module via the action $(cD)(a)=c\big(D(a)\big)$.
If $A$ is a resolving algebra, we set $$\Theta_A:={\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_k(A,A)={\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(\Omega_A,A)\,.$$ This has the additional structure of a differential graded Lie algebra. The differential on $\Theta_A$ is given by bracket with $d:A\to
A\in{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_k^1(A,A)$.
If $A$ is resolving over the differential graded algebra $B$, we set $$\Theta_{A/B}={\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_B(A,A)={\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}(\Omega_{A/B},A)\,.$$
Now assume given morphisms of differential graded algebras $C\to B\to A$. Let both $B$ and $A$ be resolving over $C$. We get a homomorphism of $B$-modules $\Omega_{B/C}\to\Omega_{A/C}$ (since a $C$-derivation on $A$ restricts to a $C$-derivation on $B$), and hence a homomorphism of $A$-modules $\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_BA\to\Omega_{A/C}$.
If $B\to A$ is a quasi-isomorphism, then $$\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_BA\to\Omega_{A/C}$$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
See [@hinich].
Assume, in addition, that $A$ is also resolving over $B$. Then we get a homomorphism of $A$-modules $\Omega_{A/C}\to\Omega_{A/B}$ (since a $B$-derivation of $A$ is also a $C$-derivation). The sequence of differential graded $A$-modules $$\label{seqdif}
0\longrightarrow \Omega_{B/C} \otimes_BA\longrightarrow \Omega_{A/C}
\longrightarrow \Omega_{A/B}\longrightarrow 0\,$$ is exact.
The cotangent complex
---------------------
Let us define the cotangent complex of a morphism between resolving algebras.
Let $B$ and $A$ be resolving algebras over $k$, and $f:B\to A$ a morphism. We define the [**cotangent complex** ]{}$L_{A/B}$ to the differential graded $A$-module defined as the cone over the homomorphism $\Omega_B\otimes_BA\to\Omega_A$: $$L_{A/B}={{\cal C}}(\Omega_B\otimes_BA\to\Omega_A).$$
If $A$ is resolving over $B$, then by (\[seqdif\]) there is a canonical quasi-isomorphism $$L_{A/B}\longrightarrow\Omega_{A/B}\,.$$
\[cot.cx\] (i) If $B\to A$ is a quasi-isomorphism, then $L_{A/B}$ is acyclic.
\(ii) Given morphisms of resolving algebras $C\to B\to A$, there exists a natural distinguished triangle of differential graded $A$-modules $$L_{B/C}\otimes_BA\longrightarrow L_{A/C} \longrightarrow L_{A/B}
\longrightarrow L_{B/C}\otimes_BA\,[1]\,.$$
\(iii) Let $A$, $B$ and $C$ be resolving algebras and $B\to A$ a resolving morphism. Consider the tensor product $$\begin{diagram}
{A\otimes_BC}& C\lto\\
A\uto & B.\lto\uto
\end{diagram}$$ So $A\otimes_BC$ is also a resolving algebra. Then $L_{C/B}\otimes_BA\to L_{A\otimes_BC/A}$ and $L_{A/B}\otimes_BC\to L_{A\otimes_BC/C}$ are quasi-isomorphisms. [[$\,\,\Box$]{}]{}
Occasionly, we will use the cotangent complex of a morphism between differential graded algebras which are not resolving. The necessary theory is developed in [@hinich].
If $C\to B$ is a morphism of resolving algebras, then we have a convergent spectral sequence $$h^q(A)\otimes_{h^0(A)} h^p\big( L_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(A)\big)
\Longrightarrow h^{p+q}(L_{B/C}\otimes_BA)\,,$$ for every differential graded algebra in non-positive degrees $A$.[[$\,\,\Box$]{}]{}
Let $C\to B$ be a morphism of resolving algebras. Then we call $$T_{B/C}={\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_B(L_{B/C},B)$$ the [**tangent complex** ]{}of $B$ over $C$.
If $C\to B$ is a resolving morphism of resolving algebras, we have a canonical quasi-isomorphism of differential graded $B$-modules $$\Theta_{B/C}\longrightarrow T_{B/C}\,.$$
### Acyclicity criteria
In the following proposition we use the differential graded algebras $\Lambda_n$, defined for every $n>0$ as follows:
If $n$ is even, the underlying graded $k$-algebras is given by $\Lambda_n^\natural=k[x,\xi]$, where $\deg x=-n$ and $\deg\xi=-2n-1$, and the differential is given by $dx=0$ and $d\xi=x^2$.
If $n$ is odd, $\Lambda_n=k[x]$, with $\deg x=-n$ and $d(x)=0$.
Note that $$h^i(\Lambda_n)=\begin{cases} k & \text{if $k=0,-n$,}\\
0&\text{otherwise.}\end{cases}$$ Moreover, $\Lambda_n$ is quasi-isomorphic to $h{^{\ast}}(\Lambda_n)$.
\[eac\] Let $B\to A$ be a morphism of resolving algebras and $r\leq 0$ an integer. Fix a morphism $A\to k$ of differential graded algebras. The following are equivalent:
\(i) ${\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(A,k)\to{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,k)$ is a quasi-isomorphism,
\(ii) $L_{A/B}\otimes_A k$ is acyclic,
\(iii) $h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(A,C)\to h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,C)$ is an isomorphism for all (finite) resolving algebras $C$,
\(iv) $h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(A,\Lambda_n)\to h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,\Lambda_n)$ is an isomorphism for all $n>0$.
In (iii) and (iv) the $A$-module structure on $C$ and $\Lambda_n$ is given via $A\to k$.
If, moreover, $B\to A$ is a resolving morphism, further equivalent conditions are
(iii$\,'$) $h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_B(A,C)=0$, for all (finite) resolving algebras $C$,
(iv$\,'$) $h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_B(A,\Lambda_n)=0$, for all $n>0$.
By definition, we have a distinguished triangle $${\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(L_{A/B},k)\longrightarrow{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(A,k)
\longrightarrow{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,k) \longrightarrow {\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(L_{A/B},k)[1]\,.$$ Thus (i) implies that ${\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(L_{A/B},k)={\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_k(L_{A/B}\otimes_Ak,k)$ is acyclic, which implies (ii). Let us now assume that (ii) holds. Then we use the distinguished triangle $${\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(L_{A/B},C)\longrightarrow{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(A,C)
\longrightarrow{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,C) \longrightarrow {\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(L_{A/B},C)[1]\,$$ and the fact that ${\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_A(L_{A/B},C)={\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_k(L_{A/B}\otimes_Ak,C)$, to conclude that (iii) holds. The fact that (iii) implies (iv) is trivial, because $\Lambda_n$ is a finite resolving algebra, for all $n$.
Finally, assume that (iv) holds. Note that we have $$\begin{aligned}
h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(A,\Lambda_n)& =h^r\big({\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(A,k)\otimes \Lambda_n\big)\\
&=h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(A,k)\oplus h^{r+n}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(A,k)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we may conclude that $h^\ell{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(A,k)\to h^\ell{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(A,k)$ is an isomorphism for all $\ell\geq r$, hence for all $\ell\geq0$. Then (i) follows, because for $\ell<0$ we have $h^\ell{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(A,k)=h^\ell{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,k)=0$.
\[mea\] Let $B\to A$ be a morphism of quasi-finite resolving algebras and $r\leq0$ and integer. The following are equivalent:
\(i) $L_{A/B}$ is acyclic,
\(ii) ${\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(A,C)\to{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,C)$ is a quasi-isomorphism, for all morphisms of differential graded algebras $A\to C$, where $C$ is a (finite) resolving algebra,
\(iii) $h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(A,C)\to h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,C)$ is an isomorphism, for all $A\to C$ as in (ii).
If, moreover, $B\to A$ is a resolving morphism, then a further equivalent conditions is
(iii’) $h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_B(A,C)=0$, for all $A\to C$ as in (ii).
The claim that (i) implies (ii) follows as in the proof of Proposition \[eac\] from a distinguished triangle. Then (ii) implies (iii) trivially. So let us assume that (iii) holds. To prove (i), we may assume without loss of generality that $k$ is algebraically closed. We may conclude from Proposition \[eac\] that $L_{A/B}\otimes_Ak$ is acyclic, for all $A\to k$. This implies that $L_{A/B}$ is acyclic, because $A$ is quasi-finite, and so $h^\ell (L_{A/B})$ is a finitely generated $h^0(A)$-module, for all $\ell$, and hence Nakayama’s lemma applies.
Étale Morphisms
===============
\[sec.etale\]
Augmentations
-------------
Let $A$ be a resolving algebra. An [*augmentation* ]{} of $A$ is a morphism of differential graded $k$-algebras $A\to k$. Note that every augmentation $A\to k$ is induced (in a unique way) from a $k$-algebra morphism $h^0(A)\to
k$. Moreover, every augmentation $A\to k$ induces a morphism of $k$-algebras $A^0\to k$.
The [*augmentation ideal* ]{}${{\mathfrak m}}$ is the kernel of $A\to k$. It is a differential graded ideal in $A$. The augmentation ideal of $A^0$ is the degree zero component ${{\mathfrak m}}^0$ and the augmentation ideal of $h^0(A)$ is ${{\mathfrak m}}h^0(A)={{\mathfrak m}}^0 h^0(A)$.
Note that any basis $(x_i)$ of $A$ defines an augmentation $A\to k$ by the rule $x_i\mapsto 0$. Conversely, for any augmentation of $A$, we can find a basis $(x_i)$ for $A$, with $x_i$ in the kernel of $A\to k$, for all $i$. Such a basis is called [*compatible* ]{}with the augmentation $A\to k$. If $(x_i)$ is a basis compatible with the augmentation $A\to k$, then we get an induced isomorphism of augmented graded algebras $k[x]\to A^\natural$.
\[compstru.1\] Let $A$ be a resolving algebra and $A\to k$ an augmentation with ideal ${{\mathfrak m}}$. Then ${{\mathfrak m}}/{{\mathfrak m}}^2=\Omega_A\otimes_Ak$.
Consider the canonical map $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathfrak m}}& \longrightarrow\Omega_A\otimes_Ak\\*
x&\longmapsto {{{\mathfrak d}}}x\otimes 1\,,\end{aligned}$$ and prove that it induces an isomorphism of complexes of $k$-vector spaces. For this purpose it is useful to choose a basis $(x_i)$ for $A$, compatible with the augmentation. Then $\Omega_A\otimes_Ak$ is free as a graded $k$-vector space on the basis $({{{\mathfrak d}}}x_i\otimes 1)$, so surjectivity is clear. For injectivity, use that we have $$f(x)\equiv f(0)+\sum_ix_i\frac{{\partial}f}{{\partial}x_i}(0)\mod {{\mathfrak m}}^2\,,$$ for every $a=f(x)\in A$.
Given an augmented resolving algebra $A\to k$, all powers ${{\mathfrak m}}^n$ of the augmentation ideal are differential ideals. Hence all ${{\mathfrak m}}^n/{{\mathfrak m}}^{n+1}$ are complexes of $k$-vector spaces. The direct sum $${\mathop{\rm gr}\nolimits}A=\bigoplus_{n\geq0}{{\mathfrak m}}^n/{{\mathfrak m}}^{n+1}$$ of these complexes has an induced multiplication, making it a differential graded algebra. It is free:
\[compstru.2\] Let $A$ be a resolving algebra and ${{\mathfrak m}}$ an augmentation ideal. Then $${\mathop{\rm gr}\nolimits}A=S({{\mathfrak m}}/{{\mathfrak m}}^2)\,,$$ as differential graded algebras.
The inclusion of the subcomplex ${{\mathfrak m}}/{{\mathfrak m}}^2\to {\mathop{\rm gr}\nolimits}A$ induces the canonical morphism of differential graded algebras $S({{\mathfrak m}}/{{\mathfrak m}}^2)\to{\mathop{\rm gr}\nolimits}A$. One checks that for every $n$ the induced map $S^n({{\mathfrak m}}/{{\mathfrak m}}^2)\to {{\mathfrak m}}^n/{{\mathfrak m}}^{n+1}$ is an isomorphism by considering a basis $(x_i)$ for $A$.
Point-wise étale morphisms
--------------------------
If $A\to k$ is a quasi-finite augmented resolving algebra, we let $\widehat{A}^0$ be the completion of $A^0$ at its augmentation ideal ${{\mathfrak m}}^0$ and $h^0(A)^\wedge$ the completion of $h^0(A)$ at its augmentation ideal ${{\mathfrak m}}h^0(A)$. Note that we have $h^0(A)^\wedge=h^0(A)\otimes_{A^0}\widehat{A}^0$.
We let $\widehat{A}^r$ be the completion of the $A^0$-module $A^r$ at ${{\mathfrak m}}^0$ and $h^r(A)^\wedge$ the completion of the $h^0(A)$-module $h^r(A)$ at ${{\mathfrak m}}h^0(A)$. Again, we have $h^r(A)^\wedge=h^r(A)\otimes_{A^0}\widehat{A}^0$. The direct sum $$\widehat{A}^\ast=\bigoplus_{r\leq0}
\widehat{A}^r=A\otimes_{A^0}\widehat{A}^0$$ is a differential graded algebra. We have $$h^r(\widehat{A}^\ast)=h^r(A\otimes_{A^0}\widehat{A}^0)=
h^r(A)^\wedge\,,$$ for every $r\leq0$.
If $A\to B$ is a morphism of resolving algebras, then any augmentation $B\to k$ induces an augmentation $A\to k$. If $A$ is endowed with the induced augmentation, then $A\to B$ is a [*morphism* ]{}of augmented resolving algebras. A morphism of quasi-finite augmented resolving algebras $A\to
B$ induces morphisms of $k$-algebras $\widehat{A}^0\to\widehat{B}^0$ and $h^0(A)^\wedge\to h^0(B)^\wedge$. For every $r$, it induces a homomorphism of $\widehat{A}^0$-modules $\widehat{A}^r\to\widehat{B}^r$ and a homomorphism of $h^0(A)^\wedge$-modules $h^r(A)^\wedge\to h^r(B)^\wedge$. Finally, it induces a morphism of differential graded algebras $\widehat{A}^\ast\to\widehat{B}^\ast$.
\[pointetale\] Let $A\to B$ be a morphism of quasi-finite augmented resolving algebras. The following are equivalent:
\(i) $L_{B/A}\otimes_Bk$ is acyclic,
\(ii) $L_{B/A}\otimes_{B^0}\widehat{B}^0$ is acyclic,
\(iii) $A/{{\mathfrak m}}_A^n\to B/{{\mathfrak m}}_B^n$ is a quasi-isomorphism for all $n$,
\(iv) $\widehat{A}^\ast\to\widehat{B}^\ast$ is a quasi-isomorphism,
\(v) For all $r\leq0$, the homomorphism $h^r(A)^\wedge\to
h^r(B)^\wedge$ of $h^0(A)^\wedge$-modules is bijective,
\(vi) $h^0(A)\to h^0(B)$ is étale at $h^0(B)\to k$ and $h^r(A)\otimes_{h^0(A)}h^0(B)\to h^r(B)$ is an isomorphism in a Zariski neighborhood of $h^0(B)\to k$, for all $r\leq0$.
For more equivalent statements, see Proposition \[eac\].
The equivalence of (iv) and (v) follows immediately from the preceding remarks. Let us prove the equivalence of (v) and (vi): By properties of étaleness for usual finite type $k$-algebras, we know that $h^0(A)\to h^0(B)$ is étale at $h^0(B)\to k$ if and only if $h^0(A)^\wedge\to h^0(B)^\wedge$ is an isomorphism of $k$-algebras. Let us assume this to be the case. Then we have $$h^r(A)^\wedge=h^r(A)\otimes_{h^0(A)}h^0(A)^\wedge=
\big(h^r(A)\otimes_{h^0(A)}h^0(B)\big)
\otimes_{h^0(B)}h^0(B)^\wedge$$ and $$h^r(B)^\wedge=h^r(B)\otimes_{h^0(B)}h^0(B)^\wedge\,,$$ because $A$ and $B$ are quasi-finite. Now using the fact that for finitely generated $h^0(B)$-modules $M$ and $N$, a homomorphism $M\to
N$ is an isomorphism in a Zariski-open neighbourhood of $h^0(B)\to k$ if and only if $(M\to N)\otimes_{h^0(B)}h^0(B)^\wedge$ is an isomorphism of $h^0(B)^\wedge$-modules, we conclude the proof that (v) and (vi) are equivalent.
The fact that (ii) implies (i) is clear.
Let us now prove that (i) implies (iii). Assume that $L_{B/A}\otimes_Bk$ is acyclic. Then $\Omega_A\otimes_Ak\to
\Omega_B\otimes_Bk$ is a quasi-isomorphism of complexes of $k$-vector spaces. By Lemma \[compstru.1\], ${{\mathfrak m}}_A/{{\mathfrak m}}_A^2\to{{\mathfrak m}}_B/{{\mathfrak m}}_B^2$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Since taking symmetric powers preserves quasi-isomorphisms, Lemma \[compstru.2\] implies that we have a quasi-isomorphism ${{\mathfrak m}}_A^n/{{\mathfrak m}}_A^{n+1}\to{{\mathfrak m}}_B^n/{{\mathfrak m}}_B^{n+1}$, for all $n\geq0$. By induction, this implies that $A/{{\mathfrak m}}_A^n\to B/{{\mathfrak m}}_B^n$ is a quasi-isomorphism, for all $n$, proving (iii).
Assuming (iii), we will now prove (iv). Let us fix $r\leq0$ and consider the limit $${\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}(A/{{\mathfrak m}}^n)^r\,.$$ (The superscript $n$ denotes a power, the superscript $r$ denotes the component of degree $r$.) Note that this limit is equal to $\widehat{A}^r$, because the topology on $A^r$ defined by the descending sequence of subspaces $({{\mathfrak m}}^n)^r$ is equal to the ${{\mathfrak m}}^0$-adic topology: for every $n$ we have $$({{\mathfrak m}}^0)^nA^r\subset({{\mathfrak m}}^n)^r\subset({{\mathfrak m}}^0)^{n-r}A^r\,.$$ Thus Lemma \[lim\] implies that we have an isomorphism $h^r(\widehat{A}^\ast)\to
h^r(\widehat{B}^\ast)$.
Finally, let us prove that (iv) implies (ii). $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{A}^\ast\to \widehat{B}^\ast\quad\text{qis}\quad & \Longrightarrow
L_{\widehat{A}^\ast}\otimes_{\widehat{A}^\ast}\widehat{B}^\ast
\to L_{\widehat{B}^\ast}\quad\text{qis}\\
&\Longrightarrow
\Omega_{A}\otimes_{A}\widehat{B}^\ast\to
\Omega_{B}\otimes_B\widehat{B}^\ast
\quad\text{qis}\,.\end{aligned}$$ For the necessary facts about cotangent complexes we refer to [@hinich].
\[lim\] Let $M$ be a complex of $k$-vector spaces and $N_n\subset
M$ a descending sequence of subcomplexes. Then for every $r$ there is a natural exact sequence $$\begin{gathered}
\prod_n h^{r-1}(M/N_n)\stackrel{{\partial}}{\longrightarrow}
\prod_n h^{r-1}(M/N_n)\stackrel{\sigma}{\longrightarrow}\\
\stackrel{\sigma}{\longrightarrow}
h^r({\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}M/N_n)\stackrel{\iota}{\longrightarrow}
\prod_n h^{r}(M/N_n)\stackrel{{\partial}}{\longrightarrow}
\prod_n h^{r}(M/N_n)\,.\end{gathered}$$ Here ${\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}M/N_n$ denotes the componentwise projective limit of complexes.
This is straightforward to check from the definitions: The map ${\partial}$ maps the sequence $a=(a_n)$ to ${\partial}a$, with $({\partial}a)_n= a_n-a_{n+1}$. The map $\sigma$ sends the sequence $a$ to $\sigma(a)$ with $\sigma(a)_n=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1} da_i$. The map $\iota$ sends the sequence $a$ to $a$. One can also start with the short exact sequence of complexes whose degree $r$ term is $${0\longrightarrow{\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}(M/N_n)^r\stackrel{\iota}{ \longrightarrow}\prod_n (M/N_n)^r\stackrel{{\partial}}{
\longrightarrow}\prod_n
(M/N_n)^r\longrightarrow0}\,,$$ and then pass to the long exact cohomology sequence.
\[defpointetale\] Let $A\to B$ be a morphism of quasi-finite resolving algebras. Let $B\to k$ be an augmentation. If the equivalent conditions of Corollary \[pointetale\] are satisfied, then we call $A\to B$ [**étale** ]{}at the augmentation $B\to k$.
If $k$ is not algebraically closed, there might not exist very many augmentations. Thus the following generalization: Let $K$ be a finite extension field of $k$. A morphism of differential graded algebras $A\to K$ is called a [*$K$-valued* ]{}augmentation of $A$.
Let $A\to B$ be a morphism of quasi-finite resolving algebras and $B\to K$ a $K$-valued augmentation of $B$. Then the following are equivalent:
\(i) $L_{B/A}\otimes_B K$ is acyclic,
\(ii) $h^0(A)\to h^0(B)$ is étale at $h^0(B)\to K$ and $h^r(A)\otimes_{h^0(A)}h^0(B)\to h^r(B)$ is an isomorphism in a Zariski neighborhood of $h^0(B)\to K$, for all $r\geq0$.
\(iii) $A\otimes_kK\to B\otimes_kK$ is étale at the augmentation $B\otimes_k K\to K$.
Étale morphisms
---------------
\[condetale\] Let $A\to B$ be a morphism of quasi-finite resolving algebras. The following are equivalent:
\(i) $L_{B/A}$ is acyclic,
\(ii) $h^0(A)\to h^0(B)$ is étale and $h{^{\ast}}(A)\otimes_{h^0(A)}h^0(B)\to h{^{\ast}}(B)$ is an isomorphism,
\(iii) $A\to B$ is étale at every $K$-valued augmentation $B\to K$, for all finite extension $K/k$.
For more equivalent statements, see Proposition \[mea\].
Proposition \[pointetale\] implies directly that Conditions (ii) and (iii) are equivalent. To deal with Condition (i), we may assume that $k$ is algebraically closed. We notice that $h^r(L_{B/A})$ is a finitely generated $h^0(B)$-module, for every $r$. Thus, $L_{B/A}$ is acyclic, if and only if $L_{B/A}\otimes_{B^0}\widehat{B}^0$ is acyclic for all augmentations $h^0(B)\to k$.
\[defetale\] If the equivalent conditions of Corollary \[condetale\] are satisfied, we call the morphism of quasi-finite resolving algebras $A\to B$ [**étale**]{}.
\[qiscondition\] Let $A\to B$ be a morphism of quasi-finite resolving algebras. Then $A\to B$ is a quasi-isomorphism if and only if $h^0(A)\to h^0(B)$ is an isomorphism and $L_{B/A}$ is acyclic.[[$\,\,\Box$]{}]{}
\[propetale\] Let $A\to B\to C$ be morphisms of quasi-finite resolving algebras, where $A\to B$ is étale. Then $B \to C$ is étale if and only if $A\to B$ is étale.[[$\,\,\Box$]{}]{}
Let $A\to A'$ be an étale morphism of quasi-finite resolving algebras. Let $M$ be a differential graded $A$-module, bounded from above and such that $M^\natural$ is flat over $A^\natural$. Then we have $$h^p(M\otimes_AA')=h^p(M)\otimes_{h^0(A)}h^0(A')\,,$$ for all $p$.
Since usual étale morphisms of finite type $k$-algebras are flat, $h^0(A)\to h^0(A')$ is flat. Since flatness is preserved under base change, this implies that $h{^{\ast}}(A)\to h{^{\ast}}(A')$ is flat. Hence $${\mathop{\rm Tor}\nolimits}^{h{^{\ast}}(A)}_i\big(h{^{\ast}}(M),h{^{\ast}}(A')\big)=0\,,$$ for all $i>0$. By the Eilenberg-Moore spectral sequence (see [@DerQuot]) this implies that $$h{^{\ast}}(M\otimes_AA') =h{^{\ast}}(M)\otimes_{h{^{\ast}}(A)}h{^{\ast}}(A')
=h{^{\ast}}(M)\otimes_{h^0(A)}h^0(A')\,,$$ which is what we wanted to prove.
The following special case of this proposition will be essential for descent theory. Once we have defined [*perfect resolving morphism* ]{}(see Section \[sec.perfect\]), it is clear that this corollary generalizes to the case that $C\to B$ is a perfect resolving morphism.
\[prep.desc\] Let $C\to B\to A \to A'$ be morphisms of quasi-finite resolving algebras over $k$. Assume that $C\to B$ is a finite resolving morphism and $A\to A'$ is étale. Then we have $$h^p\big({\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A')\big)
=h^p\big({\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)\big)\otimes_{h^0(A)}h^0(A')\,,$$ for all $p$.[[$\,\,\Box$]{}]{}
\[def.op.imm\] We call $A\to B$ an [**open immersion**]{}, if
\(i) $A\to B$ is étale,
\(ii) ${\mathop{\rm Spec}\nolimits}h^0(B)\to{\mathop{\rm Spec}\nolimits}h^0(A)$ is an open immersion of affine $k$-schemes.
Completions
-----------
Here we would like to characterize étaleness in terms of completions. This section is not used in the rest of the paper. We include it here, even though it contains a forward reference to the notion of perfect resolving algebra.
Let $A$ be a quasi-finite resolving algebra and $A\to k$ be an augmentation. Let ${{\mathfrak m}}$ be the augmentation ideal. the various quotients $A/{{\mathfrak m}}^{n}$, form an inverse system of differential graded $k$-algebras. We define $$\widehat{A}={\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}A/{{\mathfrak m}}^n,$$ as a projective limit of $k$-algebras and call it the [*completion* ]{}of $A$ at ${{\mathfrak m}}$ or at the augmentation $A\to k$. The completion $\widehat{A}$ inherits the structure of differential $k$-algebra, but it will lose its grading.
The differential algebra $\widehat{A}$ comes with a natural filtration. The components of the filtration are the differential ideals $\widehat{{{\mathfrak m}}}_n=\ker(\widehat{A}\to A/{{\mathfrak m}}^n)$ and the associated graded pieces are the $\widehat{A}$-modules $\widehat{{{\mathfrak m}}}_n/\widehat{{{\mathfrak m}}}_{n+1}$. Note that $$\widehat{{{\mathfrak m}}}_n/\widehat{{{\mathfrak m}}}_{n+1}={{\mathfrak m}}^n/{{\mathfrak m}}^{n+1}\,.$$
Choose a coordinate system $(x_i)$ for $A$, compatible with the augmentation. Let $\langle x\rangle$ be the graded vector space generated by the $x_i$ and let $k[[x]]=\widehat{S}\langle
x\rangle=\prod_{n\geq0}S^n\langle x\rangle$ be the completion of the symmetric algebra at the augmentation ideal $(x)\subset k[x]$. We may view the elements of $k[[x]]=\widehat{A}^\natural$ as formal power series in the variables $x_i$.
Note that $$\widehat{A}^r=\{\hat{a}\in\widehat{A}{\mathrel{\mid}}\text{for all $n$, the
projection of $\hat{a}$ into $A/{{\mathfrak m}}^n$ has degree $r$}\}\,.$$ Thus we have an inclusion of differential algebras $$\widehat{A}^\ast\subset \widehat{A}\,,$$ which is not an isomorphism unless $A=k$.
From the various projections $\widehat{A}\to\widehat{A}^r$, we get a canonical inclusion $$\label{incl}
\xymatrix@C=15pt{
{{\phantom{\displaystyle\prod_{r\leq0}}}\widehat{A}}\,\,
\ar@<1ex>@{^{(}->}[r]&
\,{\displaystyle\prod_{r\leq0}\widehat{A}^r}\,.}$$ This is to be understood as a morphism of differential $k$-algebras. Multiplication on the right hand side is given by considering elements as formal infinite sums $\hat{a}=\sum_{r\leq0}\hat{a}^r$ and multiplying using the distributive law. The differential on the right had side is given by $d\hat{a}=\sum d(\hat{a}^r)$. Note that $d(\hat{a}^r)=(d\hat{a})^{r+1}$, for all $\hat{a}\in\widehat{A}$.
The image of (\[incl\]) consists of all formal series $\hat{a}=\sum_{r\leq0}\hat{a}^r$ which converge in the ${{\mathfrak m}}$-adic topology, i.e., such that $$\forall n\quad\exists R\quad\forall r>R\colon\quad
\hat{a}^r\in\widehat{{{\mathfrak m}}}_n\,.$$ This condition is automatically satisfied if $A$ a finite resolving algebra. So in this case, (\[incl\]) is an isomorphism of differential algebras.
If we take cohomology of (\[incl\]), we obtain an algebra morphism $$\label{incl.f}
h(\widehat{A})\longrightarrow
\prod_{r\leq0}h^r(\widehat{A}^\ast)\,,$$ which is an isomorphism in the finite case.
\[et.com.crit\] Let $A\to B$ be a morphism of quasi-finite resolving algebras and $B\to k$ an augmentation. If $A\to B$ is étale at $B\to k$, then we have a quasi-isomorphism of completions $\widehat{A}\to
\widehat{B}$. The converse is true if $A$ and $B$ are perfect.
Assume that $A\to B$ is étale at $B\to k$. Then for all $n$ we have that $A/{{\mathfrak m}}^n\to B/{{\mathfrak m}}^n$ is a quasi-isomorphism. We now employ the non-graded version of Lemma \[lim\]: Let $M$ be a differential $k$-vector space and $N_n\subset M$ a descending sequence of subspaces respecting the differential. Then we have an exact triangle of $k$-vector spaces $$\xymatrix@C=0pt{
{\displaystyle\prod_n h(M/N_n)}\ar@<1ex>[rr]^{{\partial}} &&
{\displaystyle\prod_n
h(M/N_n)}\dlto^{\sigma}\\
& {h({\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}M/N_n)}\ulto^{\iota} &}$$ where the maps are defined by the same formulas as those of Lemma \[lim\]. We may obtain this exact triangle from the short exact sequence of differential vector spaces $${0\longrightarrow{\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}M/N_n\stackrel{}{ \longrightarrow}\prod M/N_n\stackrel{{\partial}}{
\longrightarrow}\prod M/N_n\longrightarrow0}\,.$$
Applying this to our situation, we obtain the desired result that $h(\widehat{A})\to h(\widehat{B})$ is an isomorphism.
Conversely, assume that we have a quasi-isomorphism $\widehat{A}\to
\widehat{B}$. To prove that $A\to B$ is étale at $B\to k$, we may localize $A$ and $B$ and thus assume that they are finite. Then we use (\[incl.f\]) to conclude that we have an isomorphism $$\prod_{r\leq0} h^r(\widehat{A}^\ast)\longrightarrow\prod_{r\leq0}
h^r(\widehat{B}^\ast)\,,$$ which implies that $h^r(\widehat{A}^\ast)\to h^r(\widehat{B}^\ast)$ is bijective for all $r$, hence that $\widehat{A}^\ast\to
\widehat{B}^\ast$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
Note that unlike the non-differential graded case, we do not have that $\widehat{A}=\widehat{S}({{\mathfrak m}}/{{\mathfrak m}}^2)$. By assumption on $A$, we can always find a subcomplex $V\subset {{\mathfrak m}}$, such that $V\to {{\mathfrak m}}/{{\mathfrak m}}^2$ is an isomorphism and $A^\natural=S(V)^\natural$. Hence we also have that the filtered algebras $\widehat{A}^\natural$ and $\widehat{S}({{\mathfrak m}}/{{\mathfrak m}}^2)^\natural$ are isomorphic. But the differentials are different, as soon as the differential $d$ on $A$ has any higher order ($\geq2$) terms.
We may say that the tangent cone and the tangent space are isomorphic, but the completion of the differential graded algebra itself is not isomorphic to the tangent space. Thus quasi-free differential graded algebras have some, but not other properties of smooth non-differential graded algebras.
Local structure of étale morphisms {#sec.loc.str}
----------------------------------
Given a differential graded algebra $A$, assume that the differential graded algebra $B$ is quasi-free over $A$ on the basis $x_1,\ldots,x_r$ in degree $0$ and $\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_s$ in degree $-1$. Denote $d\xi_i$ by $f_i\in A^0[x_1,\ldots,x_r]$. In this case we write $$B=A[x_1,\ldots,x_r]\{\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_s\}/d\xi_i=f_i.$$
\[standard\] Let $A$ be a quasi-finite resolving algebra. Let $f_1,\ldots,f_r\in A^0[x_1,\ldots,x_r]$ be polynomials such that $\det({{\partial}f_i\over {\partial}x_j})$ is a unit in $h^0(A)[x_1,\ldots,x_r]/(f_1,\dots,f_r)$. Then $$A\longrightarrow
A[x_1,\ldots,x_r]\{\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_r\}/d\xi_i=f_i$$ is étale.
Let $B=A[x]\{\xi\}/dx=f$. By usual facts about étale morphisms between $k$-algebras, we know that $h^0(A)\to h^0(B)$ is étale. The assumption on the Jacobian immediately implies that $L_{B/A}\otimes_B K$ is acyclic, for all $K$-valued augmentations $B\to K$.
\[st.et\] We call an étale morphism $$A\longrightarrow
A[x_1,\ldots,x_r]\{\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_r\}/d\xi_i=f_i$$ as in Lemma \[standard\] a [**standard étale** ]{}morphism.
A composition of standard étale morphisms is standard étale.
Let $g\in A^0$ and consider $f(x)=xg-1\in A^0[x]$. Then ${{\partial}f\over
{\partial}x}=g$ is a unit in $A^0[x]/xg-1=A^0_g$. Thus $A\to
A[x]\{\xi\}/d\xi=xg-1$ is étale. In fact, it is an open immersion, as it induces $h^0(A)\to h^0(A)_g$ on the $h^0$-level. We will abbreviate $A[x]\{\xi\}/d\xi=xg-1$ by $A_{\{g\}}$.
An open immersion $A\to A_{\{g\}}$ is called an [**elementary open immersion**]{}.
\[loc.str\] Let $A\to B$ be a morphism of quasi-finite resolving algebras which is étale in a Zariski neighborhood of the augmentation $h^0(B)\to k$. Then there exists a commutative diagram of differential graded algebras $$\xymatrix{
A\rto\dto_{\text{\rm standard \'etale}} & B\dto^{\text{\rm elem.\
open}}\\
B''\rto^{\text{\rm qis}} & B'}$$ and an augmentation $B'\to k$ compatible with the given augmentation $B\to k$.
We use the local structure theory of usual étale morphisms: there exists $g\in h^0(B)$, further polynomials $f_1,\ldots,f_p\in
h^0(A)[x_1,\ldots,x_p]$ and an $h^0(A)$-isomorphism $h^0(A)[x]/(f)\to h^0(B)_g$, such that $\det(\frac{{\partial}f}{{\partial}x})$ is a unit in $h^0(A)[x]/(f)$. Moreover, we may assume that $g$ does not map to zero under the augmentation $h^0(B)\to k$ and that $A\to B$ is étale over $h^0(B)_g$
We choose a lifting $g\in B^0$ and consider the localization $B\to B_{\{g\}}=B[y]\{\eta\}/(d\eta=1-yg)$. We define an augmentation $B_{\{g\}}\to k$ by sending $y$ to the inverse of the image of $g$ in $k$ and $\eta$ to $0$ and making sure that it restricts to the given augmentation on $B$. Note that $A\to B_{\{h\}}$ is étale.
Now lift $f_1,\ldots,f_p$ to elements of $A^0[x_1,\ldots,x_p]$, denoted by the same letters. Also lift the images of $x_1,\ldots,x_p$ in $h^0(B_{\{g\}})$ to elements $b_1,\ldots,b_p\in
B_{\{g\}}^0$. Because $f_i(b)$ represents $0$ in $h^0(B_{\{g\}})$ we may also choose $\beta_i\in B_{\{g\}}^{-1}$ such that $d\beta_i=f_i(b)$, for all $i=1,\ldots,p$.
Having made these choices, we can define a morphism of differential graded algebras $$\begin{aligned}
A[x]\{\xi\}/(d\xi=f) & \longrightarrow B_{\{g\}}\\*
x_i&\longmapsto b_i\\*
\xi_i&\longmapsto \beta_i\,.\end{aligned}$$ Note that this is a quasi-isomorphism by Corollary \[qiscondition\]. Thus the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
A\dto\rto & B\dto\\
A[x]\{\xi\}/(d\xi=f)\rto^-{\text{qis}}& B_{\{g\}}}$$ finishes the proof.
\[mailem\] Let $A\to B$ be an étale morphism of quasi-finite resolving algebras. Then there exists an integer $n$, and for every $i=1,\ldots,n$ a commutative diagram of differential graded algebras $$\begin{diagram}
A\dto_{\text{\rm standard \'etale}} \rto & B\dto^{\text{\rm elem.\
open}}\\
B_i'\rto_{\text{\rm qis}}
& B_i
\end{diagram}$$ such that
\(i) all $B\to B_i$ are elementary open immersions and $\coprod_i{\mathop{\rm Spec}\nolimits}h^0(B_i)\to{\mathop{\rm Spec}\nolimits}h^0(B)$ is surjective,
\(ii) all $A\to B'_i$ are standard étale,
\(iii) all $B'_i\to B_i$ are quasi-isomorphisms.
Immediate from Proposition \[loc.str\].
Perfect resolving algebras
==========================
\[sec.perfect\]
Perfect resolving algebras are between finite and quasi-finite resolving algebras. Their importance lies in the fact that they provide us with a good notion of affine differential graded schemes.
\[def.per\] A [**perfect** ]{}resolving algebra is a quasi-finite resolving algebra $A$, such that $\Omega_A\otimes_A h^0(A)$ is a perfect complex of $h^0(A)$ modules.
If $\Omega_A\otimes_A h^0(A)$ has perfect amplitude contained in $[-N,0]$, then we say that $A$ has [**perfect amplitude** ]{}$N$.
The full sub-2-category of ${{\mathfrak R}}$, consisting of perfect resolving algebras will be denoted by ${{\mathfrak R}}_{{\rm pf}}$.
Recall that a complex $M$ of $h^0(A)$-modules is [*perfect* ]{}if Zariski locally in $h^0(A)$, there exists a finite complex of finite rank free modules $E$, and a quasi-isomorphism $E\to M$. If all locally defined $E$ can be chosen such that $E^i=0$ for $i\not\in[a,b]$, then $M$ is of [*perfect amplitude* ]{}contained in $[a,b]$. For details on perfect complexes see Exposés I and II of [@sga6].
For example, any finite resolving algebra $A$ is perfect, because if $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ is a basis for $A$, then ${{{\mathfrak d}}}x_1\otimes
1,\ldots,{{{\mathfrak d}}}x_n\otimes 1$ is a basis for $\Omega_A\otimes_A
h^0(A)$. If $A$ has amplitude $N$ as a finite resolving algebra, it has perfect amplitude $N$. The converse is true ‘locally’, if $N\geq2$; see Theorem \[loc.fin\].
A [**perfect** ]{}resolving morphism of differential graded algebras $C\to B$ is a quasi-finite resolving morphism such that $\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(B)$ is a perfect complex of $h^0(B)$-modules.
If $\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_B h^0(B)$ has perfect amplitude contained in $[-N,0]$, then $C\to B$ has [**perfect amplitude** ]{}$N$.
\[depeqf\] A morphism $C\to B$ of quasi-finite resolving algebras is called [**perfect**]{}, if $L_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(B)$ is a perfect complex of $h^0(B)$-modules.
If $L_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(B)$ has perfect amplitude contained in $[-N,0]$, we call $C\to B$ of [**perfect amplitude** ]{}$N$.
For example, any étale morphism of quasi-finite resolving algebras if perfect, of perfect amplitude $0$. Any morphism between finite resolving algebras is perfect. If $A$ has amplitude $N$ and $B$ has amplitude $M$, then $A\to B$ has perfect amplitude $\max(N+1,M)$. More precisely, we have:
\[formnp\] Let $C\to B\to A$ be morphisms of differential graded algebras. Assume either that both $C\to B$ and $B\to A$ are quasi-finite resolving morphisms, or that all three of $C$, $B$, $A$ are quasi-finite resolving algebras. $$\xymatrix{C\rto^f\drto_h& B\dto^g\\& A}$$ If any two of $f$, $g$, $h$ are perfect, then so is the third. If we denote the amplitudes of $f$, $g$ and $h$, by $M$, $N$ and $P$, respectively, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
P&=\max(M,N)\\
N&=\max(M+1,P)\\
M&=\max(N-1,P)\end{aligned}$$ For a reference, see Complément 4.11 in Exposé I of [@sga6].
The first basic result about perfect morphisms is that we have a convergent spectral sequence for the tangent complex.
\[ss.th\] Let $C\to B$ be a perfect resolving morphism of differential graded algebras and $B\to A$ a morphism to a differential graded algebra $A$. Assume that $A$ is concentrated in non-positive degrees (it is sufficient that the cohomology of $A$ be concentrated in non-positive degrees). Then, for all $p$ sufficiently large, we have that $h^p\big(\Theta_{B/C}\otimes h^0(A)\big)=0$. Thus there is a convergent third third quadrant spectral sequence $$E_2^{p,q}=h^q(A)\otimes_{h^0(A)} h^p\big(\Theta_{B/C}\otimes_B
h^0(A)\big)\Longrightarrow h^{p+q}(\Theta_{B/C}\otimes_BA)\,.$$ Rewriting in terms of derivations yields $$\label{ss.th.t}
E_2^{p,q}=h^q(A)\otimes_{h^0(A)}
h^p{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C\big(B,h^0(A)\big)\Longrightarrow
h^{p+q}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)\,.$$ More precisely, if $C\to B$ has perfect amplitude $N$, then $\Theta_{B/C}\otimes_B h^0(A)$ has perfect amplitude contained in $[0,N]$, and hence $h^p\big(\Theta_{B/C}\otimes_B h^0(A)\big)=0$, for all $p>N$.
Let $C\to B$ be a perfect morphism of quasi-finite resolving algebras. Then we have a convergent third quadrant spectral sequence $$E_2^{p,q}=h^q(A)\otimes_{h^0(A)} h^p\big(T_{B/C}\otimes_B
h^0(A)\big)\Longrightarrow h^{p+q}(T_{B/C}\otimes_BA)\,.$$ If $C\to B$ has perfect amplitude $N$, then $T_{B/C}\otimes_B
h^0(A)$ has perfect amplitude contained in $[0,N]$ and $h^p\big(T_{B/C}\otimes_B
h^0(A)\big)=0$, for all $p>N$.
We note that $$\Theta_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(A)=
{\mathop{\underline{\rm Hom}}\nolimits}_{h^0(A)}\big(\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(A),h^0(A)\big)\,.$$ Thus the perfection of $\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(A)$ implies that of $\Theta_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(A)$. Then the proposition follows.
If $C\to B$ is a perfect resolving morphism and $A$ is concentrated in non-positive degrees, then $h^\ell{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)$ is a finite rank $h^0(A)$-module.
### Application to the behaviour of ${\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}$ with respect to homotopies
Let $C\to B$ be a perfect resolving morphism of differential graded algebras. Let $f:B\to A$ and $g:B\to A$ be morphisms, where the cohomology of $A$ is concentrated in non-positive degrees. Let $\theta:f\Rightarrow g$ be a homotopy, i.e., a morphism $\theta:B\to
A\otimes\Omega_1$, such that ${\partial}_0\theta=f$ and ${\partial}_1\theta=g$. $$\xymatrix{
B\rtwocell^f_g{_\theta} & A}$$ In this situation, there are two $B$-module structures on $A$, one given by $f$, the other by $g$. Let us denote them by ${_fA}$ and ${_gA}$. The algebra $A\otimes\Omega_1$ has three $B$-module structures. Let us denote the one induced by $\theta$ by ${_\theta
A\otimes\Omega_1}$.
We get induced homomorphisms of $B$-modules $$\xymatrix@R=.5pc{
&& {{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,{_fA})}\\
{{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,{_\theta A\otimes\Omega_1})}\urrto^{{{\partial}_0}{_{\ast}}}
\drrto_{{{\partial}_1}{_{\ast}}} \\
&& {{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,{_gA})}}$$ By Proposition \[ss.th\], both of these are quasi-isomorphisms. Thus we can make the following definition:
\[can-iso\] The isomorphism of $h^0(B)$-modules $$h_\ell {\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,{_fA})\stackrel{\theta{_{\ast}}}{\longrightarrow}
h_\ell{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,{_gA})$$ obtained as the composition of $({{\partial}_0}{_{\ast}})^{-1}$ with ${{\partial}_1}{_{\ast}}$, is called the [**canonical** ]{}isomorphism induced by $\theta$, and is denoted by $\theta{_{\ast}}$.
Note that the canonical isomorphism induced by $\theta$ depends only on the homotopy class of $\theta$ and is functorial: $\theta{_{\ast}}\eta{_{\ast}}=(\theta\eta){_{\ast}}$.
In fact, $\theta{_{\ast}}$ is entirely independent of $\theta$.
Local finiteness
----------------
We will prove two fundamental results on perfect resolving algebras. The first one says that every perfect resolving algebra is locally finite:
\[loc.fin\] Let $C\to B$ be a perfect resolving morphism of quasi-finite resolving algebras. For every $K$-valued augmentation $B\to K$, there exists a $g\in B^0$, such that $g(K)\not=0$ and a resolution $C\to A\to
B_{\{g\}}$, of $C\to B_{\{g\}}$, where $C\to A$ is a finite resolving morphism. $$\xymatrix{
C\rto\dto_{\text{\rm finite}} & B\dto\\
A\rto^-{\text{\rm qis}} & B_{\{g\}}}$$ If $C\to B$ has perfect amplitude $N$, then we can choose $A$ such that $C\to A$ has amplitude $\max(2,N)$.
Since $C\to B$ is a resolving morphism, we have a quasi-isomorphism $L_{B/C}\to\Omega_{B/C}$, and so we know that $\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(B)$ is perfect. Suppose that $n\geq2$ is an integer such that $\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(B)$ has perfect amplitude contained in $[-n,0]$. Then $\tau_{\geq-n}\big(\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(B)\big)$ has perfect amplitude contained in $[-n,0]$, too, because $\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(B)\to
\tau_{\geq-n}\big(\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(B)\big)$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Now, since $\tau_{\geq-n}\big(\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(B)\big)^i$ is a free $h^0(B)$-module, for all $i>-n$ (a basis if provided by $({{{\mathfrak d}}}x_j\otimes 1)$, where $(x_j)$ is the degree $i$ part of a basis for $B$ over $C$), it follows that $$\begin{gathered}
\tau_{\geq-n}\big(\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(B)\big)^{-n}=\\
={\mathop{\rm cok}}\bigg(
\big(\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(B)\big)^{-n-1} \longrightarrow
\big(\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(B)\big)^{-n}\bigg)\end{gathered}$$ is a locally free $h^0(B)$-module (for a reference, see Lemme 4.16, Exposé I in [@sga6]). Let $h^0(B)_g$ be a Zariski neighborhood of the $K$-valued point $h^0(B)\to K$ of ${\mathop{\rm Spec}\nolimits}h^0(B)$ over which the above cokernel is free. Lifting $g$ to $B^0$, we get the elementary open immersion $B\to B_{\{g\}}$ through which $B\to K$ factors. Then $\Omega_{B_{\{g\}}/C}\otimes_{B_{\{g\}}}h^0(B_{\{g\}})$ has perfect amplitude contained in $[-n,0]$, because $n\geq1$, and $$\tau_{\geq-n}\big(\Omega_{B_{\{g\}}/C}
\otimes_{B_{\{g\}}}h^0(B_{\{g\}})\big)^{-n}=
\tau_{\geq-n}\big(\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(B)\big)^{-n}
\otimes_{h^0(B)}h^0(B)_g$$ is a free $h^0(B_{\{g\}})=h^0(B)_g$-module. Thus, to simplify notation, we may replace $B$ by $B_{\{g\}}$, and assume that $\tau_{\geq-n}\big(\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(B)\big)^{-n}$ is free.
Choose elements $b_1,\ldots,b_r\in B^{-n}$, such that the images of ${{{\mathfrak d}}}b_j\otimes 1\in\big(\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_B h^0(B)\big)^{-n}$ in $\tau_{\geq-n}\big(\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(B)\big)^{-n}$ give a basis. Then define $A=B_{(n-1)}[\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_r]$, where $\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_r$ are formal variables of degree $-n$ and $B_{(n-1)}\subset B$ is the differential graded $C$-subalgebra generated over $C$ by the part of degree $>-n$ of a basis for $B$ over $C$. Set $d\xi_j=db_j$, which is allowed, because $db_j\in Z^{1-n} B_{(n-1)}$. Extend the inclusion $B_{(n-1)}\subset B$ to a morphism of differential graded algebras $A\to B$ by $\xi_j\mapsto b_j$. Note that $C\to B_{(n-1)}$, and hence $C\to A$ are finite resolving morphisms. The amplitude of $A$ is $n$.
Now, all that is left, is to check that $A\to B$ is a quasi-isomorphism. We use Corollary \[qiscondition\]: $h^0(A)\to
h^0(B)$ is an isomorphism since $n\geq2$. Moreover, we have a commutative diagram of complexes of $h^0(B)$-modules $$\xymatrix{
\Omega_{A/C}\otimes_Ah^0(B)\rto\drto_{\text{\rm isom.}} &
\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(B) \dto^{\text{\rm qis}}\\
& \tau_{\geq-n}\big(\Omega_{B/C}\otimes_Bh^0(B)\big)\,, }$$ where the diagonal map is an isomorphism by construction. This proves that $L_{B/A}\otimes_Bh^0(B)$, and hence $L_{B/A}$, is acyclic.
Let $C\to B$ be a perfect morphism of quasi-finite resolving algebras. Then for every $K$-valued augmentation $B\to K$ there exists an open immersion $B\to B'$, such that $B\to K$ factors through $B\to
B'$, and a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
C\rto\dto_{\text{\rm finite}} & B\dto^{\text{\rm open imm.}}\\
A\rto^-{\text{\rm qis}} & B'}$$ where $C\to A$ is a finite resolving morphism and $A\to B'$ a quasi-isomorphism. If $C\to B$ has perfect amplitude $N$, then $C\to A$ can be chosen to have amplitude $\max(2,N)$.
Start by choosing (using Proposition \[res.ex\]) a quasi-finite resolution $C\to B''\to B$ of $C\to
B$, and choose a homotopy inverse for $B''\to B$, to obtain the homotopy commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
C\drlowertwocell<0>{<-2>}\rto & B\dto^{\text{\rm qis}}\\
& B''}$$ Apply Theorem \[loc.fin\] to $C\to B''$, to obtain the homotopy commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
C\rto\dto_{\text{\rm finite}}\drtwocell\omit& B\dto^{\text{\rm open
imm.}} \\
A\rto_{\text{\rm qis}} & B'}$$ Finally, use the fact that $C\to A$ is resolving, to eliminate the homotopy.
By weakening the conclusion somewhat, we can improve on the estimate for the amplitude of the resolution $A$:
Let $C\to B$ be a perfect morphism of quasi-finite resolving algebras. Then for every $K$-valued augmentation $B\to K$ there exists an open immersion $B\to B'$, such that $B\to K$ factors through $B\to
B'$, and a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
C\rto\dto_{\text{\rm finite}} & B\dto^{\text{\rm open imm.}}\\
A\rto^-{\text{\rm \'etale}} & B'}$$ where $C\to A$ is a finite resolving morphism and $A\to B'$ étale. If $C\to B$ has perfect amplitude $N$, then $C\to A$ can be chosen to have amplitude $\max(1,N)$.
By examining the proof of Theorem \[loc.fin\], we see that the only place we used that $n\geq2$ was to conclude that $h^0(A)\to
h^0(B_{\{g\}})$ was an isomorphism, in the proof that $A\to B_{\{g\}}$ was a quasi-isomorphism. If we drop the assumption that $n\geq2$, but assume that $n\geq1$, we can still conclude that $L_{B_{\{g\}}/A}$ is acyclic, which proves that $A\to B_{\{g\}}$ is étale.
To show that the class of perfect resolving algebras is larger than the class of finite resolving algebras, we provide an example of a perfect resolving algebra which has no resolution by a finite resolving algebra:
\[abstract\] let $X$ be a smooth affine scheme, $E$ a vector bundle over $X$ and $s:X\to E$ a section. To this data we associate the Koszul complex $$\label{k.k}
\Lambda_{A}{M}:\quad\ldots\longrightarrow
\Lambda_{A}^2{M}
\longrightarrow {M} \longrightarrow A\,.$$ Here $A$ is the affine coordinate ring of $X$ and $M$ is the projective $A$-module corresponding to $E$, i.e., the module of sections of the dual of $E$. The homomorphism $M\to A$ comes from the section $s$. We consider (\[k.k\]) as a differential graded algebra $B$ by placing $\Lambda^r_AM$ in degree $-r$, so that $B^{-r}=\Lambda^r_AM$. We note that $B$ has a universal derivation ${{{\mathfrak d}}}:B\to \Omega_B$, and we have $$\Omega_B\otimes_Bh^0(B)=
\bigl[\ldots\longrightarrow
\Lambda_{A}^2{M}
\longrightarrow {M} \longrightarrow \Omega_A\bigr]\otimes_A A/I\,,$$ where $I$ is the ideal of $A$ defined by the image of $M\to A$, in other words the ideal defining the zero locus of $s$. The homomorphism $M\to \Omega_A$ is defined as the composition of $M\to A$ and the universal derivation $A\to \Omega_A$. We note that $\Omega_B\otimes_Bh^0(B)$ is perfect. Moreover, it admits a determinant, defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\det\big(\Omega_B\otimes_Bh^0(B)\big)&=\big(\det\Omega_A\otimes \det
M^{-1}\otimes\ldots\big)\otimes_AA/I\nonumber\\
&=\big(\omega_A\otimes\det(\Lambda_AM)\big)\otimes_AA/I\,.\label{om.m}\end{aligned}$$
By Scholum \[skol\], we may find a quasi-finite resolving algebra $B'$, together with a quasi-isomorphism $B'\to B$. Then we get a quasi-isomorphism $\Omega_{B'}\otimes_{B'}A/I\to\Omega_B\otimes_BA/I$, and so $B'$ is a perfect resolving algebra. If $B$ was quasi-isomorphic to a finite resolving algebra, then (\[om.m\]) would have to be a free $A/I$-module of rank one. Of course, there are many examples where (\[om.m\]) is non-trivial.
\[concrete\] For a concrete example of such a perfect resolving algebra, consider the affine cubic curve $y^2=4(x^3-x)$. The projective completion has one additional point (a flex), called $P_0$. We consider the projective completion as an elliptic curve $X$ with base point $P_0$. Let $X'=X-\{P_0\}$.
Let $P=(0,0)$ be the origin, which is a 2-division point in $X$ and consider the line bundle $L={{\cal O}}(-P)$ on $X'$. This is a non-trivial line bundle on the affine curve $X'$. Because $P$ is a 2-division point, there exists a regular function $s$ on $X'$, with a double zero at $P$, but no other zeroes in $X'$, in other words, ${\mathop{\rm div}}(s)=2P-2P_0$. To be specific, we may take $s=x$.
Choose points $Q$, $R$, $Q'$ and $R'$ on $X'$ such that $Q+R=Q'+R'=P$ in the group $X$, but $\{Q,R\}\cap\{Q',R'\}=\varnothing$. Then there exist regular functions $a$ and $b$ on $X'$, such that ${\mathop{\rm div}}(a)=P+Q+R-3P_0$ and ${\mathop{\rm div}}(b)=P+Q'+R'-3P_0$. To be specific, we may choose $a=x+\frac{1}{2}y$ and $b=x-\frac{1}{2}y$, which determines the points $Q$, $R$, $Q'$ and $R'$ as intersections of $y^2=4(x^3-x)$ with two lines of slope $\pm 2$ through the origin.
Consider the matrix $$M=\frac{1}{s}\begin{pmatrix}-ab & -b^2\\
a^2 & ab\end{pmatrix}\quad\in\quad
M\big(2\times2,\Gamma(X',{{\cal O}})\big)\,.$$ One checks that $$\label{resoml}
\ldots\stackrel{M}{\longrightarrow}{{\cal O}}^2
\stackrel{M}{\longrightarrow}{{\cal O}}^2
\stackrel{(a\,\,b)}{\longrightarrow}L\to 0$$ is an infinite resolution of $L$ by free modules of rank 2.
Now let us construct a perfect resolving algebra $B$. Let $f(x,y)=y^2-4(x^3-x)$. We start with the finite resolving algebra $A=k[x,y]\{\xi\}/(d\xi=f)$, which resolves the affine coordinate ring $h^0(A)=k[x,y]/f$ of $X'$.
Take sequences $\theta_1,\theta_2,\ldots$ and $\eta_1,\eta_2,\ldots$ of formal variables such that $\deg\theta_i=\deg\eta_i=-i$, for all $i\in{{\mathbb Z}}_{\geq1}$. We let $B^\natural=A[\theta,\eta]$ be the graded algebra, free over $A$ on all $\theta_i$ and $\eta_i$. We turn $B^\natural$ into a differential graded algebra $B$ by defining a differential $d$ by $d\theta_1=d\eta_1=0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
d\theta_{i+1}&=\alpha\theta_i+\gamma\eta_i-\xi\theta_{i-1}\\
d\eta_{i+1}&=\beta\theta_i+\delta\eta_i-\xi\eta_{i-1}\,,\end{aligned}$$ for all $i\geq1$, where we use the convention $\theta_0=\eta_0=0$. Here, $\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta\in k[x,y]$ are polynomials such that the image of $\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}
\alpha&\beta\\ \gamma&\delta\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ in $h^0(A)$ is equal to $M$ and $\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}
\alpha&\beta\\
\gamma&\delta\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)^2=f(x,y)\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}
1&0\\ 0&1\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$. In fact, we may take $$\begin{pmatrix} \alpha&\beta\\ \gamma&\delta \end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix} x^2-x-1&y-(x^2+x-1)\\ y+(x^2+x-1)&-(x^2-x-1)
\end{pmatrix}$$ Then $B$ is a perfect resolving algebra: the complex $\Omega_B\otimes_Bh^0(B)=\Omega_B\otimes _Bh^0(A)$ is the direct sum of the resolution (\[resoml\]) of $L$ and the two term resolution $$h^0(A){{\mathfrak d}}\xi\longrightarrow h^0(A){{\mathfrak d}}x\oplus h^0(A){{\mathfrak d}}y$$ of $\Omega_{h^0(A)}$. Thus $\Omega_B\otimes_Bh^0(B)$ is perfect, of amplitude contained in $[-1,0]$ and $B$ is perfect of amplitude 1. On the other hand, $B$ cannot be quasi-isomorphic to a finite resolving algebra, because $$\det\big(\Omega_B\otimes_B h^0(A)\big)=L^{-1}\,$$ is not trivial.
This is the special case of Example \[abstract\], where $E$ is a line bundle and $s$ is the zero section.
Compatibility with limits over truncations {#cwlot}
------------------------------------------
The second fundamental result on perfect resolving algebras expresses a certain compatibility between the derivations of a perfect resolving algebra $B$ and its truncations $B_{(n)}$. Here $B_{(n)}$, for $n\geq-1$, denotes the differential graded subalgebra generated by $B^{\geq-n}$. Every truncation $B_{(n)}$ is a finite resolving algebra of amplitude $n$.
More generally, if $C\to B$ is a quasi-finite resolving morphism, then we define $B_{(n)}$ to be the differential graded subalgebra of $B$ generated by all of $C$ and $B^{\geq-n}$. Then every $C\to B_{(n)}$ if a finite resolving morphism of amplitude $n$. We hope that it is always clear from the context, which definition of $B_{(n)}$ applies.
\[plim\] Let $C\to B$ be a perfect resolving morphism of differential graded algebras. Then for every $r$ we have $${{\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}_n}^1 h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B_{(n)},A)=0$$ and $${\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}_n
h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B_{(n)},A)=h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)$$ for all quasi-finite resolving algebras $A$ endowed with a morphism $B\to A$.
Assume that $C\to B$ has perfect amplitude $N$. Consider the quasi-finite resolving morphism $B_{(n)}\to B$, for $n\geq N$. By Remark \[formnp\], we know that $B_{(n)}\to B$ has perfect amplitude $n+1$. By Proposition \[ss.th\], the spectral sequence (\[ss.th.t\]), computing $h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B_{(n)}}(B,A)$, has exactly one non-zero column, the column $p=n+1$.
Now consider the canonical homomorphism $\Omega_{B/B_{(n)}}\to\Omega_{B/B_{(n+1)}}$ of differential graded $B$-modules. It induces a homomorphism of spectral sequences (\[ss.th.t\]). Since both spectral sequences have only one non-zero column, but this column is off by 1, the homomorphism of spectral sequences vanishes. We conclude that the canonical homomorphism $$h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B_{(n+1)}}(B,A)\longrightarrow h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B_{(n)}}(B,A)$$ is zero.
Next we note that we have a morphisms of short exact sequences of differential graded $A$-modules $$\xymatrix{
0\rto & {{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B_{(n+1)}}(B,A)} \rto\dto & {{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)} \rto\dto &
{{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B_{(n+1)},A)}\rto\dto & 0\\
0\rto & {{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B_{(n)}}(B,A)} \rto & {{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)} \rto &
{{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B_{(n)},A)}\rto & 0}$$ We consider the following extract from the induced morphism of long exact cohomology sequences: $$\xymatrix{
{}\rto & h^r\big({\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B_{(n+1)}}(B,A)\big)\dto\rto &
h^r\big({\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)\big)\dto\rto & \\
{}\rto & h^r\big({\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B_{(n)}}(B,A)\big)\rto &
h^r\big({\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)\big)\rto & }$$ Since the left vertical arrow is zero, and the right vertical arrow is bijective, we conclude that the upper horizontal map is zero. Thus the whole long exact sequence on the $n+1$ level breaks up into short exact sequences $${0\longrightarrowh^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)\stackrel{}{ \longrightarrow}h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B_{(n+1)},A)\stackrel{
}{
\longrightarrow}h^{r+1}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B_{(n+1)}}(B,A)\longrightarrow0}\,.$$ Letting $n+1$ vary, we get an inverse system of short exact sequences. Passing to the limit, we get the following six term exact sequence $$\begin{gathered}
0\longrightarrow{\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)\longrightarrow {\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B_{(n)},A) \longrightarrow \\
\longrightarrow
{\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}h^{r+1}
{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B_{(n)}}(B,A)\longrightarrow
{{\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}}^1 h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)\longrightarrow\\
\longrightarrow {{\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}}^1
h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B_{(n)},A) \longrightarrow {{\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}}^1 h^{r+1}
{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B_{(n)}}(B,A)\longrightarrow0\end{gathered}$$ Since the connecting morphisms of the third projective system are zero for sufficiently large $n$, the associated ${\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}$ and ${{\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}}^1$ vanish. All connecting morphisms in the first projective system are bijective, so the associated ${{\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}}^1$ vanishes. In other words, the third, fourth and sixth term in our six term sequence vanish. This implies the theorem.
\[twostep\] The inverse system of groups $h^r{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B_{(n)},A)$ has the property that if an element lifts one step, then it lifts two steps.
If an inverse system of groups has this property, then its ${{\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}}^1$ vanishes.
Linearization of homotopy groups
================================
\[sec.linear\]
Occasionally, it seems unnatural to work with negative indices for the cohomology spaces of certain differential graded modules. We thus adopt the usual notation $h_i=h^{-i}$ for lowering indices.
Preliminaries
-------------
We start with three fundamental lemmas.
\[der.diff\] Let $C\to B\to A$ be morphisms of differential graded algebras. Let $D\in{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)$ and $\epsilon\in A$ be homogeneous elements of complementary degrees, i.e., such that $\deg D+\deg\epsilon=0$. Assume $\epsilon^2=0$. Then $h=\phi+\epsilon D$ is a morphism of graded algebras, where $\phi:B\to
A$ is the structure morphism. If $D$ and $\epsilon$ are cocycles, then $h$ is a morphism of differential graded algebras.[[$\,\,\Box$]{}]{}
\[basic.sol\] Let $A$ be a differential graded algebra and $\eta\in
A\otimes\Omega_\ell$ a homogeneous element, where $\ell\geq1$. Let $\Lambda\subset\Delta^\ell$ be a horn. If $\eta{{\,|\,}}_\Lambda=0$ and $d\eta=0$, then there exists $\theta\in A\otimes \Omega_\ell$ such that $\theta{{\,|\,}}_\Lambda=0$ and $\eta=d\theta$.
Without loss of generality, let $\Lambda\hookrightarrow\Delta^\ell$ be the horn defined by $\Lambda=\{t_1=0\}\cup\ldots\cup\{t_\ell=0\}$.
Note that $A\otimes\Omega_\ell\to A;\omega\mapsto\omega(0)$ is a quasi-isomorphism, by the algebraic de Rham theorem. Thus we can certainly find ${\theta}_0\in A\otimes\Omega_\ell$ such that $d{\theta}_0=\eta$. We define $\theta_i$ inductively by $\theta_i=\theta_{i-1}-\theta_{i-1}{{\,|\,}}_{t_i=0}$. Then $\theta=\theta_\ell$ fits our requirements.
\[extrapolate\] Let $A$ be a differential graded algebra and let $\psi\in
A\otimes\Omega_{\ell-1}$ be a homogeneous element, where $\ell\geq1$. Assume that $\psi{{\,|\,}}_{{\partial}\Delta^{\ell-1}}=0$. Then there exists $\Psi\in
A\otimes\Omega_{\ell}$ such that ${\partial}_{\ell}\Psi=\psi$ and $\Psi{{\,|\,}}\Lambda=0$, where $\Lambda\subset\Delta^\ell$ is the horn opposite to the face ${\partial}^{\ell}(\Delta^{\ell-1})\subset\Delta^{\ell}$.
Note that the face map ${\partial}^\ell:\Delta^{\ell-1}\to\Delta^\ell$ is given in inhomogeneous coordinates by $(t_1,\ldots,t_{\ell-1})\mapsto
(t_1,\ldots, t_{\ell-1},0)$. Define $$\Psi(t_1,\ldots,t_{\ell})=
(1-t_{\ell})^{N+1}
\psi(\textstyle \frac{t_1}{1-t_{\ell}},\ldots,
\frac{t_{\ell-1}}{1-t_\ell})\,,$$ where $N$ is large enough such that $(1-t_{\ell})^{N}
\psi(\textstyle \frac{t_1}{1-t_{\ell}},\ldots,
\frac{t_{\ell-1}}{1-t_\ell})$ has no denominators.
The latter two lemmas can be interpreted in terms of the differential graded algebra $B_r=k[x,\xi]/(d\xi=x)$, which is quasi-free on the basis $(x,\xi)$, where $\deg x=r$ and $\deg\xi=r-1$, and where the differential is defined by $d\xi=x$, $dx=0$. Lemma \[basic.sol\] expresses the fact that ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B_r,A)\to{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(k[x],A)$ is a fibration, which also follows from Corollary \[qfreefib\]. Lemma \[extrapolate\] says that $\pi_{\ell-1}{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B_r,A)=0$. This also follows from the fact that ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B_r,A)\to {\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(k,A)=\ast$ is a trivial fibration, since $k\to
B_r$ is a quasi-isomorphism, which follows most easily from Corollary \[qiscondition\].
Let $A$ be a differential graded algebra.
Consider the simplicial differential graded algebra $A\otimes\Omega{_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}$. Let $N(A\otimes\Omega{_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}})$ be the associated normalized chain complex. Thus $N(A\otimes\Omega_\ell)\subset
A\otimes\Omega_\ell$ is the subcomplex defined by $$\omega\in N(A\otimes\Omega_\ell)\quad\Longleftrightarrow
\quad\text{for all $i=0,\ldots,\ell-1$ we have ${\partial}_i\omega=0$,}$$ where ${\partial}_i\omega=({\partial}^i){^{\ast}}\omega$ is restriction via the $i$-th inclusion map ${\partial}^i:\Delta^{\ell-1}\longrightarrow\Delta^\ell$. The boundary map of the normalized chain complex is defined to be $${\widetilde}{{\partial}}_\ell=(-1)^\ell{\partial}_\ell:
N(A\otimes\Omega_\ell)\longrightarrow N(A\otimes\Omega_{\ell-1})\,.$$ Written in such a way, ${\widetilde}{{\partial}}_\ell$ is a morphism of complexes, i.e., it commutes with the coboundary map $d$ of $N(A\otimes\Omega{_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}})$. Since we would like to think of ${\widetilde}{{\partial}}$ as being of degree $-1$, we have to change the sign of $d$ on $N(A\otimes\Omega_\ell)$ for odd $\ell$. We call the result ${\widetilde}{d}$. Thus we have $${\widetilde}{d}\omega=(-1)^\ell d\omega,\quad\text{for $\omega\in
N(A\otimes\Omega_\ell)$.}$$
Now we truncate each of the cochain complexes $N(A\otimes\Omega_\ell)$ at $r$. We obtain a chain complex of cochain complexes, whose boundary maps are given by $${\widetilde}{{\partial}}_\ell=(-1)^\ell{\partial}_\ell:\big(\tau_{\leq
r}N(A\otimes\Omega_\ell),{\widetilde}{d}\,\big)\longrightarrow \big(
\tau_{\leq r}N(A\otimes\Omega_{\ell-1}),{\widetilde}{d}\,\big)\,.$$ Thus we have defined a double complex, which we write in the third quadrant, with ${\widetilde}{d}$ vertical and ${\widetilde}{{\partial}}$ horizontal: $$\xymatrix{
\ldots\ar[r]^-{-{\partial}_3} & Z^rN(A\otimes\Omega_2)\ar[r]^-{{\partial}_2} & Z^r
N(A\otimes\Omega_1)\ar[r]^-{-{\partial}_1} & Z^r A\\
\ldots\ar[r]^-{-{\partial}_3} & N(A\otimes\Omega_2)^{r-1}\uto_d\ar[r]^-{{\partial}_2} &
N(A\otimes\Omega_1)^{r-1}\uto_{-d}\ar[r]^-{-{\partial}_1} & A^{r-1}\uto_d\\
\ldots\ar[r]^-{-{\partial}_3} & N(A\otimes\Omega_2)^{r-2}\uto_d\ar[r]^-{{\partial}_2} &
N(A\otimes\Omega_1)^{r-2}\uto_{-d}\ar[r]^-{-{\partial}_1} & A^{r-2}\uto_d\\
&{\vdots}\uto_d & {\vdots}\uto_{-d} & {\vdots}\uto_d}$$ By Lemma \[basic.sol\], vertical cohomology vanishes everywhere, except in the last column. As for the horizontal cohomology, it vanishes everywhere except for in the first row, by Lemma \[extrapolate\]. Therefore, our double complex induces an isomorphism of $k$-vector spaces $$\label{th.es}
h^{r-\ell}(A){\stackrel{\textstyle\sim}{\longrightarrow}}h_{\ell}\big(Z^rN(A\otimes\Omega{_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}),{\widetilde}{{\partial}}\,\big) \,.$$
We will fix notation: $$\label{om}
\omega_\ell=\ell!\,dt_1\wedge\ldots\wedge dt_\ell\,.$$ Note the properties $d\omega_\ell=0$ and $\omega_\ell{{\,|\,}}_{{\partial}\Delta^\ell}=0$. Also, $\omega_0=1$.
\[prep.a\] Every element of $h_{\ell}\big(Z^rN(A\otimes\Omega{_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}}),{\widetilde}{{\partial}}\,\big)$ may be represented as $\omega_\ell a$, where $a\in Z^{r-\ell}(A)$. Changing $a$ by a coboundary only changes $\omega_\ell a$ by a boundary.
The canonical isomorphism (\[th.es\]) is given by $$a\longmapsto (-1)^{\frac{1}{2}\ell(\ell-1)}\omega_\ell a\,.$$
We shall introduce differential forms (for $\ell\geq1$) $$\tau_\ell=-(\ell-1)!\sum_{i=1}^\ell(-1)^i
t_i\,dt_1\wedge\ldots\wedge\widehat{dt_i}\wedge\ldots\wedge
dt_\ell\,$$ Note the following properties of $\tau_\ell$:
\(i) $d\tau_\ell=\omega_\ell$,
\(ii) for all $i=1,\ldots,\ell$ we have $\tau_\ell{{\,|\,}}_{t_i=0}=0$, i.e., ${\partial}_i\tau_\ell=0$,
\(iii) ${\partial}_0\tau_\ell=\omega_{\ell-1}$.
To see (iii), recall that ${\partial}^0(t_1,\ldots,t_{\ell-1})=(1-\sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1}
t_i,t_1,\ldots,t_{\ell-1})$.
For the present proof, it is convenient to consider the following variation: $$\sigma_\ell=\tau_\ell+(-1)^\ell\omega_{\ell-1}\,.$$ These forms have the three properties:
\(i) $d\sigma_\ell=\omega_\ell$,
\(ii) for all $i=0,\ldots,\ell-1$ we have ${\partial}_i\sigma_\ell=0$,
\(iii) ${\partial}_\ell\sigma_\ell=(-1)^\ell\omega_{\ell-1}$, so that ${\widetilde}{{\partial}}_\ell\sigma_\ell= \omega_{\ell-1}$.
Let $a\in Z^{r-\ell}(A)$ and consider the sum $$\label{zz}
\sum_{i=1}^\ell(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}i(i+1)}\sigma_ia\,.$$ Note that $\sigma_ia\in N(A\otimes\Omega_i)^{r-\ell+i-1}$, so that (\[zz\]) is an element of total (cochain) degree $r-\ell-1$ in our double complex. Applying the total coboundary ${\widetilde}{d}+{\widetilde}{{\partial}}$ to (\[zz\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
({\widetilde}{d}+{\widetilde}{{\partial}})
\sum_{i=1}^\ell(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}i(i+1)}\sigma_ia &=
\sum_{i=1}^\ell(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}i(i+1)+i}d\sigma_ia +
\sum_{i=1}^\ell(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}i(i+1)}{\widetilde}{{\partial}}_i\sigma_ia\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^\ell(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}i(i+1)+i}\omega_ia +
\sum_{i=1}^\ell(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}i(i+1)}\omega_{i-1}a\\
&=\sum_{i=1}^\ell(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}i(i-1)}\omega_ia +
\sum_{i=0}^{\ell-1}(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}(i+1)(i+2)}\omega_{i}a\\
&=(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}\ell(\ell-1)}\omega_\ell a-a\,.\end{aligned}$$ This proves the formula of the proposition. It also proves the first claim, because (\[th.es\]) is surjective. For the second claim let $b\in A^{r-\ell-1}$. Then $$\psi=\sigma_{\ell+1}db+(-1)^\ell\omega_{\ell+1}b$$ is an element of $Z^rN(A\otimes\Omega_{\ell+1})$ and ${\widetilde}{{\partial}}\psi=\omega_\ell db$.
Linearization of homotopy groups {#sec.lin}
--------------------------------
Let $C\to B$ be a fixed resolving morphism of resolving algebras over $k$. Let $A$ be an arbitrary differential graded algebra and denote by $P:B\to A$ a fixed morphism. Denote by $P$ also the restriction to $C$. We use $P$ as a base point for the spaces ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)$ and ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(C,A)$ and for the fiber ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)$ of the fibration ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)\to{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(C,A)$.
Consider, for every $\ell\geq1$, the map $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def.xil}
\Xi_\ell:h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)&\longrightarrow
\pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\nonumber\\*
D&\longmapsto P+(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}\ell(\ell-1)}\omega_\ell D\,.\end{aligned}$$ Recall that $\omega_\ell$ has been defined in (\[om\]). By Lemma \[der.diff\], for given $D\in Z^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)$, the map $$h=P+(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}\ell(\ell-1)}\omega_\ell D$$ is a morphism of differential graded $C$-algebras $B\to A\otimes\Omega_\ell$, hence an $\ell$-simplex in ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)$. Since $\omega_\ell{{\,|\,}}_{{\partial}\Delta^\ell}=0$, it defines, in fact, an element of $\pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)$.
Let us check that the homotopy class of $h$ depends only on the cohomology class of $D$. So let $D'$ be another element of $Z^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)$, differing from $D$ by a coboundary and let $h'=P+(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}\ell(\ell-1)}\omega_\ell D'$. Thus there exists $E\in{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}^{-\ell-1}_C(B,A)$ such that $$D'=D+dE\,.$$
Then one checks that $$\Phi=P+(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}\ell(\ell-1)}\omega_\ell\big((1-s)D+sD'\big)+
(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}\ell(\ell-1)}\omega_\ell
ds \,E$$ defines a homotopy from $h$ to $h'$, i.e., an element $$\Phi\in{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits}\big(I\times\Delta^\ell,{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\big)\,,$$ such that $\Phi{{\,|\,}}_{s=0}=h$, $\Phi{{\,|\,}}_{s=1}=h'$ and $\Phi{{\,|\,}}_{I\times{\partial}\Delta^\ell}=P$. Here $s$ is the coordinate on the ‘interval’ $I={{\mathbb A}}^1$.
Thus the map $\Xi_\ell$ is well-defined, for all $\ell\geq1$.
\[nature.xi\] (i) Let $C'\to B'$ be a another resolving morphism of resolving algebras. Assume, moreover, given a commutative diagram of differential graded algebras $$\xymatrix@=15pt{
C'\dto\rto & B'\dto\\
C\rto & B\,.}$$ Then we have, for all $\ell\geq1$, an induced commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A) \dto_{\Xi_\ell}\rto &
h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{C'}(B',A) \dto^{\Xi_\ell}\\
\pi_{\ell}{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\rto&\pi_{\ell}{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{C'}(B',A)\,.}$$
\(ii) Let $A\to A'$ be an arbitrary morphism of differential graded algebras. Then we have an induced commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A) \dto_{\Xi_\ell}\rto &
h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{C}(B,A') \dto^{\Xi_\ell}\\
\pi_{\ell}{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\rto&\pi_{\ell}{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{C}(B,A')\,.}$$
\(iii) As a special case of (ii), applied to ${\partial}_0,{\partial}_1:A\otimes\Omega_1{\rightrightarrows}A$, we get the following compatibility of $\Xi_\ell$ with change of base point: let $A$ be a differential graded $C$-algebra (whose cohomology is concentrated in non-positive degrees). Let $P,Q:B\to A$ be two base points for ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)$, giving two different $B$-modules structures on $A$, denoted ${}_PA$, ${}_QA$. Then every path $h:P\to Q$ in ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)$ gives rise to a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
{h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,{}_PA)} \dto_{\Xi_\ell}\rto^{h{_{\ast}}} &
{h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,{}_QA)} \dto^{\Xi_\ell}\\
{\pi_\ell\big({\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A),P\big)}\rto^{{}^h({{{\,\cdot\,}}})} &
{\pi_\ell\big({\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A),Q\big)}}$$ where $h{_{\ast}}$ denotes the change of base point map of Definition \[can-iso\].
\[Homo\] Let $C\to B\to A$ be as above.
\(i) For $\ell\geq2$, the map $\Xi_\ell$ is a group homomorphism.
\(ii) If there exists a basis $(x_\nu)$ for $B$ over $C$, such that $dx_\nu\in C$, for all $\nu$, then this is also true for $\ell=1$.
\(iii) More generally, suppose that $B'\subset B$ is a subalgebra containing $C$, such that $C\to B'$ and $B'\to B$ are resolving and there exists a basis $(x_\nu)$ for $B$ over $B'$, such that $dx_\nu\in B'$, for all $\nu$. Let $D\in
h^{-1}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)$ and $D'\in h^{-1}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B'}(B,A)$. Then we have $\Xi_\ell(D+D')=\Xi_\ell(D)\ast\Xi_\ell(D')$.
First assume that $\ell\geq2$. Let $D$, $D'$ be two elements of $Z^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)$. Let $h$, $h'$ and $g$ be the images of $D$, $D'$ and $D+D'$ under $\Xi_\ell$. An $(\ell+1)$-simplex in ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)$ showing that $h\ast h'=g$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi=P+&\epsilon(dt_1\wedge\ldots\wedge dt_{\ell-2}\wedge
dt_\ell\wedge dt_{\ell+1}+dt_1\wedge\ldots\wedge dt_{\ell-1}\wedge
dt_{\ell+1})\,D \\
&\epsilon(dt_1\wedge\ldots\wedge dt_{\ell-1}\wedge
dt_{\ell+1}+dt_1\wedge\ldots\wedge dt_\ell)\,D', \end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon=(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}\ell(\ell-1)}\ell!$ is the necessary multiplier. Note that we need $\ell\geq2$ to apply Lemma \[der.diff\]. We see directly from the definition that $\Phi{{\,|\,}}\{t_{\ell-1}=0\}=h$, that $\Phi{{\,|\,}}\{t_{\ell+1}=0\}=h'$, that $\Phi{{\,|\,}}\{t_{\ell}=0\}=g$ and that $\Phi$ restricted to all the other faces of $\Delta^{\ell+1}$ is equal to $P$.
Now let us consider the case $\ell=1$. Since (iii) implies (ii), let us prove (iii). So assume given $C\to B'\to B$. We define $\Phi$ to be the unique morphism of graded algebras $\Phi:B\to
A\otimes\Omega_2$ such that $\Phi{{\,|\,}}B'=P+dt_2\,D$ and $$\Phi(x_\nu)=P(x_\nu)+ dt_2\,D(x_\nu)+(dt_2+dt_1)D'(x_\nu)\,,$$ for all $\nu$. One checks that $\Phi$ respects the differential, so that $\Phi$ is a 2-simplex in ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)$. Moreover, $\Phi{{\,|\,}}_{t_1=1-t\atop t_2=t\phantom{-1}}=h$, $\Phi{{\,|\,}}_{t_1=0}=g$ and $\Phi{{\,|\,}}_{t_2=0}=h'$, so that, indeed, $h\ast h'=g$.
Suppose $B$ admits a basis $(x_i)$ over $C$ such that $dx_i\in C$, for all $i$. Then we may also define $$\Xi_0:h^0{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)\longrightarrow\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\,.$$ Given a $C$-derivation $D:B\to A$, we map $D$ to the unique morphism of graded algebras $h:B\to A$ such that $h{{\,|\,}}C=P$ and $h(x_i)=P(x_i) + D(x_i)$. To check that $h$ respects the differential, it suffices to prove that $h(dx_i)=d\big(h(x_i)\big)$, for all $i$, which is easily done using that $h(dx_i)=P(dx_i)$ and $D(dx_i)=0$, which follows from our assumption that $dx_i\in C$. If $D'=D+dE$ is in the same cohomology class as $D$, then the image of $D$, which we call $h'$, is homotopic to $h$ via the homotopy $\Phi$ defined by $\Phi{{\,|\,}}C=P$ and $\Phi(x_i)=P(x_i)+(1-s)D(x_i)+s D'(x_i)+ds\,
E(x_i)$. Thus $\Xi_0$ is indeed well-defined.
The question of whether or not $\Xi_0$ depends on the choice of generators $(x_i)$ is slightly more subtle. The most common reason why a set of generators should satisfy $dx_i\in C$ is that they all have the same degree $r=\deg x_i$, for all $i$. So let us suppose that this is the case, and that the total number of generators $x_i$ if finite.
In the case $r<0$ it is easy to see that $\Xi_0$ is independent of the choice of the generators: if $(y_j)$ is another family of generators, then $x_i=\sum_jc_{ij}y_j$, for a family of elements $c_{ij}$ of degree zero, and hence necessarily contained in $C$. So if $h'$ is defined by $h'(y_j)=P(y_j) +D(y_j)$, then $h'(x_i)=h'(\sum_j
c_{ij}y_j)=\sum_jP(c_{ij})\big(P(y_j)+D(y_j)\big)=P(\sum_jc_{ij}y_j)+
D(\sum_jc_{ij} y_j)=h(x_i)$ and so $h'=h$.
On the other hand, in the case $r=0$, the map $\Xi_0$ depends on the choice of generators. For example, let $C=k$ and $B=k[x_1,x_2]$. Then another set of free generators for $B$ is given by $y_1=x_1$ and $y_2=x_2+x_1^2$. The fact that the change of coordinates is not linear is responsible for the fact that $h$ and $h'$ will be different. This is particularly easy to see if $A$ is also concentrated in degree zero, because then $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)={\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits}(B,A)$, the set of $k$-algebra morphisms.
The reason for the sign in the definition of $\Xi_\ell$ becomes clear from the following fundamental lemma:
\[Main\] Suppose that $B$ has a basis over $C$ consisting of one homogeneous generator $x$. Let $r=\deg x$. Then for all $\ell\geq0$ the diagram $$\xymatrix{
h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)\dto_{\Xi_\ell}\ar[rrr]^{D\mapsto D(x)} &&&
h^{r-\ell}(A)\dto^{\text{\upshape can.\ hom.\ (\ref{th.es})}}\\
\pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\ar[rrr]_{h\mapsto h(x)-P(x)} &&& h_\ell\big(
Z^rN(A\otimes\Omega{_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}})\big)}$$ commutes. Moreover, all the maps are bijections of pointed sets, hence group isomorphisms for $\ell\geq1$.
It is straightforward to check that the upper horizontal map is well-defined and an isomorphism of $h^0(A)$-modules. As for the lower horizontal map, note that we have in fact an isomorphism of pointed simplicial sets $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)&\longrightarrow Z^r(A\otimes\Omega{_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}})\\*
h&\longmapsto h(x)-P(x)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the pointed simplicial set $Z^r(A\otimes\Omega{_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}})$ is a simplicial $k$-vector space and so its homotopy groups are equal to the homology groups of the associated normalized chain complex. So we have $$\pi_\ell\big(Z^r(A\otimes\Omega{_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}})\big)= h_\ell\big(N
Z^r(A\otimes\Omega{_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}})
\big)=h_\ell\big(Z^rN(A\otimes\Omega{_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}})\big)\,.$$ So, indeed, the lower horizontal map is an isomorphism of groups (or pointed sets, if $\ell=0$). Commutativity of the diagram follows directly from the definitions.
\[soepf\] Suppose that $B$ has a $C$-basis $(x_\nu)$, where all $x_\nu$ have the same degree $r$. Then $\Xi_\ell$ induces canonical isomorphisms $$h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)=\pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)=h^{r-\ell}(A)^{\#\nu}\,,$$ for all $\ell\geq0$.
Let $C\to B'\to B$ be resolving morphisms of resolving algebras. Consider the fibration $$\label{fibr.der}
{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\longrightarrow{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)\,,$$ whose fiber over $P$ is ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)$. There is also a short exact sequence of complexes of $k$-vector spaces $$\label{ses.der}
{0\longrightarrow{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B'}(B,A)\stackrel{}{ \longrightarrow}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)\stackrel{}{
\longrightarrow}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B',A)\longrightarrow0}\,.$$
\[boundary\] Assume, moreover, that there exists a basis $(x_\nu)$ for $B$ over $B'$ such that $dx_\nu\in B'$, for all $\nu$. Then for all $\ell\geq1$, the diagram $$\xymatrix{
h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B',A)\dto_{\Xi_\ell}\rto^\delta&
h^{1-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B'}(B,A)\dto^{\Xi_{\ell-1}}\\
\pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)\rto^{\partial}&\pi_{\ell-1}{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)}$$ commutes. Here $\delta$ is the boundary map of the long exact cohomology sequence associated to (\[ses.der\]) and ${\partial}$ is the boundary map of the long exact homotopy sequence associated to (\[fibr.der\]).
Consider $D\in Z^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B',A)$. Lift $D$ to an internal derivation ${\widetilde}{D}:B\to A$ by setting ${\widetilde}{D}(x_\nu)=0$, for all $\nu$. Then $\delta D$ is equal to $d{\widetilde}{D}$. Thus $\delta D$ is given by $$(\delta D)(x_\nu)=(d{\widetilde}{D})(x_\nu)=(-1)^{\ell-1} D(dx_\nu)\,.$$ Applying $\Xi_{\ell-1}$ we obtain the $\ell-1$ simplex $$g=P+(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}(\ell-1)(\ell-2)}\omega_{\ell-1}\delta{D}\,\in
\pi_{\ell-1}{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)\,.$$ Note that $$\label{gxnu}
g(x_\nu)=P(x_\nu)+
(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}\ell(\ell-1)}\omega_{\ell-1}D(dx_\nu)\,.$$
If, on the other hand, we apply $\Xi_\ell$ to $D$, we obtain the $\ell$-simplex $$h=P+(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}\ell(\ell-1)}\omega_\ell D\,
\in\pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)\,.$$ We lift $h$ to $h':B\to A\otimes\Omega_\ell$ by $$h'(x_\nu)=P(x_\nu)+(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}\ell(\ell-1)}\tau_\ell
D(dx_\nu)\,,$$ where $\tau_\ell$ is the $\ell-1$ form defined in the proof of Proposition \[prep.a\]. Note that $d\big(h'(x_\nu)\big)=h(dx_\nu)$, so that this formula defines a morphism of differential graded algebras $B\to
A\otimes\Omega_\ell$. Note also that $h'{{\,|\,}}\{t_i=0\}=P$, for all $i=1,\ldots,\ell$. Thus the image of $h$ under ${\partial}$ is equal to ${\partial}_0(h')$. We obtain ${\partial}h{{\,|\,}}B'=P$ and $$\begin{gathered}
{\partial}h(x_\nu)={\partial}_0 h'(x_\nu) \\ =P(x_\nu)+
(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}\ell(\ell-1)}{\partial}_0\tau_\ell D(dx_\nu)
=P(x_\nu)+
(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}\ell(\ell-1)}\omega_{\ell-1} D(dx_\nu)\,,\end{gathered}$$ which agrees with (\[gxnu\]), so we see that ${\partial}h=g$.
\[Bij\] Assume that $B$ is finite as a resolving algebra over $C$. Then for $\ell\geq1$, the map $$\Xi_\ell:h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)\longrightarrow\pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)$$ is bijective (so for $\ell\geq2$ an isomorphism).
Induction on the number $n$ of elements in a basis of $B$ over $C$. If this number is zero, then $B=C$ and so the claim is trivial. Otherwise, there exists a differential graded subalgebra $B'\subset B$, such that $B$ has a basis over $B'$ consisting of one homogeneous generator $x$, and $B'$ has a $C$-basis with $n-1$ elements. Note that then $dx\in B'$.
Consider the fibration (\[fibr.der\]) and the short exact sequence of complexes of $k$-vector spaces (\[ses.der\]). We have the associated long exact sequences of homotopy groups and cohomology spaces. The maps $\Xi_\ell$ relate the two: $$\begin{gathered}
\xymatrix{
\ldots\rto &
h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B'}(B,A)\dto_{\Xi_\ell}\rto&
h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)\dto^{\Xi_\ell}\rto&\\
\ldots\rto&
\pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)\rto&
\pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\rto&}\\
\xymatrix{
{}\rto&
h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B',A)\dto_{\Xi_\ell}\rto^\delta&
h^{1-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B'}(B,A)\dto^{\Xi_{\ell-1}}\rto&
\ldots\\
{}\rto&
\pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)\rto^{\partial}&
\pi_{\ell-1}{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)\rto&\ldots}\end{gathered}$$ By naturality and Proposition \[boundary\] all squares which are defined commute. Let us first consider the part up to $\Xi_1:h^{-1}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B'}(B,A)\to
\pi_1{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)$. This is, by Lemma \[Homo\], a homomorphism of long exact sequences of abelian groups. By induction and Lemma \[Main\], all $\Xi_\ell$ adjacent to a square involving $\delta$ and ${\partial}$ are isomorphisms. Applying the 5-lemma proves the theorem in the $\ell\geq2$ case.
For the $\ell=1$ case, we look at the last five terms that still have a map $\Xi_\ell$ defined. This part ends at $\Xi_0:h^{0}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B'}(B,A)\to
\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)$. By induction and Lemma \[Main\] all five maps are bijective, except for the one in the middle, which is $\Xi_1:h^{-1}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)\to\pi_{1}{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)$. To show that this map is also bijective, note that is is equivariant for the action of $h^{-1}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_{B'}(B,A)$, because of Lemma \[Homo\] (iii). This is sufficient to prove our claim, by a suitably generalized 5-lemma.
Recall from Section \[cwlot\] the truncations $B_{(n)}$ of the perfect resolving morphism $C\to B$.
\[greatc\] Let $C\to B$ be a perfect resolving morphism of resolving algebras. Then for any differential graded $B$-algebra $A$, the canonical homomorphism $$\pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A){\stackrel{\textstyle\sim}{\longrightarrow}}{\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}_n \pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B_{(n)},A)$$ is an isomorphism, for all $\ell\geq0$. Moreover, $$\Xi_\ell:h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B,A)\longrightarrow\pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)$$ is bijective, for all $\ell\geq1$.
Directly from the definitions, it follows that ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B_{(n)},A)$ is a tower of fibrations and that $${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)={\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}_n{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B_{(n)},A)\,.$$ From Theorem \[Bij\] and Theorem \[plim\] we get that $$\label{limone}
{{\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}_n}^1\pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B_{(n)},A)=0\,,$$ for all $\ell\geq1$. In fact, for the case $\ell=1$, we have to be a little careful, because $\Xi_1$ is not a group homomorphism, and in general, ${{\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}}^1$ depends on the group structure, not only on the inverse system structure. But in Scholum \[twostep\] we mentioned a property of inverse systems which $h^{-1}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B_{(n)},A)$ enjoys, and which does not depend on the group structure, and is thus inherited by $\pi_1{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B_{(n)},A)$. As we remarked above (following the scholum), this property is sufficient to assure that ${{\mathop{{\lim\limits_{\textstyle\longleftarrow}}}\limits}}^1$ vanishes.
So the first claim follows immediately from the Milnor exact sequence (see [@simhomthe], Chapter VI, Proposition 2.15). The second claim then follows by taking the limit over Theorem \[Bij\], applied to the various truncations $B_{(n)}$.
Let us introduce the notation $${\widetilde}{\omega}_\ell=(-1)^{\frac{1}{2}\ell(\ell-1)}\omega_\ell\,.$$ Let $B$ be a finite resolving algebra over $k$. Let $A$ be an arbitrary differential graded $k$-algebra and $P:B\to A$ a base point for ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)$. Let $\ell\geq1$.
By the theorem, every element of $\pi_\ell{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)$ may be written as $$\label{stan}
h=P+{\widetilde}{\omega}_\ell D\,,$$ for a unique $D\in h^{-\ell}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,A)$. We may call (\[stan\]) the [*standard* ]{}form of $h$. For $\ell\geq2$, we have $$(P+{\widetilde}{\omega}_\ell D)\ast(P+{\widetilde}{\omega}_\ell D') =
P+{\widetilde}{\omega}_\ell(D+D')\,,$$ but we have no such simple formula in the case $\ell=1$.
It is natural to ask if there is nonetheless some way to describe the composition in $\pi_1{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)$ in terms of $h^{-1}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}(B,A)$.
What can we say about $\pi_0$? {#wcwsa}
------------------------------
We will study more carefully $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)$, in particular how it behaves under change of $B$.
Let $C\to B'\to B$ be resolving morphisms of resolving algebras. Let $A$ be a differential graded algebra and let us fix a morphism $P:B'\to A$, but let us not fix any morphism $B\to
A$. Thus, in the fibration ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\to{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)$, only the base is pointed, the total space is not. We still have a well-defined fiber ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)$, but this fiber is not pointed either. We write the tail end of the long exact homotopy sequence as $$\label{tail}
\xymatrix@C=10pt{
\pi_1{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)\ar@{o}[r]&\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)\rto &
\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\rto & \pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)\,.}$$ This means that $\pi_1{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)$ acts on $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)$ in such a way that two elements are in the same orbit if and only if they map to the same element of $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)$. Moreover, an element of $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)$ lifts to $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)$ if and only if it maps to the base point $P$ of $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)$.
Our first goal is an amplification of (\[tail\]). For this we assume that $B$ has a basis over $B'$ consisting of one element $x$ of degree $r$, which we shall fix throughout our discussion. Note that $dx\in B'$. We will also assume that $B'$ is finite over $C$, so that we may apply Theorem \[Bij\].
\[xi\] The $k$-vector space $h^r(A)$ acts transitively on the fiber of $$\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\longrightarrow\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)$$ over $P$. The stabilizer of this action is the image of the homomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\xi_P:h^{-1}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B',A)&\longrightarrow h^r(A)\\*
D&\longmapsto D(dx)\,.\end{aligned}$$
Let us start by defining an action of $h^r(A)$ on $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)$. Given $a\in h^r(A)$ and $Q\in\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)$, we define $a\ast Q\in
\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)$ to the the unique element represented by the morphism $h:B\to A$, such that $h{{\,|\,}}_{B'}=P$ and $h(x)=Q(x)+a$.
To check that this is well-defined, let $a'=a+db$ and $Q':B\to A$ be homotopic to $Q$. Choose a homotopy $H:B\to A\otimes\Omega_1$ such that $H{{\,|\,}}_{B'}=P$, $H(0)=Q$, $H(1)=Q'$. Let $h:B\to A$ satisfy $h{{\,|\,}}_{B'}=P$ and $h(x)=Q(x)+a$. Let $h':B\to A$ satisfy $h'{{\,|\,}}_{B'}=P$ and $h'(x)=Q'(x) +a'$. Then define a homotopy $H':B\to A\otimes \Omega_1$ from $h$ to $h'$ by $H'{{\,|\,}}_{B'}=P$ and $H'(x)=H(x) + (1-t)a +t a'+(dt)b$.
For any $Q\in\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)$, the orbit map $h^r(A)\to\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)$ is equal to our earlier bijection described in Lemma \[Main\], defined using $Q$ as a base point for ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)$. Thus our action is simply transitive. Note that it is given by $$(a\ast Q)(x)=Q(x)+a\,.$$
Let us turn our attention to $\xi_P$. The fact that $\xi_P$ is well-defined and a homomorphism is easily checked.
Define a homomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
\label{need}
\pi_1{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)&\longrightarrow h_1\big(Z^{r+1}
N(A\otimes\Omega{_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}})\big) \\*
h&\longmapsto h(dx)-P(dx)\,.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ To see that this is well-defined, let $h:B'\to
A\otimes\Omega_1$ and $h':B'\to A\otimes\Omega_1$ represent loops in $\pi_1{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)$. Let $\Psi:B'\to A\otimes\Omega_2$ be a homotopy between them, i.e., let us assume that ${\partial}_0\Psi=P$, ${\partial}_1\Psi=h$ and ${\partial}_2\Psi=h'$. Then $\psi=\Psi(dx)-P(dx)$ is an element of $Z^{r+1}(A\otimes\Omega_2)$ such that ${\partial}_0\psi=0$, ${\partial}_1\psi=h(dx)-P(dx)$ and ${\partial}_2\psi=h'(dx)-P(dx)$. Then ${\widetilde}{\psi}(t_1,t_2)=\psi(t_1,t_2)-\big(h(dx)-P(dx)\big)(t_1+t_2)$ is an element ${\widetilde}{\psi}\in Z^{r+1}N(A\otimes\Omega_2)$ such that ${\widetilde}{\partial}({\widetilde}{\psi}) = {\partial}_2({\widetilde}{\psi})=
\big(h'(dx)-P(dx)\big)-\big(h(dx)-P(dx)\big)$, showing that $h(dx)-P(dx)$ and $h'(dx)-P(dx)$ are equal in $h_1\big(Z^{r+1}
N(A\otimes\Omega{_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}})\big)$.
We can show that (\[need\]) is a homomorphism by a similar argument: let $h$ and $h'$ be as before, except for not necessarily homotopic. Let $\Psi:B'\to A\otimes\Omega_2$ be any 2-simplex such that ${\partial}_0\Psi=h$ and ${\partial}_2\Psi=h'$. Then ${\partial}_1\Psi$ represents $h\ast h'$, so without loss of generality we may set $h\ast
h'={\partial}_1\Psi$. Let us abbreviate notation to $\alpha=h(dx)-P(dx)$, $\beta=h'(dx)-P(dx)$ and $\gamma=(h\ast h')(dx)-P(dx)$. We need to show that $\alpha+\beta-\gamma$ represents zero in $h_1\big(Z^{r+1}
N(A\otimes\Omega{_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}})\big)$. We again use the notation $\psi=\Psi(dx)-P(dx)$. Then we have ${\partial}_0\psi=\alpha$, ${\partial}_1\psi=\gamma$ and ${\partial}_2\psi=\beta$. This time we set ${\widetilde}{\psi}(t_1,t_2)=
\psi(t_1,t_2)+(\alpha-\gamma)(t_1+t_2)-\alpha(t_2)$. Then ${\widetilde}{\psi}\in Z^{r+1}N(A\otimes\Omega_2)$ and ${\widetilde}{{\partial}}({\widetilde}{\psi})=\alpha+\beta-\gamma$, showing that $\alpha+\beta-\gamma$ is a boundary, as required.
Now consider the diagram $$\xymatrix{
h^{-1}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B',A)\dto_{\Xi_1}\rrto^{\xi_P} && h^r(A)
\dto^{\text{\upshape can.\ isom.\ (\ref{th.es})}}\\
\pi_1{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)\rrto^{(\ref{need})} && h_1\big(Z^{r+1}
N(A\otimes\Omega{_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}})\big)}$$ It is easily checked that the diagram is commutative. We will eliminate $h_1\big(Z^{r+1}N(A\otimes\Omega{_{\scriptscriptstyle\bullet}})\big)$ from this diagram and replace it by $$\label{repl}
\vcenter{\xymatrix@R=10pt{
h^{-1}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B',A)\ddto_{\Xi_1}\drrto^{\xi_P} &&\\
&& h^r(A)\\
\pi_1{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)\urrto_{\rho} &&}}$$ where we have given the composition of (\[need\]) with the inverse of (\[th.es\]) the name $\rho$. Let us emphasize again that the two sloped maps in this diagram are homomorphisms, whereas $\Xi_1$ is probably not a homomorphism, but it is bijective, because of Theorem \[Bij\].
Note that the action of $\pi_1{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)$ on $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)$ defined via $\rho$ is equal to the monodromy action indicated in (\[tail\]). To see this, let $h\in\pi_1{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)$ and $Q\in\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)$. We need to prove that $h\ast Q=\rho(h)\ast
Q$. We may take $Q$ as base point for $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)$. Then we obtain the boundary map ${\partial}:\pi_1{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)\to\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)$ and we have $h\ast
Q={\partial}h$. Moreover, because $\Xi_1$ is bijective, we may assume that $h=P+\omega_1 D=P+dtD$, for $D\in h^{-1}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B',A)$. We have seen in the proof of Proposition \[boundary\] that then ${\partial}h (x)
=Q(x)+\omega_0D(dx)=Q(x)+D(dx)$. Thus we have $(h\ast
Q)(x)=Q(x)+D(dx)$. On the other hand, by the commutativity of (\[repl\]), we have $\rho(h)=D(dx)$. So by the definition of the action of $h^r(A)$ on $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_{B'}(B,A)$, we have $\big(\rho(h)\ast Q\big)(x)=Q(x)+\rho(h)=Q(x)+D(dx)$. Since $h\ast Q$ and $\rho(h)\ast Q$ agree on $x$, they are, indeed, equal.
By the exactness properties of (\[tail\]), $h^r(A)$ acts transitively on the fiber of $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\to\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)$ and the stabilizer is equal to the image of $\rho$. Because of Diagram (\[repl\]), and the bijectivity of $\Xi_1$, this image is equal to the image of $\xi_P$.
\[sim.tr\] The vector space ${\mathop{\rm cok}}\xi_P$ acts simply transitively on the fiber of $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\to\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)$ over $P$.
Both in the proposition and the corollary, there is no reason why the fiber in question should be non-empty. We will address the question of when this fiber is non-empty next.
Let us fix $C\to B'\to B$ and $A$ as above, but let us forget about $P$.
\[ext\] Define a map $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)&\longrightarrow h^{r+1}(A)\\*
h&\longmapsto h(dx)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Then the sequence $$\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\longrightarrow \pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)\longrightarrow
h^{r+1}(A)$$ is exact in the middle.
Let $h:B'\to A$ represent an element of $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)$. It lifts to $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)$ if and only if there exists a morphism of differential graded algebras $h':B\to A$, such that $h'{{\,|\,}}_{B'}=h$, because of the fact that ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\to{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)$ is a fibration.
Suppose an extension $h'$ exists. Then we have $h(dx)=h'(dx)=d\big(h'(x)\big)$, so that $h(dx)=0$ in $h^{r+1}(A)$.
Conversely, assume that $h(dx)=da$, for some $a\in A^r$. Then we may define an extension $h'$ of $h$ to $B$ to be the unique extension of $h$ as a morphism of graded $k$-algebras satisfying $h'(x)=a$. This respects the differential, because $d\big(h'(x)\big)=da=h(dx)=h'(dx)$.
The map $$\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\longrightarrow \ker\big(\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)\to
h^{r+1}(A)\big)$$ is surjective. For all $P$ in the kernel, the fiber over $P$ is a principal homogeneous $cok\xi_P$-space.
We may also summarize the results of Propositions \[xi\] and \[ext\] in the exact sequence $$\begin{gathered}
\xymatrix{
h^{-1}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B',A)\rto&h^r(A)\ar@{o}[r]&}\\
\xymatrix{\ar@{o}[r] &
\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\rto & \pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)\rto & h^{r+1}(A)\,.}\end{gathered}$$ This means that there is an action of $h^r(A)$ on $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)$, such that the orbits are equal to the fibers of the fibration $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)\to\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)$. The stabilizers depend only on the orbit. For the orbit which is equal to the fiber over $P:B'\to
A$, the stabilizer is equal to the image of $h^{-1}{\mathop{\underline{\rm Der}}\nolimits}_C(B',A)$ (whose definition depends on $P$) in $h^r(A)$. Finally, a point of $\pi_0{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B',A)$ has a non-empty fiber over it, if and only if it maps to zero in $h^{r+1}(A)$.
Applications to étale morphisms
-------------------------------
Let $C\to B$ be a morphism of quasi-finite resolving algebras and $B\to k$ an augmentation. The augmentation provides is with a canonical base point for ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)$ and ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(C,A)$, for all differential graded algebras $A$.
Let $r>0$ be an integer. If $B$ and $C$ are perfect resolving algebras then the following are equivalent:
\(i) $C\to B$ is étale at the augmentation $B\to k$,
\(ii) the map of pointed spaces ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)\to{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(C,A)$ induces an isomorphism on homotopy groups $\pi_\ell$, for all $\ell\geq1$, and all (finite) resolving algebras $A$,
\(iii) $\pi_r{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)\to\pi_r{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(C,A)$ an isomorphism, for all (finite) resolving algebras $A$.
If, on the other hand, $C\to B$ is a perfect resolving morphism, then ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)\to{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(C,A)$ is a fibration, for every (finite) resolving algebra $A$, and the following are equivalent:
\(i) $C\to B$ is étale at the augmentation $B\to k$,
\(ii) the fiber ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)$ is acyclic for all (finite) resolving algebras $A$,
\(iii) $\pi_r{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)=0$, for all (finite) resolving algebras $A$.
Simply combine Corollary \[greatc\] with Proposition \[eac\].
Let us now forget the augmentation $B\to k$.
\[etahom\] Let $r>0$ be an integer. If $B$ and $C$ are perfect resolving algebras then the following are equivalent:
\(i) $C\to B$ is étale,
\(ii) ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)\to{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(C,A)$ induces isomorphisms on homotopy groups $\pi_\ell$, for all $\ell\geq1$, and all (finite) resolving algebras $A$ and all base points $B\to A$ for ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)$,
\(iii) $\pi_r{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(B,A)\to\pi_r{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}(C,A)$ an isomorphism, for all $B\to A$ as in (ii).
If, on the other hand, $C\to B$ is a perfect resolving morphism, then the following are equivalent:
\(i) $C\to B$ is étale,
\(ii) the fiber ${\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)$ is acyclic for all (finite) resolving algebras $A$ and all base points $B\to A$,
\(iii) $\pi_r{\mathop{\rm Hom}\nolimits^{\scriptscriptstyle\Delta}}_C(B,A)=0$, for all $B\to A$ as in (ii).
This time, combine Corollary \[greatc\] with Proposition \[mea\].
Finite resolutions
==================
\[sec.fibered\]
Our goal in this section is to prove that any morphism of finite resolving algebras admits a finite resolution. This is a significant strengthening of Proposition \[res.ex\] in the finite case. As an application, we can prove that the derived tensor product of finite resolving algebras may be represented by a finite resolving algebra.
The existence of resolutions is reduced to the existence of ‘cylinder objects’ by a formal (and standard) argument. A cylinder object is nothing other than a resolution of the diagonal $A\otimes A\to A$.
Let $A$ be a finite resolving algebra. Let $(x_i)_{i=1,\ldots,n}$ be a basis for $A$ with the property that $i\leq j$ implies $\deg x_i\geq\deg
x_j$. For all $i=0,\ldots,n$ let $A_{(i)}$ denote the subalgebra of $A$ generated by $x_1,\ldots,x_i$. Because of our assumption on the degrees of the $x_i$, we have that $A_{(i)}$ is a differential graded subalgebra of $A$, which is itself a finite resolving algebra with basis $(x_1,\ldots,x_i)$. Notation: $dx_i=f_i(x)$. Note that $f_i(x)=f_i(x_1,\ldots,x_{i-1}) \in A_{(i-1)}$.
The differential graded algebra $A\otimes A$ is a finite resolving algebra with basis consisting of $y_i=x_i\otimes 1$ and $z_i=1\otimes
x_i$.
Let $\xi_i$, for $i=1,\ldots, n$, be a formal variable of degree $\deg
\xi_i=\deg x_i-1$, and let us consider the symmetric algebra $k[\xi]$ on the graded vector space with basis $(\xi_i)$. We also consider the graded algebra $A\otimes
A\otimes k[\xi]=A\otimes A[\xi]$, with its subalgebra $A\otimes A$.
\[res.diag\] There is a way to extend the differential from the subalgebra $A\otimes A$ to all of $A\otimes A[\xi]$, and to extend the diagonal morphism $\Delta:A\otimes A\to A$ to all of $A\otimes A[\xi]$ in such a way that $A\otimes A[\xi]$ becomes a differential graded algebra and $A\otimes A[\xi]\to A$ a quasi-isomorphism of differential graded algebras.
In other words, $A\otimes A[\xi]$ will be a finite resolution of the diagonal $A\otimes A\to A$.
The proof is by induction on $n$, the case $n=0$ serving as trivial base case. We assume that the proposition has been proved in the case of $n$ generators, and we wish to prove that it is also true for the case of $n+1$ generators. Thus $d\xi_i$ and $\Delta(\xi_i)$, for $i=1,\ldots,n$, have already been found, making $\Delta:A_{(n)}\otimes
A_{(n)}[\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n]\to A_{(n)}$ a quasi-isomorphism. We have $A=A_{(n+1)}$ and we need to find suitable values for $d\xi_{n+1}$ and $\Delta(\xi_{n+1})$. Let $r=\deg x_{n+1}$.
[Claim]{}. There exist $h(y,z,\xi)\in
A_{(n)}\otimes A_{(n)}[\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n]$ of degree $r$ and $g(x)\in
A_{(n)}^{r-1}$ such that
\(i) $dh(y,z,\xi)=f_{n+1}(y)-f_{n+1}(z)$,
\(ii) $\Delta(h)=h(x,x,\Delta\xi)=dg(x)$.
To prove that claim, we start by observing that $f_{n+1}(x)$ is a cocycle, because it is equal to $d x_{n+1}$ and $d^2=0$. Hence $f_{n+1}(y)-f_{n+1}(z)$ is a cocycle, too. This cocycle maps to $0$ under $\Delta$, and so by the injectivity of the induced map $$h^{r+1}\big(A_{(n)}\otimes A_{(n)}[\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n]\big)\to
h^{r+1}(A_{(n)})\,,$$ we can find $g(y,z,\xi)\in A_{(n)}\otimes A_{(n)}[\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n]$ of degree $r$, such that $$dg(y,z,\xi)=f_{n+1}(y)-f_{n+1}(z)\,.$$ Now we observe that $g(x,x,\Delta\xi)\in A$ is a cocycle, and so by the surjectivity of $$h^{r}\big(A_{(n)}\otimes A_{(n)}[\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n]\big)\to
h^{r}(A_{(n)})\,,$$ there exists a cocycle ${\widetilde}{g}(y,z,\xi)\in A_{(n)}\otimes
A_{(n)}[\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n]$, such that $${\widetilde}{g}(x,x,\Delta\xi)=g(x,x,\Delta\xi)\in h^r(A_{(n)})\,.$$ Then $h=g-{\widetilde}{g}$ satisfies Condition (i) of the claim. Moreover, $\Delta(h)$ is a coboundary, so that we may choose $g(x)\in A_{(n)}$ such that Condition (ii) of the claim is also true.
Now we set $$d\xi_{n+1}=z_{n+1}-y_{n+1}+h(y,z,\xi)\,.$$ This turns $A\otimes A[\xi]$ into a differential graded algebra, because $z_{n+1}-y_{n+1}+h$ is a cocycle: $$d\big(z_{n+1}-y_{n+1}+h(y,z,\xi)\big)=
f_{n+1}(z)-f_{n+1}(y)+f_{n+1}(y)-f_{n+1}(z)=0\,.$$ Now we define $$\Delta(\xi_{n+1})=g(x)\,.$$ This defines a morphism of differential graded algebras $\Delta:A\otimes A[\xi]\to A$, because $$\Delta(d\xi_{n+1})=\Delta(z_{n+1}-y_{n+1}+h)=\Delta(h)=
dg(x)=d(\Delta\xi_{n+1})\,.$$ We claim that $\Delta$ is a quasi-isomorphism. We will prove this using the criterion of Corollary \[qiscondition\].
Let us first check that $h^0(\Delta)$ is an isomorphism. This is trivial if $r\leq-2$, because in that case $h^0$ is not affected when passing from $n$ to $n+1$. Let us consider the case $r=0$. Then $h^0(A_{(n)})=A_{(n)}$ is a polynomial ring in $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ and $h^0(A_{(n+1)})=A_{(n+1)}$ is a polynomial ring in $x_1,\ldots,x_{n+1}$. On the other hand, $h^0(A_{(n)}\otimes
A_{(n)}[\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n])$ is a quotient of the polynomial ring $k[y_1,z_1,\ldots,y_n,z_n]$ by $n$ relations $h_1(y,z),\ldots,h_n(y,z)$ and by the induction hypothesis we know that $y_i\mapsto x_i$ and $z_i\mapsto
x_i$ induces an isomorphism $$k[y_1,z_1,\ldots,y_n,z_n]/(h_1,\ldots,h_n)
\longrightarrow k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\,.$$ This means that as ideals we have $(h_1,\ldots,h_n)=(z_1-y_1,\ldots,z_n-y_n)$. Now when adjoining $y_{n+1}$, $z_{n+1}$ and $\xi_{n+1}$ to $A_{(n)}\otimes
A_{(n)}[\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n]$, we see that $$h^0(A\otimes
A[\xi])=k[y_1,z_1,\ldots,y_{n+1},z_{n+1}]/
(z_1-y_1,\ldots,z_n-y_n,z_{n+1}-y_{n+1}+h)\,,$$ where $h(y_1,z_1,\ldots,y_{n},z_{n})$ satisfies $h(x_1,x_1,\ldots,x_n,x_n)=0$, and hence $h(y_1,z_1,\ldots,y_{n},z_{n})\in(z_1-y_1,\ldots,z_n-y_n)$. Therefore we have $$\begin{aligned}
h^0(A\otimes
A[\xi])&=k[y_1,z_1,\ldots,y_{n+1},z_{n+1}]/
(z_1-y_1,\ldots,z_n-y_n,z_{n+1}-y_{n+1}+h)\\
&=k[y_1,z_1,\ldots,y_{n+1},z_{n+1}]/
(z_1-y_1,\ldots,z_{n+1}-y_{n+1})\\
&=k[x_1,\ldots,x_n]\\
&=h^0(A)\,.\end{aligned}$$ In the case $r=-1$ we have that $$\label{rmin}
h^0(A)= k[x_1,\ldots,x_m]/\big(f_{m+1}(x),\ldots,
f_{n+1}(x)\big)\,,$$ where $m\leq n$ is the total number of degree $0$ generators among the $x_i$. On the other hand, by the above results in the $r=0$ case, we have $$\begin{gathered}
h^0(A\otimes A[\xi])=k[y_1,z_1,\ldots,y_{m},z_{m}]/\\
/\big(y_1-z_1,\ldots,y_m-z_m,f_{m+1}(y),f_{m+1}(z),\ldots,
f_{n+1}(y),f_{n+1}(z)\big)\,,\end{gathered}$$ which is clearly equal to (\[rmin\]).
Finally, we need to check that the cotangent complex of $\Delta$ is acyclic. Let us abbreviate $B=A\otimes A[\xi]$ and $B_{(n)}=A_{(n)}\otimes A_{(n)}[\xi_1,\ldots,x_n]$.
Note that $\Omega_{B/B_{(n)}}\otimes_B h^0(B)$ is freely generated over $h^0(B)$ by ${{{\mathfrak d}}}y_{n+1}$, ${{{\mathfrak d}}}z_{n+1}$ in degree $r$ and ${{{\mathfrak d}}}\xi_{n+1}$ in degree $r-1$. Moreover, $$d({{{\mathfrak d}}}\xi_{n+1})={{{\mathfrak d}}}(d\xi_{n+1})= {{{\mathfrak d}}}z_{n+1}-{{{\mathfrak d}}}y_{n+1} + {{{\mathfrak d}}}h(y,z,\xi)={{{\mathfrak d}}}z_{n+1}-{{{\mathfrak d}}}y_{n+1}\,,$$ because $h(y,z,\xi)\in B_{(n)}$.
On the other hand, $\Omega_{A/A_{(n)}}\otimes_A h^0(A)$ is freely generated over $h^0(A)=h^0(B)$ in degree $r$ by ${{{\mathfrak d}}}x_{n+1}$.
The map ${{{\mathfrak d}}}\Delta$ maps ${{{\mathfrak d}}}y_{n+1}$ and ${{{\mathfrak d}}}z_{n+1}$ to ${{{\mathfrak d}}}x_{n+1}$ and it maps ${{{\mathfrak d}}}\xi_{n+1}$ to ${{{\mathfrak d}}}g(x)=0$, because $g(x)=A_{(n)}$.
Thus it is clear that ${{{\mathfrak d}}}\Delta:\Omega_{B/B_{(n)}}\otimes_B
h^0(A)\to \Omega_{A/A_{(n)}}\otimes_A h^0(A)$ is a quasi-isomorphism, which is all that we needed to prove.
\[twomh\] The two morphisms $A\to A\otimes A[\xi]$ given by $a\mapsto a\otimes1$ and $a\mapsto 1\otimes a$ are homotopic. (They are also quasi-isomorphisms.)
Both of these morphisms are 2-inverses of the quasi-isomorphism $A\otimes A[\xi]\to A$, constructed in the proposition. Use Corollary \[qiseq\].
\[fin.res.ex\] Let $A\to B$ be a morphism of finite resolving algebras. Then there exists a resolution $A\to B'\to B$, where $A\to B'$ is a finite resolving morphism.
See the proof of Corollary 8.3 in Section II of [@simhomthe]. In our case, the resolution of $A\to B$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
A&\longrightarrow B\otimes A[\xi]
\stackrel{B\otimes\sigma}{\longrightarrow} B\\*
a & \longmapsto 1\otimes a \end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma:A\otimes A[\xi]\to A$ is any resolution of the diagonal.
Let $f:A\to B$ and $g:A\to C$ be morphisms of finite resolving algebras. Then there exists a finite resolving algebra $R$ and a homotopy commutative square $$\label{wfpp}
\vcenter{\xymatrix{
R\drtwocell\omit{^} & C\lto\\
B\uto & A\lto^{f}\uto_{g}}}$$ such that, whenever we resolve $f$ as $A\to B'\to B$, then there exists a factorization of (\[wfpp\]) as $$\xymatrix{
R\drtwocell\omit{^}& B'\otimes_AC\lto & C \lllowertwocell{\omit}\lto\\
B\uto & B'\uto\lto & A\lto\uto }$$ where $B'\otimes_A C\to R$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
This is a formal consequence of Theorem \[fin.res.ex\]. More explicitly, we can construct $R$ as follows: let $A$ be as above, generated by $x_1,\ldots,x_n$, with $dx_i=f_i(x)$. Choose for every $i$ an element $h_i(y,z,\xi)\in A\otimes
A[\xi]$ as in the inductive proof of Proposition \[res.diag\]. In particular, $dh_i(y,z,\xi)=f_i(y)-f_i(z)$. Denote the images of the $x_i$ in $B$ by $b_i$ and in $C$ by $c_i$. Consider the differential graded algebra $$R=B\otimes C[\xi]$$ with differential defined by $d\xi_i=c_i-b_i+h_i(b,c,\xi)$. Any homotopy between the two morphisms $A\to A\otimes A[\xi]$ (see Corollary \[twomh\]), composed with $A\otimes A[\xi]\to B\otimes
C[\xi]$ gives rise to a homotopy commutative diagram $$\label{wfp}
\vcenter{\xymatrix{
B\otimes C[\xi] & C\lto\\
B\uto & A\lto^f\uto_{ g}\ultwocell\omit}}$$ as required.
If $a$, $b$ and $c$ denote the numbers of elements of finite bases for $A$, $B$ and $C$, respectively, then there exists a basis for $R$ with $a+b+c$ elements.
The results of this section also apply to perfect resolving algebras and perfect resolutions, in place of finite resolving algebras and finite resolutions. The proofs are easier and require only the use of Lemma \[cot.cx\] (iii).
[1]{}
K. Behrend. Differential graded schemes [II]{}: The 2-category of differential graded schemes. Preprint: math.AG/0212226.
P. Berthelot, A. Grothendieck, and L. Illusie. . Lecture Notes in Mathematics No. 225. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1971.
A.K. Bousfield and V.K.A.M. Gugenheim. On [P]{}[L]{} de [R]{}ham theory and rational homotopy type. , 179, 1976.
I. Ciocan-[F]{}ontanine and M. Kapranov. Derived [Q]{}uot schemes. , 34(3):403–440, 2001.
P. Goerss and J. Jardine. , volume 174 of [*Prog. Math.*]{} Birkhäuser, Boston, 1999.
V. Hinich. Homological algebra of homotopy algebras. , 25(10):3291–3323, 1997.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Motivated by applications to the study of self-force effects in scalar-tensor theories of gravity, we calculate the self-force exerted on a scalar charge in a circular orbit about a Reissner-Nordström black hole. We obtain the self-force via a mode-sum calculation, and find that our results differ from recent post-Newtonian calculations even in the slow-motion regime. We compute the radiative fluxes towards infinity and down the black hole, and verify that they are balanced by energy dissipated through the local self-force – in contrast to the reported post-Newtonian results. The self-force and radiative fluxes depend solely on the black hole’s charge-to-mass ratio, the controlling parameter of the Reissner-Nordström geometry. They both monotonically decrease as the black hole approaches extremality. With respect to an extremality parameter $\epsilon$, the energy flux through the event horizon is found to scale as $\sim \epsilon^{5/4}$ as $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$.'
author:
- Jezreel Castillo
- Ian Vega
- Barry Wardell
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Self-force on a scalar charge in a circular orbit about a Reissner-Nordström black hole'
---
Introduction
============
The self-force acting on a particle moving in a curved spacetime has been a fascinating subject for some time, principally motivated by the prospect of detecting low-frequency gravitational waves with future space-based missions such as LISA [@amaro-seoane_2012]. While self-force-based gravitational waveforms remain elusive, progress in self-force research has been steady, and has made key contributions to a fuller understanding of the strongly-gravitating two-body problem [@poisson_2011; @barack_2009; @wardell_comp_2013]. Beyond direct applications to gravitational-wave astronomy, the self-force has proven useful as a theoretical probe of the nonlocal features of the spacetime in which the particle moves. More specifically, the static self-force has been shown to be sensitive to central and asymptotic structure [@drivas_2011; @taylor_2013; @kuchar_2013]. At the frontier of self-force research there remains strong momentum for the calculation of fully self-consistent gravitational waveforms from extreme-mass-ratio inspirals (to second order in the mass ratio), in addition to active research programs pushing to develop the formalism to higher dimensions [@taylor_2015; @harte_2016; @harte_2017] and alternative theories of gravity [@zimmerman_2015]. For the latter, it is of strong interest to understand how the extra gravitational degrees of freedom and their coupling might impact self-forced dynamics.
The work reported in this paper began with a consideration of self-forces in the context of alternative theories of gravity, particularly in scalar-tensor theories, as inspired by the seminal work of @zimmerman_2015 [@zimmerman_2015]. One tantalizing result of this work was the possibility of “scalarization” of a compact object by the action of the self-force. However, a close inspection of [@zimmerman_2015] quickly reveals that this effect requires a non-trivial scalar field residing on a curved spacetime background. No-hair theorems for black holes in scalar-tensor theories then severely limit the possible realizations for scalarization via self-force. To be sure, there are loopholes to these theorems; certain scalar-tensor theories do admit hairy black hole solutions [@torii_2001; @kanti_1996; @sotiriou_2014; @antoniou_2018; @antoniou_2017]. But these solutions are obtained mostly with numerical integration [@sotiriou_2014], making them difficult to study as backgrounds for concrete self-force calculations. (See, however, [@babichev_2017_hairybhs] for some simple hairy black hole solutions in Horndeski theory.)
A well-known solution in scalar-tensor theory is the so-called Bocharova-Bronnikov-Melnikov-Bekenstein (BBMB) solution [@bocharova_1970; @bekenstein_1974; @bekenstein_1975] in conformal scalar-vacuum gravity. This theory is defined by the action $$\mathcal{S} = \frac{1}{4\pi} \int d^4x \sqrt{-g} \left(\frac{R}{4} - \frac{1}{2}\nabla_\mu \Phi \nabla^\mu\Phi -\frac{1}{12}R\Phi^2\right),$$ and the BBMB solution reads $$ds^2 = -\left(1-\frac{M}{r}\right)^2 dt^2 + \dfrac{dr^2}{\left(1-\dfrac{M}{r}\right)^2} + r^2 d\Omega^2$$ with $$\Phi = \frac{\sqrt{3}M}{r-M}.$$ The metric in this solution is the extremal Reissner-Nordström solution, and the scalar field is non-trivial, though it clearly diverges at the putative event horizon at $r=M$. This divergence muddles the interpretation of $r=M$ as a true event horizon and, correspondingly, of the BBMB solution as a legitimate black hole solution. But this interpretational issue can be eschewed when one’s primary concern is the impact of the scalar degree of freedom on the gravitational dynamics. This is the viewpoint espoused by our research program, of which this work is an initial step. Our proposal is to use the BBMB solution as a theoretical playground for studying scalar-tensor self-force effects.
Apart from this broader goal, the Reissner-Nordström spacetime is in itself an interesting spacetime on which to study self-force effects. As the unique, spherically-symmetric and asymptotically flat solution to the Einstein-Maxwell equations, it describes the spacetime outside a charged spherically-symmetric mass distribution. It is characterized by its mass $M$ and charge $Q$, and the spacetime is described by the metric $$\label{eq:line-element}
ds^2 = -f(r) dt^2 + f(r)^{-1}dr^2 + r^2 d\theta^2 + r^2 \sin^2 \theta d\phi^2,$$ where $f(r) = (r-r_+)(r-r_-)/r^2$ and $r_{\pm} = M \pm \sqrt{M^2 - Q^2}$. Note that the coordinate $r$ is connected to Q. If the object in question is a black hole, then it will have the following features:
1. There are 2 horizons, an inner horizon at $r=r_-$, and an outer horizon at $r=r_+$, which happens to be the event horizon of the black hole.
2. In the case where $M = Q$, the black hole becomes extremal, with a degenerate horizon (and thus zero temperature).
Despite these interesting properties, astrophysical considerations preclude significant charge build-up, and thus the self-force on a Reissner-Nördstrom background has been largely neglected. The notable exception is a recent work by @bini_2016 [@bini_2016] in which they produced a 7 post-Newtonian (PN) order calculation of the scalar self-force on a circular geodesic. In this paper, we go beyond the PN approximation and present the first mode-sum calculation of the full strong-field scalar self-force on a circular geodesic. In the process of doing so, we found that our results for the self-force and energy flux is in disagreement with the slow-motion formulas presented by @bini_2016 [@bini_2016]. This is surprising, as one would expect a numerical calculation to agree with a PN calculation up to the order reported. We have yet to establish a reason for this discrepancy. Nevertheless, we present several consistency checks on our results, to show that this disagreement is not from an error in the numerical calculation.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section II we provide a brief review of circular geodesics in Reissner-Nordström spacetime. In Section III we provide a derivation of the scalar field generated by a scalar point charge in a geodesic circular orbit, subject to ingoing wave conditions at $r=r_+$ and outgoing wave conditions at $r=\infty$. In Section IV we briefly review the mode-sum regularization scheme, as well as providing a brief derivation of the regularization parameters for geodesic circular orbits in Reissner-Nordström spacetime. In Section V we provide numerical results computed from a frequency-domain calculation and compare it with analytical results obtained from [@bini_2016].
Circular geodesics
==================
Considered as a test particle, the scalar charge will move along a geodesic of the Reissner-Nordström spacetime. Two Killing vectors of spacetime, $t^\alpha := (\partial/\partial t)^\alpha$ and $\phi^\alpha := (\partial/\partial\phi)^\alpha$, provide the conserved quantities $$\begin{aligned}
E &:= - g_{\alpha\beta}u^\alpha t^\beta = f(r) \frac{dt}{d\tau} \\
L &:= g_{\alpha\beta}u^\alpha \phi^\beta = r^2 \sin^2\theta \frac{d\phi}{d\tau},\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau$ is the proper time along the orbit and $u^\alpha$ is the particle’s four-velocity.
Due to the spherical symmetry of the spacetime, the test particle will move along a fixed plane. We can always choose our coordinates so that this plane is described by $\theta = \pi/2$. Combining these with the normalization, $u^\alpha u_\alpha =-1$, we arrive at the radial equation $$\left(\frac{dr}{d\tau}\right)^2 = E^2 - V(r),
\label{eqn:radialeqn}$$ where $V(r) := f(r)(1+L^2/r^2)$ is the effective potential. For circular orbits ($r=r_0$), the four-velocity reads $$u^\alpha = \frac{dt}{d\tau}(1,0,0,\Omega),$$ where $$\Omega := d\phi/dt = (L/E)f(r_0)/r_0^2
\label{eqn:angvel}$$ is the angular velocity of the particle with respect to an asymptotic observer. Note that this quantity, as an observable, is invariant to coordinate transformations. Circular orbits also require $V'(r_0) =0$, which gives the condition $$L^2 = \frac{r_0^2\left(Mr_0-Q^2\right)}{r_0^2-3Mr_0+2Q^2},$$ while $dr/d\tau =0$ in Eq. (\[eqn:radialeqn\]) gives $$E^2 = \frac{\left(r_0^2-2Mr_0+Q^2\right)^2}{r_0^2\left(r_0^2-3Mr_0+2Q^2\right)},$$ which can be combined to give $$\left(\frac{L}{E}\right)^2 = \frac{r_0^4\left(Mr_0-Q^2\right)}{\left(r_0^2-2Mr_0+Q^2\right)^2}.$$ Putting this into Eq. (\[eqn:angvel\]) we finally get $$\Omega^2 = \frac{M}{r_0^3}\left(1-\frac{Q^2}{Mr_0}\right).
\label{eqn:angfreq}$$ Normalization of the four-velocity then gives $$(u^t)^2 = \frac{r_0^2}{\left(r_0^2-3Mr_0+2Q^2\right)}.$$ This completes the determination of the four-velocity for a particle in a circular geodesic.
Field equations
===============
Multipole decomposition
-----------------------
We assume that the scalar field $\Phi$ is a small perturbation of the fixed Reissner-Nordström spacetime, and that it satisfies the minimally coupled scalar wave equation $$\Box \Phi = - 4\pi \mu,
\label{waveeqn}$$ sourced by a scalar charge density $\mu$. We model this scalar charge density as a $\delta$-function distribution on the worldline, written as $$\mu(x) = q \int \frac{\delta^{(4)}(x^\alpha-z^\alpha(\tau))}{\sqrt{-g}} \,d\tau,$$ which for a circular orbit becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(x) &= \frac{q}{r_0^2} \int \delta(t-t(\tau))\delta(r-r_0)\delta(\theta-\pi/2)\delta(\phi-\Omega t(\tau)) \,d\tau \\
&= \frac{q}{r_0^2u^t} \delta(r-r_0)\delta(\theta-\pi/2)\delta(\phi -\Omega t).\end{aligned}$$ Using the spherical harmonic completeness relations, we can further rewrite $\mu$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\mu(x) &= \frac{q}{r_0^2u^t}\sum_{l,m}Y^{*}_{lm}(\pi/2,\Omega t)Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)\delta(r-r_0) \\
&= \sum_{l,m}\left[\frac{qY^{*}_{lm}(\pi/2,\Omega t)}{r_0^2u^t}\right]Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)\delta(r-r_0) \\
&= \sum_{l,m}\left[\frac{qY^{*}_{lm}(\pi/2,0)}{r_0^2u^t}\right]e^{-im\Omega t}Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)\delta(r-r_0). \label{eq:SCDec}\end{aligned}$$ A similar decomposition for the scalar field $\Phi$ into spherical harmonics and Fourier modes yields the form $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi = \int\sum_{l,m}\Phi_{lm}(r) e^{i\omega t}Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi) \ d\omega. \label{eq:SFDec}\end{aligned}$$ With Eqs. and , Eq. (\[waveeqn\]) reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{d}{dr}\left( r^2 f(r)\frac{d\Phi_{lm}}{dr}\right) & + \left(\frac{\omega^2}{f(r)}-\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}\right) \Phi_{lm} \nonumber \\ &= -\frac{qY^{*}_{lm}(\pi/2,0)}{r_0^2u^t} \delta(r-r_0)
\label{eqn:ode}\end{aligned}$$ We now want to impose boundary conditions.
Boundary conditions
-------------------
The wave equation can also be rewritten in terms of the so-called tortoise coordinate $$\begin{aligned}
r_* :=& \int f^{-1} dr \nonumber \\ =& r+\frac{r_{+}^2}{r_{+}-r_{-}}\ln\left(r-r_{+}\right)-\frac{r_{-}^2}{r_+ - r_-} \ln\left(r-r_-\right). \end{aligned}$$ Defining $\Phi(t,r,\theta^A) = \Psi(t,r,\theta^A)/r$ (where $\theta^A := (\theta,\phi)$) we get $$-\frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial t^2} + \frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial r_*^2} + f\left(\frac{\nabla_\Omega^2}{r^2}-\frac{f'}{r}\right)\Psi = -4\pi r f(r)\mu(x)
\label{eqn:tortcoordseqn}$$ where $\nabla_\Omega^2$ is the Laplacian on the unit two-sphere. Decomposing $\Psi$ into its spherical-harmonic components $$\Psi(t,r,\theta^A) = \sum_{lm} \Psi_{lm}(t,r) Y_{lm}(\theta^A),$$ Eq. (\[eqn:tortcoordseqn\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{\partial^2\Psi_{lm}}{\partial t^2} &+ \frac{\partial^2\Psi_{lm}}{\partial r_*^2} - f\left(\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}+\frac{f'}{r}\right)\Psi_{lm} \nonumber \\ &= -\frac{4\pi q f(r_0)}{r_0 u^t} Y^*_{lm}(\pi/2,0)e^{i\omega_m t} \delta(r-R).
\label{eqn:odetort}\end{aligned}$$ The homogeneous part of this equation appears like a flat-space wave equation \[in (1+1) dimensions\] with a potential $V_l(r):= -f (l(l+1)/r^2 + f'/r)$. This potential vanishes as $r\rightarrow M$ (or as $r_* \rightarrow -\infty$) and as $r\rightarrow \infty $ ($r_* \rightarrow +\infty$).
The appropriate boundary conditions are ingoing waves at the event horizon and outgoing waves at infinity. Since $\Psi_{lm} \sim e^{i\omega t}$ (where $\omega = -m\Omega$ for circular orbits), we shall then impose that $\Psi_{lm} \sim e^{-i\omega r_*}$ as $r\rightarrow \infty$ and $\Psi_{lm} \sim e^{i\omega r_*}$ as $r\rightarrow r_+$. Correspondingly, for $\Phi_{lm}(r)$ the boundary conditions of interest are $$\Phi_{lm} \sim \frac{e^{i\omega r_*}}{r},\,\, r \rightarrow r_+$$ and $$\Phi_{lm} \sim \frac{e^{-i\omega r_*}}{r},\,\, r \rightarrow \infty.$$
These boundary conditions serve as initial data in the integration of Eq. (\[eqn:ode\]). In practice, the integration cannot begin exactly at the horizon because $f(r)$ vanishes and the potential term in Eq. (\[eqn:ode\]) blows up. \[The potential term of Eq. (\[eqn:odetort\]) is regular, but the horizon in these coordinates is inaccessible at $r_* =-\infty$.\] Instead, we then begin the integration slightly away from the horizon, at $r = r_+ +\varepsilon$ for $\varepsilon/r_+ \ll 1$. An asymptotic solution as $r\rightarrow r_+$ can be obtained by inserting the ansatz $$\Phi_{lm}(r) = \frac{e^{i\omega r_*}}{r} \sum_{n=0} a_n(r-r_+)^n$$ into Eq. (\[eqn:ode\]). This gives a recurrence relation for the coefficients $a_n$ which reads
$$\begin{gathered}
a_n = -\frac{8i\omega(n-1)r_+^3 + (6(n-1)(n-2) - \lambda)r_+^2 - 2M(3n^2-11n+9)r_+ + Q^2(n-2)(n-3)}{2nr_+(i\omega r_+^3+2(n-1)r_+^2-M(3n-4)r_+ + Q^2(n-2))}a_{n-1} \\ - \frac{6i\omega(n-2)r_+^2+(2(n-2)(n-3) - \lambda)r_+ - M(n-3)^2}{nr_+(i\omega r_+^3+2(n-1)r_+^2-M(3n-4)r_+ + Q^2(n-2))}a_{n-2}\\ - \frac{8i\omega(n-3)r_+ + (n-3)(n-4) -\lambda}{2nr_+(i\omega r_+^3+2(n-1)r_+^2-M(3n-4)r_+ + Q^2(n-2))}a_{n-3} \\ - \frac{i\omega (n-4)}{nr_+(i\omega r_+^3+2(n-1)r_+^2-M(3n-4)r_+ + Q^2(n-2))}a_{n-4}\end{gathered}$$
The same considerations apply to the boundary condition as $r\rightarrow \infty$. Again we work with the ansatz $$\Phi_{lm}(r) = \frac{e^{-i\omega r_*}}{r} \sum_{n=0} \frac{b_n}{r^n},$$ and obtain a recurrence relation for $b_n$ using Eq. (\[eqn:ode\]). This reads $$\begin{aligned}
b_n =& -\frac{n(n-1) - \lambda}{2i\omega n}b_{n-1} + \frac{M(n-1)^2}{i\omega n}b_{n-2} \nonumber \\ & - \frac{Q^2(n-1)(n-2)}{2i\omega n}b_{n-3}.\end{aligned}$$
Regularization
==============
Mode-sum regularization
-----------------------
To obtain the scalar self-force, we must first subject the unregularized force to a regularization procedure. In our case, we use the mode-sum scheme [@barack_2000; @burko_2000_b; @barack_2003], where the self-force is constructed from regularized spherical harmonic contributions. We start with full force derived from the retarded field $$F_{\alpha}^{\mathrm{full}}(x) = q\nabla_{\alpha}\Phi(x) = \sum_{l}F_{\alpha}^{(\mathrm{full}),l}(x),$$ where $F_{\alpha}^{(\mathrm{full}),l}(x)$ is the $l$-mode component (summed over $m$) of the full force at an arbitrary point $x$ in the neighborhood of the particle. At the particle location, each $F_{\alpha}^{(\mathrm{full}),l}$ is finite, although the sided limits often produce different values (which we then label as $F_{\alpha,\pm}^{(\mathrm{full}),l}$) and the sum over $l$ may not converge. We then obtain the self-force using a mode-by-mode regularization formula $$\begin{gathered}
F_{\alpha}^{\mathrm{self}} = \sum_{l} F_{\alpha}^{\mathrm{(full)},l} \\ = \sum_{l} (F_{\alpha,\pm}^{(\mathrm{full}),l}-A_{\alpha,\pm}(l+1/2)-B_{\alpha,\pm}),\end{gathered}$$ where the regularized contributions $F_{\alpha}^{(\mathrm{full}),l}$ no longer have the $\pm$ ambiguity and the sum over $l$ is guaranteed to converge. The regularization parameters ($l$-independent) $A_{\alpha}$ and $B_{\alpha}$ have been obtained for generic orbits about a Schwarzschild black hole [@barack_2002], and a Kerr black hole [@barack_2003]. In the next subsection we present a derivation of $A_{\alpha}$ and $B_{\alpha}$ for circular orbits about a Reissner-Nordström black hole.
Regularization parameters
-------------------------
The procedure for deriving mode-sum regularization parameters is by now well-established [@barack_2002; @barack_2003; @Haas:2006ne; @Heffernan:2012su; @Heffernan:2012vj; @Heffernan2014]. Here, we directly follow the approach of [@Heffernan:2012su; @Heffernan:2012vj; @Heffernan2014], extending it to the case of Reissner-Nordström spacetime as given by the line element, Eq. . Since the essential details remain the same, we refer the reader to Refs. [@Heffernan:2012su; @Heffernan:2012vj; @Heffernan2014] for an extensive discussion, and give here only the key equations and results.
We start with an expansion of the Detweiler-Whiting singular field [@detweiler_2003] through next-from-leading order in the distance from the worldline, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^S \approx \frac{1}{\rho}
- \frac{1}{\rho ^3} \bigg[&
\frac{\Delta r \left[2 \Delta w_1^2 L^2+r_0^2 \left(\Delta w_1^2+\Delta w_2^2\right)\right]}{2 r_0} \nonumber \\ &
- \frac{\Delta r^3 f'_0}{4 f_0^2}
- \frac{E L (2 f_0 + r_0 f_0') \Delta t \Delta r \Delta w_1}{2 r_0 f_0} \nonumber \\ &
+ \frac{\Delta t^2 \Delta r \left(2 E^2-f_0\right) f_0'}{4 f_0}
\bigg].\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have already specialized to the case of circular, equatorial orbits, and have introduced $f_0 := f(r_0)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^2 := & \frac{\Delta r^2}{f_0}+\Delta w_1^2 \left(L^2+r_0^2\right)+\Delta w_2^2 r_0^2
\nonumber \\
& \quad
+ \left(E^2-f_0\right) \Delta t^2 -2 E L \Delta t \Delta w_1 .\end{aligned}$$ The above expressions are given in terms of the Riemann normal coordinates $w_1$ and $w_2$, the same as are described in [@Heffernan:2012vj].
It turns out that for circular orbits the $t$ and $\phi$ componets of the self-force are purely dissipative, meaning that only the radial component of the self-force requires regularization. We thus compute the contribution from the singular field to the radial component of the self-force using $F_r^{\text S} = \partial_{\Delta r} \Phi^S$. Doing so, taking $\Delta t \to 0$, and keeping only terms which will not vanish in the limit $\Delta r \to 0$ we get $$F_r^{\text S} = \frac{r_0}{2 L^2 \rho}\bigg(1-\frac{1}{\chi }\bigg)-\frac{\Delta r}{\rho ^3 f_0}$$ Here, $\chi := 1 - \tfrac{L^2}{r_0^2+L^2} \sin^2 \beta$, just as in [@Heffernan:2012vj].
Next, we obtain the regularization parameters by decomposing this into spherical-harmonic modes (as usual, we only need to consider the $m=0$ case since the other $m$-modes do not contribute). Doing so, and taking the limit $\Delta r \to 0$, we find $$F_{r,\pm}^{S, l} = \mp \frac{2l+1}{2 r_0 f_0^{1/2} \sqrt{L^2 + r_0^2}} + \frac{\mathcal{E} - 2 \mathcal{K}}{\pi r_0 \sqrt{r_0^2 + L^2}},$$ from which we can immediately read off the $A_r$ and $B_r$ regularization parameters. Here, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{K} &:= \int_0^{\pi/2} (1 - \tfrac{L^2}{r_0^2+L^2} \sin^2 \beta)^{-1/2} d \beta, \nonumber \\
\mathcal{E} &:= \int_0^{\pi/2} (1 - \tfrac{L^2}{r_0^2+L^2} \sin^2 \beta)^{1/2} d \beta\end{aligned}$$ are complete elliptic integrals of the first and second kind, respectively.
Self-force calculation
======================
Scalar energy flux
------------------
Global energy conservation dictates that the local energy dissipation, represented by the $t$-component of the self-force, is accounted for by the energy flux carried by scalar field radiation. We numerically calculate the energy flux to infinity and down the black hole, and verify that the result is consistent with the energy lost through the local dissipative self-force.
We briefly review the relevant formalism used to calculate the energy flux. The stress-energy tensor of the scalar field is given by $$T_{\alpha \beta} = \frac{1}{4\pi}\left( \Phi_{;\alpha}\Phi_{;\beta}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\alpha \beta} \Phi^{;\mu}\Phi_{;\mu}\right).$$ With $T_{\alpha \beta}$, we construct the differential energy flux over the following constant $r$ hypersurfaces: $r \to \infty$, represented by $\Sigma_+$, and $r \to r_+$, represented by $\Sigma_-$. The differential energy flux then takes the form $$d\mathcal{E}_{\pm} = \mp T_{\alpha \beta}t^{\alpha}n^{\beta}_{\pm}d\Sigma_{\pm}, \label{eq:DEF}$$ where $n^{\alpha}$ is the unit normal vector of the hypersurface, and $d\Sigma$ is the hypersurface element. We then rewrite Eq. as $$d\mathcal{E}_{\pm} = \mp T_{tr}f(r)r^2 dt d\Omega. \label{eq:diffEflux}$$ Integrating over the two-sphere, we then express the energy transfer as $$\frac{dE_{\pm}}{dt}=\dot{E}_{\pm} = \mp \oint T_{tr}f(r)r^2d\Omega. \label{eq:Etransfer}$$ Substituting the multipole expansion defined by Eq. into Eq. , we then arrive at the following expression for the energy transfer $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{E}_{\pm`'} = \pm i\frac{f(r)r^2}{4\pi}\sum_{l,m}\omega_{m}\Phi^{*}_{lm}\Phi_{lm,r}.\end{aligned}$$
We present sample numerical data for $\dot{E}_{+}$, and $\dot{E}_{-}$ in Tables \[tab:EFI\], and \[tab:EFH\] respectively. We see that as the extremality parameter $\epsilon:=1-Q/M$ approaches zero, $\dot{E}_{\pm}$ monotonically decreases. We also note that compared to $\dot{E}_{+}$, $\dot{E}_{-}$ exhibits a dramatic decrease as $\epsilon \to 0$. We then investigate the scaling behavior of $\dot{E}_{\pm}$ with respect to $\epsilon$, which we present in Fig. \[fig:EFI\] and \[fig:EFH\]. We note that while $\dot{E}_{+}$ exhibits no discernible scaling behavior, $\dot{E}_{-}$ exhibits power law scaling as $\epsilon \to 0$, which in Fig. \[fig:EFH\] corresponds to $\sim \epsilon^{5/4}$. This behavior for $\dot{E}_{-}$ has been previously observed for near-extremal Kerr black holes, with a power scaling of $\sim \epsilon^{2/3}$ [@gralla_2015].
In the same figures, we compared our numerical data with the slow-motion analytic formulas for the energy fluxes derived by @bini_2016 [@bini_2016]. While the qualitative behavior of @bini_2016’s formula is similar to our numerical results for $\dot{E}_{-}$, that cannot be said for $\dot{E}_{+}$. The qualitative behavior exhibited by @bini_2016’s formula for $\dot{E}_{+}$ is opposite to that of our numerical results, and the disagreement worsens as $\epsilon \to 0$.
$(M\Omega)^{-2/3}$ $\epsilon = 1$ $\epsilon = 0.5$ $\epsilon = 0.3$ $\epsilon = 0.1$ $\epsilon = 0.001 M$ $\epsilon = 0$
-------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------
$10$ $3.1206577 \times 10^{-5}$ $3.0536344 \times 10^{-5}$ $2.9879739 \times 10^{-5}$ $2.8982194 \times 10^{-5}$ $2.8441983 \times 10^{-5}$ $2.8436184 \times 10^{-5}$
$20$ $1.9825103 \times 10^{-6}$ $1.9637653 \times 10^{-6}$ $1.9455641 \times 10^{-6}$ $1.9209679 \times 10^{-6}$ $1.9063354 \times 10^{-6}$ $1.9061791 \times 10^{-6}$
$30$ $3.9617935 \times 10^{-7}$ $3.9378347 \times 10^{-7}$ $3.9146543 \times 10^{-7}$ $3.8834648 \times 10^{-7}$ $3.8649863 \times 10^{-7}$ $3.8647892 \times 10^{-7}$
$50$ $5.1966962 \times 10^{-8}$ $5.1784602 \times 10^{-8}$ $5.1608700 \times 10^{-8}$ $5.1372867 \times 10^{-8}$ $5.1233611 \times 10^{-8}$ $5.1232128 \times 10^{-8}$
$70$ $1.3610616 \times 10^{-8}$ $1.3576991 \times 10^{-8}$ $1.3544600 \times 10^{-8}$ $1.3501241 \times 10^{-8}$ $1.3475676 \times 10^{-8}$ $1.3475403 \times 10^{-8}$
$100$ $3.2846188 \times 10^{-9}$ $3.2790005 \times 10^{-9}$ $3.2735939 \times 10^{-9}$ $3.2663651 \times 10^{-9}$ $3.2621073 \times 10^{-9}$ $3.2620620 \times 10^{-9}$
$(M\Omega)^{-2/3}$ $\epsilon = 1$ $\epsilon = 0.5$ $\epsilon = 0.3$ $\epsilon = 0.1$ $\epsilon = 0.001$ $\epsilon = 0$
-------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- -----------------------------
$10$ $1.7007594 \times 10^{-7}$ $1.1483202 \times 10^{-7}$ $6.8214390 \times 10^{-8}$ $1.3789999 \times 10^{-9}$ $1.7818316 \times 10^{-10}$ $5.9210431 \times 10^{-11}$
$20$ $1.1596629 \times 10^{-9}$ $7.6985329 \times 10^{-10}$ $4.4908386 \times 10^{-10}$ $1.2016755\times 10^{-10}$ $7.3213635 \times 10^{-13}$ $4.1611347 \times 10^{-14}$
$30$ $6.5341677 \times 10^{-11}$ $4.3136903 \times 10^{-11}$ $2.5022277 \times 10^{-11}$ $6.6396635 \times 10^{-12}$ $3.8178273 \times 10^{-14}$ $6.5765960 \times 10^{-16}$
$50$ $1.7776656 \times 10^{-12}$ $1.1683680 \times 10^{-12}$ $6.7476326 \times 10^{-13}$ $1.7794278 \times 10^{-13}$ $1.0011889 \times 10^{-15}$ $3.7180270 \times 10^{-18}$
$70$ $1.6665148 \times 10^{-13}$ $1.0932322 \times 10^{-13}$ $6.3019850 \times 10^{-14}$ $1.6576708 \times 10^{-14}$ $9.2830571 \times 10^{-17}$ $1.2515752 \times 10^{-19}$
$100$ $1.3604719 \times 10^{-14}$ $8.9119542 \times 10^{-15}$ $5.1302207 \times 10^{-15}$ $1.3469136 \times 10^{-15}$ $7.5253293 \times 10^{-18}$ $3.4688374 \times 10^{-21}$
![Linear-log plot of $\dot{E}_{+}$ vs $\epsilon$ for $(M\Omega)^{-2/3}=50$. The orange dots represent the numerical results, while the solid blue line represents the results obtained from @bini_2016’s slow motion formula for the outgoing flux. Disagreement between the two results increases as $\epsilon \to 0$.[]{data-label="fig:EFI"}](EInfinityQPlot.eps){width="\linewidth"}
![Log-log plot of $\dot{E}_{-}$ vs $\epsilon$ for $(M\Omega)^{-2/3} = 50$. The orange dots represent the numerical results, while the solid blue line represents the results obtained from Bini *et. al.*’s slow-motion formula for the horizon flux. For near-extremal values of $\epsilon$, $\dot{E}_{r=r_+}$ exhibits power law fall-off in $\epsilon$, which in this example is found to scale as $\dot{E}_{r=r_+} \sim \epsilon^{5/4}$.[]{data-label="fig:EFH"}](EHQPlot.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Dissipative component of the self-force
---------------------------------------
For circular orbits, the dissipative components of the scalar self-force are $F_t$, and $F_{\phi}$. We note that due to $u^{\alpha} F_{\alpha}=0$ in the circular orbit case, there is a simple relationship between the dissipative components of the self-force: $$F_t + \Omega F_{\phi} = 0. \label{eq:FtFphi}$$ This relationship indicates that we need only one component to calculate. In this work, we choose to calculate $F_t$.
For our set-up, the local energy dissipation must be accounted for by the energy fluxes towards infinity, and down the black hole. This energy balance relation can be expressed in terms of the self-force $$F_t = \mu u^t\dot{E}_{\mathrm{total}}. \label{eq:EBalance}$$ This allows us to test our computation of $F_t$ by verifying that our numerical results satisfy Eq. .
Sample numerical results for $F_t$ are presented in Table \[tab:Ft\]. As a check, we compared our Schwarzschild results $(\epsilon=1)$ with those of @warburton_2010 [@warburton_2010], and we are in agreement to all significant figures presented. Looking at our results, we see that as the black hole approaches extremality $(\epsilon \to 0)$, the dissipative self-force decreases. One concludes from this that the black hole charge suppresses local energy dissipation.
We also compared our results to the slow-motion formula for the dissipative self-force derived by @bini_2016 [@bini_2016], presented in Fig. \[fig:Ft\]. We see that the qualitative behavior of our results completely differs from @bini_2016’s formula, which worsens as $\epsilon \to 0$. We note that this discrepancy in qualitative behavior is also present for $\dot{E}_{+}$, as presented in Fig. \[fig:EFI\].
$\epsilon$ Numerical Result PN Result
------------ ----------------------------- ----------------------------
$0$ $4.1037989 \times 10^{-17}$ $2.9851985 \times 10^{-2}$
$0.001$ $4.1160241 \times 10^{-17}$ $2.9853170 \times 10^{-2}$
$0.100$ $4.4873798 \times 10^{-17}$ $2.9965030 \times 10^{-2}$
$0.300$ $4.6552475 \times 10^{-17}$ $3.0158060 \times 10^{-2}$
$0.500$ $4.6038684 \times 10^{-17}$ $3.0305051 \times 10^{-2}$
$0.800$ $4.6637857 \times 10^{-17}$ $3.0435251 \times 10^{-2}$
$1.000$ $4.6593530 \times 10^{-17}$ $3.0460219 \times 10^{-2}$
: Comparison of the relative energy balance error for $(M\Omega)^{-2/3}=50$[]{data-label="tab:EBAL"}
As a consistency check, we then examined the energy balance relation exhibited by our numerical results and @bini_2016’s slow-motion formulas. Sample data are presented in Table \[tab:EBAL\]. While it is expected that energy balance will be better satisfied by numerical calculations compared to PN calculations, we note that the energy balance error exhibit by @bini_2016’s formulas are of relative 3 PN order, one order higher than the expected error in their formulas.
$(M\Omega)^{-2/3}$ $\epsilon = 1$ $\epsilon = 0.5$ $\epsilon = 0.3$ $\epsilon = 0.1$ $\epsilon = 0.001$ $\epsilon = 0$
-------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------- ----------------------------
$10$ $3.7502273 \times 10^{-5}$ $3.6569364 \times 10^{-5}$ $3.5667917 \times 10^{-5}$ $3.4458354 \times 10^{-5}$ $3.3746536 \times 10^{-5}$ $3.3739003 \times 10^{-5}$
$20$ $2.1515922 \times 10^{-6}$ $2.1300513 \times 10^{-6}$ $2.1092157 \times 10^{-6}$ $2.0812004 \times 10^{-6}$ $2.0646315 \times 10^{-6}$ $2.0644552 \times 10^{-6}$
$30$ $4.1767858 \times 10^{-7}$ $4.1506547 \times 10^{-7}$ $4.1254172 \times 10^{-7}$ $4.0915372 \times 10^{-7}$ $4.0715177 \times 10^{-7}$ $4.0712045 \times 10^{-7}$
$50$ $5.3601662 \times 10^{-8}$ $5.3410098 \times 10^{-8}$ $5.3225439 \times 10^{-8}$ $5.2978070 \times 10^{-8}$ $5.2832143 \times 10^{-8}$ $5.2830590 \times 10^{-8}$
$70$ $1.3912164 \times 10^{-8}$ $1.3877366 \times 10^{-8}$ $1.3843857 \times 10^{-8}$ $1.3799019 \times 10^{-8}$ $1.3772594 \times 10^{-8}$ $1.3772312 \times 10^{-8}$
$100$ $3.3350390 \times 10^{-9}$ $3.3292867 \times 10^{-9}$ $3.3237527 \times 10^{-9}$ $3.1363538 \times 10^{-9}$ $3.3119972 \times 10^{-9}$ $3.3119508 \times 10^{-9}$
![Linear-log plot of $\epsilon$ vs $F_t$, for $(M\Omega)^{-2/3} = 50$. The orange dots represent the numerical results, while the solid blue line represents @bini_2016’s slow-motion formula for the dissipative self-force. Disagreement between the two results increases significantly as $\epsilon \to 0$.[]{data-label="fig:Ft"}](FtQPlot.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Conservative component of the self-force
----------------------------------------
For circular orbits, the conservative component of the self-force is contained entirely in $F_r$. The calculation of this conservative self-force is more complicated than the dissipative piece, as the mode-sum requires regularization. We then checked the effect of the regularization parameters on the mode-sum, as presented in Fig. \[fig:Modesum\]. Looking at the high $l$-mode components, we see that the regularization parameters work as expected, leaving a residual field which exhibits $l^{-2}$ fall-off behavior.
![$l$-Modes for the conservative self-force for $(M\Omega)^{-2/3}=10$ and $\epsilon=0.5$ , along with the results from the regularization by $A_r$, $B_r$, and additional regularization parameters ($D_r$, $E_r$, $F_r$) obtained from a numerical fit.[]{data-label="fig:Modesum"}](modesum.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Sample numerical data for $F_r$ is presented in Table \[tab:Fr\]. We compared our Schwarzschild results $(\epsilon = 1)$ with those of @diaz-rivera_2004 [@diaz-rivera_2004], and we are in agreement up to six significant figures. Looking at our results, we see that as the black hole approaches extremality $(\epsilon \to 0)$, the conservative self-force decreases. This implies that the black hole charge suppresses the *entire* self-force.
We also compared our numerical results to the slow-motion formula for the conservative self-force derived by @bini_2016 [@bini_2016]. We present this in Fig. \[fig:Ft\], and we see that while @bini_2016’s formula follow the same qualitative behavior of our results, we begin to deviate as $\epsilon \to 0$.
$(M\Omega)^{-2/3}$ $\epsilon = 1$ $\epsilon = 0.5$ $\epsilon = 0.3$ $\epsilon = 0.1$ $\epsilon = 0.001$ $\epsilon = 0$
-------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- -----------------------------
$10$ $1.3784532 \times 10^{-5}$ $1.3460616 \times 10^{-5}$ $1.3154373 \times 10^{-5}$ $1.2708095 \times 10^{-5}$ $1.2434766 \times 10^{-5}$ $1.2431961 \times 10^{-5}$
$20$ $4.9379089 \times 10^{-7}$ $4.8179797 \times 10^{-7}$ $4.7004549 \times 10^{-7}$ $4.5399278 \times 10^{-7}$ $4.4435692 \times 10^{-7}$ $4.4425415 \times 10^{-7}$
$30$ $7.1719270 \times 10^{-8}$ $7.0102613 \times 10^{-8}$ $6.8530699 \times 10^{-8}$ $6.6403455 \times 10^{-8}$ $6.5136773 \times 10^{-8}$ $6.5123254 \times 10^{-8}$
$50$ $6.3467922 \times 10^{-9}$ $6.2203084 \times 10^{-9}$ $6.0980083 \times 10^{-9}$ $5.9335811 \times 10^{-9}$ $5.8362462 \times 10^{-9}$ $5.8352086 \times 10^{-9}$
$70$ $1.2845300 \times 10^{-9}$ $1.2610382 \times 10^{-9}$ $1.2383733 \times 10^{-9}$ $1.2079790 \times 10^{-9}$ $1.1900284 \times 10^{-9}$ $1.1898372 \times 10^{-9}$
$100$ $2.3565036 \times 10^{-10}$ $2.3171272 \times 10^{-10}$ $2.2791964 \times 10^{-10}$ $2.2284226 \times 10^{-10}$ $2.1984858 \times 10^{-10}$ $2.1981670 \times 10^{-10}$
![Linear-log plot of $\epsilon$ vs $F_r$ for $(M\Omega)^{-2/3} = 50$. The orange dots represent the numerical results, while the solid blue line represents the results obtained from @bini_2016’s slow-motion formula for the conservative self-force. Disagreement between the two results increases as $\epsilon \to 0$, however it is not as severe as compared to the dissipative self-force.[]{data-label="fig:Fr"}](FrQPlot.eps){width="\linewidth"}
Conclusion
==========
In this work we presented the first mode-sum calculation of the self-force exerted on a particle in circular orbits about a Reissner-Nordström black hole. We also present in this work regularization parameters $A_{\alpha}$, and $B_{\alpha}$ for circular orbits in Reissner-Nordström spacetime.
We tested the validity of our results in various ways. The results for the Schwarzschild limit was found to agree with the results found in the literature [@warburton_2010; @diaz-rivera_2004]. We confirmed numerically that the local energy dissipation is balanced out by the energy carried away by scalar waves towards infinity and down the event horizon. We also investigated the $l$-mode fall-off of the conservative self-force, and found that after subtracting the $A_r$ and $B_r$ regularization parameters the modes of the residual field fall off as $l^{-2}$, as expected.
Our results indicate that as the black hole’s electric charge increases, the self-force decreases in magnitude. This dampening is notably drastic for the flux of scalar radiation towards the event horizon, where in near-extremal Reissner-Nordström black holes, the scalar radiation flux scales as $\sim \epsilon^{5/4}$. This behavior is also seen for near-extremal Kerr black holes [@gralla_2015], thus a more detailed calculation is recommended as a future study.
We also compared our results with the slow-motion formulas obtained by @bini_2016 [@bini_2016]. While our results agree in the Schwarzschild limit, they disagree for $Q \ne 0$, and as the electric charge increases, the disagreement between the results increases. We have yet to establish the reason for this disagreement.
We expect some of our results to have some bearing on future self-force studies in black hole solutions of scalar-tensor theories. The BBMB solution of conformal scalar-vacuum gravity is exactly the extremal Reissner-Nordström geometry, so similar results might be obtained in situations where the scalar field in these alternative theories can be approximated as test fields. Other hairy black hole solutions have now been discovered in other scalar-tensor theories of gravity and some of these are also of Reissner-Nordström form [@babichev_2017_hairybhs]. Self-force phenomenology in these theories remains completely uncharted, and so remains a promising area of future research. By exploring the scalar self-force from a minimally-coupled scalar field in the Reissner-Nordström spacetime, we hope to have provided a useful guide and some benchmark numerical results for future self-force calculations in alternative theories of gravity.
Acknowledgments
===============
This research is supported by the University of the Philippines OVPAA through Grant No. OVPAA-BPhD-2016-13 and by the Department of Science and Technology Advanced Science and Technology Human Resources Development Program - National Science Consortium (DOST ASTHRDP-NSC).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We establish sharp bounds on the mixing rates of a class of two dimensional non-uniformly hyperbolic symplectic maps. This provides a primer on how to investigate such questions in a concrete example and, at the same time, it solves a controversy between previous rigorous results and numerical experiments.'
address: |
Peyman Eslami, Carlangelo Liverani\
Dipartimento di Matematica\
II Università di Roma (Tor Vergata)\
Via della Ricerca Scientifica, 00133 Roma, Italy.
author:
- Peyman Eslami and Carlangelo Liverani
date: '16 March 2020.'
title: Mixing rates for symplectic almost Anosov maps
---
Introduction
============
The study of decay of correlations for dynamical systems is a problem of paramount physical relevance. While the uniformly hyperbolic case is by now well understood and have been studied with very precise results, in the non-uniformly hyperbolic case there are still plenty of open problems. The basic idea to treat such cases is to induce. While many inducing schemes exist, the basic reference is the work of Lai Sang Young [@You1; @You2]. This has allowed to obtain important and fairly general results, at least for rank one attractors, for maps with critical points (e.g see [@You4] and reference within). In this paper we consider non-uniformly hyperbolic maps without critical points. The one dimensional expanding map case, starting with [@LSV] and continuing with [@Sarig1; @Sarig2; @Gouezel], has witnessed many progressess that have developed into a rather satisfactory theory. Recently such a theory has been extended to important multidimensional expanding examples [@HV1; @HV2; @EMV]. On the contrary the study of non-uniformly hyperbolic maps is still unsatisfactory. In particular, few example have been studied [@Hu99; @LM; @BG06; @HuZh] and only recently some general strategies are merging [@LT; @BMT].
It seems thus important to work out explicitly some relevant example to see how to develop the theory further. In particular, in [@LM] it was introduced a natural class of symplectic maps with a neutral fixed point. When such maps are smooth in [@LM] it was proven that smooth observables exhibit a decay of correlations with speed, at least, $n^{-2}(\log n)^{4}$. However numerical studies [@AP] suggest that the decay may be faster, leaving the doubt that the strategy used in [@LM] is largely suboptimal. Since the strategy is conceptually the same as used in [@LSV], where it is optimal apart form a logarithmic factor, it is of clear interest to investigate if the suggestion coming from numerics is indeed correct, or it is a numerical artefact.
The present paper shows that the results in [@LM] are indeed sub-optimal and that the correlations decay with a faster power law. Moreover, we show that the power law that we obtain is optimal whereby putting to rest any previous doubt on the correct behaviour of the system.
The strategy used highlights the key ingredients that are necessary in order to achieve similar sharp results in different systems. In particular, it should be mentioned that the map considered is analytic and has a Markov partition and we take advantage of these facts in order to simplify the argument and present it in the simplest possible form. Yet, no real conceptual obstacle prevents one from trying to apply a similar strategy to a non-Markov or a piecewise $\cC^{1+\alpha}$ map, where an array of different power-law decays should be present, see Remark \[rem:general\].
The paper is organised as follows: in section \[sec:prelim\] we present the class of maps we investigate, state our main result (Theorem \[thm:main\]) and we recall some relevant facts from the literature. In section \[sec:MP\] we describe various Markov partitions used in the following. Section \[sec:firstret\] is devoted to the careful study of the return time when inducing on a set away from the fixed point. This is the core of the paper and, beside treating the current example, highlights the ingredients needed to obtain such results in more general models. At last, in section \[sec:mixrates\] we use the estimates of section \[sec:firstret\], several facts from [@LM] and the general theory put forward in [@BMT] to prove Theorem \[thm:main\].
Let $f, g: \bT^2 \to \bR$ be two functions. We write $f \ll g$ or $f = \cO(g)$ if there exist constants $C, \delta>0$, depending only on the map and the Markov partition defined in Section \[sec:MP\], such that for every $x, y \in (0, \delta)$, $\abs{f(x,y)} \le C \abs{g(x,y)}$. We write $f \asymp g$ if $f \ll g$ and $g\ll f$.
Preliminaries and results {#sec:prelim}
=========================
We consider the class of maps $\map:\bT^{2} \circlearrowleft$ from [@LM] and defined by $$\label{eq:map}
\map(x,y) = (x+h(x)+y, h(x)+ y),$$ where $h \in \cC^{\infty}(\bT^{1}, \bT^{1})$. We moreover require the following properties
1. $h(0)=0$ (zero is a fixed point);
2. $h'(0)=0$ (zero is a neutral fixed point)
3. $h'(x)>0$ for each $x\neq 0$ (hyperbolicity)
Indeed condition (3) implies that, setting $K_0=\{(v_1,v_2)\in\bR^2\;:\; v_1v_2\geq 0\}$, we have that, for all $(x,y)\in\bT^2$, $D_{(x,y)}\map K_0\subset K_0$. Moreover, $D_{(x,y)}\map K_0\subset \textrm{int} K_0\cup\{0\}$ for all $x\neq 0$. Since $\map(0,y)=(y,y)$, it follows that, if $(x,y)\neq 0$, then $D_{(x,y)}\map^2 K_0\subset \textrm{int} K_0\cup\{0\}$. Hyperbolicity follows then by [@Wo Theorem 2.2].
Note that conditions (2–3) imply that zero is a minimum for $h'$, which forces $$h''(0)=0;\quad h'''(0)\geq 0.$$ We will restrict to the generic case
1. $h'''(0)>0$.
Hence, $h$, can be written, in a neighborhood of zero, as $$h(x)=bx^{3}+\cO(x^{5}), \text{ for some } b>0.$$
To simplify the following arguments we also assume $$h(-x)= -h(x).$$ Note that this implies $\map$ is reversible (a physically meaningful property) with respect to the transformations $$\label{eq:reversible}
\Pi(x,-y-h(x)):=(x, -y-h(x)); \quad \Pi_1(x,y):=(-x, y+h(x)),$$ in the sense that $\Pi^2=\Pi_1^2 = \mathbf{Id}$ and $\Pi \map \Pi = \Pi_1 \map \Pi_1 = \map^{-1}$.
For the record, $$\label{eq:invmap}
\map^{-1}(x,y) = (x-y, y-h(x-y)).$$
\[rem:general\] The choice $h\in\cC^\infty$ is rather arbitrary. Most of hyperbolic theory applies to the case $h\in\cC^{1+\alpha}$, $\alpha\in\bR$, $\alpha>0$. For example one could consider the cases in which, near zero, $h'(x)\sim |x|^\alpha$, possibly keeping the symmetry condition $h(-x)=-h(x)$. This would yield a large range of different behaviours of the decay of correlations, probably in analogy with what happens in the one dimensional case. We do not pursue this venue here since it requires a considerable amount of extra work. In particular, one would have to extend all the relevant results obtained in [@LM] to the present case. However, what we do in the following constitutes a roadmap toward such an extension.
We are interested in studying the correlations between two observables: $$\corr(\Phi, \Psi, n) = \int_{\bT^{2}} \Phi
\cdot \Psi \circ \map^{n} \,d\leb -
\int_{\bT^{2}} \Phi \,d\leb\int_{\bT^{2}} \Psi \,d\leb.$$ Our main result consists in the following sharp estimate.
\[thm:main\] For all $\eta >0$ sufficiently close to $1$, there exist $C_{1}, C_{2} >0$ such that, for every $\Phi, \Psi \in\cC^{\eta}(\bT^{2})$ satisfying $\int_{\bT^{2}} \Phi
\,d\leb\int_{\bT^{2}} \Psi \,d\leb=1$ (and supported away from $\bp$ for the lower bound), the following estimate holds true. For every $n \ge 1$, $$\label{eq:sharp}
C_{1}\frac{\norm{\Phi}_{\cC^\eta} \norm{\Psi}_{\cC^\eta}}{(\log n)n^{3}} \le \abs{\corr(\Phi, \Psi, n)} \le
C_{2 }\frac{(\log n)^{4}\norm{\Phi}_{\cC^\eta} \norm{\Psi}_{\cC^\eta} }{n^{3}}.$$ While, for every $\beta<4$ the exists a constant $C_\beta>0$ such that, for all $\Phi \in\cC^{\eta}(\bT^{2})$ with $\int_{\bT^{2}} \Phi \,d\mu= 0$ and $\Psi \in\cC^{\eta}(\bT^{2})$, we have $$\abs{\corr(\Phi, \Psi, n)} \le C_\beta n^{-\beta} \norm{\Phi}_{\cC^\eta} \norm{\Psi}_{\cC^\eta}.$$
The above result shows that, as suggested by some numerical experiments in [@AP], the estimate in [@LM] was off by one full power. Moreover, shows that our estimate is essentially sharp.
To prove Theorem \[thm:main\] it is necessary both a better understanding of the hyperbolic structure of the map and precise estimates on the behaviour of the map near its neutral fixed point.
The first is achieved by constructing a drastic refinement of the invariant cone field $K_0$: There exists two constants $K_{+},K_{-} >0$ such that the unstable direction $(1,u)$ at the point $(x,y)$ satisfies
$$\label{eq:ucone}
K_{-}\left(\abs{x}+\sqrt{\abs{y}}\right) \le u \le
K_{+}\left(\abs{x}+\sqrt{\abs{y}}\right).$$
Indeed, the unstable direction at $(x,y)=\xi$ must belong to the cone $D_{\map^{-k}\xi}\map^kK_0$, for each $k\in\bN$. But, using , $D_{\map^{-1}\xi}\map^1K_0$ is contained in the cone with boundary lines $(1+h'(x-y), h'(x-y))$ and $(1,1)$, so provided $|x-y|\geq \delta$, for some fixed $\delta$, the claim is obvious for $K_+<1$ and $K_-$ small enough. On the other hand, if $|x-y|\leq \delta$, then the lower boundary of $D_{\map^{-2}\xi}\map^2K_0$ is above $(1+h'(x-2y+h(x-y)), h'(x-2y+h(x-y)))$. Since $|x-2y+h(x-y)|\geq |y|-(1+\norm{h'}_\infty)\delta$ we have again the claim provided $|y|\geq 2(1+\norm{h'}_\infty)\delta$ and $K_-$ is small enough. It remains to verify the statement in a $\delta$ neighborhood of zero, which is done in [@LM Proposition 4.1].
A similar statement holds for the stable direction.
As for the dynamics near zero, the first task is to understand the shape of the trajectories. This can be achieved with the introductions of an almost conserved quantity: a [*quasi hamiltonian*]{}.
For an initial point $(x,y)\in \bT^{2}$ and $n \in \bN$, denote $(x_{n},y_{n})=\map^{n}(x,y)$. By , $$\label{eq:yn} x_{n+1}-x_{n}=y_{n} + h(x_{n}) =
y_{n+1}.$$ We define the quasi-Hamiltonian as $$\label{eq:ham}
H(x,y)=\frac12 y^{2} - G(x)+\frac12
h(x)y-\frac1{12}h'(x)y^{2}+\frac1{12}h(x)^{2},$$ where $G(x) = \int_{0}^{x}h(z)\,dz$. Note that $G\geq 0$, $H(0,0)=0$. A direct computation (if lazy see [@LM Footnote 5]) yields, for every $(x,y) \in \bT^{2}$, $$\label{eq:quasiham}
\abs{H(\map(x,y))-H(x,y)} \ll x^{8}+y^{4}.$$
The dynamics along the trajctories is obviously dominated by dynamics on the stable and unstable manifolds of zero. The bounds on the cone filed (as well as , ) imply that they look like parabolas. The following Lemma corresponds to [@LM Lemmata 3.1, 3.2].
\[lem:stabledyn\] Denote $A = (2/b)^{1/2}$. Suppose $x_{0}\ge 0$ is sufficiently small. Then, there exists a trajectory $(x_{n},y_{n})=\map^{n}(x_{0},y_{0})$, $n \in \bN \cup \{0\}$, that satisfies $(x_{n})_{n}
\in \ell^{2}(\bN)$ and $$\label{eq:stabledyn}
\left|x_{n}-\frac{A}{n+A/x_{0}}\right| \le
\frac{B}{(n+A/x_{0})^{2}}, \text{ for some } B \text{ and all } n \in
\bN;$$ moreover, $y_{0}$ is a Lipschitz function of $x_{0}$. These trajectories form the local stable manifold of $\bp=(0,0)$.
Markov partitions {#sec:MP}
=================
Using the symmetry (by which we mean reversiblility according to ), we can form a Markov partition for $\map$ consisting of three elements, as shown in .
We want to induce on a set away from zero; however, all the above partition elements touch zero. Hence, we refine the original partition forwards and backwards $m$ times. We denote such a partition by $\cP$. Let $\pnbd$ denote the union of all the elements of $\cP$ touching $\bp$. By choosing $m$ large enough we ensure that $\pnbd$ is contained in a fixed but sufficiently small neighbourhood of $\bp$.
It is easy to see that $\pnbd$ is necessarily a union of four elements of $\cP$ each of which have two sides consisting of local stable and unstable manifolds of $\bp$. Since $\Pi_1$ maps the local unstable manifold of $\bp$ to its local stable manifold, by continuity, if $P_0$ is one of the three elements of the original Markov partition, then $\Pi_1 P_0 = P_0$. Now, suppose $P \in \cP$ is one of the four sets constituting $\pnbd$. It is of the form $$P=P_0 \cap T^{-1}P_1 \cap \dots \cap T^{-m}P_m\cap T \tilde P_1 \cap \dots \cap T^m \tilde P_m,$$ where each $P_j$ and $\tilde P_j$ is one of the three elements of the original Markov partition. Using the reversibility property of $\map$ with respect to $\Pi_1$, it follows that $\Pi_1 P$ is of the same form. Since $\Pi_1 P$ touches $\bp$ and is a member of $\cP$, it follows that it is one of the four elements constituting $\pnbd$. It follows that $\Pi_1 \pnbd = \pnbd$.
First return map {#sec:firstret}
================
Denote $Y=\bT^{2}\setminus \pnbd$ and define $\rtzeroone:Y \to \bN$ to be the first return time to $Y$. The first return map $\mapone:Y \circlearrowleft$ is then defined by $\mapone=\map^{\rtzeroone}$. Note that $Y$ is the union of elements of $\cP \setminus
\{\pnbd\}$ and if we let $R_{\trn} = \{\rtzeroone = \trn\}$, then each $R_{\trn}$ is a union of elements of $\cP^{\trn}$. Let $\cP_1$ denote the partition of $Y$ whose elements are of the form $P \cap R_{\trn}$, where $P \in \cP\setminus \{\pnbd\}$ and $N \in \bN$. Notice that $\cP_1$ is a (countably infinite) Markov partition for $T_1$.
Denote $\wholetail =
\map^{-1}\pnbd\setminus
\pnbd$. Then, $\wholetail = \bigcup_{\trn \ge 2} R_{\trn}$. Our aim in this section is to estimate $\leb(R_{\trn})$ for large $\trn$ (see ).
For large $\trn$, $R_{\trn}$ consists of two parts one in the second quadrant ($x\le 0 , y \ge 0$) and the other in the fourth quadrant ($x\ge 0, y \le 0$). Due to the symmetry we focus on the part of $R_{\trn}$ contained in the second quadrant. We further consider two cases one corresponding to the part above the stable manifold of $\bp$ (fat region); the other corresponding to the part below the stable manifold of $\bp$ (thin region).
Analysis in the fat region {#subsec:fat}
--------------------------
First we analyze the dynamics in the fat region. In we do a similar analysis for the thin region.
Fix $M>0$ large (according to ) and let $$\bP_{M}=\{(x,y)\in \bT^{2} : Mx^{4} \le H(x,y), x\le 0, y \ge 0\}.$$
Due to the parabolic nature of stable and unstable manifolds [@LM Lemma 3.5], in the fat region it holds $x^2 \ll y$. However, a better estimate holds for $(x,y) \in \bP_M$ by taking $M$ large.
\[lem:xy\] For all $(x,y) \in \bP_{M}$, $$\label{eq:xy}
x^{2} \ll (1/M)y.$$
From , $H(x,y) \le (1/2)y^2+(1/2)h(x)^2 \ll y^2$. Also, by assumption, $Mx^{4} \le H(x,y)$. The result follows.
\[lem:largeM\] For $M$ sufficiently large and $(x,y) \in \bP_{M}$, $$\label{eq:Hest}
H(x,y) \asymp y^{2}.$$
By , $H(x,y) \ge (1/2)y^2-G(x)+(1/2)h(x)y-(1/12)h'(x)y^2$. By this expression is $\gg (1/2)M^2x^4 - x^4$. Choosing $M$ sufficiently large implies the lower bound in . The upperbound was shown in the proof of .
For $(x,y) \in \bP_{M}$, $$\label{eq:sqrtHdiff}
\abs{H^{1/2} \circ \map (x,y)-H^{1/2}(x,y)} \ll y^{3}.$$
By and for $(x,y)
\in \bP_{M}$, $$\begin{split}
\abs{H^{1/2}\circ \map (x,y)-H^{1/2} (x,y)} &= \frac{\abs{ H \circ
\map (x,y)-H(x,y)}}{H^{1/2} \circ \map (x,y)+H^{1/2}(x,y)}\\ &\ll
\frac{\abs{ H \circ \map (x,y)-H(x,y)}}{y} \\ &\ll
\frac{x^{8}+y^{4}}{y} \ll y^{3}.
\end{split}$$
\[def:nell\] Given an initial point $(x,y) \in
\wholetail$ let $E_{k} = E_{k}(x,y) = H(x_{k}, y_{k})$, $$n = \max{\{k \in \bN: x_{k} \le 0\}}, \quad \ell=\ell(x,y) =
\min\{k \le n : (x_{k}, y_{k}) \in \bP_{M}\}.$$
Note that in the estimates below both sides of $\ll$ are functions of the initial point $(x,y)$ so the constants hidden in the notation $\ll$ do not depend on $k$.
For all $\ell \le k \le n$, $$\label{eq:Esqrt_ch}
\abs{E_{k}^{1/2}-E_{\ell}^{1/2}} =
\abs{H^{1/2}(x_{k},y_{k})-H^{1/2}(x_{\ell},y_{\ell})} \ll
\abs{y_{\ell}}^{2}\abs{x_{\ell}}$$
By , $$\label{eq:sqrtEdiff}
\begin{split}
\abs{E_{k}^{1/2}-E_{\ell}^{1/2}} &=
\abs{H^{1/2}(x_{k},y_{k})-H^{1/2}(x_{\ell},y_{\ell})} \\ &\ll
\sum_{j=\ell}^{k-1}\abs{y_{j}}^{3} \ll
\abs{y_{\ell}}^{2}\sum_{j=\ell}^{k-1}(x_{j}-x_{j-1}) \ll
\abs{y_{\ell}}^{2}\abs{x_{\ell}}.
\end{split}$$
\[rem:xkEk\] If $(x_{k},y_{k}) \in \bP_{M}$, then by definition of $\bP_M$ and , $$\label{eq:ykEk}
\abs{x_{k}} \le M^{-1/4}E_{k}^{1/4}, \text{ and } y_{k} \asymp E_{k}^{1/2}.$$
\[lem:precision\] For $\ell \le k \le n$, $$\label{eq:precision}
y_k \asymp E_\ell^{1/2}.$$
Write $y_{k} = y_{\ell} - (y_{\ell}-y_{k})$ and apply and .
$$\label{eq:ellminusone} E_{\ell-1}^{1/4}-
E_{\ell}^{1/4} \ll E_{\ell}^{1/2}.$$
By definition of $\ell$, $M^{-1/4}E_{\ell-1}^{1/4} \le -x_{\ell-1} $ and $M^{-1/4}E_{\ell}^{1/4} \ge -x_{\ell}$. Therefore, using and , $$M^{-1/4}E_{\ell-1}^{1/4} - M^{-1/4}E_{\ell}^{1/4} \le
-x_{\ell-1}+x_{\ell} = y_{\ell} \ll E_{\ell}^{1/2}.$$
Now we relate the time and the energy.
\[lem:timeout\] $ n-\ell \asymp E_{\ell}^{-1/4} $.
By and , $$\begin{split} (E_{\ell}/M)^{1/4} &\ge -x_{\ell} \ge x_{n}-x_{\ell}
=
\sum_{k=\ell+1}^{n}y_{k} \gg (n-\ell-1) E_{\ell}^{1/2} \\
(E_{\ell-1}/M)^{1/4} &\le
-x_{\ell-1}\le x_{n+1}-x_{\ell-1} =
\sum_{k=\ell}^{n+1}y_{k} \ll
(n-\ell+1)E_{\ell}^{1/2}.
\end{split}$$ The result follows because, by , $$E_{\ell-1}^{1/4} =
E_{\ell}^{1/4}+(E_{\ell-1}^{1/4}-E_{\ell}^{1/4}) \ge
E_{\ell}^{1/4} - \cO(E_{\ell}^{1/2}) \gg E_{\ell}^{1/4}.$$
\[lem:xell\] $\abs{x_{\ell}} \gg E_{\ell}^{1/4}$.
Using and , $$\begin{split}
\abs{x_{\ell}} = \abs{x_{\ell-1}+y_{\ell}} &\ge
\abs{x_{\ell-1}}-\abs{y_{\ell}} \\ &\ge
(E_{\ell-1}/M)^{1/4}-\cO(E_{\ell}^{1/2})
\gg E_{\ell-1}^{1/4}\gg E_{\ell}^{1/4}.
\end{split}$$
Next, we relate $\ell$ to $E_{\ell}$. Our strategy is to show that there exists a point $(x^{s},y^{s})$ on the stable manifold of $\bp$ whose trajectory “shadows” the trajectory of $(x,y)$ for $\ell$ iterations; then, we use the dynamics on the stable manifold, , to estimate $\ell$.
Denote a sufficiently long piece of the stable manifold of $\bp$ by $\{(z,\gamma_{s}(z))\}$. Let $\{(z,U_{\ell}(z))\}$ be a sufficiently long piece of the unstable manifold of the point $(x_{\ell}, y_{\ell})$. Denote by $S_{\ell} = (\xi_{\ell}, \zeta_{\ell})$ the point of intersection of $U_{\ell}$ and $\gamma_{s}$. That is, $U_{\ell}(\xi_{\ell}) = \gamma_{s}(\xi_{\ell})=\zeta_{\ell}$.
\[lem:blah\] $0 \le \abs{\xi_{\ell}}-\abs{x_{\ell}} \ll E_{\ell}^{1/4}$.
The lower bound clearly follows from which implies that the unstable curves are increasing. To prove the upper bound, note that for every $\xi_{\ell}<z < x_{\ell}$, $$U_{\ell}'(z) \ge K_{-}(\abs{z}+\sqrt{\abs{U_{\ell}(z)}} )\ge
K_{-}(\abs{x_{\ell}} +\sqrt{\zeta_{\ell}}) .$$
From the geometry and using and we have $$\abs{\xi_{\ell}} -\abs{x_{\ell}}\le
\frac{y_{\ell}-\zeta_{\ell}}{K_{-}(\abs{x_{\ell}}
+\sqrt{\zeta_{\ell}})} \ll \frac{y_{\ell}}{\abs{x_{\ell}}} \ll
\frac{E_{\ell}^{1/2}}{E_{\ell}^{1/4}} \ll E_{\ell}^{1/4}.$$
\[rem:largeN\] In the following lemma, in addition to previous restrictions on $(x_0, y_0)$ being sufficiently close to $\bp$, we need $\ell$ to be sufficiently large. This is accomplished by considering $\trn$ sufficiently large beacuse this forces $(x_0, y_0) \in R_\trn$ to be sufficently close to the local stable manifold of $\bp$, which in turn, by continuity, forces $\ell$ to be large.
\[lem:timein\] $ \ell \asymp E_{\ell}^{-1/4}$.
Since $\{\xi_{j}\}_{j=0}^{\ell}$ lies on the stable manifold of $\bp$, by , we have $$\xi_{\ell} \asymp \frac{A}{\ell+A/\xi_{0}} \Rightarrow \ell \asymp
\frac{A}{\xi_{\ell}} - \frac{A}{\xi_{0}}.$$ Since $\abs{\xi_{\ell}} \ll E_{\ell}^{1/4}$, we have $\ell \gg E_{\ell}^{-1/4}$. On the other hand, by , we have $$\abs{\xi_{\ell-1}} \ge \abs{x_{\ell-1}} \ge
M^{-1/4}E_{\ell-1}^{1/4} \gg E_{\ell}^{1/4},$$ which shows that $\ell \ll E_{\ell}^{-1/4}$.
For $k \in \bN$, define $\reg_k = \{(x,y) \in \wholetail : n(x,y) =
k\}$. This is the set of points in $\wholetail=\map^{-1}\pnbd\setminus
\pnbd$ that spend exactly $k$ iterations on the left of the $y$-axis. We assume here that $\reg_k$ is in the fat region and in the second quadrant.
We will need some extra information about the geometry of $\wholetail$: By construction, and properties of the Markov partition, one unstable side of $\wholetail$ is the preimage of the other.
For sufficiently large $k$, $\reg_k$ is the region bounded by the unstable sides of $\wholetail$ and the curves $\map^{-k}(\{x=0\})$ and $\map^{-(k+1)}(\{x=0\})$.
For large $k$, the $k$-th preimage of the $y$-axis is a curve close to the stable manifold of $\bp$. $\reg_k$ is the region in $\wholetail$ that lies between the curves $\map^{-k}(\{x=0\})$ and $\map^{-(k+1)}(\{x=0\})$.
Let us denote $\imreg_k = \map^k \reg_k$. For sufficiently large $k$, $\imreg_k$ is the region bounded by two unstable curves, the curve $\map^{-1}(\{x=0\})$ and the $y$-axis.
The following lemma gives an estimate on the vertical distance between the unstable sides of $C_k$; that is, on the length of a vertical line segment both of whose endpoints lie on the unstable sides of $C_k$.
\[lem:vlength\] The vertical distance between the unstable sides of $\imreg_k$ is $\asymp k^{-3}$.
The upper and lower boundaries of $\imreg_k$ are formed by unstable manifolds that if continued to the left will intersect the immediate stable manifold of $\bp$ at points whose $x$-coordinate is proportional to $k^{-1}$ according to . Note that one unstable curve is the preimage of the other. At the points of intersection between the unstable manifolds and the stable manifold (shown in ), by , the angle between the manifolds is $\asymp k^{-1}$. Therefore the vertical distance between the two unstable curves is $\asymp k^{-3}$ at the intersection of the lower unstable curve and the stable curve (see ). Let us denote $x$-coordinate of this point by $z_0$. Let us label the two unstable curves by $(x,U_1(x))$ and $(x,U_2(x))$ and denote their slopes by $u_1(x)$ and $u_2(x)$. By the mean value inequality, it follows that $$\abs{u_2(x)-u_1(x)} \le |Du(\xi)| \norm{(x,U_2(x))-(x,U_1(x))},$$ where $\xi \in \bT^2$ is a point on the line segment connecting $(x,U_1(x))$ and $(x,U_2(x))$ and $(1,u(\xi))$ is the unstable vector at $\xi$.
By [@LM Lemma 6.6 and Proposition 4.1], $|Du(\xi)| \ll \theta(\xi)^{-1}$, where $\theta(\xi) = u(\xi)+v(\xi)$ and $(1, -v(\xi))$ is the stable vector at $\xi$. By , $|Du(\xi)| \ll k$ in the region bounded by the stable curve, the two unstable curves and the $y$-axis.
Since $U_j'(x) = u_j(x)$, for $j=1,2$, we have shown that $$\abs{(U_2(x)-U_1(x))'} \ll k \abs{U_2(x)-U_1(x)}.$$ Now, by Gronwall inequality, $$U_2(z)-U_1(z) \le (U_2(z_0)- U_1(z_0))e^{Ck(z-z_0)}.$$ Recall that $-z_0 \asymp k^{-1}$, so for every $z \in (z_0,
0)$ $$U_2(z)-U_1(z) \le k^{-3}e^{Ck(z-z_0)} \ll k^{-3}.$$ Interchanging the role of $z$ and $z_0$, we also get the lower bound, $$U_2(z)-U_1(z) \ge k^{-3}e^{-Ck(z-z_0)} \ge k^{-3}e^{-C} \gg k^{-3}.$$
Suppose $(x,y)$ is a point on the boundary of $\imreg_k$ which also lies on $\map^{-1}\{x=0\}$, then $\abs{x} \asymp k^{-2}$.
By , and , $y \asymp k^{-2}$. Since $\map^{-1}(\{x=0\})= \{(-y, y+h(y))\}$, it follows that $\abs{x} \asymp k^{-2}$.
\[lem:measreg\] $\leb(\reg_k) = \leb(\imreg_k) \asymp k^{-5}$.
This is a direct consequence of the previous two lemmas and the $\map$-invariance of $\leb$.
\[lem:incl\] $\abs{\pi_y(\imreg_k)} \asymp k^{-3}$, where $\pi_y$ denotes projection onto the $y$-axis.
We established in that the vertical distance between the unstable sides of $\imreg_k$ is $\asymp k^{-3}$. It follows that $\abs{\pi_y(\imreg_k)} \gg k^{-3}$. To show the upper bound, it remains to take care of the inclination of the unstable sides. By , the angle of the unstable boundaries of $\imreg_k$ with the horizontal is $\asymp k^{-1}$ which means they can increase vertically by a factor of $k^{-3}$ in a distance of $k^{-2}$. It follows that $\abs{\pi_y(\imreg_k)} \ll k^{-3}$.
It follows from the previous lemmas that $\imreg_k$ is contained in a true rectangle (not a Markov rectangle) of vertical length $\asymp
k^{-3}$ and of horizontal length $\asymp k^{-2}$.
Let $\symimreg_k :=\Pi_1 \imreg_k$. Due to the symmetry, $\map^k \symimreg_k = \map^k \Pi_1 \Pi_1 \symimreg_k = \Pi_1 \map^{-k}\Pi_1 \symimreg_k = \Pi_1 \map^{-k} \imreg_k$. Therefore, $\symimreg_k$ is the set of points on the right of the $y$-axis whose preimage is on the left of the $y$-axis and that spend exactly $k$ iterations in $\pnbd$ before mapping into $\map\pnbd\setminus \pnbd$.
\[lem:symcover\] There exists $k_* \in \bN$ such that for all sufficiently large $k$, $$\map\imreg_k \subset \symimreg_{k-k_*} \cup \dots \cup \symimreg_{k+k_*}.$$
Using the definition of $\map$, $\map\imreg_k$ is vertically lower than $\imreg_k$ by an amount proportional to $k^{-6}$ and the vertical distance between its unstable sides is $\asymp k^{-3}$. Also $\symimreg_k$ has vertical height proportional to $k^{-3}$ and has inclination (with respect to the horizontal) of $k^{-3}$ (see proof of ), as depicted in . Since the proportionality constants are independent of $k$ (i.e. they hold for all sufficiently large $k$), $\map\imreg_k$ can be covered by finitely many $\symimreg_k$’s. That is, there exists $k_*$ such that $\map\imreg_k \subset \symimreg_{k-k_*} \cup \dots \cup \symimreg_{k+k_*}$.
For sufficiently large $k$, $$\reg_k \subset R_{2k-k_*} \cup \dots \cup R_{2k+k_*}, \qquad R_{2k}, R_{2k+1} \subset \reg_{k-k_*} \cup \dots \cup \reg_{k+k_*} .$$
The first statement follows directly from the previous lemma. For the second statement, note that $R_{2k+1}$ spends $2k$ iterations in $\pnbd$ and this number of iterations is divided between left and right sides of the $y$-axis with the restriction that the number of iterations on the left and on the right can differ by at most $k_*$ because of the previous lemma and the symmetry. This forces at most $j$ iterations on the left and $2k-j$ iterations on the right, where $-k_* \le j \le k_*$. This implies that $R_{2k+1}$ is a subset of $\reg_{k-k_*} \cup \dots \cup
\reg_{k+k_*}$. For the same reason $R_{2k}$ must be a subset of $\reg_{k-k_*} \cup \dots \cup\reg_{k+k_*}$.
\[prop:fat\] $$\leb(R_{\trn}^{\text{fat}}) \asymp \trn^{-5}.$$
This is a direct consequence of the previous lemma and the estimate on the measure of $\reg_k$ from .
Analysis in the thin region {#subsec:thin}
---------------------------
Analysis in the thin region is similar to the analysis we did in for the fat region. Note that in this region the energy is negative. Fix $M$ large (according to ) and define $$\bP'_{M}=\{(x,y)\in \bT^{2} : My^{2} \le \abs{H(x,y)}, x\le 0, y \ge
0\}.$$
A priori, in the thin region, $y \ll x^2$ but in $\bP'_M$ we have the following better estimate.
\[lem:yxthin\] If $(x,y) \in \bP'_{M}$ then $$\label{eq:yxthin} y \ll (1/M)x^2.$$
By , $|H(x,y)|=-H(x,y) \le G(x)-(1/2)h(x)y+(1/12)h'(x)y^2 \ll x^4$. Also, by assumption, $My^{2} \le |H(x,y)|$. Together, they imply the result.
\[lem:Hx\] For $M$ sufficiently large and $(x,y) \in \bP'_{M}$, $$\label{eq:Hx}
\abs{H(x,y)} \asymp x^4$$
By , $-H(x,y) \ge -(1/2)y^2+\cO(x^4)$. By , this expression is $\gg x^4$ if $M$ is chosen sufficiently large. This proves the lower bound in . The upper bound was shown in the proof of .
For $(x,y) \in \bP'_{M}$, $$\label{eq:sqrtHdiffx}
\abs{\abs{H \circ \map (x,y)}^{1/2}-\abs{H(x,y)}^{1/2}} \ll x^{6}.$$
By and for $(x,y) \in \bP'_{M}$, $$\begin{split}
\abs{\abs{H \circ \map (x,y)}^{1/2}-\abs{H(x,y)}^{1/2}} &=
\frac{\abs{ H \circ \map (x,y)-H(x,y)}}{\abs{H \circ \map
(x,y)}^{1/2}+\abs{H(x,y)}^{1/2}}\\ &\ll
\frac{x^{8}+y^{4}}{x^{2}} \ll x^{6}.
\end{split}$$
As before we define the following quantities but using $\bP'_{M}$ instead of $\bP_{M}$.
Given an initial point $(x,y) \in \wholetail$ let $E_{k} = E_{k}(x,y) = H(x_{k}, y_{k})$, $$n = \max{\{k \in \bN: y_{k} \ge 0\}}, \quad \ell=\ell(x,y) =
\min\{k \le n : (x_{k}, y_{k}) \in \bP'_{M}\}.$$
For all $\ell \le k \le n$, $$\label{eq:Esqrt_chx}
\abs{\abs{E_{k}}^{1/2}-\abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/2}} =
\abs{\abs{H(x_{k},y_{k})}^{1/2}-\abs{H(x_{\ell},y_{\ell})}^{1/2}}
\ll \abs{x_{\ell}}^{3}y_{\ell}.$$
By , $$\begin{split}
\abs{\abs{E_{k}}^{1/2}-\abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/2}} &=
\abs{\abs{H(x_{k},y_{k})}^{1/2}-\abs{H(x_{\ell},y_{\ell})}^{1/2}}
\\ &\ll
\sum_{j=\ell}^{k-1}x_{j}^{6} \ll
\abs{x_{\ell}}^{3}\sum_{j=\ell}^{k-1}(y_{j}-y_{j+1}) \ll
\abs{x_{\ell}}^{3}y_{\ell}.
\end{split}$$
\[rem:xykEk\_t\] If $(x_{k},y_{k}) \in \bP'_{M}$, then by definition of $\bP'_M$ and , $$\label{eq:xykEk_t}
\abs{y_{k}} \le M^{-1/2}\abs{E_{k}}^{1/2}, \text{ and } x_{k} \asymp \abs{E_{k}}^{1/4}.$$
\[lem:precisionx\] For $\ell \le k \le n$, $$\label{eq:precisionx}
\abs{x_{k}} \asymp \abs{E_\ell}^{1/4}$$
Write $x_{k} = x_{\ell} + (x_{k}-x_{\ell})$ and apply and .
$$\label{eq:ellminusonex} \abs{E_{\ell-1}}^{1/2}-
\abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/2} \ll \abs{E_{\ell}}^{3/4}.$$
By definition of $\ell$, $M^{-1/2}\abs{E_{\ell-1}}^{1/2} \le y_{\ell-1} $ and $M^{-1/2}\abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/2} \ge y_{\ell}$. Therefore, $$M^{-1/2}\abs{E_{\ell-1}}^{1/2} - M^{-1/2}\abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/2} \le
y_{\ell-1}-y_{\ell} \ll \abs{x_{\ell-1}}^{3} =
\abs{x_{\ell}-y_{\ell}}^{3} \ll E_{\ell}^{3/4}.$$
Now we relate the time and the energy.
\[lem:timeinx\] $ n-\ell \asymp \abs{E_{\ell}}^{-1/2} $.
By and , $$\begin{split}
\abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/2} &\gg y_{\ell} \ge y_{\ell}-y_{n} \gg
\sum_{k=\ell}^{n-1}\abs{x_{k}}^{3} \gg (n-\ell-1)
\abs{E_{\ell}}^{3/4} \\
\abs{E_{\ell-1}}^{1/2} &\ll y_{\ell-1}\le y_{\ell-1}-y_{n+1} \ll
\sum_{k=\ell-1}^{n}\abs{x_{k}}^{3} =
(n-\ell+1)\abs{E_{\ell}}^{3/4}.
\end{split}$$ The result follows because, by , $$\abs{E_{\ell-1}}^{1/2} = \abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/2}+(\abs{E_{\ell-1}}^{1/2}-
\abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/2}) \gg
\abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/2}.$$
We shall not use the following lemma, nevertheless we state it since it is a symmetrical statement to .
$\abs{y_{\ell}} \gg \abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/2}$.
Using and , $$\begin{split}
\abs{y_{\ell}} = \abs{y_{\ell-1}+h(x_{\ell})} &\gg
\abs{y_{\ell-1}}-\abs{x_{\ell}}^{3} \\ &\gg
\abs{E_{\ell-1}}^{1/2}-\cO(\abs{E_{\ell}}^{3/4})
\gg \abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/2}.
\end{split}$$
Let $\xi_{\ell}, \zeta_{\ell}$ be as in .
$0 \le \abs{x_{\ell}}-\abs{\xi_{\ell}} \ll \abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/4}$.
The lower bound clearly follows from which implies that the unstable curves are increasing. To prove the upper bound, note that for every $\xi_{\ell}<z < x_{\ell}$, $$U_{\ell}'(z) \ge K_{-}(\abs{z}+\sqrt{\abs{U_{\ell}(z)}} )\ge
K_{-}(\abs{x_{\ell}} +\sqrt{\zeta_{\ell}}) .$$
Using and we have $$\abs{x_{\ell}}-\abs{\xi_{\ell}} \le
\frac{y_{\ell}-\zeta_{\ell}}{K_{-}(\abs{x_{\ell}}
+\sqrt{\zeta_{\ell}})} \ll
\frac{y_{\ell}}{\abs{x_{\ell}}} \ll
\frac{\abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/2}}{\abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/4}} \ll \abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/4}.$$
\[lem:timeoutx\] $ \ell \asymp \abs{E_{\ell}}^{-1/4}$.
Since $\{\xi_{j}\}_{j=0}^{\ell}$ lies on the stable manifold of $\bp$, by , we have $$\xi_{\ell} \asymp \frac{A}{\ell+A/\xi_{0}} \Rightarrow \ell \asymp
\frac{A}{\xi_{\ell}} - \frac{A}{\xi_{0}}.$$ Since $\abs{\xi_{\ell}} \le \abs{x_{\ell}}\ll \abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/4}$, we get $\ell \gg \abs{E_{\ell}}^{-1/4}$. On the other hand, by , we have $$\abs{\xi_{\ell-1}} \ge \abs{x_{\ell-1}} = \abs{x_{\ell} -
y_{\ell}} \gg
\abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/4} - \abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/2} \gg
\abs{E_{\ell}}^{1/4},$$ which shows that $\ell \ll E_{\ell}^{-1/4}$.
The above lemmas show that we can prove the analog of in the thin region. The proof is very similar, nevertheless we take the reader through it.
For $k \in \bN$, define $\reg_k' = \{(x,y) \in \wholetail : n(x,y) =
k\}$. This is the set of points in $\wholetail=\map^{-1}\pnbd\setminus
\pnbd$ that spend exactly $k$ iterations on the top of the $x$-axis. We assume here that $\reg_k$ is in the thin region and in the second quadrant.
For sufficiently large $k$, $\reg_k'$ is the region bounded by the unstable sides of $\wholetail$ and the curves $\map^{-k}(\{y=0\})$ and $\map^{-(k+1)}(\{y=0\})$.
For large $k$, the $k$-th preimage of the $x$-axis is a curve close to the stable manifold of $\bp$. $\reg_k'$ is the region in $\wholetail$ that lies between the curves $\map^{-k}(\{y=0\})$ and $\map^{-(k+1)}(\{y=0\})$.
Let us denote $\imreg_k' = \map^k \reg_k'$. For sufficiently large $k$, $\imreg_k'$ is the region bounded by two unstable curves, the curve $\map^{-1}(\{y=0\})$ and the $x$-axis. See .
The following lemma gives an estimate on the horizontal distance between the unstable sides of $\imreg_k'$; that is, on the length of a horizontal line segment both of whose endpoints lie on the unstable sides of $\imreg_k'$.
\[lem:hlength\] The horizontal distance between the unstable sides of $\imreg_k'$ is $\asymp k^{-2}$.
The upper and lower boundaries of $\imreg_k'$ are formed by unstable manifolds that if continued to the right will intersect the immediate stable manifold of $\bp$ at points whose $x$-coordinate is proportional to $k^{-1}$ according to (and using ). Note that one unstable curve is the preimage of the other. Consider the point of intersection of the bottom unstable manifold and the stable manifold shown in . The horizontal line segment between this point and the the top unstable manifold consists of two subsegments both of which have length $\asymp k^{-2}$. In fact, the right subsegment has length $\asymp k^{-2}$ due to . The left subsegment has also length $\asymp k^{-2}$ because the angles shown in at the endpoints of the horizontal segment are both $\asymp k^{-1}$. So the horizontal distance between the two unstable curves at this level is $\asymp k^{-2}$.
Now a similar argument to the proof of (interchanging the role of $x$ and $y$ axes) implies that the horizontal distance between the unstable curves remains $\asymp k^{-2}$ all the way down to the $x$-axis.
Suppose $(x,y)$ is a point on the boundary of $\imreg_k'$ which also lies on $\map^{-1}\{y=0\}$, then $y \asymp k^{-3}$.
By , and , $-x \asymp k^{-1}$. Since $\map^{-1}(\{y=0\})= \{(x, -h(x))\}$, it follows that $y \asymp k^{-3}$.
\[lem:measregsym\] $\leb(\reg_k') = \leb(\imreg_k') \asymp k^{-5}$.
This is a direct consequence of the previous two lemmas and the $\map$-invariance of $\leb$.
\[lem:inclsym\] $\abs{\pi_x(\imreg_k')} \asymp k^{-2}$, where $\pi_x$ denotes projection onto the $x$-axis.
We established in that the horizontal distance between the unstable sides of $\imreg_k'$ is $\asymp k^{-2}$. It follows that $\abs{\pi_x(\imreg_k')} \gg k^{-2}$. To show the upper bound, it remains to take care of the inclination of the unstable sides. By , the angle of the unstable boundaries of $\imreg_k$ with the horizontal is $\asymp k^{-1}$ which means they can increase horizontally by a factor of $k^{-2}$ in a vertical distance of $k^{-3}$. It follows that $\abs{\pi_x(\imreg_k)} \ll k^{-2}$.
It follows from the previous lemmas that $\imreg_k'$ is contained in a true rectangle (not a Markov rectangle) of vertical length $\asymp
k^{-3}$ and of horizontal length $\asymp k^{-2}$.
Let $\symimreg_k' :=\Pi_1 \imreg_k'$. Due to the symmetry, $\symimreg_k'$ is the set of points on the bottom of the $x$-axis whose preimage is on the top of the $x$-axis and that spend exactly $k$ iterations in $\pnbd$ before mapping into $\map\pnbd\setminus \pnbd$.
\[lem:symcoverx\] There exists $k_* \in \bN$ such that for all sufficiently large $k$, $$\map\imreg_k' \subset \symimreg_{k-k_*}' \cup \dots \cup \symimreg_{k+k_*}'.$$
Using the definition of $\map$, $\map\imreg_k'$ is shifted to the left horizontally by an amount proportional to $k^{-6}$ with respect to $\imreg_k'$ and the horizontal distance between its unstable sides is $\asymp k^{-2}$. Also $\symimreg_k'$ has horizontal length proportional to $k^{-2}$ and has inclination (with respect to the vertical) of $k^{-2}$ (see proof of ) as depicted in . Since the proportionality constants are independent of $k$, $\map\imreg_k'$ can be covered by finitely many $\symimreg_k'$s. That is, there exists $k_*$ such that $\map\imreg_k' \subset \symimreg_{k-k_*}' \cup \dots \cup \symimreg_{k+k_*}'$.
For sufficiently large $k$, $$\reg_k' \subset R_{2k-k_*} \cup \dots \cup R_{2k+k_*}, \qquad R_{2k}, R_{2k+1} \subset \reg_{k-k_*}' \cup \dots \cup \reg_{k+k_*}' .$$
The first statement follows directly from the previous lemma. For the second statement, note that $R_{2k+1}$ spends $2k$ iterations in $\pnbd$ and this number of iterations is divided between top and bottom sides of the $x$-axis with the restriction that the number of iterations on the top and on the bottom can differ by at most $k_*$ because of the previous lemma and the symmetry. This forces at most $j$ iterations on the top and $2k-j$ iterations on the bottom, where $-k_* \le j \le k_*$. This implies that $R_{2k+1}$ is a subset of $\reg_{k-k_*}' \cup \dots \cup
\reg_{k+k_*}'$. For the same reason $R_{2k}$ must be a subset of $\reg_{k-k_*}' \cup \dots \cup\reg_{k+k_*}'$.
\[prop:thin\] $$\leb(R_{\trn}^{\text{thin}}) \asymp \trn^{-5}.$$
This is a direct consequence of the previous lemma and the estimate on the measure of $\reg_k'$ from .
Adding the two estimates of , and symmetrical estimates for other regions, we get:
\[prop:tailmeas\] $$\leb(\{\rtzeroone=N\} \cap \wholetail) \asymp N^{-5}.$$
Mixing rates {#sec:mixrates}
============
To obtain upper and lower bounds on mixing rates we further induce $\mapone$ (the first return map of $\map$ to $Y$) to a two-sided Young tower. This will allows us to apply [@BMT Theorem 7.4].
In order to induce $\mapone$ to a two-sided Young tower with exponential tails, we check conditions (P1)–(P5) of [@You1 Section 1] for $\mapone$. We will see that hese conditions follow from the existence of a finite Markov partition for $\map$ and the (non-uniform) hyperbolicity estimates for $\map$ established in [@LM].
Recall from that $\mapone$ has a countable Markov partition $\cP_1$, which is a certain refinement of the finite parition $\cP \setminus \{\pnbd\}$. We take $\wholetail = \bigcup_{\trn \ge 2} R_{\trn}$ as the set with hyperbolic product structure required by [@You1 (P1)]. We claim that each of the sets $R_{\trn}$ return under iterations of $\mapone$ and u-cross the set $\wholetail$. Furthermore, there is a fixed time $N_*$ before which this happens. This claim follows from the construction of $R_{\trn}$ and the existence of the finite Markov partition for $\map$. Indeed the image of each $R_{\trn}$ under $\mapone$ must u-cross elements of $\cP$. By finiteness of $\cP$, the Markov property and the ergodicity of $\mapone$, in at most finitely many more iterations of $\mapone$, $R_{\trn}$ must also u-cross $\wholetail$ in which case we stop and define the return time accordingly. The leftover is again a union of sets that u-cross elements of $\cP$, so we can repeat the same argumet for them. Since the time between the stopping times is uniformly bounded an due to boundedness of distortion, the tail of the stopping times will be exponentially small in the number of iterations. We have established [@You1 (P2)].
It remains to establish [@You1 (P3)-(P5)].
*Hyperbolicity:* [@You1 (P3) and (P4)(a)] require exponential contraction of $\mapone$ along stable manifolds and backward contraction along unstable manifolds. Both statments follow from the estimates on expansion and contraction rates of the original map $\map$ in the neighbourhood $\pnbd$ of $\bp$. These estimates are obtained in [@LM Lemma 5.1, 5.2 and Corollary 5.3]. Essentially, a vector in the unstable cone at $\xi \in R_N$ expands by a factor proportional to $N^2$ under $\mapone|_{R_N}=\map^N$. This implies uniform expansion on $\cup_{N=N_0}^\infty R_N$ for some $N_0$. We have also uniform expansion on the other finitely many $R_N$’s by the uniform hyperbolicity of the original $\map$ away from $\bp$. Similar estimate holds for backward expansion along the stable direction [@LM Corollary 5.3]. Since $\map$ preserves Lebesgue measure, similar estimates hold for contraction along stable and backward expansion along unstable manifolds (see [@LM Lemma 5.2]).
*Distortion bounds:* Let $J^u\map(\xi) = \norm{D_\xi T (1,u)}/\norm{(1,u)}$ denote the factor of expansion on the unstable manifold of $\xi$. By direction calculation,
$$J^u\map(\xi) = \left( \frac{(1+h'(x)+u(\xi))^2 + (h'(x)+u(\xi))^2}{1+u^2(\xi)} \right)^{1/2}.$$
Since $h$ is smooth and $u$ is differentiable on $\bT^2\setminus \{\bp\}$, with a uniform bound on the derivative, it follows that there exists $C>0$ such that $|\nabla \log J^u\map (\xi)| \le C$. Now, by the mean value inequality, it follows that if $\eta$ is another point on the unstable manifold of $\xi$, then $$\frac{J^u\map(\xi)}{J^u\map(\eta)} \le e^{C\metr(\xi, \eta)}.$$ The distortion property for $\mapone$ now follows if we can ensure the same inequality along the orbit of $\xi$, $\eta$ as they move through the region $\pnbd$, but this follows by chain rule and the estimate on the expansion factor along the orbit, which is $\ge CN^2$ (for some constant $C>0$) where the points spend $N$ iterations in $\pnbd$. Therefore the distortion property also holds for $\mapone$. Conditions (P4)(b) and (P5)(a) follow from this distortion property and expansion and contraction along stable and unstable directions. Note that the estimates on the slope of stable and unstable manifolds allow one to relate the distance $\metr(\cdot, \cdot)$ to the distance along stable or unstable directions.
*Regularity of the stable holonomy:* Property (P5)(b) of [@You1] requires the existence and absolute continuity of the stable holonomy as well as an asymptotic formula for the Jacobian of the holonomy. All of these properties follow from the uniform hyperbolicity and distrotion estimates for $\mapone$ established above. We refer the reader to [@Mane Proof of Theorem 3.1].
We have finished checking conditions (P1)-(P5) of [@You1] from which follows the existence of a two sided Young tower with exponential tails (for $\mapone$). Let $\rtonetwo$ be the stopping time defined above and $\maptwo = \mapone^\rtonetwo$. Let us denote the full return time by $\rtzerotwo: \wholetail \to \bN$, $\rtzerotwo(x)=\sum_{k=0}^{\rtonetwo(x)-1}\rtzeroone(T_1^k(x))$. That is $\maptwo = \map^\rtzerotwo$. From standard computations $\rtzerotwo$ will have the same tail of return times as $\rtzeroone$ with an additional $[\log(n)]^\alpha$ (for some $\alpha >1$) factor. Note that since $\map$ is mixing, it follows that $\gcd(\rtzerotwo) = 1$.
The article [@BMT] requires one more condition. We need to check that there exist $C>0$ and $\theta \in (0,1)$ such that for every $z, z' \in \wholetail$ and $n \ge 1$, $$\label{eq:sContractionRate}
\metr(\maptwo^n z, \maptwo^n z') \le C (\theta^n + \theta^{s(z,z')-n}).$$
This follows from uniform hyperbolicity. We can choose $C = \diam(\wholetail)$ and $\theta = \max(\lambda_u^{-1}, \lambda_s)$, where $\lambda_u$ and $\lambda_s$ are respectively the worst expansion and contraction of the map $\maptwo$. Then follows from $\maptwo$ being a uniformly hyperbolic map.
Now we are in a position to apply [@BMT Theorem 7.4].
Denote $\bar\varphi_{0,2}=\int_Q \rtzerotwo \,d\leb$. By [@BMT Theorem 7.4, Proposition 7.3], for all $\eta >0$ sufficiently close to $1$ there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for every $\Phi, \Psi \in\cC^\eta(\bT^2)$ satisfying $\int_{\bT^{2}} \Phi
\,d\leb\int_{\bT^{2}} \Psi \,d\leb=1$ (and supported away from $\bp$ for the lower bound) $$\label{eq:BMT}
\abs{\corr(\Phi, \Psi, n) - \bar\varphi_{0,2}\sum_{j>n} \leb(\rtzerotwo>j)} \le C\norm{\Phi}_{\cC^\eta} \norm{\Psi}_{\cC^\eta} (\gamma_n+\zeta_{\beta'}(n)),$$ where
- $\beta'$ can be taken any number $<\beta$ and $\beta$ is the polynomical rate of decay of $\leb(\rtzeroone>n)$, which for us, by , $\beta =4$.
- $\gamma_n \le C n^{-\beta'}\log n$, by [@BMT Proposition 3.2].
- $\zeta_{\beta'}(n)=n^{-\beta'}$, for any $\beta'>2$ by [@BMT equation (1.3)].
Also, by [@BMT Proposition 5.1] and , $$C_1(\log j)^{-1}j^{-4} \le \leb(\rtzerotwo>j) \le C_2 (\log j)^4 j^{-4}.$$ Therefore, absorbing $\bar\varphi_{0,2}$ into the constants $C_1, C_2$ (whose values from one occurence to the other are not necessarily the same), implies $$C_1 \norm{\Phi}_{\cC^\eta} \norm{\Psi}_{\cC^\eta} n^{-3}(\log n)^{-1}\le \abs{\corr(\Phi, \Psi, n)} \le C_2 \norm{\Phi}_{\cC^\eta} \norm{\Psi}_{\cC^\eta} n^{-3}(\log n)^4.$$ In the case that one of the observables has zero mean, [@BMT Theorem 7.4] states that $\abs{\corr(\Phi, \Psi, n)}\le C \gamma_n \norm{\Phi}_{\cC^\eta} \norm{\Psi}_{\cC^\eta}$. So $\abs{\corr(\Phi, \Psi, n)} \le C n^{-\beta'}\log n \norm{\Phi}_{\cC^\eta} \norm{\Psi}_{\cC^\eta}$. is proved.
[10]{} R. Artuso, A. Prampolini. [*Correlation decay for an intermittent area-preserving map*]{}. Phys. Lett. A 246 (1998), no. 5, 407–411. 58F08
P. Bálint, S. Gouëzel, [*Limit theorems in the stadium billiard.*]{} Comm. Math. Phys. 263 (2006), no. 2, 461–512.
H. Briun, D. Terhesiu, I. Melbourne. [*Sharp polynomial bounds on decay of correlations for multidimensional nonuniformly hyperbolic systems and billiards*]{}, Preprint arXiv:1811.07775.
N. Chernov, H.K. Zhang. Billiards with polynomial mixing rates, [*Nonlinearity*]{} 18 (2005), 1527–1553.
P. Eslami, I. Melbourne, S. Vaienti. [*Sharp Statistical Properties for a Family of Multidimensional Non-Markovian Nonconformal Intermittent Maps*]{}, Preprint arXiv:1904.03184.
S. Gouëzel. [*Sharp polynomial estimates for the decay of correlations*]{}. Israel J. Math. 139 (2004), 29–65.
H. Hu. [*Conditions for the existence of SBR measures for “almost Anosov” diffeomorphisms*]{}. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 352 (1999), no. 5, 2331–2367.
H. Hu S. Vaienti. [*Sandro Absolutely continuous invariant measures for non-uniformly expanding maps*]{}. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 29 (2009), no. 4, 1185–1215.
H. Hu, S. Vaienti. [*Lower bounds for the decay of correlations in non-uniformly expanding maps*]{}. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 39 (2019), no. 7, 1936–1970.
X. Zhang, H. Hu. [*Polynomial decay of correlations for almost Anosov diffeomorphisms*]{}. Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, 39 (2019), no. 3, 832–864.
C. Liverani, M. Martens. [*Convergence to equilibrium for intermittent symplectic maps*]{}. Comm. Math. Phys. 260 (2005), no. 3, 527–556.
C. Liverani; B. Saussol; S. Vaienti. [*A probabilistic approach to intermittency*]{}. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 19 (1999), no. 3, 671–685.
C. Liverani, D. Terhesiu, [*Mixing for some non-uniformly hyperbolic systems.*]{} Ann. Henri Poincaré [**17**]{} (2016), no. 1, 179–226.
C. Liverani; M. P. Wojtkowski. [*Ergodicity in Hamiltonian systems. Dynamics reported*]{}, 130–202, Dynam. Report. Expositions Dynam. Systems (N.S.), 4, Springer, Berlin, 1995.
R. Mañé. Ergodic Theory and Differentiable Dynamics, Springer, Berlin, 1987.
O. Sarig. [*Thermodynamic formalism for countable Markov shifts*]{}. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 19 (1999), no. 6, 1565–1593.
O. Sarig. [*Subexponential decay of correlations*]{}, Inventiones Mathematicae 150 (2002), 629-653.
Q. Wang, L.S. Young. [*Toward a theory of rank one attractors*]{}. Ann. of Math. (2) 167 (2008), no. 2, 349–480.
M. Wojtkowski. [*Invariant families of cones and Lyapunov exponents*]{}. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 5 (1985), no. 1, 145–161.
L.S. Young, [*Statistical properties of dynamical systems with some hyperbolicity*]{}. Ann. of Math. (2) 147 (1998), no. 3, 585–650.
L.S. Young. [*Recurrence times and rates of mixing.*]{} Israel J. Math. 110 (1999), 153–188.
L.S. Young. [*What are SRB measures, and which dynamical systems have them? Dedicated to David Ruelle and Yasha Sinai on the occasion of their 65th birthdays.*]{} J. Statist. Phys. 108 (2002), no. 5-6, 733–754.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Gregory R. Zeimann , Richard L. White , Robert H. Becker , Jacqueline A. Hodge , Spencer A. Stanford , Gordon T. Richards'
bibliography:
- 'mybib.bib'
title: 'Discovery of a Radio-Selected z $\sim$ 6 Quasar'
---
Abstract
========
We present the discovery of only the second radio-selected, z $\sim$ 6 quasar. We identified SDSS J222843.54+011032.2 (z=5.95) by matching the optical detections of the deep Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Stripe 82 with their radio counterparts in the Stripe82 VLA Survey. We also matched the Canadian-France-Hawaiian Telescope Legacy Survey Wide (CFHTLS Wide) with the Faint Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty-cm (FIRST) survey but have yet to find any z $\sim$ 6 quasars in this survey area. The discovered quasar is optically-faint, $z = 22.3$ and M$_{1450}$ $\sim$ -24.5, but radio-bright, with a flux density of f$_{1.4GHz, peak}$ = 0.31mJy and a radio-loudness of R $\sim$ 1100 (where R $\equiv$ $f_{5GHz}/f_{2500}$). The $i-z$ color of the discovered quasar places it outside the color selection criteria for existing optical surveys. We conclude by discussing the need for deeper wide-area radio surveys in the context of high-redshift quasars.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
High-redshift quasars (z $\sim$ 6) which are powered by supermassive black holes (SMBH’s) provide a window into the early universe, and, unsurprisingly, the study of these rare objects has grown in the decade since their discovery ([@2000AJ....120.1167F]; [@2001AJ....122.2833F]). These distant SMBH’s are important in the study of galaxy evolution and the epoch of re-ionization. The strong correlation observed between the velocity dispersion of the stars in a galaxy and the mass of its central SMBH indicates a linkage between the mass of the SMBH and the evolution of the galaxy [@2000ApJ...539L...9F]. This relation may be explained by a “quasar phase" of the SMBH, where significant accretion is coupled with feedback into the stellar formation processes of the host galaxy [@2005ApJ...625L..71H]. Since nearly every galaxy is thought to have a central SMBH, active or not, high-redshift quasars are an important piece of the puzzle in understanding early galaxy evolution.
The spectra of distant quasars probe the intergalactic medium (IGM) and can be used to study the re-ionization epoch along the line of sight ([@2001AJ....122.2850B]; [@2003AJ....126....1W]; [@2006AJ....132..117F]). The presence of the Gunn-Peterson trough [@1965ApJ...142.1633G] can indicate the neutral hydrogen fraction and act as a flag marking the re-ionization epoch. There is evidence that the fraction of neutral hydrogen by volume increases an order of magnitude from z $=$ 5.7 to z $=$ 6.4 ([@2006AJ....132..117F]; [@2010ApJ...714..834C]). This increase may mark the end of the re-ionization epoch, placing a high importance on any new discoveries of z $>$ 5.7 quasars, especially those which are radio-loud. Radio-loud quasars are valuable as probes of the early IGM because the coming generation of radio telescopes (EVLA, ALMA, SKA, LOFAR, etc.) will use them to measure the properties of neutral hydrogen through 21 cm absorption studies ([@2004NewAR..48.1029C]; [@2010HiA....15..312K]).
Despite large area surveys designed to find high-redshift quasars, only about 60 ($z > 5.7$) quasars have been found so far ([@2000AJ....120.1167F]; [@2007AJ....134.2435W]; [@2008AJ....135.1057J]). These surveys all find quasars using similar methods that rely on red optical colors ($(i - z)_{AB}$ $>$ 2) and blue near-IR colors ($(z - J)_{AB}$ $<$ 1). The red optical color of high-z quasars is a consequence of the Ly$\alpha$ break moving through and out of the blueward optical bands. The blue near-IR color cut is used to distinguish high-redshift quasars from the largest contaminant in these surveys: cool dwarf stars. An alternative method to separate high-redshift quasars from cool dwarf stars is to require a radio detection, as very few stars are radio-bright ([@kimball]). This method only finds $\sim$5$\%$ of quasars (3 of $\sim$60 z $\sim$ 6 quasars have been detected at $>$1mJy in the radio), but it can be used to select quasars with colors that fail the usual optical/near-IR selection. Previously, one radio-selected z $\sim$ 6 quasar was found by @2006ApJ...652..157M in a mere 4 ${deg}^2$ search area in the NOAO Deep Wide-Field Survey (NDWFS). This quasar was bright enough to be discovered by other surveys; however, its red near-IR colors placed it in the color space occupied by cool dwarf stars, and hence it was missed by typical color-color selection methods.
This work presents the discovery of the second radio-selected, z $\sim$ 6 quasar. We used two different survey combinations to search for radio-selected z $>$ 5.7 quasars: the Canadian-France-Hawaiian Telescope Legacy Survey Wide (CFHTLS Wide ) matched to the Faint Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty-cm (FIRST - [@1995ApJ...450..559B]) survey, and the deep Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS Stripe 82 - [@2009ApJS..182..543A]) matched with the Stripe82 VLA Survey (Hodge et al. 2011). We discovered the quasar in Stripe 82 with the deeper radio data of the Stripe82 VLA Survey.
In §3 we describe our candidate selection methods and expected number of discoveries. In §4, we discuss the observations of SDSS J222843.53+011032.0 (SDSS J2228+0110; z $=$ 5.95). In §5 we discuss the implications of further studies of high redshift radio-selected quasars. All magnitudes are AB unless stated otherwise. This paper assumes a flat cosmological model with $\Omega_{m} = 0.28$, $\Omega_{\Lambda} = 0.72$, and $H_{0} = 70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$.
Candidate Selection
===================
CFHTLS Wide
-----------
CFHTLS Wide is an intermediate depth and area survey covering 171 deg$^2$ with $\sim$130 deg$^2$ publicly available at the time of this work (release T0005). The typical integration times are 4300s in $i$ and 3600s in $z$, reaching an average depth of 24.5 in i and 23.8 in z at the 80$\%$ completeness limit determined through simulation.
FIRST
-----
FIRST is a 20 cm survey over $\sim$10,000 deg$^2$. With a sensitivity threshold of 1 mJy, it achieves a source density of $\sim$90 deg$^{-2}$. The FIRST survey covers the entirety of the CFHTLS Wide survey, and the typical astrometric accuracy between the two surveys is $<$ 0.5”.
Stripe 82
---------
During the months when the primary SDSS area was not observable, SDSS repeatedly observed a strip of sky along the Galactic Equator known as Stripe 82. This patch of sky is 300 deg$^2$ and spans roughly 20$^{h}$ $<$ RA $<$ 4$^{h}$ and -1.5$^{\circ}$ $<$ Dec $<$ 1.5$^{\circ}$. The resulting co-additions ([@2009ApJS..182..543A]) go two magnitudes deeper than the typical SDSS images and reach 23.3 in $i$ and 22.5 in $z$ at the 95$\%$ repeatable detection limit.
Stripe 82 VLA Survey
--------------------
This 1.4 GHz survey was conducted with the Very Large Array (VLA) in A-configuration and has an angular resolution of 1.8” (Program ID AR646 and AR685). It achieves a median rms noise of 52 $\mu$Jy beam$^{-1}$ over 92 deg$^{2}$ ([@hodge2011]), making it the deepest 1.4 GHz survey to cover that much sky. A catalog of 17,969 isolated radio components, for an overall source density of $\sim$195 sources deg$^{-2}$, is publicly available. The astrometric accuracy of the data is excellent, with an rms scatter of 0.25” in both right ascension and declination when matched to SDSS’s Stripe 82.
Selection Method
----------------
High-redshift quasars are typically selected based on their very red optical colors: $(i - z)_{AB} > 1.5$. Cool dwarf stars also have red optical colors, so in an effort to reduce contamination, surveys such as SDSS require a blue near-IR color (see Figure 1). The optical color probes the Ly$\alpha$ break while the near-IR color probes the quasar continuum as well as strong emission features. Dust reddening can affect the color of the quasar continuum and displace a fraction of the high-z quasars outside of the typical selection criterion. An alternative to a blue near-IR color cut is radio-selection, which reduces the contamination from cool dwarf stars to nearly zero but will only be able to recover $\sim$5% of high-z quasars.
We combined optical and radio data through catalog matching. Counterparts between catalogs were defined using a matching radius of 0.6” for Stripe 82 and 1” for CFHTLS Wide, which was a compromise between completeness and reliability. We used a method similar to that of @2002ApJS..143....1M to estimate completeness and reliability of the matches as a function of radius. A matching radius of 1” for FIRST-CFHTLS wide results in a completeness of 83% and a reliability of 94%. A matching radius of 0.6” for Stripe 82-Stripe 82 VLA results in a completeness of 91% and a reliability of 99%. If there were multiple optical sources for a single radio source, then only the closest match was used. After matching the two catalogs, two photometric cuts were applied to select the initial $z > 6$ quasar candidates: $(i -z)_{AB} > 1.5$ and $z_{AB} < 23.8$ for CFHTLS Wide, and $(i -z)_{AB} > 1.7$ and $z_{AB} < 22.5$ for Stripe 82. The candidates went through another series of cuts which required that the *u*, *g*, and *r* band fluxes be below the 3$\sigma$ detection limit. Also, a visual inspection of the *i* and *z* band images was conducted to ensure there were no cosmic rays or bad pixels contaminating the photometry. The remaining candidates were then checked against known sources as to not repeat observations. One of the candidates was a previously found z$=$6.21 quasar by @2010AJ....139..906W, CFHQS J1429+5447, and is the third radio-loud, z $\sim$ 6 quasar to be identified. CFHQS J1429+5447 is the radio-brightest z $\sim$ 6 quasar yet to be found with f$_{1.4GHz, peak}$ = 2.93 mJy and has the highest radio-loudness value of R $\sim$ 3200, where R $\equiv$ $f_{5 GHz} / f_{2500\AA}$. After all of the cuts, there were 29 remaining candidates in CFHTLS Wide, i.e. $\sim$ 0.2 per deg$^2$, and 27 in Stripe 82, giving $\sim$ 0.3 per deg$^2$.
Our search area was previously mined by other high-z quasar searches and thus our candidate list has some overlap with those selection methods. In the case of CFHTLS Wide, 3 of our 29 candidates satisfy the criteria set forth by @2009AJ....137.3541W, $(i -z)_{AB} > 2.0$ and $z_{AB} < 23.0$ or 10$\sigma$ $z_{AB}$ limit for the field (private communication). Only 3 of the 27 candidates in Stripe 82 would have been selected by @2009AJ....138..305J while the other 24 candidates were either too blue, $(i -z)_{AB} < 2.2$, or too faint, $z_{AB} > 21.8$ for their completeness-limited selection.
To properly estimate how many quasars our radio-selection should find, we had to first estimate the completeness of our method as a function of redshift and rest-frame absolute magnitude, $M_{1450}$. The completeness of our optical selection was estimated through simulation. A relation between redshift and $i-z$ color was calculated using the median color track of z $\sim$ 3 quasars from SDSS redshifted from z$=$5.5 to z$=$6.7 and corrected for the effective Gunn-Peterson optical depth due to Ly$\alpha$ and Ly$\beta$ absorption ([@2006AJ....132..117F]). This track is very similar to that calculated by @2009AJ....137.3541W as shown in Figure 1. A “measured” $i-z$ color was drawn randomly from a gaussian distribution with a mean $i-z$ color taken from the median quasar color track and a sigma calculated using both the standard deviation of the median quasar color track and the median error as a function of the $i$ and $z$ magnitudes. This was done hundreds of times for a grid of (z, $M_{1450}$), and the completeness was estimated by the fraction recovered by our selection method. An example of our completeness as a function of redshift and absolute magnitude is shown in Figure 2. The simulation of completeness only took into account the optical selection method and not the radio. The radio-loud ($>$1mJy) fraction of quasars at 0 $<$ z $<$ 5 in SDSS is $\sim$10%, but is strongly dependent on redshift and optical luminosity ([@jiang2007]). We adopt a radio-loud fraction of 5% for z $\sim$ 6 and apply this fraction to estimate the number of radio-selected quasars expected.
Using the luminosity function for z $=$ 6 quasars calculated by @2010AJ....139..906W, we are able to estimate the expected number of quasars in our search, N, $$N = A * \iint \ \Phi(z,M_{1450}) \, V_{c}(z) \,\, p(z,M_{1450}) \, \mathrm{d}z \, \mathrm{d}M_{1450}.$$ The comoving volume, $V_{c}(z)$, is corrected for the completeness, $p(z,M_{1450})$, to form an effective volume. The luminosity function, $\Phi(z,M_{1450})$, is in the form of a double power law, and we used the best fit parameters from @2010AJ....139..906W. Our search area is represented by A, in units of steradians. From the calculation, we expect 0.7 radio-selected quasars in Stripe 82 and 3.2 in CFHTLS Wide. We find more candidates than the expected number of quasars for several reasons. Firstly, some of our candidates are expected to be lower redshift, radio-loud AGN that share a red $i-z$ color with high-z quasars due to a strong Balmer break or dust extincted continuum. Secondly, a few of our candidates may be spurious matches where the optical source is not really associated with the radio emission. Thirdly, the use of a constant radio-loud fraction may not be appropriate as it has been observed to be a function of optical luminosity which could change our number estimates as much as a factor of 2 ([@jiang2007]). Lastly, the best fit parameters of the luminosity function from @2010AJ....139..906W have large errors and can change the expected number of quasars by a factor of 3 or 4.
Observations
============
Optical and Radio
-----------------
The quasar, SDSS J2228+0110, was selected for followup using the point spread function (PSF) magnitudes from the co-added imaging catalog of Stripe 82 ([@2009ApJS..182..543A]). It was found near our $z$-band magnitude limit at $z$ $=$ 22.28 and near our $i-z$ color limit at $i-z$ $=$ 1.81 which would have been too faint and too blue to be selected by @2009AJ....138..305J. It is one of the faintest quasars found to date, with M$_{1450}$ $=$ -24.53. The quasar overlaps the UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey (UKIDSS) sky coverage, but is undetected in the $J$-band placing an upper limit at $z-J \le 1.4$.
The quasar was detected in the radio in the Stripe82 VLA Survey, which has a detection limit of 0.30 mJy. SDSS J2228+0110 has a measured peak flux density of 0.31 mJy, just above the detection limit, and it is only the fourth z $\sim$ 6 quasar discovered with a flux density f$_{1.4GHz} >$ 0.3 mJy. The faint optical luminosity and relatively high radio luminosity, $L_{5 GHz} = $ 2.55 $\times$ 10$^{32}$, makes this one of the most radio-loud z $\sim$ 6 quasars ever found, with a radio-loudness of R $\sim$ 1100. There is no discernible morphology from the optical or radio images given that the discovered quasar was at the limits of detection in both wavelengths (see Figure 3).
Quasar Spectrum
---------------
From thirty-five candidates observed in June and December 2010 (sixteen from CFHTLS Wide and nineteen from Stripe 82 of which most remain unidentified with featureless continua), we discovered one quasar at z=5.95, SDSS J2228+0110 (see Table 1). The discovery spectrum of SDSS J2228+0110 was taken using the Keck I telescope with the Low Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (LRIS; [@1995PASP..107..375O]). The spectrum included four exposures of 900 seconds each and a 1" long slit. It was taken with a 600/10000 grating on the red camera, resulting in a dispersion of $\sim$0.8$\AA$ per pixel. The conditions were fair when the spectrum was taken, with $\sim$1” seeing at a high air mass of 1.5.
The reduction of the spectrum was done in a standard way. Bias frames were obtained and combined with the overscan bias, then subtracted off the science image. A flat field correction was applied using flat field frames taken during the observing run. A specialized routine was used for cosmic ray rejection which recognized and rejected cosmic rays based on their shape. The spectrum of our quasar was extracted using optimal variance weighting through the IRAF task apall. The wavelength was calibrated using arc line lamps. The standard star used for flux calibration was Feige 34 in combination with a custom Mauna Kea extinction curve as a function of wavelength. A lower resolution spectrum, $\sim$8$\AA$ per pixel, was created using inverse sky-variance weighting. The spectrum clearly identifies the source as a z=5.95 quasar with a large continuum break blueward of a strong emission line marked as Ly$\alpha$ (see Figure 4).
The only strong emission feature in the discovery spectrum is Ly$\alpha$. The noise from sky emission lines resulted in a low signal to noise continuum, making it difficult to claim the detection of other, weaker emission lines. However, the redshift calculated from Ly$\alpha$ does seem consistent with possible detections of other common emission features such as NV and Si IV. The wavelength coverage of the spectrum was not large enough to detect Ly$\beta$ or OVI.
We measured the rest-frame equivalent width (EW) and full width at half maximum (FWHM) of Ly$\alpha$ for SDSS J2228+0110. The wavelength coverage for this spectrum was too small to fit the continuum slope; instead, we assumed it to be a power law with slope $\alpha$ = -0.5 (f$_{\nu} \propto {\nu}^{\alpha}$). The normalization of the power law was fit through a chi-squared minimization to the continuum redward of 1280$\AA$. We fit the Ly$\alpha$ profile with a Gaussian on its red side, and we assumed the line to be symmetric to account for the Ly$\alpha$ forest on the blue side. We find a rest-frame FWHM of 7.68 $\AA$, which is equivalent to a velocity of 1,890 km/s, making it a narrow Ly$\alpha$ but not abnormal. The rest-frame EW is 21.9 $\AA$ and is at the low end, but well within the range of Ly$\alpha$ strengths of other z $\sim$ 6 quasars.
Discussion
==========
High-redshift quasar searches have been popular over the last decade. Large scale efforts have revealed that these objects are quite rare and quite difficult to find ([@2000AJ....120.1167F]; [@2007AJ....134.2435W]; [@2008AJ....135.1057J]). Many of these surveys use optical data to select candidates and rely on very red optical colors. Unfortunately, high-z quasars share the same red optical color space with cool dwarf stars. In an effort to reduce contamination, a blue near-IR cut is used in the selection method to help separate the two populations. This technique successfully increases efficiency; however, it reduces the completeness of the quasar sample by an unknown amount. Our incompleteness was estimated by redshifting low-z quasar spectra to high-z and tracking their colors. This track indicates that a large “blue” quasar population exists at high-z, and that optical surveys are selecting a significant sample of the population. However, it is an open question as to whether low-z quasars are truly like their high-z counterparts.
@2006ApJ...652..157M discovered, at the time, the highest redshift radio-loud quasar (FIRST J1427+3312) using radio selection in a search area of only 4 deg$^2$. The quasar was bright enough in the optical to be detected in other surveys, but its red near-IR color would have prevented its selection. This rare discovery in such a small area hints that there may be a larger population of “red” quasars than predicted. If this is true, current estimates for the quasar number density at z $\sim$ 6 are too low.
Radio-selection offers an alternative method for the selection of high-z quasars. Requiring a radio detection is just as efficient in removing contaminants as a blue near-IR color cut; however, radio-selection also allows for the detection of “red” quasars, possibly from dust reddening. A likely cause of dust reddening is the circumnuclear cocoon that is thought to encase relatively young quasars ([@2005ApJ...625L..71H]). As the quasar ages, the dust cocoon may be blown away by energy released from accretion at near-Eddington luminosities. The universe is less than one billion years old at z $\sim$ 6, and it would not be unreasonable that the fraction of quasars in this dust cocoon phase is higher at higher redshift.
Of the seven z $\sim$ 6 quasars with $z-J >$ 0.8, three of them are radio-loud. It is not unusual that radio-loud quasars are redder than their radio-quiet counterparts, as this effect is also seen at lower redshift ([@2003AJ....126..706W], [@2009AJ....138.1925M]). However, when quasars at lower redshift, z $\sim$ 3, are redshifted to z $=$ 6 and placed in the same colorspace as high-z quasars, at higher redshift radio-loud quasars tend to have redder $z-J$ colors than at lower redshift (see Figure 5). This is a very intriguing result albeit in the small number regime, as it might suggest that radio-loud quasars are intrinsically redder at higher redshift or have higher quantities of dust. The result should also be taken with caution as there is a substantial selection effect for z $\sim$ 3 quasars in SDSS ([@richards]). The selection efficiency at z $\sim$ 3 is $\sim$50$\%$ and biased towards redder $u-g$ colors; however, radio-selected z $\sim$ 3 quasars don’t seem to show the same color bias ([@worseck]). This comparison of radio-loud/radio-selected z $\sim$ 3 quasars redshifted to z $=$ 6 with observed radio-loud z $\sim$ 6 quasars should be absent of a color selection-effect and serve as a viable comparison in cosmic time.
Although dust reddening of the quasar continuum may contribute to a significant “red” quasar population, it would also cause high levels of extinction in the detection bands. This extinction can be greater than three magnitudes for E(B-V) = 0.1 using a typical SMC reddening law ([@prevot]), placing even some of the brightest z $\sim$ 6 quasars below the detection limit of wide-area surveys like CFHT and SDSS. A more likely cause of a significant “red” quasar population is the strength of Ly$\alpha$. A strong Ly$\alpha$ line leads to a “bluer” population of high-z quasars in the $z-J$ color while a weak Ly$\alpha$ line leads to a “redder” population of z $\sim$ 6 quasars. A second factor that can lead to a “red” quasar population is the absorption blueward of Ly$\alpha$ from neutral hydrogen in the intergalactic medium, which can lead to a “red” $i-z$ color for stronger absorption (see Figure 6).
This is still an ongoing search for radio-selected quasars. We plan to observe more candidates in future observations and obtain a deeper optical spectrum of SDSS J2228+0110. In an effort to measure the $z-J$ color of radio-selected z $\sim$ 6 quasars, we also plan to follow up on our current discovery and any new discoveries with near-IR imaging. It would be interesting to use the discovered z $\sim$ 6 quasar to constrain the luminosity function of high-z quasars outside of the typical optical selection criteria; however, our survey is not complete.
The greatest limitation to radio-selection is the depth of the radio data. Only $\sim$5% of z $\sim$ 6 quasars are detected in FIRST. Even a medium depth radio survey like the Stripe82 VLA Survey does not reach the median quasar radio luminosity. With a deep and wide-area radio survey, questions about the existence of a large “red” high-z quasar population, as well as the mechanism that might cause the reddening, could finally be answered.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}: Some of the data presented herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation. Based on observations obtained with MegaPrime/MegaCam, a joint project of CFHT and CEA/DAPNIA, at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) which is operated by the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada, the Institut National des Science de l’Univers of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) of France, and the University of Hawaii. This work is based in part on data products produced at TERAPIX and the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre as part of the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey, a collaborative project of NRC and CNRS. The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc. GRZ acknowledges NRAO Grant GSSP 09-0010. The work by RHB was partly performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344.
[llcccccc]{} 1 & SDSS J004035.8+004900.6 & 900 & 21.42 & 0.08 & 1.85 & 0.21 &1.88\
2 & SDSS J004942.8+003924.1 & 1800 & 22.14 & 0.13 & 1.96 & 0.27 & 1.53\
3 & SDSS J005607.5-000401.4 & 1800 & 22.04 & 0.14 & 1.91 & 0.28 & 0.44\
4 & SDSS J010006.7-004740.3 & 1800 & 21.98 & 0.15 & 1.98 & 0.34 & 0.52\
5 & SDSS J010140.3-001258.8 & 1800 & 22.24 & 0.20 & 4.90 & 2.04 & 0.35\
6 & SDSS J010543.6+004806.8 & 1800 & 22.24 & 0.19 & 1.76 & 0.35 & 0.42\
7 & SDSS J012406.0-005640.1 & 1800 & 22.24 & 0.20 & 3.74 & 4.01 & 2.90\
8 & SDSS J013453.8-004151.7 & 1800 & 22.15 & 0.15 &1.73 & 0.26 & 0.47\
9 & SDSS J013600.7-010010.2 & 1800 & 22.01 & 0.12 & 2.18 & 0.27 & 0.47\
10 & SDSS J014534.5-005641.6 & 1800 & 22.42 & 0.17 & 1.79 & 0.30 & 5.44\
11 & SDSS J015128.9-002037.5 & 1800 & 22.42 & 0.19 & 1.85 & 0.32 & 4.00\
12 & SDSS J020430.2+001834.3 & 1800 & 20.72 & 0.04 & 2.20 & 0.19 & 0.30\
13 & CFHT 021600.1-073546.4 & 1800 & 22.98 & 0.17 & 2.23 & 0.52 & 3.89\
14 & CFHT 021759.0-043256.5 & 1800 & 22.84 & 0.11 & 2.91 & 0.67 & 1.46\
15 & SDSS J021838.5+000557.4 & 1800 & 22.23 & 0.19 & 1.71 & 0.27 & 5.98\
16 & CFHT 022117.7-073947.3 & 1800 & 23.00 & 0.19 & 2.23 & 0.57 & 1.04\
17 & CFHT 022321.2-091011.1 & 1800 & 23.45 & 0.26 & 2.38 & 0.71 & 5.38\
18 & CFHT 022549.7-060052.1 & 1800 & 23.18 & 0.13 & 2.06 & 0.39 & 11.26\
19 & CFHT 085231.6-025004.2 & 1800 & 23.79 & 0.31 & 2.08 & 0.80 & 1.03\
20 & CFHT 085325.4-025913.3 & 2700 & 23.18 & 0.17 & 1.64 & 0.33 & 3.10\
21 & CFHT 085737.1-023530.0 & 1800 & 22.36 & 0.14 & 1.56 & 0.21 & 2.51\
22 & CFHT 090307.8-034327.9 & 3600 & 23.23 & 0.21 & 1.71 & 0.51 & 22.58\
23 & CFHT 090610.6-032423.1 & 1800 & 22.96 & 0.15 &1.77 & 0.31 & 29.39\
24 & CFHT 141227.8+531949.1 & 1800 & 23.00 & 0.17 & 2.24 & 0.53 & 1.92\
25 & CFHT 141240.9+514609.8 & 3600 & 23.35 & 0.17 & 1.65 & 0.33 & 8.21\
26 & CFHT 142105.5+554434.1 & 1800 & 23.54 & 0.24 & 2.26 & 0.82 & 11.22\
27 & CFHT 142910.2+564216.6 & 900 & 22.69 & 0.17 & 2.62 & 0.55 & 4.20\
28 & CFHT 143414.2+523554.6 & 1800 & 23.37 & 0.23 &1.79 & 0.70 & 3.48\
29 & CFHT 221806.1+013619.8 & 1800 & 22.45 & 0.11 &1.82 & 0.25 & 2.86\
30 & SDSS J220755.9$-$005943.1 & 1800 & 22.19 & 0.18 &1.71 & 0.30 & 0.62\
31 & SDSS J222036.1$-$010119.9 & 900 & 22.12 & 0.18 & 2.13 & 0.41 & 0.65\
32 & SDSS J222843.5+011032.2 & 3600 & 22.28 & 0.20 & 1.81 & 0.35 & 0.31\
33 & SDSS J223747.5+002521.0 & 1800 & 22.38 & 0.19 & 2.01 & 0.40 & 0.63\
34 & SDSS J223912.4$-$002803.0 & 1800 & 22.13 & 0.17 & 1.77 & 0.27 & 4.75\
35 & SDSS J231225.8$-$002020.0 & 900 & 22.32 & 0.20 & 1.84 & 0.36 & 0.78\
![Color-Color diagram illustrating the photometric quasar selection of @2009AJ....137.3541W, which is bounded by the two solid lines, and that of this project, which is a vertical dashed line at $(i-z)_{AB}$ $>$ 1.5 for CFHT ($(i-z)_{AB}$ $>$ 1.7 for SDSS). The red solid line is a median composite of template quasars redshifted from z = 5.5 to z = 6.7, and the dashed jagged green line is the mean location of M, L, and T dwarfs ([@2009AJ....137.3541W]). The quasar discovered in this paper has upper limit in the $z-J$ direction as it was as it was not detected in UKIDSS in the $J$ band. The colors represent redshift in which blue is z=5.7 and red is z=6.5. The filled squares are quasars discovered in CFHT, and the filled circles are quasars discovered in SDSS or other surveys[]{data-label="fig:f1"}](qso_color_space_v03.png){width="100.00000%"}
![Completeness as a function of redshift and absolute magnitude, $M_{1450}$. The white equals 100% complete and the dark gray equals 0% complete and the contours are in linear steps of 10$\%$. The figure on the left is CFHTLS Wide matched to FIRST. The red dashed lines represent levels of radio loudness, LogR $=$ Log ($f_{5GHz}/f_{2500}$), which is calculated assuming a power-law of $f_{\nu} \propto \nu^{\alpha}$ (where $\alpha = -0.5$ for both). The figure on the right is Stripe 82 matched to the Stripe82 VLA Survey. The blue circle is the quasar discovered in this paper.[]{data-label="fig:f1"}](cfht_completeness_v02.png "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"} ![Completeness as a function of redshift and absolute magnitude, $M_{1450}$. The white equals 100% complete and the dark gray equals 0% complete and the contours are in linear steps of 10$\%$. The figure on the left is CFHTLS Wide matched to FIRST. The red dashed lines represent levels of radio loudness, LogR $=$ Log ($f_{5GHz}/f_{2500}$), which is calculated assuming a power-law of $f_{\nu} \propto \nu^{\alpha}$ (where $\alpha = -0.5$ for both). The figure on the right is Stripe 82 matched to the Stripe82 VLA Survey. The blue circle is the quasar discovered in this paper.[]{data-label="fig:f1"}](s82_completeness_v02.png "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"}
![30” cutout images of Stripe 82 $i$, $z$, and VLA 1.4 GHz for SDSS J2228+0110. The Stripe82 VLA position is marked with a red circle. The quasar was at the detection limit for all three bands.[]{data-label="fig:f1"}](fc_i_z_radio.png){width="100.00000%"}
![Spectrum of SDSS J222843.54+011032.2 obtained in June 2010 using LRIS on the Keck 1 telescope. The spectrum has been binned using inverse sky-variance weighting to reduce the sky noise. Only the two best out of the total four exposures were used to make this optimal spectrum. The redshift, z $=$ 5.95, was calculated using the peak of the identified Ly$\alpha$ emission line. The expected locations of other typical emission lines are labeled with a vertical dotted line.[]{data-label="fig:f1"}](qso_spec_6_v02.png){width="100.00000%"}
![Color space comparison of z $\sim$ 6 quasars and z $\sim$ 3 quasars redshifted to z $=$ 6. The lower redshift quasar sample consists of 372 quasars with 2.98 $<$ z $<$ 3.02 and was taken from the SDSS Data Release 7 (DR7) database. The SDSS spectra of these quasars were used to calculate the $i$ - $z$ and $z$ - $J$ colors. The spectra were corrected for Ly$\alpha$ and Ly$\beta$ absorption from the IGM according to @2006AJ....132..117F. Red crosses are z $\sim$ 6 quasars which were not detected at 1.4 GHz above 0.1 mJy, while magenta circles are z $\sim$ 6 quasars which were detected. Blue crosses are z $=$ 3 quasars which were not detected at 1.4 GHz above 1 mJy, and green circles are z $=$ 3 quasars which were detected. Of the nine z $=$ 3 quasars which were detected in FIRST, seven of them were radio-selected while the other two were color-selected with a radio detection. The two that were color-selected have $z-J=0.06$ and $z-J=0.91$. The red circle is the quasar found in this paper and only has an upper limit for its $z - J$ color. The radio-loud z $\sim$ 6 quasars (mean $z-J$ $=$ 0.67) are significantly redder than the radio-loud, z $=$ 3 quasars (mean $z-J$ $=$ 0.18). The black solid line is a median composite of template quasars redshifted from z = 5.5 to z = 6.7 and the dashed jagged green line is the mean location of M, L, and T dwarfs ([@2009AJ....137.3541W]). ](radio_color_space_v02.png){width="100.00000%"}
![This plot demonstrates the effect of neutral hydrogen absorption and the strength of Ly$\alpha$ on the high-z quasar track. A composite quasar from @2001AJ....122..549V was redshifted from z$=$5.5 to z$=$6.7 using an effective Gunn-Peterson absorption, $\tau$, due to Ly$\alpha$ and Ly$\beta$ absorption. The strength of the Ly$\alpha$ emission was also allowed to vary. The black box is the typical optical selection used by SDSS and CFHT. The green dashed line is the mean dwarf star track, while the vertical black dashed line is the optical selection used in this paper for CFHTLS Wide. The black points are known z $\sim$ 6 quasars with their associated photometric errors. The red track is the composite quasar redshifted from z$=$5.5 to z$=$6.7 with an effective Gunn-Peterson optical depth of $\tau$ = 3.70 and a weak Ly$\alpha$ emission line. The blue track is the composite quasar redshifted from z$=$5.5 to z$=$6.7 with an effective Gunn-Peterson optical depth of $\tau$ = 4.90 and a strong Ly$\alpha$ emission line. A higher optical depth causes redder $i-z$ colors while a weaker Ly$\alpha$ emission causes redder $z-J$ colors. []{data-label="fig:f1"}](effect_color_track.png){width="100.00000%"}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '[We study theoretically, the photoluminescence properties of a single quantum dot in a microcavity under incoherent excitation. We propose a microscopic quantum statistical approach providing a Lindblad (thus completely positive) description of pumping and decay mechanisms of the quantum dot and of the cavity mode. Our analytical results show that strong coupling (SC) and linewidths are largely independent on the pumping intensity (until saturation effects come into play), in contrast to previous theoretical findings. We shall show the reliable predicting character of our theoretical framework in the analysis of various recent experiments.]{}'
author:
- 'A. Ridolfo$^1$, O. Di Stefano$^1$, S. Portolan$^2$, and S. Savasta$^1$'
title: |
Photoluminescence from Microcavities\
Strongly Coupled to Single Quantum Dots
---
Cavity quantum electrodynamics (CQED) studies the interaction between a quantum emitter and a single radiation-field mode. When an atom is strongly coupled to a cavity mode [@atoms], it is possible to realize important quantum information processing tasks, such as controlled coherent coupling and entanglement of distinguishable quantum systems [@Ima]. In this respect solid-state devices, and in particular semiconductor quantum dots (QD), are the most promising architectures for the possibility of miniaturization, electrical injection, control and scalability. Indeed semiconductor quantum dots provide nanoscale electronic confinement resulting in discrete energy levels, and an atom-like light-matter interaction. Cavity quantum electrodynamics addresses properties of atomlike emitters in cavities and can be divided into a weak and a strong coupling regimes. For weak coupling, the spontaneous emission can be enhanced or reduced compared with its vacuum level by tuning discrete cavity modes in and out of resonance with the emitter. However, when the interaction strength overcomes losses, the system enters the so-called strong coupling (SC) regime [@SC; @Reith]. In this case the usual irreversible spontaneous emission dynamics changes into a reversible exchange of energy between the emitter and the cavity mode.
Commonly, these solid state systems in the SC regime are characterized with respect to their behaviour under optical incoherent pump excitation [@Ima; @SC; @Reith; @Arakawa; @Finley]. In this situation, the pump creates an incoherent population of electron-hole pairs typically far above resonance which relaxes incoherently into the QD through various different mechanisms before being emitted by recombination. Moreover, some experimental observations of SC of QDs in microcavities, indicate that the cavity mode is weakly coupled to others various electronic transitions of the system which would contribute in feeding the cavity mode as well, thus resulting in a second incoherent pumping channel. The specific interplay of photon and exciton pumping and decay results in a mixed quantum steady state that influences considerably the observed spectra as we are going to show in detail (see Fig. 1b). An analogous incoherent excitation would also be achieved in the case of current injection, highly desired for the development of optoelectronic quantum devices. Hence, appropriate theoretical modeling of SC with semiconductor QDs under incoherent excitation with a reliable predicting character are sought in order to fulfill the great expectations nowadays attended from future implementations of SC in QD systems. Of particular interest is the analysis for increasing pump excitation while the system is brought into the nonlinear regime. Recently, Laussy [*et al.*]{} [@Tej; @PRL] reports on the first theoretical analysis of this situation. Their master equation includes pumping as absorption from incoherently populated reservoirs and spontaneous emission of excitons (radiative recombination) as well as of photons (cavity losses). Their bosonic model is well suited for the investigation of the very low excitation regime where linear optics dominates. It is currently heavily exploited (see e.g. Refs. [@Arakawa; @Finley]) to analyze the SC of single QDs as it, at least at first sight, displays an impressive predicting character maintaining a relative easy picture and analytical results. Nevertheless the results obtained within their approach display some puzzling features which deserve careful investigations. As instance, the dependence of the polariton broadenings, of the Rabi splitting and of the spectra on the incoherent pumping rates as well as amplification effects are commonly unexpected results of an harmonic linear dynamics.
The authors have the merit to have pointed out clearly the importance of the effective feeding the other electronic transitions (viz. the other QDs existing in the sample), weakly coupled to the cavity mode. This scenario sets a definite departure from atom-QED models with expected new peculiar features (see e.g. Fig.\[figura1\]b and Fig. \[figura2\]b) which are expected to influence even the quantum statistics of the emitted quanta. Anyway, although having a clear and reasonable physical meaning, the master equation of Ref. [@Tej; @PRL] is not of Lindblad form and then there is no guarantee that it safely generates a completely positive (CP) open dynamics [@Lindblad-nota]. Actually the obtained photon and exciton populations (see e.g. Eq.(3) of Ref. [@Tej; @PRL]) can diverge as soon as pumping rates approaches the values of the dampings and even assume negative values as well as it starts to overcome. This highly undesired feature puts into question also the results obtained at lower pumping rates when populations remain finite and positive. The puzzling features, mentioned above, could be the tail (at lower excitation densities) of such problems. Moreover, the need for a fresh, flexible and direct tool for the analysis of state-of-the-art experiments [@Arakawa; @Finley] is leading various groups to take advantage of this machinery. These possible artifacts could affect strongly the interpretations of the experimental data and then have negative repercussions on applications and device modeling.
In this letter we provide a theoretical model able to describe SC of a single QD in a semiconductor microcavity under incoherent excitation in the low and intermediate excitation regimes where nonlinear optical effects start to appear. In order to avoid inconsistencies and artifacts, we will start from a microscopic (though simple) description of the pumping and decay mechanisms of the QD and the cavity mode. The picture that we have in mind is that of two strongly coupled subsystems (the cavity mode and the quantum dot excitations), each in interaction with two independent reservoirs providing both damping and pumping mechanisms. The laser generates electron-hole pairs in the continuum wetting layer which, subsequently, relax into the dot (the $P_x$ pump contribution) by means of incoherent scattering mechanisms such as exciton-exciton scattering mediated by phonons. At the same time, the cavity mode is weakly coupled to others various electronic transitions of the system which would contribute in feeding the cavity mode as well, resulting in a second incoherent pumping channel ($P_a$). In the limit of weak excitation density the resulting dynamics coincides with that of two strongly coupled harmonic oscillators in the presence of reservoirs. Nevertheless the obtained analytical results significantly differs from those of Ref. [@Tej; @PRL]. In particular, in the low excitation regime we obtain a very simple analytical expression for the PL spectrum which is definite positive, do not display any amplification effect as well as any change of the Rabi splitting and of the broadenings as a function of the pump intensities. For higher pump densities saturation effects and even lasing effects come into play.
The master equation for this strongly interacting system can be written as $$\label{model}
\dot{\rho} = i [\rho, H_S ] + {\cal L}^R_{MC} + {\cal L}^R_{QD}\, ,$$ where the system Hamiltonian reads $$H_S = \omega_a a^\dag a + \omega_x\, \sigma_+ \sigma_- + g(a^\dag\, \sigma_- + a\, \sigma_+)\, ,$$ with $g$ being the interaction strength between the cavity mode (with annihilation operator $a$) at energy $\omega_a$ and the lowest energy ($\omega_x$) quantum dot exciton with transition operator from the ground state to the exciton level $\sigma_+ = \left| e
\right>\left< g \right|$ ($\sigma_- = \sigma_+^\dag$). The superoperators ${\cal L}^R_{MC}$ and ${\cal L}^R_{QD}$ describe the interaction of the cavity mode and of the QD with the reservoirs providing both damping and pumping mechanisms. Transmission and diffraction losses of the cavity mode can be modeled, within a quasimode picture, as an effective coupling ($\gamma^c$) with an ensemble of electromagnetic modes through the output mirror [@Walls; @Scully]. When dealing with optical frequencies it can safely be regarded as a zero temperature reservoir [@Scully]. The second mechanism describes the incoherent optical pumping of the cavity. It takes into account that in these samples there may be QDs or more generally electronic transitions weakly coupled to the cavity, in addition to the one that undergoes SC, determining an effective pumping of the cavity mode ($P_a$). By applying the usual Born-Markov and rotating-wave approximations, we obtain, $$\label{CP cavity}
{\cal L}^R_{MC} = \frac{P_a + \gamma_a}{2} (2 a \rho a^\dag - a^\dag a \rho - \rho a^\dag a)
+ \frac{P_a}{2} (2 a^\dag \rho a - a a^\dag \rho - \rho a a^\dag)\, ,$$ where $\gamma_a = \gamma^c + \gamma^p$ contains contributions from both the reservoirs and $P_a$ is the total pumping rate depending on the populations of the electronic levels weakly coupled to the cavity mode. Assuming only direct and weakly pumped electronic transitions we obtain $P_a = \sum_i \gamma^p_{i} \langle n_{i}
\rangle$ and $\gamma^p = \sum_i \gamma^p_i$, where $\langle n_{i}
\rangle$ is the population of the $i$-th level and $\gamma^p_i = 4
\gamma_i g_i^2 /[\gamma_i^2+(\omega_i -\omega_a)^2]$, being $\gamma_i$ the inverse of the dephasing time of the $i$-th transition. The form of the two terms in eq. (\[CP cavity\]) clearly shows the physical emerging picture different from that adressed in Ref. [@Tej; @PRL]. Indeed, the cavity experiences radiative spontaneous emission guided by vacuum fluctuations (proportional to $\gamma^c$), while the second reservoir provides both emission (proportional to $\gamma^p_{i} (\langle n_{i} \rangle
+ 1)$) and absorption (to $\gamma^p_{i} \langle n_{i} \rangle$).
The material excitation strongly coupled to the cavity mode is also under the influence of two different reservoirs: ${\cal L}^R_{QD} =
{\cal L}^{se}_{QD} + {\cal L}^{P}_{QD}$. The first term describes spontaneous emission in all the available light modes except the cavity one, $${\cal L}^{se}_{QD} = (\gamma_x/2)(2 \sigma_- \rho \sigma_+ - \sigma_+\sigma_- \rho - \rho \sigma_+\sigma_-)\,
.$$ The latter $${\cal L}^P_{QD} = \sum_j (\alpha_j/2)(2 \sigma_{ej} \rho \sigma_{je} - \sigma_{jj} \rho - \rho \sigma_{jj})\, ,$$ is responsible for the incoherent excitation of the QD (e.g. via phonon induced relaxations) from the $j$-th levels at higher energy that get populated by optical pumping. The $\alpha_j$ are temperature-dependent phonon-assisted scattering rates from the $j$-th excitonic levels to the state $\left|e \right>$ [@Flagg]. The transition from the lowest exciton state $\left| e \right >$ towards higher energy states can be safely neglected since the experiments of interests are carried out at $K T << \omega_j -\omega_x$.
This master equation induces an open hierarchy of dynamical equations. In the SC regime the only meaningful truncation scheme is the one based on the smallness of the excitation density which allows to truncate with respect to the number of photon number-states to be included. The inclusion of one-photon states only gives linear optical Bose-like dynamics. On the other hand, once also 2-photon states are taken into account, saturation and lowest order ($\chi^{(3)}$) nonlinear optical effects arise. Within our model we are able to go beyond 2-photon nonlinear dynamics. We shall show essentially non-perturbative calculations, in the sense that with respect to the chose pumping intensity, we shall always check the convergence of the presented results to higher-order number-state truncation, see e.g. Fig. \[figura1\]a.
In the weak excitation regime (linear dynamics) ($\langle \sigma_{ee} \rangle <<
\langle \sigma_{gg} \rangle \simeq 1$), from $\partial_t \left< A
\right > = \text{Tr}(A \dot \rho)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \left< a \right> = -i \tilde\omega_a \left< a \right> -i g \left< \sigma_- \right> \nonumber \\
\partial_t \left< \sigma_- \right> = -i \tilde \omega_x \left< \sigma_- \right> -i g \left< a \right>\, ,\end{aligned}$$ which is a system of two coupled damped oscillators in the absence of any external driving, $\tilde \omega_c = \omega_c - i \gamma_c/2$ with $c=a,x$ . We also observe that the dephasing rates do not depend on the pumping populations $\langle n_i \rangle$ in contrast to the results of Ref. [@Tej; @PRL].
.
We are interested in calculating the steady-state emission spectrum: $S(\omega) = \lim_{t \to \infty} 2 \text{Re} \int_0^\infty
\left<a^\dag(t) a(t + \tau) \right> e^{i \omega \tau} d \tau$. According to the quantum regression theorem, two-time correlations $\left< A_n(t) A_m(t + \tau) \right>$ follow the same dynamics of one-body correlation functions $\left<A_m(\tau) \right>$ but with the one-time correlation $\left< A_n(t) A_m(t) \right>$ as initial conditions. In our specific case the initial conditions are provided by the steady-state cavity occupation $n_a = \lim_{t \to
\infty}\langle a^\dag a \rangle$ and by ${\cal C}= \lim_{t \to
\infty}\langle a^\dag \sigma_+ \rangle$, We obtain, $$\label{na}
n_a = \frac{P_a}{\gamma_a} +\frac{g^2}{\gamma_a}\; \frac{(\gamma_a + \gamma_x)(\gamma_a P_x + \gamma_x P_a)}
{g^2(\gamma_a + \gamma_x)^2 +\gamma_a \gamma_x \left| \tilde \omega_a - \tilde \omega_x\right|^2}\, ,$$ $${\cal C}= \frac{g}{\tilde \omega_a - \tilde \omega_x} (n_a -n_x)\, ,$$ where $n_x$ can be obtained from Eq. (\[na\]) just exchanging the labels $a$ and $x$, and $P_x = \sum_i
\alpha_i \langle n_{i} \rangle$. We end up with the following very simple expression, for the PL spectrum $$\label{Spectrum_B}
S(\omega) = 2\, \text{Re}\left[\frac{i}{\sqrt{2 \pi}}
\frac{(\omega - \tilde \omega_x)\, n_a + g\, {\cal C} }{(\omega- R_1)(\omega -R_2)} \right]\, ,$$ where the complex polariton energies determining the spectrum resonances are given by $$R_{(1,2)} = \frac{\tilde \omega_a + \tilde \omega_x}{2} \mp \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{4g^2 +
(\tilde \omega_a - \tilde \omega_x)^2}\, .$$ The analytical structure of eq. (\[Spectrum\_B\]) shows peculiar non-standard features typical of this system, see Fig. \[figura1\]. Indeed, in addition to the usual dependence in the denominator on the two Rabi frequencies – responsible for the presence of the double-peak structure – we can appreciate a numerator carrying a resonant term proportional to the difference between photon and exciton occupations plus another term proportional to the sole photon steady-state density $n_a$. Both terms modulate the Rabi resonances with respect to the pumping scenario they depend upon. [*According to Eq. (\[Spectrum\_B\]) it is not possible that a system in the weak coupling regime enters SC thanks to pumping in contrast to the results of Ref. [@Tej; @PRL]*]{}.
Although at low pump intensities, our approach and that of Ref.[@Tej; @PRL] essentially represent models of a linear Bose-like dynamics of two coupled harmonic oscillators, nontrivial differences can be appreciated. Indeed, Fig. \[figura1\]a displays the PL spectrum (continuous line) calculated from Eq. (\[Spectrum\_B\]) compared with the result obtained from the model of Ref. [@Tej; @PRL] for the same situation (see caption of Fig. \[figura1\] for details). At these quite low pump intensities our Bose-like spectrum (\[Spectrum\_B\]) differs only slightly from that calculated including 2-photon states (dashed line) and the inclusion of additional photon states does not produce appreciable modifications of the spectrum. On the contrary the emission spectrum calculated according to Ref. [@Tej; @PRL] differs significantly (dash-dotted line). The difference originates mainly from the effective reduction of the damping rates due to the incoherent pump [@Tej; @PRL], a feature absent in our theoretical description. The model presented in Ref. [@Tej; @PRL] reproduces the emission spectra measured by Reithmaier [*et al.*]{} [@Reith]. Although the resulting fit is in excellent agreement with the experimental data, some key fitted parameters (e.g. the pumping rates) appears to be in contrast with the experimental results. In particular, as can be inferred from Figs. 3 and 4 of Ref. [@Reith], the measured PL intensities display a very small variation as a function of temperature. On the contrary they estimate pumping rates with a variation larger than a factor four [@Tej2]. In addition, Reithmeier [*et al.*]{} provides a quite accurate estimate of the mean cavity photon-number (see Additional Information of Ref. [@Reith]) which is one order of magnitude lower than the result of the above montioned fit. This disagreement strongly supports the absence of any dependence of the damping rates on the pumping rates in agreement with the results of our model. Indeed, all the above experimental features are well reproduced by our master equation (\[model\]).
Despite of its analytical simple form, eq. (\[Spectrum\_B\]) shows a nontrivial dependence of the system on the ratio between the cavity and dot pumping rates. Fig. \[figura1\]b displays one PL spectrum (thin continuous line) from the data reported by Reithmaier [*et al.*]{} together with the corresponding fit we obtain using Eq. (\[Spectrum\_B\]) (thicker continuous line). Beside the nearly coincidence of the two curves in this situation, Eq.(\[Spectrum\_B\]) is also in very good agreement with the experimental spectra of Ref. [@Reith] at different detunings. As absolute information on the PL intensities is commonly not available from this kind of experiments, we cannot obtain absolute values for the pumping rates. Instead we gather from the fit the ratio $P_a/P_x
= 0.86$. We also obtain $g = 76$ meV, $\gamma_a = 100$ $\mu$eV, $\gamma_x = 35$ $\mu$eV. In order to evidence the impact that the pumping mechanism can have on SC emission lines even at very small detuning, we plotted in Fig. \[figura1\]b two spectra with the same parameters as the fit but with $P_x = 0$ (dotted line) and $P_a
= 0$ (dashed line). These plots show that, close to the SC threshold, incoherent pumping of the exciton level can even hinder the line splitting. This is the case of the system investigated by Reithmaier [*et al.*]{} [@Reith]. This result put forward the importance of adressing the correct mixed quantum steady state in order to describe the experimental results.
Another situation for a similar system has been recently reported in Ref. [@Ima]. Some first results based on the present multi-photon model (\[model\]) are depicted in Fig.\[figura2\]a. It displays emission spectra at different detunings reproducing one experimental observation of the SC of a QD-cavity system reported in Ref. [@Ima]. Although the parameters have been chosen in order to fit just one of the spectra, our model provides results which agree very well [@nota] with all the spectra presented in Fig. (2b) of Ref. [@Ima] changing only the cavity energy. We can thus unravel the ratio between the cavity-mode and the exciton pumping in this kind of experiments. In this case we obtain $P_a/P_b =0.13$. Fig. \[figura2\]b clearly underlines the importance of taking into account the correct quantum steady state resulting from the interplay of pumping and decay (of both the cavity mode and the exciton level) in order to describe properly the SC experiments. It shows one spectrum of Fig. \[figura2\]a ($\Delta = 0.1$ meV) (continuous line) together with the emission spectrum obtained neglecting the pumping $P_a$ of the cavity mode and the absorption spectrum under a coherent pump. As can be clearly seen without the proper $P_a$ pumping mechanism, the calculated results differ significantly from the experiment.
.
Our model is also well suited to describe situations well beyond that of linear or lowest order nonlinear effects. Fig.\[figura3\] displays emission spectra obtained at different pumping intensities. These results have been obtained after an exact calculation of the SC quantum dynamics achieved truncating the photon number-states only when including larger numbers (and hence dealing with a larger system of equations of motion) does not produce any change in the emission spectrum. We used the same broadenings of Fig. \[figura2\], a coupling $g = 76$ $\mu$eV and we set $P_a =0$ and $\Delta = 0$. Increasing the excitation a reduction of the Rabi splitting due to saturation effects is clearly observable. The upper panel show that as soon as a small popoulation inversion ($n_x > 0.5$) is reached an important narrowing of the linewidth appears indicating a thresholdless lasing behaviour. It seems worth underlining that, within our model, both the linewidth narrowing and the build up of lasing are purely fermionic effects not to be confused with the narrowing due to the incoherent pumping found in the model of Ref. [@Tej; @PRL] (see also [@Arakawa]).
In conclusion, we have given a simple theoretical framework with a reliable predicting character for the analysis of photoluminescence properties under incoherent excitation of single quantum dot microcavity devices in a steady state maintained by a continuous incoherent pumping. On the contrary to currently exploited approaches in the literature, we constructed a completely positive quantum master equation able to provide physically sensible results free from artifacts do to the reduced phenomenological description. Remarkably, our theoretical framework represents a simple and flexible tool naturally suitable for the analysis of the impact of the interplay between the two feeding mechanisms (i.e. $P_a$ and $P_x$) onto the quantum statistic of the emitted quanta at different excitation intensities (under current development). At low pumping rates we obtained an analytical expression for the emission spectrum which directly shows the very different impact of the two feeding mechanisms on the spectra. Our model showed a great flexibility proposing simple but sensible descriptions of various experiments in the strong-coupling regime. It provides essentially non-perturbative results which can be exploited for the efficient modeling of future SC optoelectronic devices.
We thanks Fausto Rossi for helpful suggestions and discussions on Lindblad master equations and completely positive open dynamics.
[50]{}
R. J. Thompson, G. Rempe, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1132 (1992); H. Mabuchi, and A. C. Doherty, Science [**298**]{}, 1372 (2002); J. M. Raimond, [*et al.*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**73**]{}, 565 (2001).
A. Imamoglou [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4204 (1999); P. Michler [*et al.*]{}, Science [**290**]{}, 2282 (2000); K. Hennessy [*et al.*]{} Nature (London) [**445**]{}, 896 (2008).
T. Yoshie [*et al.*]{}, Nature [**432**]{}, 200 (2004); E. Peter et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 067401 (2005).
J. P. Reithmaier [*et al.*]{}, Nature (London) [**432**]{}, 197 (2004).
M. Nomura [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:0905.3063v1 \[cond-mat.other\].
A. Laucht, [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:0904.4759v2 \[cond-mat.other\].
F. P. Laussy, E. del Valle, and C. Tejedor, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 083601 (2008).
see e.g. J. Preskill lecture’s notes on quantum information and computation, available at the website http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/ph229/. D. Taj and F. Rossi, Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 052113 (2008), and reference therein.
D.F. Walls, G.J. Milburn, [*Quantum Optics*]{}, Springer; 2nd edition (February 6, 2008).
M.O. Scully, M.S. Zubairy, [*Quantum Optics*]{}, Cambridge University Press; 1 edition (September 28, 1997).
E. B. Flagg [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 097402 (2009).
F. P. Laussy, E. del Valle, and C. Tejedor, arXiv:0808.3215v1 \[cond-mat.mes-hall\].
Our calculated spectra are in very good agreement with those of Ref. [@Ima] except for the central peak which up to now escapes a precise physical explanation. This feature is present at every detuning and it is specific to the investigated sample.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We compute the minimum number of critical points of a small codimension smooth map between two manifolds. We give as well some partial results for the case of higher codimension when the manifolds are spheres.'
address:
- 'Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science,“Babes-Bolyai” University of Cluj, 3400 Cluj-Napoca, Romania'
- 'Institut Fourier BP 74, UMR 5582, Université de Grenoble I, 38402 Saint-Martin-d’Hères cedex, France'
author:
- Dorin Andrica
- Louis Funar
title: On smooth maps with finitely many critical points
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
If $M, N$ are manifolds, possibly with boundary, consider maps $f:M\rightarrow N$ with $\partial M=f^{-1}(\partial N)$ such that $f$ has no critical points on $\partial M$. Denote by $\varphi(M,N)$ the minimal number of critical points of such maps. The reader may consult the survey [@An] for an account of various features of this invariant (see also [@Pi]). Most of the previously known results consist of sufficient conditions on $M$ and $N$ ensuring that $\varphi(M,N)$ is infinite.
The aim of this note is to find when non-trivial $\varphi(M^m,N^n)$ can occur if the dimensions $m$ and $n$ of $M^m$ and respectively $N^n$, satisfy $m\geq n\geq 2$. Non-trivial means here finite and non-zero. Our main result is the following:
Assume that $M^m, N^n$ are compact orientable manifolds and $\varphi(M^m, N^n)$ is finite, where $0\leq m-n\leq 3$ and $(m,n)\not\in\{(2,2), (4,3), (4,2), (5,3),
(5,2), (6,3), (8,5)\}$. If $m-n=3$ we also assume that the Poincaré conjecture in dimension 3 holds true.
Then $\varphi(M^m, N^n)\in \{0, 1\}$ and $\varphi(M^m, N^n)=1$ precisely when the following two conditions are fulfilled:
1. $M^m$ is diffeomorphic to the connected sum $\widehat{N}\sharp\Sigma^m$, where $\Sigma^m$ is an exotic sphere and $\widehat{N}$ is a $m$-manifold which fibers over $N^n$.
2. $M^m$ does not fiber over $N^n$.
The statement is a consequence of propositions 3.1, 4.1 and 5.1.
1. The second condition is necessary, in general. There exist examples of connected sums $\widehat{N}\sharp\Sigma^m$ which fiber over $N$, yet they are not diffeomorphic to $\widehat{N}$. In fact, the exotic $7$-spheres constructed by Milnor in [@Mi] are pairwise non-diffeomorphic fibrations over $S^4$ with fiber $S^3$.
2. However, if the codimension $m-n$ is zero we believe that the second condition is redundant i.e. if $M^m$ is diffeomorphic to $\widehat{N}\sharp\Sigma^m$ and $M^m$ is not diffeomorphic to $\widehat{N}$ then $M^m$ cannot be a (smooth) covering of $N$. This claim holds true when $N^n$ is hyperbolic, for all but finitely many coverings $\widehat{N}$. In fact, Farrell and Jones ([@FJ]) proved that a finite covering $\widehat{N}$ of sufficiently large degree of a hyperbolic manifold $N^n$ has the property that $\widehat{N}\sharp \Sigma$ admits a Riemannian metric of negative curvature but it does not have a hyperbolic structure. In particular, $\widehat{N}\sharp \Sigma$ is not a covering of $N$ and hence $\varphi(\widehat{N}\sharp \Sigma, N)=1$.
Conversely if $\varphi(M^n, N^n)=1$ and $N^n$ is hyperbolic then $M^n$ cannot be hyperbolic. Otherwise Mostow rigidity would imply that $M^n$ is isometric and hence diffeomorphic to $\widehat{N}$.
3. The theorem holds true for non-compact manifolds $M$ and $N$ if we define $\varphi$ by restricting ourselves to those smooth maps which are proper.
4. In most of the cases excluded in the hypothesis of the theorem one can find examples with non-trivial $\varphi(M^m, N^n)\geq 2$ (see below).
5. One expects that for all $(m,n)$ with $m-n\geq 4$ such examples abound. This is the situation for the local picture. The typical example is a complex projective manifold $X$ admitting non-trivial morphisms into ${\mathbb C\mathbb P}^1$.
6. The case $n=1$ was analyzed in [@PR], where the authors proved that $\varphi(M,[0,1])=2$, for any non-trivial $h$-cobordism $M$.
Most of the present paper is devoted to the proof of the theorem 1.1. In the last part we also compute the values of $\varphi(S^m, S^n)$ in a few cases and look for a more subtle invariant which would measure how far is a manifold from being a covering of another one.
We will consider henceforth that all manifolds are closed and connected unless the opposite is stated.
[**Acknowledgements:**]{} We are grateful to N. A’Campo, M. Aprodu, E. Ferrand, D.Matei, L.Nicolaescu, C. Pintea, P. Popescu-Pampu, A. Sambusetti and J. Seade for useful remarks and discussions.
Elementary computations for surfaces
====================================
Patterson ([@Pa]) gave necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a covering of a surface with prescribed degree and ramification orders. Specifically his result can be stated as follows:
Let $X$ be a Riemann surface of genus $g\geq 1$. Let $p_1,..., p_k$ be distinct points of $X$ and $m_1,...,m_k$ strictly positive integers so that $$\sum_{i=1}^k (m_i-1) = 0 \; ({\rm mod} \; 2).$$ Let $d$ be an integer such that $d\geq max_{i=1,...,k} m_i$. Then there exists a Riemann surface $Y$ and a holomorphic covering map $f:Y\to X$ of degree $d$ such that there exist $k$ points $q_1,...,q_k$ in $Y$ so that $f(q_j)=p_j$, $f$ is ramified to order $m_j$ at $q_j$ and is unramified outside the set $\{q_1,...,q_k\}$.
Observe that a smooth map $f:Y\to X$ between surfaces has finitely many critical points if and only if it is a ramified covering. Furthermore, $\varphi(Y,X)$ is the minimal number of ramification points of a covering $Y\to X$. Estimations can be obtained from the previous result. Denote by $\Sigma_g$ the oriented surface of genus $g$. Denote by $\left [\left [r\right]\right]$ the smallest integer greater than or equal to $r$. Our principal result in this section is the following:
Let $\Sigma$ and $\Sigma'$ be closed oriented surfaces of Euler characteristics $\chi$ and $\chi'$ respectively.
1. If $\chi' > \chi$ then $\varphi(\Sigma',\Sigma)=\infty$.
2. If $\chi' \leq 0$ then $\varphi(\Sigma', S^2)=3$.
3. If $\chi' \leq -2$ then $\varphi(\Sigma', \Sigma_1)=1$.
4. If $2+2\chi\leq \chi'< \chi \leq -2$ then $\varphi(\Sigma',\Sigma)=\infty$.
5. If $0\leq \mid \chi\mid \leq \frac{\mid\chi'\mid}{2}$, write $|\chi'|=a|\chi|+b$ with $0\leq b<|\chi|$; then $$\varphi(\Sigma',\Sigma)=\left[\left[\frac{b}{a-1}\right]\right].$$
In particular, if $G\geq 2(g-1)^2$ then: $$\varphi(\Sigma_G, \Sigma_g)=
\left \{ \begin{array}{ccc}
0 & \mbox{\rm if } & \frac{G-1}{g-1}\in {\mathbb Z}_+,\\
1 & {\mbox {\rm otherwise.}} &
\end{array}\right.$$
The first claim is obvious.
Further, $\varphi(\Sigma', S^2)\leq 3$ because any surface is a covering of the 2-sphere branched at three points (from [@Al]). A deeper result is that the same inequality holds in the holomorphic framework. In fact, Belyi’s theorem states that any Riemann surface defined over a number field admits a meromorphic function on it with only three critical points (see e.g. [@SV]).
On the other hand, assume that $f:\Sigma'\to S^2$ is a ramified covering with at most two critical points. Then, $f$ induces a covering map $\Sigma'-f^{-1}(E)\to S^2-E$, where $E$ is the set of critical values and its cardinality $|E|\leq 2$. Therefore one has an injective homomorphism $\pi_1(\Sigma'-f^{-1}(E))\to \pi_1(S^2-E)$. Now $\pi_1(\Sigma')$ is a quotient of $\pi_1(\Sigma'-f^{-1}(E))$ and $\pi_1(S^2-E)$ is either trivial or infinite cyclic, which implies that $\Sigma'=S^2$.
Next, the unramified coverings of tori are tori; thus any smooth map $f:\Sigma_G\to \Sigma_1$ with finitely many critical points must be ramified, so that $\varphi(\Sigma_G,\Sigma_1)\geq 1$, if $G\geq 2$. On the other hand, by Patterson’s theorem, there exists a covering $\Sigma'\to \Sigma_1$ of degree $d=2G-1$ of the torus, with a single ramification point of multiplicity $2G-1$. From the Hurwitz formula it follows that $\Sigma'$ has genus $G$, which shows that $\varphi(\Sigma_G,\Sigma_1)= 1$.
$\varphi(\Sigma', \Sigma)$ is the smallest integer $k$ which satisfies: $$\left[\left[\frac{\chi'-k}{\chi-k}\right]\right] \leq \frac{\chi'+k}{\chi}$$
Suppose that $\Sigma_G$ is a covering of degree $d$ of $\Sigma_g$, ramified at $k$ points with the multiplicities $m_i=d-\lambda_i$, where $0\leq \lambda_i\leq d-2$. If one sets $\lambda=\sum_i
\lambda_i$, then $\lambda$ satisfies the obvious inequality: $$\lambda \leq k(d-2).$$ Further, the Hurwitz formula yields the following identity: $$d(k-\chi)=k-\chi'+\lambda.$$ Conversely, if there are solutions $(k,\lambda, d)$ of the two equations above, with $k, \lambda \geq 0$ and $d\geq 1$, then one can find integers $m_i, \lambda_i$ as above and therefore one can construct (using Patterson’s theorem) a ramified covering $\Sigma'\to \Sigma$ of degree $d$, with $k$ ramification points of multiplicities $m_i$. So, $\varphi(\Sigma', \Sigma)$ is the least integer $k\geq 0$ for which there exists a solution $(k,\lambda, d)\in {\mathbb N}\times {\mathbb
N}\times {\mathbb N}_+$ of the system: $$0\leq d(k-\chi)+\chi'-k=\lambda \leq k(d-2).$$ That is, for $\chi \leq -2$, $\varphi(\Sigma', \Sigma)$ is the least $k\in {\mathbb N}$ for which there exists a positive integer $d$ satisfying $$\frac{\chi'-k}{\chi-k} \leq d \leq \frac{\chi'+k}{\chi}$$ and this is clearly equivalent to what is claimed in Lemma 2.3.
Assume now that $2+2\chi\leq \chi'< \chi \leq -2$. If $f:\Sigma'\to \Sigma$ was a ramified covering then we would have $\frac{\chi'+k}{\chi} < 2$, and Lemma 2.3 would imply that $\chi'=\chi$, which is a contradiction. Therefore $\varphi(\Sigma', \Sigma)=\infty$ holds.
Finally, assume that $\frac{\chi'}{2}\leq \chi \leq -2$. One has to compute the minimal $k$ satisfying $$\left[\left[ \frac{a\chi-b-k}{\chi-k}\right]\right]
\leq \frac{a\chi-b+k}{\chi},$$ or equivalently, $$\left[\left[ \frac{b+(1-a)k}{\chi-k}\right]\right]
\geq \frac{b-k}{\chi}.$$ The smallest $k$ for which the quantity in the brackets is non-positive is $k=\left[\left[\frac{b}{a-1}\right]\right]$, in which case $$\left[\left[ \frac{b+(1-a)k}{\chi-k}\right]\right]\geq 0\geq
\frac{b-k}{\chi}.$$ For $k$ smaller than this value one has a strictly positive integer on the left-hand side, which is therefore at least $1$. But the right-hand side is strictly smaller than $1$, hence the inequality cannot hold. This proves the claim.
Equidimensional case $n\geq 3$
==============================
The situation changes completely in dimensions $n\geq 3$. According to ([@CH], II, p.535), H.Hopf was the first to notice that a smooth map ${\mathbb R}^n\to {\mathbb R}^n$ ($n\geq 3$) which has only an isolated critical point $p$ is actually a local homeomorphism at $p$. Our result below is an easy application of this fact. We outline the proof for the sake of completeness.
Assume that $M^n$ and $N^n$ are compact manifolds. If $\varphi(M^n,N^n)$ is finite and $n\geq 3$ then $\varphi(M^n,N^n)\in\{0, 1\}$. Moreover, $\varphi(M^n, N^n)=1$ if and only if $M^n$ is the connected sum of a finite covering $\widehat{N^n}$ of $N^n$ with an exotic sphere and $M^n$ is not a covering of $N^n$.
There exists a smooth map $f:M^n\to N^n$ which is a local diffeomorphism on the preimage of the complement of a finite subset of points. Notice that $f$ is a proper map.
Let $p\in M^n$ be a critical point and $q=f(p)$. Let $B \subset N$ be a closed ball intersecting the set of critical values of $f$ only at $q$. We suppose moreover that $q$ is an interior point of $B$. Denote by $U$ the connected component of $f^{-1}(B)$ which contains $p$. As $f$ is proper, its restriction to $f^{-1}(B-\{q\})$ is also proper. As it is a local diffeomorphism onto $B-\{q\}$, it is a covering, which implies that $f:U-f^{-1}(q)\rightarrow B-\{q\}$ is also a covering. But $f$ has only finitely many critical points in $U$, which shows that $f^{-1}(q)$ is discrete outside this finite set, and so $f^{-1}(q)$ is countable. This shows that $U-f^{-1}(q)$ is connected. As $B-\{q\}$ is simply connected, we see that $f:U-f^{-1}(q)\rightarrow B-\{q\}$ is a diffeomorphism. This shows that $f^{-1}(q)\cap U=\{p\}$, otherwise $H_{n-1}(U-f^{-1}(q))$ would not be free cyclic. So, $f:U-\{p\}
\rightarrow
B-\{q\}$ is a diffeomorphism. An alternative way is to observe that $f|_{U-\{p\}}$ is a proper submersion because $f$ is injective in a neigborhood of $p$ (except possibly at $p$). This implies that $f:U-\{p\}\to B-\{q\}$ is a covering and hence a diffeomorphism since $B-\{q\}$ is simply connected.
One verifies then easily that the inverse of $f|_{U}:U\to B$ is continuous at $q$ hence it is a homeomorphism. In particular, $U$ is homeomorphic to a ball. Since $\partial U$ is a sphere the results of Smale (e.g. [@Sm]) imply that $U$ is diffeomorphic to the ball for $n\neq 4$.
We obtained that $f$ is a local homeomorphism hence topologically a covering map. Thus $M^n$ is homeomorphic to a covering of $N^n$. Let us show now that one can modify $M^n$ by taking the connected sum with an exotic sphere in order to get a smooth covering of $N^n$.
By gluing a disk to $U$, using an identification $h:\partial U\to \partial B=S^{n-1}$, we obtain a homotopy sphere (possibly exotic) $\Sigma_1=U\cup_{h} B^n$. Set $M_0=M-{\rm int}(U)$, $N_0=N-{\rm int}(B)$. Given the diffeomorphisms $\alpha:S^{n-1}\to \partial U$ and $\beta:S^{n-1}\to \partial B$ one can form the manifolds $$M(\alpha)=M_0\cup_{\alpha:S^{n-1}\to \partial U} B^n,
N(\beta)=N_0\cup_{\beta:S^{n-1}\to \partial B} B^n.$$ Set $h=f|_{\partial U}:\partial U \to \partial B=S^{n-1}$. There is then a map $F: M(\alpha)\to N(h\circ \alpha)$ given by: $$F(x)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
x & \mbox{ if } x\in D^n, \\
f(x) & \mbox{ if } x\in M_0.
\end{array}\right.$$ The map $F$ has the same critical points as $f|_{M_0}$, hence it has precisely one critical point less than $f:M\to N$.
We choose $\alpha=h^{-1}$ and we remark that $M=M(h^{-1})\sharp \Sigma_1$, where the equality sign $"="$ stands for diffeomorphism equivalence. Denote $M_1=M(h^{-1})$. We obtained above that $f: M=M_1\sharp \Sigma_1\to N$ decomposes as follows. The restriction of $f$ to $M_0$ extends to $M_1$ without introducing extra critical points while the restriction to the homotopy ball corresponding to the holed $\Sigma_1$ has precisely one critical point.
Thus iterating this procedure one finds that there exist possibly exotic spheres $\Sigma_i$ so that\
$f:M=M_k\sharp \Sigma_1\sharp \Sigma_2...\sharp \Sigma_k\to N$ decomposes as follows: the restriction of $f$ to the $k$-holed $M$ has no critical points, and it extends to $M_k$ without introducing any further critical point. Each critical point of $f$ corresponds to a (holed) exotic $\Sigma_i$. In particular, $M_k$ is a smooth covering of $N$.
Now the connected sum $\Sigma=\Sigma_1\sharp \Sigma_2...\sharp \Sigma_k$ is also an exotic sphere. Let $\Delta=\Sigma-{\rm int}(B^n)$ be the homotopy ball obtained by removing an open ball from $\Sigma$. We claim that there exists a smooth map $\Delta\to B^n$, extending any given diffeomorphism of the boundary and which has exactly one critical point. Then one builds up a smooth map $M_k\sharp \Sigma\to N$ having precisely one critical point, by putting together the obvious covering on the 1-holed $M_k$ and $\Delta\to B^n$. This will show that $\varphi(M,N)\leq 1$.
The claim follows easily from the following two remarks. First, the homotopy ball $\Delta$ is diffeomorphic to the standard ball by [@Sm], when $n\neq 4$. Further, any diffeomorphism $\varphi:S^{n-1}\to S^{n-1}$ extends to a smooth homeomorphism with one critical point $\Phi:B^n\to B^n$, for example $$\Phi(z)= \exp\left(-\frac{1}{\parallel z\parallel^2}\right)\varphi
\left(\frac{z}{\parallel z\parallel}\right).$$
For $n=4$ we need an extra argument. Each homotopy ball $\Delta_i^4=\Sigma_i-{\rm int}(B^4)$ is the preimage $f^{-1}(B)$ of a standard ball $B$. Since $f$ is proper we can chose $B$ small enough such that $\Delta_i^4$ is contained in a standard 4-ball. Therefore $\Delta^4$ can be engulfed in $S^4$. Moreover, $\Delta^4$ is the closure of one connected component of the complement of $\partial \Delta^4=S^3$ in $S^4$. The result of Huebsch and Morse from [@HM] states that any diffeomorphism $S^3\to S^3$ has a Schoenflies extension to a homeomorphism $\Delta^4\to B^4$ which is a diffeomorphism everywhere but at one (critical) point. This proves the claim.
Remark finally that $\varphi(M^n, N^n)=0$ if and only if $M^n$ is a covering of $N^n$. Therefore if $M^n$ is diffeomorphic to the connected sum $\widehat{N^n}\sharp \Sigma^n$ of a covering $\widehat{N^n}$ with an exotic sphere $\Sigma^n$, and if it is not diffeomorphic to a covering of ${N^n}$ then $\varphi(M^n, N^n)\neq 0$. Now drill a small hole in $\widehat{N^n}$ and glue (differently) an $n$-disk $B^n$ (respectively a homotopy 4-ball if $n=4$) in order to get $\widehat{N^n}\sharp \Sigma^n$. The restriction of the covering $\widehat{N^n}\to N^n$ to the boundary of the hole extends (by the previous arguments) to a smooth homeomorphism with one critical point over $\Sigma^n$. Thus $\varphi(M^n, N^n)=1$.
1. We should stress that not all exotic structures on a manifold can be obtained from a given structure by connected sum with an exotic sphere. For example smooth structures on products of spheres (and sphere bundle of spheres) are well understood (see [@DS1; @DS2; @Ka; @Sch1; @Sch2]). All smooth structures on $S^p\times S^q$ are of the form $(S^p\times \Sigma^q){\#}\Sigma^{p+q}$, where $\Sigma^r$ denotes a homotopy $r$-sphere. If $p+3\geq q\geq p$ then it is enough to consider only those manifolds for which $\Sigma^q=S^q$ ([@Ka]) but otherwise there are examples where the number $n(p,q)$ of non-diffeomorphic manifolds among them is larger than the number of homotopy $(p+q)$-spheres. For example $n(1,7)=30$, $n(3,10)=4$, $n(1,16)=n(3,14)=24$.
On the other hand, the connected sum with an exotic sphere does not necessarily change the diffeomorphism type. For example Kreck ([@K]) proved that for any manifold $M^m$ (of dimension $m\neq 4$) there exists an integer $r$ such that either $M\sharp_r S^m$ or $M\sharp ST(S^{\frac{m-1}{2}})\sharp_r S^m$ (if $m=1 ({\rm mod }\, 4)$) has a unique smooth structure, where $ST(S^{k})$ denotes the sphere bundle of the tangent bundle of the sphere $S^{k}$.
However, results of Farrell and Jones [@FJ] show that any hyperbolic manifold has finite coverings for which making a connected sum with an exotic sphere will change the diffeomorphism type.
2. Suppose that $M^n=\widehat{N^n}\sharp \Sigma$ is not diffeomorphic to $\widehat{N^n}$. It would be interesting to know under which hypotheses one can insure that $M^n$ is not a smooth covering of $N^n$.
If the dimension $n\in\{3,5,6\}$ then $\varphi(M^n,N^n)$ is either $0$ or $\infty$.
In fact, two 3-manifolds which are homeomorphic are diffeomorphic and in dimensions 5 and 6 there are no exotic spheres.
A careful analysis of open maps between manifolds of the same dimensions was carried out in [@CH]. In particular, one proved that an open map of finite degree whose branch locus is a locally tame embedded finite complex (for example if the map is simplicial) has both the branch locus and the critical set of codimension 2 (see [@CH], II) around each point.
Local obstructions for higher codimension
=========================================
Our main result in this section, less precise than that for codimension $0$, is a simple consequence of the investigation of local obstructions. In fact, the existence of analytic maps ${\mathbb R}^m\to {\mathbb R}^n$ with isolated singularities is rather exceptional in the context of smooth real maps (see [@M]).
If $\varphi(M^m,N^n)$ is finite and either $m=n+1\neq 4$, $m=n+2\neq 4$, or $m=n+3\not\in\{5,6,8\}$ (when one assumes the Poincaré conjecture to be true) then $M$ is homeomorphic to a fibration of base $N$. In particular, if $m=3, n=2$ then $\varphi(M^3, N^2)\in \{0, \infty\}$, except possibly for $M^3$ a non-trivial homotopy sphere and $N^2=S^2$.
One shows first:
\[alg\] Assume that $\varphi(M^m, N^n)\neq 0$ is finite for two manifolds $M^m$ and $N^n$. Then there exists a polynomial map $f:({\mathbb R}^m,0)\to ({\mathbb R}^n,0)$ having an isolated singularity at the origin.
The hypothesis implies the existence of a smooth map $f:({\mathbb R}^m,0)\to ({\mathbb R}^n,0)$ with one isolated singularity at the origin. We can assume that the critical point is not an isolated point of the fiber over $0$ (see the remark \[iso\] below). If the restriction $f|_{S^{m-1}}$ is of maximal rank then the construction goes at follows. One approximates the restriction $f|_{S^{m-1}}$ to the unit sphere, up to the first derivative, by a polynomial map $\tilde\psi$ (of some degree $d$) and one extends the later to all of ${\mathbb R}^m$ by $\psi(x)=|x|^d \tilde\psi\left(\frac{x}{|x|}\right)$. If the approximation is sufficiently close then $\tilde\psi$ will be of maximal rank around the unit sphere hence $\psi$ will have an isolated singularity at the origin. However, some caution is needed when $f|_{S^{m-1}}$ is not of maximal rank. We consider then the restriction $f|_{B^m-B^m_{1-\delta}}$ to the annulus bounded by the spheres of radius $1$ and $1-\delta$ respectively. We claim that:
There exists some $\delta>0$ and a polynomial map $\tilde\psi$ (of some degree $d$) such that its extension $\psi(x)=|x|^d
\tilde\psi\left(\frac{x}{|x|}\right)$ approximates $f|_{B^m-B^m_{1-\delta}}$ sufficiently close.
It suffices to see that $f^{-1}(0)\cap (B^m-B^m_{1-\delta})$ has a conical structure. Remark that the function $r(x)=|x|^2$ has finitely many critical values on $f^{-1}(0)\cap (B^m-B^m_{1-\delta})$ since $f$ is smooth and has no critical points in this range. Thus one can choose $\delta$ small enough so that $r$ has no critical points. Then the proof of theorem 2.10 p.18 from [@M] applies in this context. This implies the existence of a good approximation of conical type.
In particular, our approximating $\psi(x)$ has no critical points in the given annulus. However, if $x_0\neq 0$ was a critical point of $\psi(x)$ in the ball, then all points of the line $0x_0$ would be critical, since $\psi$ is homogeneous. Therefore $\psi$ has an isolated singularity at the origin.
Notice that one can choose the approximation so that $S^{m-1}\cap \psi^{-1}(0)$ is isotopic to $S^{m-1}\cap f^{-1}(0)$ and therefore non-empty. In particular, the singularities at the origin of $f$ and $\psi$ have the same topological type.
Although $\psi$ is not real analytic, each of its components are algebraic because they can be represented as $\psi_j(x)=P_j(x) + Q_j(x)|x|$, where $P_j(x)$ (resp. $Q_j(x)$) are polynomials of even (resp. odd) degree. The curve selection lemma ([@M], p.25) can be extended without difficulty to sets defined by equations like the $\psi_j$ above. Then the proof of theorem 11.2 (and lemma 11.3) from [@M], p.97-99 extends to the case of $\psi$. In particular, there exists a Milnor fibration associated to $\psi$ (the complement of the singular fiber $\psi^{-1}(0)$ in the unit sphere $S^{m-1}$ fibers over $S^{n-1}$). Alternatively $(S^{m-1}, S^{m-1}\cap \psi^{-1}(0))$ is a Neuwirth-Stallings pair according to [@Loo] and $S^{m-1}\cap \psi^{-1}(0)$ is non-empty. The main theorem from [@Loo] provides then a polynomial map with an isolated singularity at the origin as required.
Milnor (see [@M]) called such an isolated singularity [*trivial*]{} when its local Milnor fiber is diffeomorphic to a disk. Then it was shown in ([@CL], p.151) that $f$ is trivial if and only if $f$ is locally topologically equivalent to the projection map ${\mathbb R}^m \to {\mathbb R}^n$, whenever the dimension of the fiber is $m-n\neq 4, 5$. We recall that the existence of polynomials with isolated singularities was (almost) settled in [@CL; @M]:
\[cl\] For $0\leq m-n \leq 2$ non-trivial polynomial singularities exist precisely for $(2,2)$, $(4,3)$ and $(4, 2)$.
For $m-n \geq 4$ non-trivial examples occur for all $(m,n)$.
For $m-n=3$ non-trivial examples occur for $(5,2)$ and $(8,5)$. Moreover, if the 3-dimensional Poincaré conjecture is false then there are non-trivial examples for all $(m,n)$. Otherwise all examples are trivial except $(5, 2)$, $(8, 5)$ and possibly $(6, 3)$.
We consider now a smooth map $f:M^m\to N^n$ where $m, n$ are as in the hypothesis. For each critical point $p$ there are open balls $2B^m(p)$ and $2B^n(f(p))$ for which the restriction $f|_{2B^m(p)}:2B^m(p)\to 2B^n(f(p))$ has an isolated singularity at $p$. One identifies $2B^m(p)$ with the ball of radius 2 in ${\mathbb
R}^m$, and let $B^m(p)$ be the preimage of the concentric unit ball. In the proof of lemma \[alg\] we approximated $f|_{\partial B^m(p)}$ by a polynomial map $g$ with isolated singularities, both maps having isotopic links and being close to each other. Assume for simplicity that $f$ (hence $g$) is of maximal rank around this (unit) sphere. The general case follows along the same lines. Then there exists an isotopy $f_t$ $(t\in [0,1])$ between $f|_{\partial B^m(p)}$ and $g|_{\partial B^m(p)}$, which is close to identity. In particular, all $f_t$ are of maximal rank around the unit sphere. Let $\rho:[0,4]\to [0,1]$ be a smooth decreasing function with $\rho(x)=0$ if $x\geq 1$ and $\rho(x)=1$ if $x\leq \frac{1}{2}$. Let $F:2B^m(p)\to 2B^n(f(p))$ be the map defined by: $$F(x)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
f_{\rho(|x|^2)}\left(\frac{x}{|x|}\right) & \mbox{ if } |x|\geq \frac{1}{2}, \\
g(x) & \mbox{ if } |x|\leq \frac{1}{2}.
\end{array}\right.$$ If one replaces $f_{2B^m(p)}$ by $F$ then one obtains a smooth function with an isolated singularity at $p$, which must be a topological submersion at $p$ (by the previous proposition \[cl\]). An induction on the number of critical points yields a map $F:M^m\to N^n$ which is a topological fibration.
Notice that there exist real smooth maps $f$ which don’t have a Milnor fibration at an isolated singularity. For such $f$ it is not clear when one should call the singularity trivial. In particular, in this situation we don’t know whether $f$ itself must be a topological submersion. Therefore it is necessary to replace $f$ by another map (locally algebraic), in order to be able to apply proposition \[cl\].
Therefore, within the range $0\leq m-n \leq 3$, with the exception of $(2,2)$, $(4,3)$, $(4, 2)$, $(5, 2)$, $(8, 5)$ and $(6, 3)$ the non-triviality of $\varphi$ is related to the exotic structures on fibrations.
One expects that in the case when non-trivial singularities can occur such examples abound.
In the remaining cases we have:
$(m,n)\in \{(4,3), (8,5)\}$. We will prove below that $\varphi(S^4, S^3)=\varphi(S^8, S^5)=2$.
$(m,n)=(4,2)$. Non-trivial examples come from Lefschetz fibrations $X$ over a Riemann surface $F$. For instance $X$ is an elliptic K3 surface and $F$ is $\mathbb C\mathbb P^1$.
$(m,n)=(2k, 2)$. More generally, one can consider complex projective $k$-manifolds admitting morphisms onto an algebraic curve.
Further, one notices that these local obstructions are far from being complete. In fact, the maps ${\mathbb R}^m\to {\mathbb R}^n$ arising as restrictions of smooth maps between compact manifolds are quite particular. For instance if one takes $M=S^m$ then one can obtain by restriction a map ${\mathbb R}^m\to {\mathbb R}^n$ which is proper and has only finitely many isolated singularities. However, adding extra conditions can further restrict the range of dimensions:
\[prope\] There are no proper smooth functions $f:({\mathbb R}^m,0)\to ({\mathbb R}^n,0)$ with one isolated singularity at the origin if $m \leq 2n-3$.
There is a direct proof similar to that of proposition \[spcon\]. Instead, let us show that the hypothesis implies that $\varphi(S^m, S^n)\leq 2$ and so proposition \[spcon\] yields the result.
Let $j_k:S^k\to {\mathbb R}^k$ denote the stereographic projection from the north pole ${\infty}$. There exists an increasing unbounded real function $\rho$ such that $|f(x)|\geq \lambda(|x|)$ for all $x\in {\mathbb R}^m$, because $f$ is proper.
We claim that there exists a real function $\rho$ such that $\rho(|x|)f(x)$ extends to a smooth function $F:S^m\to S^n$. Specifically, we want that the function $F_{\rho}:S^m\to S^n$ defined by: $$F_{\rho}(x)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
j_n^{-1}(\rho(|j_m(x)|)f(j_m(x)) & \mbox{ if } x\in S^m-\{\infty\}, \\
\infty & \mbox{otherwise }.
\end{array}\right.$$ be smooth at $\infty$. This is easy to achieve by taking $\rho(x) > \exp(|x|) \lambda^{-1}(|x|)$ for large $|x|$. Now the critical points of $F_{\rho}$ consist of the two poles, and the claim is proved.
Notice that proper maps like above for $m=2n-2$ exist only for $n\in \{2,3,5,9\}$ (see below).
\[iso\] A special case is when the critical point $p$ is an isolated point in the fiber $f^{-1}(f(p))$. This situation was settled in [@CL; @Ti] where it was shown that the dimensions $(m, k)$ should be $(2,2), (4,3), (8,5)$ or $(16, 9)$, and the map is locally the cone over the respective Hopf fibration.
The global structure for topological submersions
================================================
Roughly speaking the results of the previous section say that maps of low codimension with only finitely many critical points should be topological submersions.
Assume that there exists a topological submersion $f:M^m\to N^n$ with finitely many critical points, and $m>n\geq 2$. Then $\varphi(M,N)\in \{0, 1\}$ and $\varphi(M,N)=1$ precisely when $M$ is diffeomorphic to the connected sum of a fibration $\widehat{N}$ (over $N$) with an exotic sphere, and $M$ is not a fibration over $N$.
The first step is to split off one critical point by localizing it within an exotic sphere. Let $M_0$ be the manifold obtained after excising an embedded ball from $M$.
There exists an exotic sphere $\Sigma_1$ and a map $f_1:M_1\to N$ such that:
1. $M_0$ is a submanifold of both $M$ and $M_1$. The complements $M_1-M_0$ and $M-M_0$ are balls and $M=M_1\sharp \Sigma_1$.
2. $f_1$ agrees with $f$ on $M_0\subset M_1$ and has no other critical points on the ball $M_1-M_0$.
3. $f$ has precisely one critical point in $M-M_0$.
Let $p$ be a critical point of $f$, $q=f(p)$, $\delta$ be a small disk around $q$. We replace $f$ by a map which is locally polynomial around the critical point $p$, as in the previous section. We show first that:
\[cyl\] There exists a neighborhood $Z_p$ of $p$ such that the following conditions are fulfilled:
1. $Z_p$ is diffeomorphic to $D^n\times D^{m-n}$ (for $m\neq 4$).
2. $\partial Z_p=\partial^h Z \cup \partial^v Z_p$, where the restrictions $f:\partial^vZ_p\to D^n$ and $f:\partial^hZ\to \partial D^n$ are trivial fibrations, and $\partial^h Z \cap \partial^v Z_p=S^{n-1}\times S^{m-n-1}$.
Let $B^m(p)$ be a sufficiently small ball around $p$ and $\delta$ be such that $\delta\subset f(B^m(p))$. We claim that $Z_p=B^m(p)\cap f^{-1}(\delta)$ has the required properties.
One chooses a small ball containing $p$, $B_0^m(p)\subset Z_p$. Then one uses the argument from ([@M], p.97-98) and derive that $q$ is a regular value of the map $$f: Z_p-{\rm int}(B_0^m(p)) \to \delta.$$ Therefore the latter is a fibration, hence a trivial fibration. In particular, the manifold with corners $\partial Z_p$ has a collar whose outer boundary is a smooth sphere. Further, the manifold with boundary $Z_p$ is homeomorphic to $D^n\times D^{m-n}$ and the boundary $\partial Z_p$ is collared as above. The outer sphere bounds a smooth disk (by Smale) and so $Z_p$ is diffeomorphic to $D^n\times D^{m-n}$.
Now the proof goes on as in codimension 0. We excise $Z_p$ and glue it back by another diffeomorphism in order that the restriction of $f$ extends over the new ball, without introducing any new critical points. The gluing diffeomorphism respects the corner manifold structure.
An inductive argument shows that if $\varphi(M,N)$ is finite then the connected sum $M\sharp \Sigma$ with an exotic sphere is diffeomorphic to a fibration over $N$.
We want to prove now that one can find another map $M\to N$ having precisely one critical point. We have first to put all critical points together inside a standard neighborhood:
If $m>n\geq 2$ then the critical points of $f$ are contained in some cylinder $Z^m \subset M$ which is diffeomorphic to $D^n\times D^{m-n}$ (respectively homeomorphic when $m=4$, by a homeomorphism which is a diffeomorphism on the boundary) such that the fibers of $f$ are either transversal to the boundary (actually to the part $D^{n}\times \partial D^{m-n}$) or contained in $\partial D^n\times D^{m-n}$.
Pick-up a regular point $x_0$ in $M$. Let $U$ be the set of regular points which can be joined to $x_0$ by an arc $\gamma$ everywhere transversal to the fibers of $f$ (which will be called transversal in the sequel).
We show first that $U$ is open. In a small neighborhood $V$ of $x\in U$ the fibers can be linearized (by means of a diffeomorphism) and identified to parallel $(m-n)$-planes. Let $y\in V$. If $x$ and $y$ are not in the same fiber then the line joining them is a transversal arc. Otherwise use a helicoidal arc spinning around the line, which can be constructed since the fibers have codimension at least 2.
At the same time $U$ is closed in the complement of the critical set. In fact, the previous arguments show that two regular points which are sufficiently closed to each other can be joined by a transversal arc with prescribed initial velocity (provided this tangent vector is also transversal to the fiber). Thus, if $y_i$ converge to a regular point $y$ and $y_i\in U$ then $y$ can be joined to $x_0$ by joining first $x_0$ to $y_i$ and further $y_i$ to $y$ (for large enough $i$) with some prescribed initial velocity, in order to insure the smoothness of the arc. This proves that $U$ is the set of all regular points.
Further, we consider the cylinders $Z_{p_i}$ given by lemma \[cyl\]. Let $f_i\subset \partial Z_{p_i}$ be some fibers in the boundary. The points $q_i\in f_i$ can be joined by everywhere transversal arcs. Since this is an open condition one can find disjoint tubes $T_{i, i+1}$ joining neighborhoods of the fibers $f_i$ in $\partial Z_{p_i}$ and $f_{i+1}$ in $\partial Z_{p_{i+1}}$ and one builds up this way a cylinder $Z$ containing all critical points.
\[one\] There exists a smooth map $g:Z\to D^n$ having one critical point such that $g|_{\partial Z}=f|_{\partial Z}$.
We know that each restriction $f:Z_i\to D^n$ is topologically a trivial fibration, whose restriction to a collar of the boundary sphere $\partial D^n$ is trivial, as a smooth fibration. We claim that $f:Z\to D^n$ enjoys the same property. This follows from the fact that the restrictions $f:T_{i, i+1}\to D^n$ are also trivial fiber bundles. The restriction $f|_{\partial^v Z}:\partial^v Z\to D^n$ is a trivial fibration over the ball. Thus there exists a diffeomorphism $\partial^v f:\partial^v Z\to D^n\times \partial D^{m-n}$, which commutes with the trivial projection $\pi:D^n \times D^{m-n}\to D^n$, namely $\pi \circ \partial^v f = f|_{\partial^v Z}$.
Since $f|_{\partial^h Z}:\partial^v Z\to \partial D^n$ is a trivial fibration there exists a diffeomorphism $\partial^h f:\partial^v Z \to \partial D^n\times D^{m-n}$ commuting with $\pi$. Moreover, these two diffeomorphisms can be chosen to agree on their common intersection, $\partial^h f|_{\partial^h Z \cap \partial^v Z}=
\partial^v f|_{\partial^h Z \cap \partial^v Z}$.
We obtain therefore a diffeomorphism $\partial f$ of manifolds with corners $\partial f: \partial Z\to \partial D^m$, defined by: $$\partial f(x)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\partial^h f(x) & \mbox{ if } x\in \partial^h Z, \\
\partial^v f(x) & \mbox{ if } x\in \partial^v Z .
\end{array}\right.$$
Assume now that there exists a smooth homeomorphism $\Phi:Z\to D^n\times D^{m-n}$ having precisely one critical point, which extends $\partial f$, i.e. such that the diagram
$$\begin{array}{ccc}
\partial Z & \stackrel{\partial f}{\to} & \partial(D^n \times D^{m-n})
\\
\downarrow & & \downarrow \\
Z & \stackrel{\Phi}{\to} & D^n \times D^{m-n}
\end{array}$$ commutes. We set therefore $g(x)= \pi(\Phi(x))$. It is immediate that $g$ has at most one critical point and $g$ is an extension of $f_{\partial Z}$. Our claim is then a consequence of the following:
Any diffeomorphism of the sphere $S^m$, with the structure of a manifold with corners $\partial(D^n\times D^{m-n})$, extends to a smooth homeomorphism of $D^n\times D^{m-n}$ with at most one critical point.
Instead of searching for a direct proof remark that the trivializations leading to $\partial f$ extend over a collar of $\partial(D^n\times
D^{m-n})$. This collar is still a manifold with corners, but it contains a smoothly embedded sphere. We use then the standard result (see [@HM]) to extend further the diffeomorphism from the smooth sphere to the ball.
Now lemma \[one\] follows.
Maps between spheres
====================
For spheres the situation is somewhat simpler than in general because we can use the global obstructions of topological nature. Our main result settles the case when the codimension is smaller than the dimension of the base. Specifically, we can state:
\[spcon\]
1. The values of $m>n>1$ for which $\varphi(S^m,S^n)=0$ are exactly those arising in the Hopf fibrations i.e. $n\in\{2,4,8\}$ and $m=2n-1$.
2. One has $ \varphi(S^4, S^3)=\varphi(S^8, S^5)=\varphi(S^{16}, S^9)=
2$.
3. If $m\leq 2n-3$ then $\varphi(S^m,S^n)=\infty$.
4. If $\varphi(S^{2n-2},S^n)$ is finite then $n\in\{2,3,5,9\}$.
Notice first that the existence of the Hopf fibrations $S^3 \to S^2, S^7 \to S^4, S^{15}\to S^8$, shows that $\varphi(S^3, S^2)=\varphi(S^7, S^4)=\varphi(S^{15}, S^8)=0.$ The converse is already known (see Lemma 2.7 in [@Ti] or Lemma 1 in [@CL]). We will give a slightly different proof below, on elementary grounds.
Using the Serre exact sequence for a $(n-1)$-connected basis one finds that the homology of the fiber $F$ (of the fibration $f:S^m\to S^n$) agrees with that of $S^{n-1}$ up to dimension $n-1$, and a subsequent application of the same sequence shows that $F$ is a homology $(n-1)$-sphere. Therefore $m=2n-1$. In particular, we infer that the transgression map $\tau^*:H^{n-1}(F) \to H^n(S^n)$ is an isomorphism.
Let $i_F:F\to S^{2n-1}$ and $j_F:S^{2n-1}\to (S^{2n-1},F)$ denote the inclusion maps. Denote by $C^*(X)$ the cochain complex of the space $X$.
The composition of maps: $$C^{n-1}(S^{2n-1}) \stackrel{i_F^*}{\to}
C^{n-1}(F)\stackrel{\tau^*}{\to}
C^{n}(S^{2n})\stackrel{f^*}{\to}
C^{n}(S^{2n-1})$$ is the boundary operator $d:C^{n-1}(S^{2n-1})\to
C^{n}(S^{2n-1})$.
The transgression map $\tau^*$ can be identified (see for example [@Wh], p.648-651) with the composition $$H^{n-1}(F) \stackrel{\partial^*}{\to} H^n(S^{2n-1},F)
\stackrel{f^{*-1}}{\to} H^n(S^n),$$ where $\partial^*$ is the boundary homomorphism in the long exact sequence of the pair $(S^{2n-1}, F)$. One sees then that $$C^n(S^{2n-1},
F)\stackrel{f^{*-1}}{\to}C^n(S^n)\stackrel{f^{*}}{\to}
C^n(S^{2n-1})$$ agrees with $j_F^*$. Further, the composition of maps from the statement of the lemma is equivalent to $$C^{n-1}(S^{2n-1}) \stackrel{i_F^*}{\to}
C^{n-1}(F)\stackrel{\partial^*}{\to}
C^{n}(S^{2n-1},F)\stackrel{j_F^*}{\to}
C^{n}(S^{2n-1}),$$ which acts as the boundary operator $d$, as claimed.
Let $u$ be an $(n-1)$-form on $S^{2n-1}$ such that $i_F^*u$ is a generator for $H^{n-1}(F,{\mathbb Z})\subset H^{n-1}(F, {\mathbb R})$. Then $$<i_F^*u, [F]> = \int_F u =1.$$
Since $\tau^*$ is an isomorphism it follows that $\tau^*i_F^*u=v$, where $v$ is the generator of $H^{n}(S^n, {\mathbb Z})$. Thus $v$ is the volume form on $S^n$, normalized so that $\int_{S^n}v=1$.
Let us recall the definition of the Hopf invariant $H(f)$. Consider any $(n-1)$-form $w$ on $S^{2n-1}$ satisfying $f^*v=dw$. Then $$H(f) = \int_{S^{2n-1}}w\wedge dw =\int_{x\in S^n} \left(\int_{f^{-1}(x)} w \right) v.$$
According to the lemma one has $f^*v=du$. However, it is clear that the function $x\to \int_{f^{-1}(x)}w$ is constant (more generally it is locally constant on the set of regular values for an arbitrary $f$), and this constant in our case is $\int_Fu=1$. Therefore $H(f)=1$ and the Adams theorem (see [@Ad]) implies the claim.
\[serre\] The result above holds true if one relaxes the assumptions by asking $f$ to be only a Serre fibration. One replaces in the proof the integral in the definition of the Hopf invariant by the intersection of chains (see e.g. [@Wh], p.509-510).
[*Proof of 2.*]{} We will show now that by suspending the Hopf fibrations we obtain examples of pairs with non-trivial $\varphi$. In fact, choose a Hopf map $f:S^{2n-1}\to S^n$, and extend it to $B^{2n}\to B^{n+1}$ by taking the cone and smoothing it at the origin. Then glue together two copies of $B^{2n}$ along the boundary. One gets a smooth map having two critical points. The previous result implies that: $$1\leq \varphi(S^4, S^3), \varphi(S^8, S^5), \varphi(S^{16}, S^9)\leq 2.$$
Let us introduce some more notations: set $p_1,...,p_r$ for the critical points of the map $f:S^m\to S^n$ under consideration, if there are only finitely many. Let $F_{e_i}=f^{-1}(f(p_i))$ denote the singular fibers, $F_e=\cup_{i=1}^r F_{e_i}$ stand for their union, and $F$ for the generic fiber which is a closed oriented $(m-n)$-manifold.
Each component of $F_e$ is either a smooth $(m-n)$-manifold around each point which is not in the critical set $\{p_1,...,p_r\}$, or else an isolated $p_i$.
In fact, $f$ is a submersion at all points but $p_i$.
If $m < 2n-1$ then $\varphi(S^m, S^n)\geq 2$.
Assume that there is a map $f:S^m\to S^n$ with precisely one critical point $p$. Then $f:S^m-F_e\to B^n$ is a fibration, so that $S^m-F_e=B^n\times F$.
One rules out the case when the exceptional fiber is one point by observing that $H_{m-n}(F)$ is not trivial. Using an $(n-1)$-cycle linking once a component of $F_{e_i}$ one shows that $H_{n-1}(S^m-F_e)$ is non-trivial. Since $n-1> m-n$ the equality above is impossible, and the claim is proved.
Now the equalities from the statement follow.
This might be used to construct other examples with finite $\varphi$ in the respective dimensions. For instance one finds that $\varphi(\Sigma^8, S^5)=\varphi(\Sigma^{16}, \Sigma^9)=2$, where $\Sigma^n$ denotes an exotic $n$-sphere.
[*Proof of 3.*]{} Assume that there is a smooth map $f:S^m\to S^n$ with $r$ critical points. We suppose, for simplicity, that the critical values $q_i$ are distinct. One uses the Serre exact sequence for the fibration $S^m-F_e\to
S^n-\{q_1,...,q_r\}$ and one derives that: $$H_i(F)=H_i(S^m-F_e), \mbox{ if } i\leq n-3.$$ Further, $H^{m-i}(F_e)=0$ for $i\leq n-1$, because $F_e$ has dimension at most $(m-n)$. Then Alexander’s duality, $\widetilde{H}_{i-1}(S^m-F_e)=\widetilde{H}^{m-i}(F_e)$, and the previous equality imply that $H_i(F)=0$, for all $i\leq n-3$. This is impossible because the fiber $F$ is a compact $(m-n)$-manifold and $m-n\leq n-3$.
[*Proof of 4.*]{} As above, the Serre exact sequence shows that $F$ is an $(n-2)$-homology sphere. Further, the generalized Gysin sequence yields: $$\widetilde{H}^{2n-3-j}(F_e)=\widetilde{H}_j(S^{2n-2}-F_e)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\mathbb Z}^{r} & \mbox{ if } j=2n-3, \\
{\mathbb Z}^{r-2} & \mbox{ if } j=n-1, \\
0 & \mbox{ otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ Notice that $H_{n-2}(F_e)$ (or equivalently $H_{n-1}(S^{2n-2}-F_e)$) cannot be of rank $r-2$ unless some (more precisely two such) exceptional fiber in $F_e$ consists of one point. In fact, if we have $q$ connected components of $F_e$ of dimension $(n-2)$ then the rank of $H_{n-2}(F_e)$ would be at least $q$.
Furthermore, such a critical point $p$ is isolated in $f^{-1}(f(p))$. Then proposition 3.1 from [@Ti] yields the claim.
Notice that $F^{m-n}$ is $(n-3)$-connected. In particular, if $m\leq 3n-6$ ($n\geq 5$) then $F$ is homeomorphic to $S^{m-n}$. In fact, one can obtain $S^m$ from the complement $S^m-{\rm int}(N(F_e))$ of a neighborhood of the exceptional fibers by adding cells of dimension $\geq n$, one $(n+i)$-cell for each $i$-cell of $F_e$. Therefore $\pi_j(S^m-{\rm int}(N(F_e)))=0=\pi_j(S^m)=0$, for $j\leq n-2$. The base space of the fibration $f|_{S^m-{\rm int}(N(F_e))}$ is $S^n$ with small open neighborhoods of the critical values deleted, thus it is homotopy equivalent to a bouquet of $S^{n-1}$ (at least one critical value). The long exact sequence in homotopy shows then that the fiber is $(n-3)$-connected.
1. If there exists a non-trivial proper smooth $F:({\mathbb R}^m,0)\to ({\mathbb R}^n,0)$ having only one isolated singularity at the origin then $\varphi(S^m, S^n)\leq 2$ (see the proof of proposition \[prope\]), and this condition seems to be quite restrictive, in view of proposition \[spcon\].
2. The explicit computation of $\varphi(S^m,S^n)$ for general $m, n$ seems to be difficult. Further steps towards the answer would be to prove that $\varphi(S^{2n-1},S^n)$ is finite only if $n\in\{1,2,4,8\}$, and that $\varphi(S^m,S^n)=\infty$ if $n\geq 5$ and $2n-1 < m \leq 3n-6$.
Remarks concerning a substitute for $\varphi$ in dimension 3
============================================================
One saw that $\varphi(M^n,N^n)$ is less interesting if $n\geq
3$. One would like to have an invariant of the pair $(M^n,N^n)$ measuring how far is $M^n$ from being an unramified covering of $N^n$. First, one has to know whether there is a branched covering $M^n\to N^n$ and next if the branch locus could be empty.
A classical theorem of Alexander ([@Al]) states that any $n$-manifold is a branched covering of the sphere $S^n$. Moreover, one can assume that the ramification locus is the $(n-2)$-skeleton of the standard $n$-simplex.
There exists an obvious obstruction to the existence of a ramified covering $M^n\to N^n$, namely the existence of a map of non-zero degree $M^n\to N^n$. In particular, a necessary condition is $\parallel M\parallel\;\geq\; \parallel N \parallel$, where $\parallel M\parallel$ denotes the simplicial volume of $M$ (see [@Gro; @MT]). However, this condition is far from being sufficient. Take $M$ with finite fundamental group and $N$ with infinite amenable fundamental group (for instance of polynomial growth); then $\parallel M\parallel=\parallel N \parallel=0$, while it is elementary that there does not exist a non-zero degree map $M\to N$.
A possible candidate for replacing $\varphi$ in dimension 3 is the ratio of simplicial volumes mod ${\mathbb
Z}$, namely $$v(M,N) = \frac{\parallel M\parallel}{\parallel N \parallel}
\; ({\rm mod} \; {\mathbb Z})\in [0,1),$$ which is defined when $N$ has nonzero simplicial volume. Notice that for (closed manifolds $M$) the simplicial volume $\parallel M\parallel$ depends only on the fundamental group $\pi_1(M)$ of $M$. In particular, it vanishes for simply connected manifolds, making it less useful in dimensions at least 4.
If $M^n$ covers $N^n$ then $v(M,N)=0$ (see [@Gro]). The converse holds true for surfaces of genus at least 2, from Hurwitz formula.
The norm ratio has been extensively studied for hyperbolic manifolds in dimension 3, where it coincides with the volume ratio, in connection with commensurability problems (see e.g. [@T]). In particular, the values $v(M^3,N^3)$ accumulate on 1 since the set of volumes of closed hyperbolic 3-manifolds has an accumulation point. The simplicial volume is zero for a Haken 3-manifold iff the manifold is a graph manifold (from [@So]), and conjecturally the simplicial volume is the sum of (the hyperbolic) volumes of the hyperbolic components of the manifold.
However, it seems that this invariant is not appropriate in dimensions higher than 3 (even if one restricts to aspherical manifolds). Here are two arguments in favour of this claim:
Let us suppose that $M^n$ is a ramified covering of $N^n$ over the complex $K^{n-2}$. Assume that both the branch locus $K^{n-2}$ and its preimage in $M^n$ can be engulfed in a simply connected codimension one submanifold. Then $v(M^n,N^n)=0$. Assume that there is a map $f:M^n\to N^n$ such that the kernel $\ker(f_*:\pi_1(M)\to \pi_1(N))$ is an amenable group. Then $v(M^n,N^n)=0$.
One uses the fact that for any simply connected codimension one submanifold $A^{n-1}\subset M^n$ one has $\parallel M\parallel =\parallel M-A \parallel$ (see [@Gro], p.10 and 3.5). The second part follows from ([@S], Remark 3.5) which states that $\parallel M\parallel={\rm deg}(f) \parallel N \parallel$, where ${\rm deg}(f)$ states for the degree of $f$.
1. For all $n\geq 4$ Sambusetti ([@S]) constructed examples of manifolds $M^n$ and $N^n$ satisfying the second condition (and hence $v$ vanishes) but which are not fibrations.
2. It seems that there are no such examples in dimension 3. At least for Haken hyperbolic $N^3$, any $M^3$ dominating $N^3$ with amenable kernel must be a covering, according to ([@S], Remark 3.5) and to the rigidity result of Soma and Thurston (see [@So]).
One could replace the simplicial volume by any other volume, as defined by Reznikov [@R]. For instance the $\widetilde{SL(2,R)}$-volume is defined for Seifert fibered 3-manifolds and it behaves multiplicatively under finite coverings (compare to [@WaWu]). In particular, one can define an appropiate $v(M,N)$ for graph manifolds using this volume. Other topological invariants which behave multiplicatively under finite coverings are the $l^2$-Betti numbers.
If there is a branched covering $f:M^n\to N^n$ then the branch locus is of codimension 2. This yields a heuristical explanation for the almost triviality of $\varphi(M^n,N^n)$ in high dimensions. A possible extension of $\varphi$ would have to take into account the minimal complexity of the branch locus, (e.g. its Betti number) over all branched coverings. For a given $N$ this complexity must be bounded from above, as it does happen in the case when $N$ is a sphere by Alexander’s theorem. However, it seems that such invariants are not easily computable.
[8]{}
J.F. Adams, [*On the non-existence of elements of Hopf invariant one*]{}, Ann. Math. 72(1960), 20-104.
J.W. Alexander, [*Note on Riemann spaces*]{}, Bull. A.M.S. 26(1920), 370-373.
D. Andrica, [*Functions with minimal critical set: new results and open problems*]{}, Mathematical Analysis and Applications, (Th.M.Rassias, Ed.), Hadronic Press, 2000, 1-10.
I. Berstein and A. Edmonds, [*The degree and branch set of a branched covering*]{}, Invent. Math. 45(1978), 213–220.
W. Browder, [*Higher torsion in H-spaces*]{}, Trans. A.M.S. 108(1963), 353-375.
J. Cerf, [ Sur les difféomorphismes de la sphère de dimension trois $(\Gamma \sb{4}=0)$]{}, [*Lecture Notes in Math.*]{}, 53, 1968.
P.T. Church and K. Lamotke, [*Non-trivial polynomial isolated singularities*]{}, Indag. Math. 37(1975), 149-154.
P.T. Church and E. Hemmingsen, [*Light open maps on $n$-manifolds I, II, III*]{}, Duke Math.J. 27(1960), 527-536, 28(1961), 607-623, 30(1963), 379-384.
P.T. Church and J.G. Timourian, [*Differentiable maps with 0-dimensional critical set I*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 41(1972), 615-630.
P.T. Church and J.G. Timourian, [*Differentiable maps with 0-dimensional critical set II*]{}, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 24(1974), 17-28.
R. De Sapio, [*Differential structures on a product of spheres*]{}, Comment. Math. Helv. 44(1969), 61–69.
R. De Sapio, [*Differential structures on a product of spheres*]{} II. Ann. Math. 89(1969), 305–313.
F.T. Farrell and L.E. Jones, [*Negatively curved manifolds with exotic smooth structures*]{}, J. A.M.S. 2(1989), 899-908.
R.H. Fox, [*Covering spaces with singularities*]{}, Algebraic Geometry and Topology, [*Symposium in the honor of S.Lefschetz*]{}, (R.H.Fox, D.C.Spencer, A.W.Tucker, Eds.), Princeton, 1957, 243-257.
M. Gromov, [*Volume and bounded cohomology*]{}, Publ. Math. I.H.E.S. 56(1982), 5-99.
W. Huebsch and M. Morse, [*Schoenflies extensions without interior differential singularities*]{}, Ann. Math. 76(1962), 18–54.
K. Kawakubo, [*Smooth structures on $S\sp{p}\times S\sp{q}$*]{}, Osaka J. Math. 6(1969), 165–196.
M. Kreck, [*Manifolds with unique differentiable structure*]{}, Topology 23(1984), 219–232.
E. Looijenga, [*A note on polynomial isolated singularities*]{}, Indag. Math. 33(1971), 418-421.
J. Milnor, [*On manifolds homeomorphic to the $7$-sphere*]{} Ann. Math. 64(1956), 399–405.
J. Milnor, [Singular points of complex hypersurfaces]{}, [*Ann. Math. Studies*]{}, 61, 1968.
J. Milnor and W. Thurston, [*Characteristic numbers of $3$-manifolds*]{}, Enseignement Math. 23(1977), 249–254.
S.J. Patterson, [*Ramified coverings of Riemann surfaces*]{}, Arch. Math. (Basel) 28(1977), 281-286.
C. Pintea, [*Differentiable mappings with an infinite number of critical points*]{}, Proc. A.M.S. 128(2000), 3435-3444.
P.E. Pushkar and Yu.B. Rudyak, [*On the minimal number of critical points of functions on h-cobordisms*]{}, Math. Res. Lett. 9(2002), 241–246.
A. Reznikov, [*Volumes of discrete groups and topological complexity of homology spheres*]{}, Math. Annalen 306(1996), 547-554.
A. Sambusetti, [*Minimal entropy and simplicial volume*]{}, Manuscripta Math. 99(1999), 541–560.
R.E. Schultz, [*Smooth structures on $S\sp{p}\times S\sp{q}$*]{}, Ann. Math. 90(1969), 187–198.
R.E. Schultz, [*Smoothings of sphere bundles over spheres in the stable range*]{}, Invent. Math. 9(1969/1970), 81–88.
G.B. Shabat and V.A. Voevodsky, [*Drawing curves over number fields*]{}, Grothendieck Festschrift, (P.Cartier, Ed.), Progress in Math., 88, vol. 3, Birkhauser, 1990, 199-227.
S. Smale, [*Generalized Poincaré’s conjecture in dimensions greater than four*]{}, Ann. Math. 74(1961), 391-406.
T. Soma, [*A rigidity theorem for Haken manifolds*]{}, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 118(1995), 141–160.
J.G. Timourian, [*Fiber bundles with discrete singular set*]{}, Indiana J. Math. 18(1968), 61-70.
W.P. Thurston, The geometry and topology of 3-manifolds. , 1983.
S. Wang and Y.Q. Wu, [*Covering invariants and co-Hopficity of 3-manifold groups*]{}, Proc. L.M.S. 68(1994), 203-224.
G.W. Whitehead, Elements of homotopy theory, 61, Springer-Verlag, 1978.
[^1]: Partially supported by the European Research Training Network Geometric Analysis.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
=1
Introduction
============
In this paper, which is a continuation of [@V16a; @V16b], we study the possibilities to construct explicit solutions for nonlinear lattices with non-square geometry. Our aim is twofold. First, we want to present an application of some of the ideas and methods elaborated for models on such lattices and even on arbitrary graphs (see, for example, [@A98; @A01; @AS04; @BH03; @BHS02; @BS02; @BS10; @DNS07]). On the other hand, we want to demonstrate that some of the results obtained for the rectangular lattices can be modified to provide solutions for the models defined on the triangular ones.
We consider a nonlinear vector model defined on the triangular lattice with interaction between the nearest neighbours, $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{S} = \sum_{ \mathrm{n.n.} } \mathcal{L}({\vec{n}}_{1},{\vec{n}}_{2})\label{mod:S}\end{gathered}$$ described by $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{L}({\vec{n}}_{1},{\vec{n}}_{2}) = J_{{\vec{n}}_{1},{\vec{n}}_{2}} \ln \big| 1 + K_{{\vec{n}}_{1},{\vec{n}}_{2}} {\langle {\vec{q}}({\vec{n}}_{1}) - {\vec{q}}({\vec{n}}_{2}) ,\, {\vec{r}}({\vec{n}}_{1}) - {\vec{r}}({\vec{n}}_{2}) \rangle} \big|\label{mod:L}\end{gathered}$$ and the restriction $$\begin{gathered}
{\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} \rangle} = 1\label{restr:qr}\end{gathered}$$ (for all ${\vec{n}}$) where the brackets ${\langle \;,\, \rangle}$ stand for the standard scalar product.
From the physical viewpoint, the model with the Lagrangian , which can be rewritten, due to the restriction , as $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{L}({\vec{n}}_{1},{\vec{n}}_{2}) = J_{{\vec{n}}_{1},{\vec{n}}_{2}} \ln \big| 1 + K'_{{\vec{n}}_{1},{\vec{n}}_{2}} {\langle {\vec{q}}({\vec{n}}_{1}) ,\, {\vec{r}}({\vec{n}}_{2}) \rangle} + K'_{{\vec{n}}_{1},{\vec{n}}_{2}} {\langle {\vec{q}}({\vec{n}}_{2}) ,\, {\vec{r}}({\vec{n}}_{1}) \rangle} \big| + {\rm const},\end{gathered}$$ is one of the classical versions of the famous anisotropic Heisenberg spin model of the quantum mechanics [@H82; @I82; @P87].
Comparing this work with the previous one, [@V16b], it should be noted that here we study the anisotropic interaction (in [@V16b] the interaction was with $K_{{\vec{n}}_{1},{\vec{n}}_{2}}=1$) on the triangular lattice (instead of the honeycomb one) and take into account the restriction , which is very important for possible physical applications.
In the next section we discuss in more detail the Lagrangian and the equations which are the main subject of our study. In Section \[sec:ansatz\], we introduce some auxiliary system and demonstrate how it can used to derive solutions for our equations. These results are used in Section \[sec:solutions\] to present three families of the explicit solutions: two types of the $N$-soliton solutions and ones constructed of the determinants of the Toeplitz matrices. Finally, in the conclusion we discuss the limitations of the method we use in this paper and possible continuations of the presented studies.
The model {#sec:model}
=========
It should be noted that, although we study a two-dimensional lattice, we introduce, instead of a pair of basis vectors, *three* coplanar vectors $\vec{e}_{1}$, $\vec{e}_{2}$ and $\vec{e}_{3}$ related by $ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3} \vec{e}_{i} = \vec{0} $ and consider the lattice vectors ${\vec{n}}$ as a linear combinations $\vec{n} = \sum\limits_{i=1}^{3} n_{i}\vec{e}_{i}$ (see Fig. \[fig-1\]).
In terms of $\{ {\vec{e}_{i}} \}$, the set of the nearest neighbours of a lattice point ${\vec{n}}$ is given by $ \{ {\vec{n}}\pm {\vec{e}_{i}} \}_{i=1,2,3} $ and the discrete action can be rewritten as $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{S} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{ {\vec{n}}} \sum_{i=1}^{3} \sum_{ \varepsilon = \pm 1 } \mathcal{L}( {\vec{n}}, {\vec{n}}+ \varepsilon{\vec{e}_{i}} ).\label{mod:Si}\end{gathered}$$
We cannot solve the most general variant of this model and hereafter impose some restrictions on the coefficients $J_{{\vec{n}}_{1},{\vec{n}}_{2}}$ and $K_{{\vec{n}}_{1},{\vec{n}}_{2}}$ in . First we assume that our model is homogeneous: the interaction depends only on the *direction* of ${\vec{n}}_{1} - {\vec{n}}_{2}$, $$\begin{gathered}
J_{{\vec{n}},{\vec{n}}\pm{\vec{e}_{i}}} = {J_{i}}, \qquad K_{{\vec{n}},{\vec{n}}\pm{\vec{e}_{i}}} = {K_{i}}.\end{gathered}$$ Secondly, we assume that constants ${J_{i}}$ are related by $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{i=1}^{3} {J_{i}} = 0\label{restr:J}\end{gathered}$$ and that $$\begin{gathered}
{K_{i}} = \frac{ 1 }{ 4 \sinh^{2} \kappa_{i} }, \qquad \sum_{i=1}^{3} \kappa_{i} = 0.\label{restr:K}\end{gathered}$$ Alternatively, we can formulate these restrictions as $$\begin{gathered}
{J_{i}} = {\langle \vec{J} ,\, {\vec{e}_{i}} \rangle}, \qquad {K_{i}} = \frac{ 1 }{ 4 \sinh^{2}{\langle \vec{K} ,\, {\vec{e}_{i}} \rangle} }\label{restr:JK}\end{gathered}$$ with arbitrary vectors $\vec{J}$ and $\vec{K}$. The restriction is common for various integrable models. Considering the second restriction, , we admit that is has no clear physical explanation and is introduced to make equations and solvable by the method discussed in what follows rather than to ensure appearance of some additional symmetry of the model or its integrability.
![The triangular lattice (left), the constants (center) and the base vectors ${\vec{e}_{i}}$ (right).[]{data-label="fig-1"}](Fig1)
Finally, the big part of the calculations presented below is valid for vectors ${\vec{q}},{\vec{r}}\in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ or ${\vec{q}},{\vec{r}}\in \mathbb{C}^{n}$ with arbitrary $n$. However, as it will be shown below, there arise some problems that, at present, we can solve only in the $n=2$ case. So, we state from the beginning that we consider only two-dimensional real vectors ${\vec{q}}$ and ${\vec{r}}$, $$\begin{gathered}
{\vec{q}},{\vec{r}}\in \mathbb{R}^{2}.\end{gathered}$$
Looking for the extremals of the action under the constraints one arrives at the field equations of our model, $$\begin{gathered}
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3} {J_{i}}{K_{i}} \left\{ \frac{ {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} - {\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} \rangle} {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} }{ 1 + {K_{i}} {\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} - {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} - {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} \rangle} } \right.\nonumber\\
\left.\qquad {} + \frac{ {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}-{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} - {\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}-{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} \rangle} {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} }{ 1 + {K_{i}} {\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} - {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}-{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} - {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}-{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} \rangle} } \right\} = 0,\label{eq:main-q}\\
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3} {J_{i}}{K_{i}} \left\{ \frac{ {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} - {\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} \rangle} {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} }{ 1 + {K_{i}} {\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} - {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} - {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} \rangle} } \right.\nonumber\\
\left.\qquad {} + \frac{{\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}-{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} - {\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}-{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} \rangle} {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} }{ 1 + {K_{i}} {\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} - {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}-{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} - {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}-{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} \rangle} } \right\} = 0.\label{eq:main-r}\end{gathered}$$
Namely these equations are the main subject of this work. In the following sections we present three families of explicit solutions for the system and .
The ansatz {#sec:ansatz}
==========
The ansatz that we use in what follows is closely related to the already known ideas that may be termed ‘star-triangle’ (or ‘star-polygon’) transformation or, using the language of, e.g., [@BS02], the ‘three-leg’ representation.
We do not start with the form of solutions, which is usual way to introduce an ansatz. Instead, we demonstrate that a wide range of solutions for and can be obtained from a more simple system of equations.
Auxiliary system
----------------
The main steps of the proposed ansatz can be described as follows. First, we consider the original lattice $\{ {\vec{n}}\}$ together with its dual, $\{ {\vec{n}}\pm {\vec{g}_{i}} \}$, where new vectors ${\vec{g}_{i}}$ are related to ${\vec{e}_{i}}$ by $$\begin{gathered}
{\vec{e}_{i}} = {\vec{g}_{i+1}} - {\vec{g}_{i-1}}.\label{def:g}\end{gathered}$$ In this equation, as well as in the rest of the paper, we use the following convention: all arithmetic operations with the indices of the vectors ${\vec{e}_{i}}$ and ${\vec{g}_{i}}$ and the constants ${J_{i}}$, ${K_{i}}$ and other are understood modulo $3$, $$\begin{gathered}
{\vec{e}_{i \pm 3}} = {\vec{e}_{i}}, \qquad {\vec{g}_{i \pm 3}} = {\vec{g}_{i}}, \qquad {J_{i \pm 3}} = {J_{i}}, \qquad {K_{i \pm 3}} = {K_{i}}, \qquad \mbox{etc}, \qquad i=1,2,3.$$ In other words, we write $i \pm 1$ bearing in mind the following: $$\begin{gathered}
i+1 :=
\begin{cases}
2 & i=1, \\
3 & i=2, \\
1 & i=3,
\end{cases} \qquad
i-1 :=
\begin{cases}
3 & i=1, \\
1 & i=2, \\
2 & i=3.
\end{cases}\end{gathered}$$
Then, we introduce a rather simple system of *four-point* equations relating the values of ${\vec{q}}$ and ${\vec{r}}$ at the points ${\vec{n}}$, ${\vec{n}}+ {\vec{g}_{i}}$ and ${\vec{n}}+ {\vec{g}_{j}} + {\vec{g}_{k}}$ and demonstrate that each solution of the latter is at the same time a solution of the field equations and . This system can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
{H_{i-1}} {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i-1}}\right)} - {H_{i+1}} {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i+1}}\right)} = \frac{ 1 }{ {J_{i}} } F_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i-1}}+{\vec{g}_{i+1}}\right)},\nonumber\\
{H_{i-1}} {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i+1}}\right)} - {H_{i+1}} {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i-1}}\right)} = \frac{ 1 }{ {J_{i}} } F_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}\label{eq:aux-syst}\end{gathered}$$ with constant ${H_{i}}$ ($i=1,2,3$) and $$\begin{gathered}
F_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \frac{ 1 }{ {K_{i}} } + {\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i+1}}\right)} - {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i-1}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i+1}}\right)} - {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i-1}}\right)} \rangle}\end{gathered}$$ (note that structure of $F_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}$ is that of the denominators of the summands in and ). It turns out that the consistency of the system implies the following restrictions on the constants ${J_{i}}$: $$\begin{gathered}
{J_{i}} = {I_{i+1}} - {I_{i-1}},\label{eq:J}\end{gathered}$$ where ${I_{i}}$ are arbitrary constants and the following relations between ${K_{i}}$ and ${H_{i}}$: $$\begin{gathered}
{K_{i}} = \frac{ {H_{i-1}}{H_{i+1}} }{({H_{i-1}} - {H_{i+1}})^{2} }\label{eq:K}\end{gathered}$$ (see Appendix \[app:a\]). Finally, we arrive at the main result of this paper which can be formulated as follows.
![ The base vectors ${\vec{g}_{i}}$ (left), and the new constants (right). Each rhombus in the right figure represents the set of nodes involved in the system .[]{data-label="fig-2"}](Fig2)
\[prop:one\]Each solution of the system $$\begin{gathered}
{H_{i-1}} {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i-1}}\right)} - {H_{i+1}} {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i+1}}\right)} = \frac{ 1 }{ {I_{i+1}} - {I_{i-1}} } F_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i-1}}+{\vec{g}_{i+1}}\right)},\nonumber\\
{H_{i-1}} {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i+1}}\right)} - {H_{i+1}} {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i-1}}\right)} = \frac{ 1 }{ {I_{i+1}} - {I_{i-1}} } F_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}\label{eq:ansatz}\end{gathered}$$ with $$\begin{gathered}
F_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \frac{({H_{i-1}} - {H_{i+1}})^{2} }{ {H_{i-1}}{H_{i+1}} } + {\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i+1}}\right)} - {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i-1}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i+1}}\right)} - {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i-1}}\right)} \rangle}\label{def:F}\end{gathered}$$ solves equations and with the constants ${J_{i}}$, ${K_{i}}$ and the vectors ${\vec{e}_{i}}$ given by , and .
We would like to repeat that this proposition describes an ansatz (or reduction): each solution for with satisfies equations and but the reverse statement is surely not true, only a part of solutions for and can be obtained from the system with .
The proof of Proposition \[prop:one\] is rather simple except of one non-trivial fact following from the consistency of the system : the scalar products ${\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} \rangle}$ do not depend on ${\vec{n}}$ (we prove this statement in Appendix \[app:a\]).
After this fact is established, the rest of calculations is easy. To compute the summand in , $$\begin{gathered}
\vec{Q}_{\pm i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \frac{ {J_{i}} }{ {f_{\pm i}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} } \left\{ {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\pm{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} - {\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\pm{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} \rangle} {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} \right\},\end{gathered}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
{f_{\pm i}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \frac{ 1 }{ {K_{i}} } + {\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} - {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\pm{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} - {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\pm{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} \rangle}\end{gathered}$$ we express ${\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\pm{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} = {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\pm{\vec{g}_{i+1}}\mp{\vec{g}_{i-1}}\right)}$ and ${\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\pm{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} \rangle}$ from the first equation from (translated by $-{\vec{g}_{i \mp 1}}$), note that ${f_{\pm i}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}=F{\left({\vec{n}}-{\vec{g}_{i \mp 1}}\right)}$, impose the restriction $$\begin{gathered}
{\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} \rangle} = {H_{i}}{I_{i}} \label{eq:U}\end{gathered}$$ and arrive at $$\begin{gathered}
\vec{Q}_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = - \vec{Q}'_{i+1}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}, \qquad \vec{Q}_{-i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \vec{Q}'_{i-1}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}, \qquad i=1,2,3,\end{gathered}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\vec{Q}'_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \frac{ 1 }{ {H_{i}} } {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i}}\right)} - {I_{i}} {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}.\end{gathered}$$ Now, one can easily obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{i=1}^{3}\vec{Q}_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = - \sum_{i=1}^{3} \vec{Q}'_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}, \qquad \sum_{i=1}^{3}\vec{Q}_{-i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \sum_{i=1}^{3} \vec{Q}'_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)},\end{gathered}$$ which means that the right-hand side of vanishes automatically, $$\begin{gathered}
\mbox{r.h.s.~\eqref{eq:main-q}} = \sum_{i=1}^{3} \big[ \vec{Q}_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} + \vec{Q}_{-i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} \big] = 0.\end{gathered}$$ Equation can be treated in the similar way.
Auxiliary vectors and constants
-------------------------------
One of the ingredients of the proposed method to derive solutions for the field equations and is to use, instead the vectors ${\vec{e}_{i}}$, the vectors ${\vec{g}_{i}}$. It is natural to think of the latter as pointing to the centers of the (three of six) triangular plaquettes adjacent to the point ${\vec{n}}=\vec{0}$. However, it is not necessary to endow the vectors ${\vec{g}_{i}}$ with this geometrical meaning. One can consider them just as three vectors satisfying for given set of ${\vec{e}_{i}}$. It is easy to show that equation admits one-parametric family of solutions, $$\begin{gathered}
{\vec{g}_{i}} = {\vec{g}_{*}} + {{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{3}}} ( {\vec{e}_{i-1}} - {\vec{e}_{i+1}} ) \label{rslt:g}\end{gathered}$$ with arbitrary ${\vec{g}_{*}}$. The fact that the system does not determine ${\vec{g}_{i}}$ uniquely is not important for our purposes: in the worst case we may have different solutions for different choices of ${\vec{g}_{*}}$. However, as we see in what follows, this arbitrariness does not affect the final formulae for solutions.
In a similar way, relations and considered as *equations* from which one has to find ${I_{i}}$ and ${H_{i}}$ lead to $$\begin{gathered}
{I_{i}} = {I_{*}} + {{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{3}}} ( {J_{i-1}} - {J_{i+1}} )\label{rslt:I}\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
{H_{i}} = {H_{*}} \exp \big[ {{\scriptstyle\frac{2}{3}}}(\kappa_{i-1} - \kappa_{i+1}) \big],\label{rslt:H}\end{gathered}$$ where ${I_{*}}$ and ${H_{*}}$ are arbitrary constants or, if one uses , $$\begin{gathered}
{I_{i}} = I_{*}' + {\langle \vec{J} ,\, {\vec{g}_{i}} \rangle}, \qquad {H_{i}} = H_{*}' \exp\big[ 2{\langle \vec{K} ,\, {\vec{g}_{i}} \rangle} \big]\end{gathered}$$ with arbitrary $I_{*}'$ and $H_{*}'$.
It should be noted that when we use the three vectors ${\vec{e}_{i}}$ to describe the triangular lattice, instead of a two-vector basis, we bear in mind the restriction $\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}{\vec{e}_{i}}=0$. This restriction leads to some technical problems when constructing the explicit solutions. Now, if we do not introduce the vectors ${\vec{g}_{i}}$ as pointing to the centers of the plaquettes, but use as the definition, we do not have the ‘geometric’ restriction: $\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}{\vec{g}_{i}} \ne 0$. Thus, one of advantages of the proposed construction is that it solves the question of the $\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}{\vec{e}_{i}}=0$ constraint.
Explicit solutions {#sec:solutions}
==================
Here, we derive explicit solutions for the ansatz equations and . To simplify the following formulae and to make the correspondence with the previous works we change the notation. First, we introduce the shifts ${\mathbb{T}_{}}$ to indicate the translations: $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathbb{T}_{g_{i}}}{\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i}}\right)}.\end{gathered}$$ Then, we rewrite the system of the three equations as difference/functional equations relating ${\vec{q}}$ and ${\vec{r}}$ with ${\mathbb{T}_{\xi}}{\vec{q}}$, ${\mathbb{T}_{\xi}}{\vec{r}}$, ${\mathbb{T}_{\eta}}{\vec{q}}$ and ${\mathbb{T}_{\eta}}{\vec{r}}$ where $\xi$ and $\eta$ belong to the set of parameters $\{ g_{1},g_{2},g_{3} \}$ that correspond to the translations by the vectors $\{ {\vec{g}_{1}},{\vec{g}_{2}},{\vec{g}_{3}} \}$. This can be done by redefinition of the constants: ${I_{i}} \to {\dot{I}_{g_{i}}}$, ${H_{i}} \to {\dot{H}_{g_{i}}}$. In new terms, equations and become $$\begin{gathered}
{\dot{H}_{\xi}} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{\vec{q}}\or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{\vec{q}}\big) \else ? \fi} - {\dot{H}_{\eta}} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}{\vec{q}}\or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}{\vec{q}}\big) \else ? \fi} = \frac{ 1 }{ {\dot{I}_{\eta}} - {\dot{I}_{\xi}} } F_{\xi,\eta} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}{\vec{q}}\or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}{\vec{q}}\big) \else ? \fi}, \nonumber\\
{\dot{H}_{\xi}} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}{\vec{r}}\or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}{\vec{r}}\big) \else ? \fi} - {\dot{H}_{\eta}} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{\vec{r}}\or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{\vec{r}}\big) \else ? \fi} = \frac{ 1 }{ {\dot{I}_{\eta}} - {\dot{I}_{\xi}} } F_{\xi,\eta} {\vec{r}}\label{eq:qr}\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
F_{\xi,\eta} = \frac{ {\dot{H}_{\xi}} }{ {\dot{H}_{\eta}} } + \frac{ {\dot{H}_{\eta}} }{ {\dot{H}_{\xi}} } - {\langle { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{\vec{q}}\or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{\vec{q}}\big) \else ? \fi} ,\, { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}{\vec{r}}\or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}{\vec{r}}\big) \else ? \fi} \rangle} - {\langle { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}{\vec{q}}\or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}{\vec{q}}\big) \else ? \fi} ,\, { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{\vec{r}}\or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{\vec{r}}\big) \else ? \fi} \rangle},\label{eq:F}\end{gathered}$$ and can be easily bilinearized by the substitution $$\begin{gathered}
{\vec{q}}= \frac{\vec{\sigma}}{\tau}, \qquad {\vec{r}}= \frac{\vec{\rho}}{\tau}\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
F_{\xi,\eta} = B_{\xi,\eta} \frac{ \tau { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} } { { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} }\end{gathered}$$ with arbitrary constants $B_{\xi,\eta}$, symmetric in $\xi$ and $\eta$ ($B_{\xi,\eta}=B_{\eta,\xi}$), which leads to the bilinear system $$\begin{gathered}
{\dot{H}_{\xi}} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\vec{\sigma} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\vec{\sigma}\big) \else ? \fi} - {\dot{H}_{\eta}} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\vec{\sigma} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\vec{\sigma}\big) \else ? \fi} = A_{\xi,\eta} \tau { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\vec{\sigma} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\vec{\sigma}\big) \else ? \fi},\nonumber\\
{\dot{H}_{\xi}} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\vec{\rho} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\vec{\rho}\big) \else ? \fi} - {\dot{H}_{\eta}} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\vec{\rho} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\vec{\rho}\big) \else ? \fi} = A_{\xi,\eta} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} \vec{\rho}\label{eq:bilin-sr}\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
B_{\xi,\eta} \tau { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} + C_{\xi,\eta} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} = {\langle { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\vec{\sigma} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\vec{\sigma}\big) \else ? \fi} ,\, { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\vec{\rho} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\vec{\rho}\big) \else ? \fi} \rangle}
+ {\langle { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\vec{\sigma} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\vec{\sigma}\big) \else ? \fi} ,\, { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\vec{\rho} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\vec{\rho}\big) \else ? \fi} \rangle},\label{eq:bilin-t}\end{gathered}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
A_{\xi,\eta} = \frac{ B_{\xi,\eta} }{ {\dot{I}_{\eta}} - {\dot{I}_{\xi}} }, \qquad C_{\xi,\eta} = \frac{ {\dot{H}_{\xi}} }{ {\dot{H}_{\eta}} } + \frac{ {\dot{H}_{\eta}} }{ {\dot{H}_{\xi}} }.\label{eq:bilin-ABC}\end{gathered}$$ It should be noted that equation turns out to be the direct consequence of the equations , the definitions and together with and which can be rewritten as $$\begin{gathered}
{\langle \vec{\sigma} ,\, \vec{\rho} \rangle} = \tau^{2}, \qquad {\langle { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\vec{\sigma} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\vec{\sigma}\big) \else ? \fi} ,\, \vec{\rho} \rangle} = {\dot{H}_{\xi}} {\dot{I}_{\xi}} \tau { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau\big) \else ? \fi}.\end{gathered}$$ These equations are, in some sense, an alternative to and in the next sections, we will derive solutions for –, and hence for –, using the following
Any solution for the system $$\begin{gathered}
{\dot{H}_{\xi}} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\vec{\sigma} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\vec{\sigma}\big) \else ? \fi} - {\dot{H}_{\eta}} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\vec{\sigma} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\vec{\sigma}\big) \else ? \fi} =
A_{\xi,\eta} \tau { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\vec{\sigma} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\vec{\sigma}\big) \else ? \fi},\label{bi:s}\\
{\dot{H}_{\xi}} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\vec{\rho} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\vec{\rho}\big) \else ? \fi} - {\dot{H}_{\eta}} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\vec{\rho} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\vec{\rho}\big) \else ? \fi} = A_{\xi,\eta} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} \vec{\rho},\label{bi:r}\\
{\langle \vec{\sigma} ,\, \vec{\rho} \rangle} = \tau^{2},\label{bi:u}\\
{\langle { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\vec{\sigma} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\vec{\sigma}\big) \else ? \fi} ,\, \vec{\rho} \rangle} = {\dot{H}_{\xi}} {\dot{I}_{\xi}} \tau { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau\big) \else ? \fi},\label{bi:HI}\end{gathered}$$ with arbitrary skew-symmetric constants $A_{\xi,\eta}$ $(A_{\xi,\eta} = - A_{\eta,\xi})$ provides solution for the system – with constants $B_{\xi,\eta}$ and $C_{\xi,\eta}$ given by by means of $$\begin{gathered}
{\vec{q}}= \frac{\vec{\sigma}}{\tau}, \qquad {\vec{r}}= \frac{\vec{\rho}}{\tau}.\end{gathered}$$
Equations and are known for many years. In this form, or similar ones, they have appeared in the studies of various integrable systems. For example, the compatibility of, say, equations implies that $\tau$ should solve the famous Hirota bilinear difference equation (HBDE) [@H81], also known as the discrete KP equation, $$\begin{gathered}
A_{\xi,\eta}{\dot{H}_{\zeta}} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\zeta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\zeta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} - A_{\xi,\zeta}{\dot{H}_{\eta}} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi\zeta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi\zeta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} +
A_{\eta,\zeta}{\dot{H}_{\xi}} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta\zeta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta\zeta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} = 0.\label{eq:hbde}\end{gathered}$$ Thus, equations (or ) can be viewed as the Lax representation of the HBDE (see, e.g., [@DJM82a; @DJM82b; @N97; @TSW97; @WTS97]). Moreover, it turns out that all components of $\vec{\sigma}$ and $\vec{\rho}$ also solve , thus equations and can be interpreted as describing the Bäcklund transformations for the HBDE. Also, system and is closely related to another integrable model: it describes the so-called functional representation of the Ablowitz–Ladik hierarchy [@AL75] (compare and with equation (6.10) of [@V02]).
Considering the remaining equations of the auxiliary system, and (or equation ), they can be viewed, in the framework of the theory of the HBDE, as a nonlinear restriction, which is compatible with and . And namely this is the point that makes presented work different from, say, [@V16b]: there we used another way to ‘close’ equations and , i.e., to relate $\vec{\sigma}$ and $\vec{\rho}$ with the tau-function $\tau$.
Returning to our current task, we would like to repeat that equations – are not new and one does not need to derive some special methods to find their solutions. In what follows we present three families of explicit solutions for –, and, hence, for and . In all the cases our approach is to establish the relations between equations we want to solve and the already known equations like the Jacobi identities for the Toeplitz matrices or various identities for the Cauchy-type matrices which gives us a possibility to obtain solutions by means of rather simple calculations.
One of the differences between these cases is different dependence of the constants ${\dot{I}_{\xi}}$ and ${\dot{H}_{\xi}}$ on $\xi$. To return from the solutions for – to solutions for the field equations and we have to invert this dependence: we have to express $\xi$ in terms of ${\dot{I}_{\xi}}$ and ${\dot{H}_{\xi}}$, i.e., to obtain the dependence of $g_{i}$ on ${\dot{I}_{g_{i}}}$ and ${\dot{H}_{g_{i}}}$. Then, recalling that ${\dot{H}_{g_{i}}}={H_{i}}$ and ${\dot{I}_{g_{i}}}={I_{i}}$ are functions of ${J_{i}}$ and ${K_{i}}$ given by , and , we establish how the parameters $g_{i}$ depend on ${J_{i}}$ and ${K_{i}}$.
Toeplitz solutions
------------------
The solutions we discuss in this section are built of the determinants of the Toeplitz matrices $$\begin{gathered}
{\Delta^{M}_{N}} = \det\left|
\begin{matrix}
\alpha_{M} & \alpha_{M+1} & \dots & \alpha_{M+N-1} \\
\alpha_{M-1} & \alpha_{M} & \dots & \alpha_{M+N-2} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\alpha_{M-N+1} & \alpha_{M-N+2} & \dots & \alpha_{M}
\end{matrix} \right|\label{tp:tau}\end{gathered}$$ and the shifts defined by $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathbb{T}_{\xi}^{-1}} \alpha_{m} = \alpha_{m} - \xi \alpha_{m+1}.$$ The action of the shifts can be ‘translated’ to the level of determinants ${\Delta^{M}_{N}}$ as $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathbb{T}_{\xi}^{-1}} {\Delta^{M}_{N}} =
(-)^{N}
\det\left| \begin{matrix}
\xi^{N} & \xi^{N-1} & \dots & 1 \\
\alpha_{M} & \alpha_{M+1} & \dots & \alpha_{M+N} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\alpha_{M-N+1} & \alpha_{M-N+2} & \dots & \alpha_{M+1}
\end{matrix}
\right|,\\
{\mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}^{-1}} {\Delta^{M}_{N}}
=
\frac{1}{\xi-\eta}
\det\left|
\begin{matrix}
\xi^{N+1} & \xi^{N} & \dots & 1 \\
\eta^{N+1} & \eta^{N} & \dots & 1 \\
\alpha_{M} & \alpha_{M+1} & \dots & \alpha_{M+N+1} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\alpha_{M-N+1} & \alpha_{M-N+2} & \dots & \alpha_{M+2}
\end{matrix}
\right|,\end{gathered}$$ etc.
Application of the Jacobi identities to the determinants in the above formulae leads to various bilinear identities: the ‘basic’ one, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{tp:A}
\big( {\Delta^{M}_{N}} \big)^{2} = {\Delta^{M-1}_{N}} {\Delta^{M+1}_{N}} + {\Delta^{M}_{N-1}} {\Delta^{M}_{N+1}}.\end{gathered}$$ the one-shift, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{tp:Bn}
0 = {\Delta^{M}_{N+1}} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M}_{N}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M}_{N}} \big) \else ? \fi} - {\Delta^{M}_{N}} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M}_{N+1}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M}_{N+1}} \big) \else ? \fi} + \xi {\Delta^{M-1}_{N}} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M+1}_{N+1}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M+1}_{N+1}} \big) \else ? \fi}\end{gathered}$$ or $$\begin{gathered}
\label{tp:Bm}
0 = {\Delta^{M+1}_{N}} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M}_{N}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M}_{N}} \big) \else ? \fi} - {\Delta^{M}_{N}} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M+1}_{N}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M+1}_{N}} \big) \else ? \fi} - \xi {\Delta^{M}_{N-1}} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M+1}_{N+1}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M+1}_{N+1}} \big) \else ? \fi},\end{gathered}$$ the two-shift, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{tp:Cn}
0 = (\xi - \eta) {\Delta^{M}_{N}} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta} {\Delta^{M}_{N+1}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta} {\Delta^{M}_{N+1}} \big) \else ? \fi} - \xi { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M}_{N+1}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M}_{N+1}} \big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta} {\Delta^{M}_{N}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta} {\Delta^{M}_{N}} \big) \else ? \fi} + \eta { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M}_{N}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M}_{N}} \big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta} {\Delta^{M}_{N+1}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta} {\Delta^{M}_{N+1}} \big) \else ? \fi},
\\
\label{tp:Cm}
0 = (\xi - \eta) {\Delta^{M}_{N}} { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta} {\Delta^{M+1}_{N}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta} {\Delta^{M+1}_{N}} \big) \else ? \fi} - \xi { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M+1}_{N}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M+1}_{N}} \big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta} {\Delta^{M}_{N}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta} {\Delta^{M}_{N}} \big) \else ? \fi} + \eta { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M}_{N}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi} {\Delta^{M}_{N}} \big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta} {\Delta^{M+1}_{N}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta} {\Delta^{M+1}_{N}} \big) \else ? \fi},\end{gathered}$$ etc. These identities are the simplest ones, from which one can deduce an infinite set of bilinear identities for the Toeplitz determinants.
Using equations – and their direct consequences it is easy to demonstrate that functions $$\begin{gathered}
\tau = {\Delta^{M}_{N}},\qquad \vec{\sigma} = {E}\left( \begin{matrix} {\Delta^{M}_{N+1}} \\[1mm] {\Delta^{M+1}_{N}} \end{matrix} \right),\qquad
\vec{\rho} = {E}^{-1} \left( \begin{matrix} {\Delta^{M}_{N-1}} \\[1mm] {\Delta^{M-1}_{N}}
\end{matrix} \right),\end{gathered}$$ where ${E}$ is the discrete exponential function defined by $$\begin{gathered}
{ \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{E}\or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{E}\big) \else ? \fi} = {\dot{H}_{\xi}}{\dot{I}_{\xi}} \; {E}\end{gathered}$$ satisfy equations and with $$\begin{gathered}
A_{\xi,\eta} = \frac{ \xi - \eta }{ {\dot{H}_{\xi}}{\dot{H}_{\eta}} {\dot{I}_{\xi}}{\dot{I}_{\eta}} }\end{gathered}$$ as well as equations and provided $$\begin{gathered}
\zeta = {\dot{H}_{\zeta}}^{2} {\dot{I}_{\zeta}},\end{gathered}$$ which means that functions ${\vec{q}}=\vec{\sigma}/\tau$ and ${\vec{r}}=\vec{\rho}/\tau$ are solutions for and . Thus, to finish the derivation of the solutions for the field equation the only thing we have to do is to rewrite the above formulae in terms of ${\vec{n}}$ bearing in mind that for any function $f$, $ f{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \prod\limits_{i=1}^{3} \big( {\mathbb{T}_{g_{i+1}}} {\mathbb{T}_{g_{i-1}}^{-1}} \big)^{n_{i}} f(\vec{0})$ and that in our case $g_{i} = {H_{i}}^{2}{I_{i}}$ with constants ${I_{i}}$ and ${H_{i}}$ being defined in and .
The ${\vec{n}}$-dependence of the elements of the determinant can be then presented by means of an analogue of the discrete Fourier transform as $$\begin{gathered}
\alpha_{m}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} h_{\ell}^{m} \hat{\alpha}_{\ell}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}\end{gathered}$$ with[$$\begin{gathered}
\hat{\alpha}_{\ell}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \hat{\alpha}_{\ell} \prod_{i=1}^{3} ( 1 - g_{i} h_{\ell} )^{n_{i+1} - n_{i-1}},\end{gathered}$$ where $\hat{\alpha}_{\ell}$ and $h_{\ell}$ ($\ell=1,\dots,L$) are arbitrary constants.]{}
To make the following formulae more clear, we rewrite functions similar to ${E}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}$ or $\hat{\alpha}(h,{\vec{n}})$ in the exponential form using the following observation: if some function $f$ satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
{ \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{g_{i}}f \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{g_{i}}f\big) \else ? \fi} = C_{i} f\end{gathered}$$ with positive constants $C_{i}$ then its ${\vec{n}}$-dependence can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
f{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \prod\nolimits_{i=1}^{3} \big( {\mathbb{T}_{g_{i+1}}} {\mathbb{T}_{g_{i-1}}^{-1}} \big)^{n_{i}} f(\vec{0}) = \prod\nolimits_{i=1}^{3} \left( C_{i+1} / C_{i-1} \right)^{n_{i}} f(\vec{0})
= f(\vec{0}) e^{ {\langle \vec{\phi} ,\, {\vec{n}}\rangle} }$$ with $$\begin{gathered}
\vec{\phi} = \frac{2}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{3} \left( \ln \frac{ C_{i+1} }{ C_{i-1} } \right) {\vec{e}_{i}}.\end{gathered}$$
Gathering the above formulae and making some trivial calculations we can formulate the main result of this section as follows.
The $N^{\mathrm{th}}$ order Toeplitz solutions for the field equations can be presented as $$\begin{gathered}
\vec{q}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = C \frac{ e^{ {\langle \vec{\varphi},\, {\vec{n}}\rangle} } } { \Delta^{0}_{N}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} } \left( \begin{matrix}
\Delta^{0}_{N+1}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} \\[1mm]
\Delta^{1}_{N}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}
\end{matrix} \right), \qquad \vec{r}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}
= C^{-1} \frac{ e^{ - {\langle \vec{\varphi},\, {\vec{n}}\rangle} } } { \Delta^{0}_{N}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} } \left( \begin{matrix}
\Delta^{0}_{N-1}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} \\[1mm]
\Delta^{-1}_{N}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}
\end{matrix} \right)\end{gathered}$$ where ${\Delta^{M}_{N}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}$ $(M=0,\pm 1)$ is the determinant of the Toeplitz matrix $$\begin{gathered}
{\Delta^{M}_{N}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \det\big| \alpha_{M-j+k}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}\big|_{j,k=1}^{N},\end{gathered}$$ the vector $\vec{\varphi}$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\vec{\varphi} = \frac{2}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{3} \left( \ln \frac{ {H_{i+1}}{I_{i+1}} }{ {H_{i-1}}{I_{i-1}} } \right) {\vec{e}_{i}}\end{gathered}$$ and the function $\alpha_{m}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}$ is defined as $$\begin{gathered}
\alpha_{m}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \sum_{\ell=1}^{L} \hat{\alpha}_{\ell} h_{\ell}^{m} e^{ {\langle \vec{\phi}_{\ell},\, {\vec{n}}\rangle} }\end{gathered}$$ with $$\begin{gathered}
\vec{\phi}_{\ell} = \frac{2}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{3} \left( \ln \frac{ 1 - {H_{i-1}}^{2}{I_{i-1}} h_{\ell} } { 1 - {H_{i+1}}^{2}{I_{i+1}} h_{\ell} } \right) {\vec{e}_{i}}.\end{gathered}$$ Here, $\hat{\alpha}_{\ell}$ and $h_{\ell}$ $(\ell=1,\dots ,L)$, $C$ as well as ${H_{*}}$ and ${I_{*}}$ in the definitions and of ${H_{i}}$ and ${I_{i}}$ $(i=1,2,3)$ are arbitrary constants.
‘Dark’ solitons
---------------
Here we use some of the results of [@V14] where we have studied the determinants of the so-called ‘dark-soliton’ matrices $$\begin{gathered}
\tau = \det | {\mathsf{1}} + {\mathsf{A}} |\end{gathered}$$ defined by $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathsf{L}} {\mathsf{A}} - {\mathsf{A}} {\mathsf{L}}^{-1} = | 1 \rangle \langle a |,$$ where $ {\mathsf{L}} = \operatorname{diag}( L_{1}, \dots , L_{N})$, $| 1 \rangle$ is the $N$-column with all components equal to $1$, $\langle a |$ is a $N$-component row that depends on the coordinates describing the model, and their transformation properties with respect to the shifts defined as $ { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\Omega \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\Omega\big) \else ? \fi} = \det | {\mathsf{1}} + { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{\mathsf{A}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{\mathsf{A}}\big) \else ? \fi} |$ with $$\begin{gathered}
{ \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{\mathsf{A}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{\mathsf{A}}\big) \else ? \fi} = {\mathsf{A}}{\mathsf{T}}_{\xi}$$ and the matrices ${\mathsf{T}}$ given by $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathsf{T}}_{\xi} = ( \xi - {\mathsf{L}}) \big( \xi - {\mathsf{L}}^{-1} \big)^{-1}.\end{gathered}$$ For our current purposes we need the two facts. First, the determinants $\tau$ satisfy the Fay-like identity $$\begin{gathered}
( \xi-\eta) { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\zeta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\zeta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} + ( \eta-\zeta ) { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta\zeta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta\zeta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} + ( \zeta-\xi) { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\zeta\xi}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\zeta\xi}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} = 0
\label{dark:fay}\end{gathered}$$ (see [@V14]) and, secondly, the superposition of ${\mathbb{T}_{\xi}}$ and ${\mathbb{T}_{1/\xi}}$ is again the shift, corresponding to zero value of the parameter, $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathbb{T}_{\xi}} {\mathbb{T}_{1/\xi}} = {\mathbb{T}_{0}},\label{dark:duality}\end{gathered}$$ which follows from the corresponding property of the matrices ${\mathsf{T}}_{\xi}$, $ {\mathsf{T}}_{\xi} {\mathsf{T}}_{1/\xi} = {\mathsf{T}}_{0}$, that can be verified straightforwardly.
Using only and , without additional referring to the structure of the matrices ${\mathsf{A}}$, one can demonstrate that vector-functions $$\begin{gathered}
\vec{\sigma} = \left( \begin{matrix}
q_{1} {E}_{1} {\mathbb{T}_{\nu_{1}}^{-1}} \tau\\[1mm]
q_{2} {E}_{2} {\mathbb{T}_{\nu_{2}}^{-1}} \tau
\end{matrix}
\right),
\qquad
\vec{\rho} = \left(
\begin{matrix}
r_{1} {E}_{1}^{-1}
{ \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\nu_{1}}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\nu_{1}}\tau\big) \else ? \fi}\\[1mm]
r_{2} {E}_{2}^{-1}
{ \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\nu_{2}}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\nu_{2}}\tau\big) \else ? \fi}
\end{matrix}
\right),\end{gathered}$$ where $\nu_{1,2}$, $q_{1,2}$ and $r_{1,2}$ are constants related by $$\begin{gathered}
\nu_{1}\nu_{2} = 1, \qquad q_{a} r_{a} = \frac{ \nu_{a}^{2} }{ \nu_{a}^{2} - 1 }, \qquad a=1,2, \label{dark:cqr}\end{gathered}$$ and ${E}_{1,2}$ are two discrete exponential functions, defined by $$\begin{gathered}
{ \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{E}_{a} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{E}_{a}\big) \else ? \fi} = \frac{ 1 }{ {\dot{H}_{\xi}} (\xi - \nu_{a}) } {E}_{a}, \qquad a=1,2,$$ satisfy equations and with $$\begin{gathered}
A_{\xi,\eta} = (\eta - \xi) {\dot{H}_{\xi}}{\dot{H}_{\eta}}\end{gathered}$$ as well as equations and provided $$\begin{gathered}
{\dot{H}_{\xi}}^{2}{\dot{I}_{\xi}} = \frac{ 1 }{ \xi + \xi^{-1} - \nu_{1} - \nu_{2} }.\end{gathered}$$
Thus, to obtain solutions for the equations we are to solve, we have just to return to the ${\vec{n}}$-dependence knowing the action of ${\mathbb{T}_{\xi}}$. To this end, we have to take $\xi \in \{ g_{1}, g_{2}, g_{3} \}$ where $g_{i}$ (parameters that, recall, correspond to the vectors ${\vec{g}_{i}}$) should be determined from $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dark:g}
g_{i} + g_{i}^{-1} = \nu_{1} + \nu_{2} + \frac{ 1 }{ H_{i}^{2}{I_{i}} }\end{gathered}$$ with constants ${H_{i}}$ and ${I_{i}}$ ($i=1,2,3$) (we write ${H_{i}}$ and ${I_{i}}$ instead of ${\dot{H}_{g_{i}}}$ and ${\dot{I}_{g_{i}}}$) defined in and .
The ‘dark-soliton’ solutions for the field equations can be presented as $$\begin{gathered}
{\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} =
\frac{ 1 }
{\det | {\mathsf{1}} + {\mathsf{A}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} | }
\left(\begin{matrix}
q_{1} e^{ {\langle \vec{\varphi}_{1} ,\, {\vec{n}}\rangle} }\det | {\mathsf{1}} + {\mathsf{A}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} {\mathsf{T}}_{\nu_{1}}^{-1}| \\
q_{2} e^{ {\langle \vec{\varphi}_{2} ,\, {\vec{n}}\rangle} }
\det| {\mathsf{1}} + {\mathsf{A}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} {\mathsf{T}}_{\nu_{2}}^{-1}| \end{matrix}\right)\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
{\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \frac{ 1 }
{\det | {\mathsf{1}} + {\mathsf{A}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} | }
\left(\begin{matrix}
r_{1} e^{ - {\langle \vec{\varphi}_{1} ,\, {\vec{n}}\rangle} }
\det | {\mathsf{1}} + {\mathsf{A}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} {\mathsf{T}}_{\nu_{1}}| \\
r_{2} e^{ - {\langle \vec{\varphi}_{2} ,\, {\vec{n}}\rangle} }
\det| {\mathsf{1}} + {\mathsf{A}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} {\mathsf{T}}_{\nu_{2}}| \end{matrix}\right),\end{gathered}$$ where $q_{a}$ and $r_{a}$ are defined in , the vectors $\vec{\varphi}_{a}$ are given by $$\begin{gathered}
\vec{\varphi}_{a} = \frac{2}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{3} \left( \ln \frac{ \left( g_{i-1} - \nu_{a} \right) {H_{i-1}} } { \left( g_{i+1} - \nu_{a} \right) {H_{i+1}} } \right) {\vec{e}_{i}},
\qquad a=1,2,\end{gathered}$$ while the matrix ${\mathsf{A}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathsf{A}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = {\mathsf{A}}_{0} \operatorname{diag} \big( \exp {\langle \vec{\phi}_{\ell} ,\, {\vec{n}}\rangle} \big)_{\ell=1}^{N},\end{gathered}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\vec{\phi}_{\ell} = \frac{2}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{3} \left( \ln \frac{ g_{i+1} - L_{\ell} }{ g_{i+1} - L_{\ell}^{-1} } \frac{ g_{i-1} - L_{\ell}^{-1} }{ g_{i-1} - L_{\ell} } \right) {\vec{e}_{i}}\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathsf{A}}_{0} = \left( \frac{ a_{k} }{ 1 - L_{j}L_{k} } \right)_{j,k=1}^{N}.\end{gathered}$$ Here, the parameters $g_{1}$, $g_{2}$ and $g_{3}$ should be determined from , while $L_{k}$, $a_{k}$ $(k=1, \dots , N)$, $\nu_{1}$, $q_{1}$, $q_{2}$ as well as ${H_{*}}$ and ${I_{*}}$ in and are arbitrary constants.
‘Bright’ solitons
-----------------
To derive the second type of soliton solutions one can use the soliton Fay identities from [@V15] which were obtained for the tau-functions $$\begin{gathered}
\label{bright:tau}
\tau = \det | {\mathsf{1}} + {\mathsf{A}}{\mathsf{B}} |,
\qquad
\sigma = \tau \big\langle a | ( {\mathsf{1}} + {\mathsf{B}}{\mathsf{A}} )^{-1} | \beta \big\rangle,
\qquad
\rho = \tau \big\langle b | ( {\mathsf{1}} + {\mathsf{A}}{\mathsf{B}} )^{-1} | \alpha \big\rangle,\end{gathered}$$ where $(N \times N)$-matrices ${\mathsf{A}}$ and ${\mathsf{B}}$ are solutions of $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathsf{L}} {\mathsf{A}} - {\mathsf{A}} {\mathsf{R}} = | \alpha \rangle \langle a |,
\qquad
{\mathsf{R}} {\mathsf{B}} - {\mathsf{B}} {\mathsf{L}} = | \beta \rangle \langle b |.\end{gathered}$$ Here, like in the previous section, ${\mathsf{L}}$ and ${\mathsf{R}}$ are constant diagonal $(N \times N)$-matrices, ${\mathsf{L}} = \operatorname{diag} ( L_{1}$, $\dots,L_{N} )$ and ${\mathsf{R}} = \operatorname{diag} ( R_{1}, \dots , R_{N} )$, $| \alpha \rangle$ and $| \beta \rangle$ are constant $N$-columns, $\langle a |$ and $\langle b |$ are $N$-component rows that depend on the coordinates describing the model.
The shifts ${\mathbb{T}_{\xi}}$ are defined, in this case, by $$\begin{gathered}
{ \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\langle a | \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\langle a |\big) \else ? \fi} = \langle a | ({\mathsf{R}} - \xi)^{-1},\qquad
{ \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\langle b | \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\langle b |\big) \else ? \fi} = \langle b | ({\mathsf{L}} - \xi)\end{gathered}$$ or, as a consequence, by $$\begin{gathered}
{ \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{\mathsf{A}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{\mathsf{A}}\big) \else ? \fi} = {\mathsf{A}} ({\mathsf{R}} - \xi)^{-1},
\qquad { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{\mathsf{B}} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{\mathsf{B}}\big) \else ? \fi} = {\mathsf{B}} ({\mathsf{L}} - \xi).\end{gathered}$$
The simplest soliton identities from [@V15] are $$\begin{gathered}
\label{bright:bist}
(\xi - \eta) \tau { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\sigma \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\sigma\big) \else ? \fi} = { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\sigma \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\sigma\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} - { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\sigma \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\sigma\big) \else ? \fi},\\
(\xi - \eta) \rho { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} = { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\rho \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\rho\big) \else ? \fi} - { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\rho \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\rho\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi}\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
{ \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} { \ifcase 1 \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} = \tau { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\tau \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\tau\big) \else ? \fi} + \rho { \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\sigma \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi\eta}\sigma\big) \else ? \fi}.\label{bright:alh}\end{gathered}$$
The fact that $\tau$, $\sigma$ and $\rho$ are solutions of – is enough to demonstrate that the vectors $\vec{\sigma}$ and $\vec{\rho}$ given by $$\begin{gathered}
\vec{\sigma} = \left( \begin{matrix}
{E}_{1} {\mathbb{T}_{\kappa}^{-1}} \tau
\\[1mm]
{E}_{2} {\mathbb{T}_{\kappa}} \sigma
\end{matrix}
\right),
\qquad \vec{\rho} = \left( \begin{matrix}{E}_{1}^{-1}{\mathbb{T}_{\kappa}} \tau\\[1mm]
{E}_{2}^{-1}{\mathbb{T}_{\kappa}^{-1}} \rho\end{matrix}\right),\end{gathered}$$ where ${E}_{1}$ and ${E}_{2}$ are defined by $$\begin{gathered}
{ \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{E}_{1} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{E}_{1}\big) \else ? \fi} = {\dot{H}_{\xi}}{\dot{I}_{\xi}} {E}_{1}, \qquad
{ \ifcase 0 \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{E}_{2} \or
\big( \mathbb{T}_{\xi}{E}_{2}\big) \else ? \fi} = (\kappa - \xi) {\dot{H}_{\xi}}{\dot{I}_{\xi}} {E}_{2}\end{gathered}$$ with arbitrary $\kappa$ satisfy equations and with $$\begin{gathered}
A_{\xi,\eta} = (\eta - \xi) {\dot{H}_{\xi}}{\dot{H}_{\eta}}\end{gathered}$$ as well as equations and provided $$\begin{gathered}
\xi - \kappa = \frac{ 1 }{ {\dot{H}_{\xi}}^{2}{\dot{I}_{\xi}} }.\end{gathered}$$
To simplify the final formulae, we introduce the diagonal matrices ${\mathsf{X}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}$ and ${\mathsf{Y}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}$, describing the ${\vec{n}}$-dependence of the rows $\langle a{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} |$ and $\langle b{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} |$, $$\begin{gathered}
\langle a{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} | = \langle a | {\mathsf{X}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}, \qquad
\langle b{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} | = \langle b | {\mathsf{Y}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)},\end{gathered}$$ as well as the new rows $\langle \hat{a}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} |$ and $\langle \hat{b}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} |$ defined as $$\begin{gathered}
\langle \hat{a}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} | = \langle a | \big[ {\mathsf{X}}^{-1}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} + {\mathsf{B}} {\mathsf{Y}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} {\mathsf{A}} \big]^{-1},\nonumber \\
\langle \hat{b}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} | = \langle b | \big[ {\mathsf{Y}}^{-1}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} + {\mathsf{A}} {\mathsf{X}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} {\mathsf{B}} \big]^{-1}.\label{bright:hbra}\end{gathered}$$
After some simple transformations of the matrix formulae and elimination of some ‘redundant’ constants (which includes setting $\kappa = 0$) we arrive at the following result.
The ‘bright-soliton’ solutions for the field equations can be presented as $$\begin{gathered}
{\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \left(
\begin{matrix}
C_{1}e^{ {\langle \vec{\varphi}_{1} ,\, {\vec{n}}\rangle} }\left[ 1 - \langle \hat{a}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} | {\mathsf{B}} {\mathsf{Y}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} | 1 \rangle \right] \\[1mm]
C_{2}e^{ {\langle \vec{\varphi}_{2} ,\, {\vec{n}}\rangle} }\langle \hat{a}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}| 1 \rangle\end{matrix}\right),\\
{\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \left( \begin{matrix}
C_{1}^{-1} e^{ - {\langle \vec{\varphi}_{1} ,\, {\vec{n}}\rangle} }\big[ 1 - \langle \hat{b}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} | {\mathsf{A}}
{\mathsf{X}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} | 1 \rangle \big]\\[1mm]
C_{2}^{-1} e^{ - {\langle \vec{\varphi}_{2} ,\, {\vec{n}}\rangle} }\langle \hat{b}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} | 1 \rangle\end{matrix}\right),\end{gathered}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\vec{\varphi}_{1} = \frac{2}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{3} \left( \ln \frac{ {H_{i+1}}{I_{i+1}} }{ {H_{i-1}}{I_{i-1}} } \right) {\vec{e}_{i}},\qquad
\vec{\varphi}_{2} = \frac{2}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{3} \left( \ln \frac{ {H_{i-1}} }{ {H_{i+1}} } \right) {\vec{e}_{i}},\end{gathered}$$ the rows $\langle \hat{a}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} |$ and $\langle \hat{b}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} |$ are defined in with $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathsf{X}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \operatorname{diag} \big( \exp {\langle \vec{\phi}_{\ell} ,\, {\vec{n}}\rangle} \big)_{\ell=1}^{N},
\qquad {\mathsf{Y}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \operatorname{diag} \big( \exp {\langle \vec{\psi}_{\ell} ,\, {\vec{n}}\rangle} \big)_{\ell=1}^{N}\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\vec{\phi}_{\ell} = \frac{2}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{3} \left( \ln \frac{ R_{\ell} - g_{i-1}}{ R_{\ell} - g_{i+1} } \right) {\vec{e}_{i}},
\qquad \vec{\psi}_{\ell} = \frac{2}{3} \sum_{i=1}^{3} \left( \ln \frac{ L_{\ell} - g_{i+1} }{ L_{\ell} - g_{i-1} } \right) {\vec{e}_{i}}, \qquad
g_{i} = \frac{ 1 }{ {H_{i}}^{2}{I_{i}} },\end{gathered}$$ $| 1 \rangle$ is the $N$-column with all elements equal to $1$, $\langle a |$ and $\langle b |$ are constant $N$-rows, $\langle a | = ( a_{1}, \dots , a_{N} )$, $\langle b | = ( b_{1}, \dots , b_{N})$ and constant matrices ${\mathsf{A}}$ and ${\mathsf{B}}$ are given by $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathsf{A}} = \left( \frac{ L_{j} a_{k} }{ L_{j}-R_{k} } \right)_{j,k=1}^{N},\qquad {\mathsf{B}} = \left( \frac{ R_{j} b_{k} }{ R_{j}-L_{k} } \right)_{j,k=1}^{N}.\end{gathered}$$ Here, $C_{1}$, $C_{2}$, $L_{\ell}$, $R_{\ell}$, $a_{\ell}$, $b_{\ell}$ $(\ell=1, \dots , N)$ as well as ${H_{*}}$ and ${I_{*}}$ in and are arbitrary constant parameters of the solution.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we have considered the vector model on the triangular lattice. It should be noted that we have not elaborated some special methods to take into account the vector character of the model or the fact that the lattice is not a rectangular one. Instead, we have used simple algebraic calculations to demonstrate that this somewhat non-standard model can be reduced to the already known equations which are usually associated with the rectangular lattices. Of course, this is a reduction. But this reduction is not a trivial one, in the sense that it leads to a rather wide range of solutions, which includes not only solutions presented above but also the so-called finite-gap quasiperiodic and many other solutions (not discussed here). Thus, one of the ideas behind this work is that there are much more soliton models than in the ‘standard’ set of the integrable ones.
However, in doing this we have met the manifestations of the peculiarities of the triangular geometry. First of all, one should mention the rather intricate relations between the constants and the special role of the anisotropy: note that implies that one cannot take ${J_{1}}={J_{2}}={J_{3}}$ or ${K_{1}}={K_{2}}={K_{3}}$, which can be viewed as some kind of frustration already known to occur in the triangular lattices. Although the question of whether the restrictions , which are crucial for our calculations, are necessary for existence of solitons is an open one, one cannot deny the importance of the anisotropy in this model. Comparing the soliton solutions of this paper with ones derived in [@V16b] for the 3D vectors (instead of 2D) with interaction similar to , but isotropic, and without the restriction one can conclude that it is interesting to study the interplay between the dimensionality of the vectors, anisotropy and the length restrictions.
Finally, we would like to mention the following limitations of the ansatz used in this paper. The case is that the model with possesses some reductions that are rather interesting from the viewpoint of applications. The simplest one is ${\vec{q}}= {\vec{r}}$, which after resolving the restriction , $|{\vec{q}}\,|^{2} = 1$, by presenting ${\vec{q}}$ as ${\vec{q}}= ( \cos\theta, \sin\theta )^{\scriptscriptstyle\rm T}$ leads to $$\begin{gathered}
\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3} \frac{ {J_{i}}\bar{K}_{i} \sin [ \theta{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} - \theta{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} ] }{ 1 - \bar{K}_{i} \cos [ \theta{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} - \theta{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{e}_{i}}\right)} ] } = 0,\end{gathered}$$ where $\bar{K}_{i} = {K_{i}}/ ({K_{i}} + 1/2 )$. Unfortunately, all solutions presented in this paper become trivial under this reduction. The problem is that introducing the auxiliary system we break the symmetry between ${\vec{q}}$ and ${\vec{r}}$ inherent in the system and . In other words, our ansatz is incompatible with the reduction ${\vec{r}}\to {\vec{q}}$. In a similar way, our ansatz is also incompatible with another reduction of physical interest, ${\vec{r}}\to {\vec{q}}^{\,*}$ where the star indicates the complex conjugation. Thus, a natural continuation of this work is to replace the ‘triangular’ system with another one, say, a system of quad-equations having the symmetries discussed above.
However, these questions are out of the scope of the present paper and may be addressed in future studies.
Consistency of (\[eq:aux-syst\]) and proof of (\[eq:U\]) {#app:a}
========================================================
Here, we derive the restrictions and and prove the fact that the quantity $$\begin{gathered}
U_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = {\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} \rangle}\end{gathered}$$ is constant or, that $U_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{j}}\right)} = U_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}$ for all $i$ and $j$ ($i,j=1,2,3$).
Subtracting the first equation of multiplied by ${\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+g_{i-1}\right)}$ from the second equation of multiplied by ${\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+g_{i+1}\right)}$ one obtains $$\begin{gathered}
U_{i+1}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i-1}}\right)} = U_{i+1}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}.\end{gathered}$$ Repeating this procedure for different values of the indices, one can obtain $$\begin{gathered}
U_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{j}}\right)} = U_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}, \qquad i \ne j.\label{appa:a}\end{gathered}$$ Next, after multiplying the second equation of by ${\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+g_{i-1}\right)}$ and ${\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+g_{i+1}\right)}$ one can obtain $$\begin{gathered}
{H_{i-1}} {\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i-1}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i+1}}\right)} \rangle} - {H_{i+1}} = \frac{ 1 }{ {J_{i}} } F_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} U_{i-1}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}\label{appa:b}\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
{H_{i-1}} - {H_{i+1}} {\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i+1}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i-1}}\right)} \rangle} = \frac{ 1 }{ {J_{i}} } F_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} U_{i+1}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}.
\label{appa:c}\end{gathered}$$ Substitution of the scalar products from and into the definition of $F_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}$, which can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
F_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \frac{ 1 }{ {K_{i}} } + 2 - {\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i-1}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i+1}}\right)} \rangle} - {\langle {\vec{q}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i+1}}\right)} ,\, {\vec{r}}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i-1}}\right)} \rangle},\end{gathered}$$ leads to $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{A}_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} F_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \mathcal{B}_{i},\end{gathered}$$ where $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{A}_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = 1 + \frac{ 1 }{ {J_{i}} } \frac{ U_{i-1}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} }{ {H_{i-1}} } - \frac{ 1 }{ {J_{i}} } \frac{ U_{i+1}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} }{ {H_{i+1}} }\label{appa:d}\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{B}_{i} = \frac{ 1 }{ {K_{i}} } + 2 - \frac{ {H_{i-1}} }{ {H_{i+1}} } - \frac{ {H_{i+1}} }{ {H_{i-1}} }.\end{gathered}$$ Noting that $\mathcal{A}_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i}}\right)} = \mathcal{A}_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}$, because of and , one can conclude that either $F_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i}}\right)} = F_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}$ (we do not consider this possibility as leading to rather trivial solutions) or $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{A}_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = \mathcal{B}_{i} = 0.\end{gathered}$$ The second of these equalities, $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{ 1 }{ {K_{i}} } = \frac{ {H_{i-1}} }{ {H_{i+1}} } + \frac{ {H_{i+1}} }{ {H_{i-1}} } - 2,\end{gathered}$$ is nothing but . The first one, $\mathcal{A}_{i} = 0$, leads, after the translations ${\vec{n}}\to {\vec{n}}+ {\vec{g}_{i \pm 1}}$, to $U_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{i}}\right)} = U_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}$ which, together with , means that $$\begin{gathered}
U_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}+{\vec{g}_{j}}\right)} = U_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}, \qquad i,j=1,2,3,\end{gathered}$$ i.e., that $U_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)}$ are constants with respect to ${\vec{n}}$, $$\begin{gathered}
U_{i}{\left({\vec{n}}\right)} = U_{i} = {\rm const}, \qquad i=1,2,3.\end{gathered}$$ Introducing the new constants, ${I_{i}} = U_{i} / {H_{i}}$, one can obtain from the constraint .
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
We would like to thank the referees for their constructive comments and suggestions for improvement of this paper.
[99]{}
Ablowitz M.J., Ladik J.F., Nonlinear differential-difference equations, [*J. Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.522558) **16** (1975), 598–603.
Adler V.E., Legendre transforms on a triangular lattice, [*Funct. Anal. Appl.*](https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02467062) **34** (2000), 1–9, [arXiv:solv-int/9808016](https://arxiv.org/abs/solv-int/9808016).
Adler V.E., Discrete equations on planar graphs, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*](https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/34/48/310) **34** (2001), 10453–10460.
Adler V.E., Suris Yu.B., [${\rm Q}_4$]{}: integrable master equation related to an elliptic curve, [*Int. Math. Res. Not.*](https://doi.org/10.1155/S107379280413273X) **2004** (2004), 2523–2553.
Bobenko A.I., Hoffmann T., Hexagonal circle patterns and integrable systems: patterns with constant angles, [*Duke Math. J.*](https://doi.org/10.1215/S0012-7094-03-11635-X) **116** (2003), 525–566, [arXiv:math.CV/0109018](https://arxiv.org/abs/math.CV/0109018).
Bobenko A.I., Hoffmann T., Suris Yu.B., Hexagonal circle patterns and integrable systems: patterns with the multi-ratio property and [L]{}ax equations on the regular triangular lattice, [*Int. Math. Res. Not.*](https://doi.org/10.1155/S1073792802105113) **2002** (2002), 111–164, [arXiv:math.CV/0104244](https://arxiv.org/abs/math.CV/0104244).
Bobenko A.I., Suris Yu.B., Integrable systems on quad-graphs, [*Int. Math. Res. Not.*](https://doi.org/10.1155/S1073792802110075) **2002** (2002), 573–611, [arXiv:nlin.SI/0110004](https://arxiv.org/abs/nlin.SI/0110004).
Boll R., Suris Yu.B., Non-symmetric discrete [T]{}oda systems from quad-graphs, [*Appl. Anal.*](https://doi.org/10.1080/00036810903397495) **89** (2010), 547–569, [arXiv:0908.2822](https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.2822).
Date E., Jinbo M., Miwa T., Method for generating discrete soliton equations. [I]{}, [*J. Phys. Soc. Japan*](https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.51.4116) **51** (1982), 4116–4124.
Date E., Jinbo M., Miwa T., Method for generating discrete soliton equations. [II]{}, [*J. Phys. Soc. Japan*](https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.51.4125) **51** (1982), 4125–4131.
Doliwa A., Nieszporski M., Santini P.M., Integrable lattices and their sublattices. [II]{}. [F]{}rom the [B]{}-quadrilateral lattice to the self-adjoint schemes on the triangular and the honeycomb lattices, [*J. Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2803504) **48** (2007), 113506, 17 pages, [arXiv:0705.0573](https://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0573).
Haldane F.D.M., Excitation spectrum of a generalised [H]{}eisenberg ferromagnetic spin chain with arbitrary spin, [*J. Phys. C*](https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3719/15/36/008) **15** (1982), L1309–L1313.
Hirota R., Discrete analogue of a generalized [T]{}oda equation, [*J. Phys. Soc. Japan*](https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.50.3785) **50** (1981), 3785–3791.
Ishimori Y., An integrable classical spin chain, [*J. Phys. Soc. Japan*](https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.51.3417) **51** (1982), 3417–3418.
Nimmo J.J.C., Darboux transformations and the discrete [KP]{} equation, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*](https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/30/24/028) **30** (1997), 8693–8704, [arXiv:solv-int/9410001](https://arxiv.org/abs/solv-int/9410001).
Papanicolaou N., Complete integrability for a discrete [H]{}eisenberg chain, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*](https://doi.org/10.1088/0305-4470/20/12/018) **20** (1987), 3637–3652.
Tokihiro T., Satsuma J., Willox R., On special function solutions to nonlinear integrable equations, [*Phys. Lett. A*](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-9601(97)00718-4) **236** (1997), 23–29.
Vekslerchik V.E., Functional representation of the [A]{}blowitz–[L]{}adik hierarchy. [II]{}, [*J. Nonlinear Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.2991/jnmp.2002.9.2.3) **9** (2002), 157–180, [arXiv:solv-int/9812020](https://arxiv.org/abs/solv-int/9812020).
Vekslerchik V.E., Soliton [F]{}ay identities: [I]{}. [D]{}ark soliton case, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.*](https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/47/41/415202) **47** (2014), 415202, 19 pages, [arXiv:1409.0406](https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0406).
Vekslerchik V.E., Soliton [F]{}ay identities: [II]{}. [B]{}right soliton case, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.*](https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/48/44/445204) **48** (2015), 445204, 18 pages, [arXiv:1510.00908](https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.00908).
Vekslerchik V.E., Explicit solutions for a nonlinear model on the honeycomb and triangular lattices, [*J. Nonlinear Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1080/14029251.2016.1204719) **23** (2016), 399–422, [arXiv:1606.06470](https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06470).
Vekslerchik V.E., Solitons of a vector model on the honeycomb lattice, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.*](https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/49/45/455202) **49** (2016), 455202, 16 pages, [arXiv:1610.03242](https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.03242).
Willox R., Tokihiro T., Satsuma J., Darboux and binary [D]{}arboux transformations for the nonautonomous discrete [KP]{} equation, [*J. Math. Phys.*](https://doi.org/10.1063/1.532222) **38** (1997), 6455–6469.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We report on temperature dependence of the infrared reflectivity spectra of a single crystalline herbertsmithite in two polarizations — parallel and perpendicular to the kagome plane of Cu atoms. We observe anomalous broadening of the low frequency phonons possibly caused by fluctuations in the exotic dynamical magnetic order of the spin liquid.'
author:
- 'A. B. Sushkov'
- 'G. S. Jenkins'
- 'Tian-Heng Han'
- 'Young S. Lee'
- 'H. D. Drew'
title: 'Infrared phonons as a probe of a spin-liquid states in herbertsmithite ZnCu$_3$(OH)$_6$Cl$_2$'
---
ZnCu$_3$(OH)$_6$Cl$_2$, also known as herbertsmithite, is an example of a geometrically frustrated quantum spin liquid [@Anderson_1973]. Herbertsmithite crystalizes in a lattice with kagome planes of highly frustrated corner sharing triangles of spin-1/2 Cu ions. It is a disordered antiferromagnet down to low temperatures $T = 50$ mK $\ll J$, where $J\approx200$ K is the exchange energy. Because quantum effects are enhanced for spin-1/2 materials there has been much theoretical discussion and experimental studies addressing the possible ground states [@Sachdev_1992; @Mambrini_2000; @Nikolic_2003; @Braithwaite2004; @Shores2005; @Bert_2007; @Helton_2007; @Lee_2007; @deVries_2008; @Hermele_2008; @Imai_2008; @Lee_2008; @Olariu_2008; @deVries_2009; @Ofer_2009; @Freedman_2010; @Helton_2010; @Liu_2010; @Mendels_2010; @Wen_2010; @Wulferding_2010; @Jeong_2011; @Lu_2011; @Mendels_2011; @Yan_2011; @Fak_2012; @Han_2012; @Han_2012n; @deVries_2012; @Shaginyan_2012; @Capponi2013; @Dodds_2013; @Hao_2013; @Jeschke_2013; @Pilon_2013; @Potter_2013; @Pujari_2013; @Rousochatzakis_2013; @Serbyn_2013; @Asaba_2014; @Colbert_2014; @Rousochatzakis_2014; @Taillefumier_2014; @Furukawa_2015; @Guterding_2015; @Han_2015; @Hu_2015; @Iqbal_2015; @Iqbal_2015_2; @Shaginyan_2015; @Zhu_2015]. The basic questions are whether the spin excitations are gapped in the ground state and whether the singlet valence bonds are static (valence bond solid — VBS) [@Nikolic_2003] or dynamic (resonating valance bond — RVB) [@Mambrini_2000]. The RVB models come in gapped and gapless versions. Detecting a gap at low temperatures has been hindered by inadvertent magnetic disorder. However, recent experiments report on a spin gap $\Delta_s = 10$ K based on NMR measurements [@Fu_2015].
One of the theoretical RVB models using contractor renormalization (CORE) method predicts a gapped state that breaks reflection symmetries and possess a chiral $p6$ symmetry [@Capponi2013]. It has been noted that this symmetry can induce a splitting of the doubly degenerate in-kagome plane optical phonons through spin-phonon coupling [@SP-1968; @us-PRL-2005]. One of the theoretical VBS models assumes the ground state of herbertsmithite to be a gapless algebraic spin liquid and predicts possible contribution of the VBS order into lineshapes of optical phonons via spin-phonon coupling [@Hermele_2008]. Therefore, there is interest in studies of the optical phonons for evidence of these predictions.
Another motivation for studying infrared optical phonons comes from the recent results on another spin-liquid compound Tb$_2$Ti$_2$O$_7$ [@Fennell2014; @Ruminy2016; @Ruminy2016-2]. Inelastic neutron scattering experiments revealed the hybridization of Tb$^{3+}$ crystal-field excitons and transverse acoustic phonons which suppresses both magnetic ordering and the structural distortion [@Fennell2014]. Disorder can induce magnetic ordering in this compound but the hybridization is not suppressed by disorder [@Ruminy2016]. Comparative study of Tb, Dy, and Ho titanate pyrochlores by first-principles calculations and inelastic neutron and x-ray scattering experiments produced a lot of information about phonon spectra which is important in understanding of spin-lattice interaction and formation of the spin-liquid and spin-ice states [@Ruminy2016-2]. We are looking for signatures of magnetic fluctuations in infrared-active phonons of herbertsmithite.
Herbertsmithite [@Braithwaite2004] was first found in 1972 in Chile, synthesized in 2005 [@Shores2005], and high-quality single crystals of millimeter size have been available since 2011 [@Han2011]. Neutron and synchrotron x-ray diffraction experiments on synthetic single crystals [@Han2011] found no obvious structural transition down to 2 K. In this paper, we report the temperature dependence of the infrared optical phonon spectra of a herbertsmithite single crystal. Our data show anomalous broadening of the low frequency infrared phonons upon cooling.
Single crystals of ZnCu$_3$(OH)$_6$Cl$_2$ were grown as described elsewhere [@Han2011]. Fourier transform infrared reflectivity measurements were performed using a 2 mm in diameter aperture on the largest face of the single crystal. From polarization dependence of the reflectivity spectra, we found two orthogonal polarizations with distinct phonon resonances. We do not see mixture of the contributions between polarizations. This means that $c$-axis is sufficiently close to the face of the crystal for phonon study accuracy.
We determine the number of allowed infrared active phonons using the Correlation method [@Fateley1972]. Space group of herbertsmithite crystal is $R\bar{3}m$ with three formula units in hexagonal unit cell[@Shores2005; @Colman2011; @Malcherek2014] which is reflected in the 2nd column of Table 1. However, the primitive unit cell is rhombohedral and it contains one formula unit which is reflected in the 3rd column of Table 1 where we divided the number of Wyckoff sites by 3. Thus, the total number of phonons is $3N=54$, where $N=18$ is the number of atoms in the primitive unit cell. Presence of two types of the unit cell settings in literature does not affect phonon calculation because Wyckoff sites $a$ and $b$ have the same site symmetry which is also valid for sites $d$ and $e$.
--------- ----------- ------------- ---------- -------------------------------------------------------
Species Wyckoff For phonon Site Vibrational
positions calculation symmetry modes
Zn 3aor 3b a or b $D_{3d}$ $A_{2u} + E_{u}$
Cl 6c 2c $C_{3v}$ $A_{1g} + A_{2u} + E_g + E_{u}$
Cu 9dor 9e 3d or 3e $C_{2h}$ $A_{1u} + 2A_{2u} + 3E_{u}$
O 18h 6h $C_s$ $2A_{1g} + A_{1u} + A_{2g} + 2A_{2u} + 3E_g + 3E_{u}$
H 18h 6h $C_s$ $2A_{1g} + A_{1u} + A_{2g} + 2A_{2u} + 3E_g + 3E_{u}$
--------- ----------- ------------- ---------- -------------------------------------------------------
Thus, for infrared active phonons, we expect to observe seven nondegenerate $A_{2u}$ modes in $e||c$ polarization, where $e$ is electric field of light and $c$-axis is perpendicular to the kagome plane, and 10 doubly degenerate $E_u$ modes polarized in the kagome plane. Raman-active phonon analysis is identical to the published earlier results [@Wulferding_2010; @deVries_2012].
The number of phonons observed in our reflectivity spectra is larger than predicted for the $R\bar{3}m$ group. We do not consider the possibility of another space group because all structural studies result in one space group. The most probable origin of additional vibrational modes is crystal defects such as Cu/Zn counterdoping, vacancies, impurities. In general, any substitution ion in a lattice which differs by mass or spring constant results in new, localized modes [@Barker_Sievers_1975]. Structural studies of our crystals show that the kagome plane consists of Cu ions only and 5 to 10 % of Cu reside in Zn plane[@Han_2012; @Han_2012n]. We do not study additional phonon modes here, instead, we focus on magnetic effects on phonons. The presence of additional modes does not affect our main result — the observation of unusual broadening of some phonons upon cooling. Both eigenmodes of an ideal crystal and additional local modes get narrower upon cooling. Only magnetic interactions in this compound can cause such broadening of phonons.
Figure 1 shows the measured reflectivity spectra of herbertsmithite together with the fit results over a broad frequency range. Modes seen in the frequency range approximately 100–3600 cm$^{-1}$ are phonons. Qualitatively, we can say that low frequency phonons are dominated by heaviest ions — Cu and Zn in this case, mid range phonons, say $a6$-$a9$ and $c3$-$c6$, are oxygen and chlorine dominated, and the highest modes $a10$ and $c7$ are hydrogen dominated. Magnetic effects are expected at low frequency phonons dominated by magnetic Cu$^{2+}$ ions. As the number of observed phonons is larger than predicted for the given space group, the assignment of phonons is somewhat arbitrary. We assign the strongest modes using the room temperature spectra where magnetic effects are minimal. We measured temperature dependence of reflectivity in two polarizations below 6,000 cm$^{-1}$. Reflectivity spectra above 6,000 cm$^{-1}$ were measured at room temperature without polarizer. A peak in the optical conductivity at 32,000 cm$^{-1}$ (4 eV) is the optical gap.
![(Color online). (a),(b) Room temperature reflectivity spectra measured and obtained from fits of the Lorentzian model (Eq. (\[eq:lorentz\])). Electric field of light $e$ is (a) in the kagome plane of Cu atoms, (b) perpendicular to the kagome plane. (c) Imaginary part of the dielectric constant obtained from fits for two polarizations. A peak at 32,000 cm$^{-1}$ (4 eV) is the optical gap. Resonances below 3,600 cm$^{-1}$ are phonons. $a1$-$a10$ and $c1$-$c7$ are tentative assignments of phonons. []{data-label="R"}](fig1.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure 2 shows temperature dependence of the measured reflectivity spectra of herbertsmithite in the bolometer frequency range. Phonon modes are usually sensitive to temperature and this property can help in identification of phonons among observed features in the reflectivity spectra. We assign the modes in panel (a) near 500 cm$^{-1}$ as two major phonons $a6$ and $a7$ which become clear at low temperatures. In spite of its complicate line shape, we consider mode $c2$ in panel (b) as one phonon and we fit it with one oscillator because it is expected to be a phonon singlet according to the symmetry analysis. Even without looking at the fit results, one can tell that phonons $a2$ and $c1$ show temperature behavior different from other phonons. Upon cooling, the reflectivity peaks of all other phonons grow while $a2$ and $c1$ phonons have the opposite trend because of broadening which is possibly of magnetic origin.
We do not assign broad features between 250 and 350 cm$^{-1}$ in Fig. 2(b) as phonons because they don’t depend on temperature and they are too broad to be phonons. This can be a low energy electronic transition but it should depend on temperature in this frequency range as well. We note that it is seen only in $e||c$ polarization. An asymmetric mode with Fano line shape and $A_{1g}$ symmetry was observed at 230 cm$^{-1}$ in Raman spectra [@Wulferding_2010; @deVries_2012]. It was assigned as an additional lattice mode due to crystallographic disorder. Its Fano shape was explained as the result of interaction with a continuum of states, possibly, of spin fluctuations. Possibly, we are seeing that continuum in our infrared spectra. Another possibility — we observe this continuum as the electric dipole active excitation which means the first order coupling between spin fluctuations and phonons similar to the electromagnon effect in noncollinearly ordered magnets[@Sushkov_Mostovoy_2008].
![(Color online). Temperature dependence of the reflectivity spectra of a herbertsmithite single crystal in the 4 K bolometer frequency range where magnetic effects are most expected. Grey lines are spectra at intermediate temperatures. []{data-label="bolo"}](fig2.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure 3 is similar to Fig. 2 and it presents higher frequency phonons. We see extra phonons here in both polarizations. Group of phonons $c7$ shows nonmonotonic temperature dependence. In two spectra taken at 20 and 30 K, they are stronger than in the 10 K spectrum. Not likely that this is an experimental error. The two bottom panels show different frequency ranges of the same spectra. Thus, the nonmonotonic behavior of $c7$ phonon group is real but not understood.
We extract phonon parameters by fitting the reflectivity spectra with the model of a sum of Lorentzian oscillators of the Reffit program [@Kuzmenko_2005]. The complex dielectric function $\varepsilon=\varepsilon_1+i\varepsilon_2$ takes the form: $$\varepsilon(\omega)=\varepsilon_{\infty}+
\sum_j\frac{\omega_{sj}^2}{\omega_{0j}^2-\omega^2-i\omega\gamma_j} .
\label{eq:lorentz}$$ Here $\omega_{0j}$, $\gamma_j$, and $\omega_{sj}$ are the resonance, the damping, and the spectral weight frequencies of the $j$th electric dipole active mode, respectively. The complex optical conductivity is related to the dielectric function by $\sigma=\sigma_1+i\sigma_2 = \omega\varepsilon/4\pi i$.
![(Color online). Temperature dependence of the reflectivity spectra in the MCT detector frequency range. Grey lines are spectra at intermediate temperatures.[]{data-label="MCT"}](fig3.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
{width="7.3"}
Figure 4 shows phonon fit parameters versus temperature for in-plane polarization. Usually, phonon parameters exhibit the following trend upon cooling. The resonance frequencies $\omega_{0j}$ harden, the spectral weights $\omega_{sj}^2$ stay constant or grow slightly, and the scattering rates $\gamma_j$ decrease. $a5$ phonon may be a good example of such temperature behavior. Most of the other nine phonons behave in a similar way. Softening of the $a2$ mode may also be a spin-phonon coupling effect but the $a10$ hydrogen dominated mode also shows softening which is unlikely to be magnetic in origin. The $a2$ phonon also shows very unusual broadening upon cooling which we can only understand as magnetic in origin. Splitting of a phonon doublet into two singlets by specific chiral magnetic ordering of Cu spins was predicted theoretically for a kagome plane of spins [@Capponi2013]. Phonon line shape looks like a single mode and fitting of the $a2$ phonon line with two oscillators close in frequency results in rejection of one of the two oscillators by the Reffit program. Thus, we cannot detect possible splitting of the $a2$ phonon although 4 cm$^{-1}$ spectral resolution of the measured spectra was sufficient for that task. This absence of detectable splitting does not rule out the whole model because the predicted splitting becomes zero at certain range of the exchange parameters. For a VBS model, it was shown that competing VBS orders may contribute to all three optical phonon parameters [@Hermele_2008]. The sign of the predicted frequency shift is unknown, the spectral weight may also change due to effective charge redistribution, and only additional broadening is the unambiguous prediction which we observe in the $a2$ mode temperature dependence. Phonon $a1$ shows quite small narrowing toward zero temperature which is surprising for such a low frequency phonon and also may be a sign of magnetic broadening competing with thermal narrowing of the phonon line. Phonon $a9$ surprisingly broadens below 100 K and we cannot explain such a behavior. First-principle calculations of phonons for herbertsmithite may give us better understanding of the observed behavior by separating lattice effects from magneto-lattice ones.
Figure 5 shows the phonon fit parameters versus temperature for the polarization perpendicular to the kagome plane in bolometer frequency range. Here, phonons $c1$ and $c4$ get slightly broader and phonon $c2$ gets slightly narrower upon cooling which may be understood as presence of magnetic broadening especially in comparison with phonon $c3$. Fit results on phonon width of $c5$ are not reliable at low temperatures as it is seen from the spectra in this figure.
{width="7.3"}
Spin liquid on a kagome lattice posses different types of spin dynamics in various temperature ranges [@Taillefumier_2014] characterized by the ratio $k_BT/J$. In our temperature range, we possibly deal with paramagnetic regime at $T>J=200$ K and with dipolar-like spin correlations below 200 K. Spin excitations can be probed by infrared spectroscopy directly at the frequencies of the spin excitations as magnetic dipole active or electric dipole (ED) active modes. To acquire electric dipole activity essentially magnetic spin excitations have to borrow ED activity from ED-allowed transitions, most probably from the infrared optical phonons — the effect known as electromagnon which was observed in some ordered frustrated magnets[@Pimenov-Nature; @us-PRL-2007; @Kida-2009]. Spin orders can couple to phonons in the second order. This effect is called spin-phonon coupling [@SP-1968; @us-PRL-2005] and it leads to a magnetic shift (positive or negative) of the phonon frequency. In magnetically frustrated cubic spinel ZnCr$_2$O$_4$, accumulated magnetic energy leads eventually to a magneto-structural phase transition at 12 K. In the low temperature phase, the crystal structure becomes tetragonal, one triply degenerate phonon splits into phonon doublet and singlet, and frequency splitting is proportional to the magnetic energy [@us-PRL-2005]. In herbertsmithite, there is no structural transition and we don’t expect clear phonon splitting but rather broadening of a phonon line. Interestingly, the broadening of the $a2$ phonon is about 10 % of its resonance frequency as seen from Fig. 4 and phonon splitting predicted in [@Capponi2013] is also 10 % of the resonance frequency.
We believe that the broadening effect on the $a2$ phonon is magnetic in origin and it has to do with valence-bond physics. At low temperature, the system may be settling into a spin-liquid regime, in which valence-bond singlets formed by neighboring Cu spins slowly move around. Bonds with and without singlets will tend to have different lengths and spring constants — the same effect as in ZnCr$_2$O$_4$ [@us-PRL-2005]. Thus a phonon will find that the lattice is a bit disordered and the phonon line will exhibit some broadening. [*Ab initio*]{} calculations similar to Ref. would be very useful for further understanding of the spin-lattice dynamics in this material.
In conclusion, we report possible observation of magnetic broadening of at least one phonon mode in a herbertsmithite single crystal. This observation is in agreement with the prediction of one of the VBS models [@Hermele_2008]. Further experimental and theoretical studies are needed to understand the origin of the magnetic effects on phonons, and to separate the eigenmodes of the $R\bar{3}m$ space group from the observed additional vibrational modes.
This work was supported by DOE under grant \# ER 46741-SC0005436. Some part of the work was performed at the Aspen Center for Physics, partially funded by NSF Grant No. 1066293. We thank Assa Auerbach, Oleg Tchernyshyov, and Karen Rabe for inspiring discussions.
[70]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/0025-5408(73)90167-0) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.45.12377) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/PL00011071) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.68.214415) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1180/0026461046830204) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ja053891p) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.132411) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.107204) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nmat1986) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.157205) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.77.224413) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.077203) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1163196) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.087202) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.237201) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.79.134424) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/ja1070398) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.147201) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.82.045102) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1143/JPSJ.79.011001) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.82.075125) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.144412) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.237201) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.224413) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1742-6596/320/1/012004) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.1201080) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.037208) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.157202) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/nature11659) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.85.014422) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1209/0295-5075/97/56001) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.161118) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.224413) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.214404) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.075106) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.127401) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.245106) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.104415) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.195109) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.87.174424) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.90.064417) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.90.121105) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.90.100406) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.90.064419) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.aad3556) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/srep25988) [ ](http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.06807) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.041124) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.020402) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.92.220404) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.physleta.2015.05.036) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.014424) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1126/science.aab2120) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.017203) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.144407) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.214308) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.100402) @noop [**]{} (, , ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/cm103160q) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1180/minmag.2014.078.3.08) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/RevModPhys.47.S1.2) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/0953-8984/20/43/434210) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.1979470) @noop @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.80.220406) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.205505)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the IVP associated to the generalized KdV equation with low degree of non-linearity $$\pa_t u + \pa_x^3 u \pm |u|^{\a}\pa_x u = 0,\; x,t \in {\mathbb{R}},\;\a \in (0,1).$$ By using an argument similar to that introduced by Cazenave and Naumkin [@CaNa] we establish the local well-posedness for a class of data in an appropriate weighted Sobolev space. Also, we show that the solutions obtained satisfy the propagation of regularity principle proven in [@ILP] in solutions of the $k$-generalized KdV equation.'
address:
- 'IMPA, Estrada Dona Castorina 110, Rio de Janeiro 22460-320, RJ Brazil'
- 'Advanced Science Course, Department of Integrated Science and Technology, National Institute of Technology, Tsuyama College, Tsuyama, Okayama, 708-8509, Japan'
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of California Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA'
author:
- Felipe Linares
- Hayato MIYAZAKI
- Gustavo PONCE
title: On a class of solutions to the generalized KdV type equation
---
-5mm
Introduction
============
In this work we study the initial value problem (IVP) for the generalized Korteweg-de Vries (KdV) type equation $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&{} \pa_t u + \pa_x^3 u \pm |u|^{\a}\pa_x u = 0,\; x,t \in {\mathbb{R}}, \;\a \in (0,1),\\
&{} u(x,0) = u_0(x),
\end{aligned}
\right. \label{gkdv} \tag{GK}\end{aligned}$$ where $u=u(x,t)$ is a real-valued or complex-valued unknown function.
The equation in is a lower nonlinearity version of the celebrate Korteweg-de Vries equation (KdV) [@KdV] $$\label{01}
\pa_t u + \pa_x^3 u +u\pa_x u = 0,\; x,t \in {\mathbb{R}},$$ and its $k$-generalized form $$\label{02}
\pa_t u + \pa_x^3 u +u^k\pa_x u = 0,\; x,t \in {\mathbb{R}},\;\,k\in{\mathbb{Z}}^+.$$ The IVP and the periodic boundary value problem (pbvp) associated to the equation in have been extensively studied. In fact, sharp local and global well-posedness, stability of special solutions and blow-up results have been established in several publications (for a more detail account of them we refer to [@LP] Chapters 7-8).
Formally, real valued solutions of satisfy three conservation laws: $$\begin{aligned}
I_1(u)&=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}u(x,t)dx,\;\;\;I_2(u)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}u^2(x,t)dx,\\
I_3(u)&=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}((\partial_xu)^2\mp \frac{2}{(\alpha+1)(\alpha+2)}|u|^{\alpha+2})(x,t)dx.\end{aligned}$$
Roughly speaking, the nonlinearity in is non-Lipchitz in any Sobolev space $H^s({\mathbb{R}}) = (1-\pa_x^2)^{s/2}L^2({\mathbb{R}}),\,s\in{\mathbb{R}},$ or in the weighted versions $H^s({\mathbb{R}})\cap L^2({\mathbb{R}}:{\left\langle x \right\rangle}^rdx)$, $\,k,\,\,r\in{\mathbb{R}}$ as a consequence local well-posedness can not be established in these spaces.
Our first goal is to establish the local well-posedness for the IVP in a class of initial data. To present our result we first describe our motivation and the ideas behind the proofs.
In [@CaNa] Cazenave and Naumkin studied the IVP associated to semi-linear Schrödinger equation, $$\label{nls}
\begin{cases}
{\partial}_tu=i(\Delta u\pm|u|^{\a} u), \hskip15pt x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n,\;t\in{\mathbb{R}}, \hskip5pt \a>0,\\
u(x,0)=u_0(x),
\end{cases}$$ with initial data $u_0\in H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$. For every $\a>0$ they constructed a class of initial data for which there exist unique local solutions for the IVP . Also, they obtained a class of initial data for $\alpha>\frac{2}{n}$ for which there exist global solutions that scatter.
One of the ingredients in the proofs of their results, is the fact that solutions of the linear problem satisfy $$\label{lower}
\underset{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n}{\rm Inf}\; {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m\,| e^{it\Delta} u_0(x)| >0,$$ for $t\in[0,T]$ with $T$ sufficiently small whenever the initial data satisfy $$\label{lower-2}
\underset{x\in{\mathbb{R}}^N}{\rm Inf}\; {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m\,|u_0(x)|\ge \lambda>0.$$ This is reached for $m=m(\a)$ and $u_0\in H^s({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ with $s$ sufficiently large with appropriate decay. To prove the inequality the authors in [@CaNa] rely on Taylor’s power expansion to avoid applying the Sobolev embedding since the nonlinear $|u|^{\alpha} u$ is not regular enough and it would restrict the argument to dimensions $n\ge 4$.
In [@LPS], the arguments introduced in [@CaNa] were modified to study the IVP associated to the generalized derivative Schrödinger equation $$\partial_tu=i\partial_x^2u + \mu\,|u|^{\a}\partial_xu, \hskip10pt x,t\in{\mathbb{R}}, \hskip5pt 0<\alpha \le 1\;\; {\rm and}\;\; |\mu|=1,$$ establishing local well-posedness for a class of small data in an appropriate weighted Sobolev space.
In the case considered here, the non-linearity is non-Lipschitz. Motivated by the results in [@CaNa] and using the smoothing effects of Kato type [@Ka] we shall obtain the desired local well-posedness result for the IVP for a class of data satisfying .
The first aim of this paper is to show the following:
\[thm:1\] Fix $m= \left[ \frac{1}{\a} \right]+1$. Let $s \in {\mathbb{Z}}^{+}$ satisfy $s \ge 2m+4$. Assume $\,u_0\;$ is a complex-valued function such that $$\begin{aligned}
&{}{\color{black}}u_0 \in H^s({\mathbb{R}}),\; {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m u_0 \in L^{{\infty}}({\mathbb{R}}),\; {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x^{j+1} u_0 \in L^{2}({\mathbb{R}}),\; j=0,1,2,3, \label{thm:14} \\
&{}{\left\lVert u_0 \right\rVert_{H^{s}}} + {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m u_0 \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}}} + {{\color{black}}\sum_{j=0}^3 {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x^{j+1} u_0 \right\rVert_{L^{2}}}} < \d \label{thm:16}\end{aligned}$$ for some $\d>0$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_{x \in {\mathbb{R}}} {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m |u_0(x)| =: \l >0. \label{thm:15}\end{aligned}$$ Then there exists $T=T(\a;\d;s; \l)>0$ such that has a unique local solution $$\begin{aligned}
{{\color{black}}u \in C([0,T]; H^s({\mathbb{R}})),\quad {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x^{j+1} u \in C([0,T]; L^2({\mathbb{R}})),\quad j=0,1,2,3} \label{thm:12}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m u \in C([0,T]; L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})), \quad \pa_x^{s+1} u \in L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}; L^{2}([0,T])), \label{thm:13}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{0 \le t \le T} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (u(t)-u_0) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}}} \le \frac{\l}2. \label{thm:11}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the map $u_0 \mapsto u(t)$ is continuous in the following sense: For any compact $I \subset [0,T]$, there exists a neighborhood $V$ of $u_0$ satisfying and such that the map is Lipschitz continuous from $V$ [into the class defined by and .]{}
Above we have used the following notation: ${\left\langle x \right\rangle} = (1+|x|^2)^{1/2},\;x \in {\mathbb{R}}$, and for any $x \in {\mathbb{R}}$, $[x]$ denotes the greatest integer less than or equal to $x$.
\[rem:1\] The solution in Theorem \[thm:1\] is in fact unique in the class $${{\color{black}}C([0,T]; H^{2m+2}({\mathbb{R}})),\quad {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x^{j+1} u \in C([0,T]; L^2({\mathbb{R}})),\quad j=0,1,}$$ with $${\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m u \in L^{{\infty}}([0,T]; L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}})), \quad \pa_x^{2m+3} u \in L^{{\infty}}({\mathbb{R}}; L^{2}([0,T])),$$ and $$\sup_{0 \le t \le T} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (u(t)-u_0) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}}} \le \frac{\l}2.$$
.1in
Inequality gives us $$\label{BB0}
\frac{\l}{2}\leq -\frac{\l}{2} +{\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m |u_0(x)| \le {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m |u(x,t)| \le {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m |u_0(x)| + \frac{\l}{2}$$ for any $(x,t) \in {\mathbb{R}}\times [0,T]$.
.1in
As in [@CaNa] from and it follows that $${\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m-1/2} u_0\notin L^2({\mathbb{R}})\;\;
\;\;\;\text{and}\;\;\;\;\;\;{\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m-1/2} u(t)\notin L^2({\mathbb{R}}),\;\;\;\;\;t\in(0,T].$$
A typical data $u_0$ satisfying the hypotheses in Theorem \[thm:1\] is: $$u_0(x)=\frac{2\lambda \,e^{i\theta}}{{\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m} + \varphi(x),\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\theta\in{\mathbb{R}},$$ with $\,\varphi\in \mathcal{S}({\mathbb{R}})$ and $$ \| {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \varphi\|_{\infty} \leq \lambda.$$
.1in
We observe that the IVP has (real) traveling wave solutions (positive, even and radially decreasing) with speed $c>0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{c,\alpha}(x,t)&=\,c^{1/\alpha}\,\phi(\sqrt{c}(x-ct)),\\
\\
\phi(x)&=\Big( \frac{(\alpha+1)(\alpha+2)}{2}\,\text{sech}\Big(\frac{\alpha x}{2}\Big)\Big)^{2/\alpha}.
\end{aligned}$$ We observe that the data $\phi$ does not satisfy so the traveling wave is not in the class of solutions provided by Theorem \[thm:1\]. This is similar to the situation for the log-KdV equation $$\label{logkdv}
\pa_t v + \pa_x^3 v +\pa_x( v\,\log|v|)= 0,\; x,t \in {\mathbb{R}}$$ described in [@CaPe], where the well-posedness obtained there does not include the uniqueness and continuous dependence for the gaussian traveling wave solution of .
Our second result is concerned with the propagation of regularity in the right hand side of the data for positive times of real solutions in the class provided by Theorem \[thm:1\]. It affirms that this regularity moves with infinite speed to its left as time evolves.
\[thm:2\] In addition to hypotheses -, suppose $u_0$ is real valued and there exist $\,l\in {\mathbb{Z}}^+$ and $\,x_0\in{\mathbb{R}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
u_0\Big|_{(x_0,\infty)}\in H^{s+l}((x_0,\infty)). $$ Then for any $\,\epsilon'>0,\;v>0,\;R>0$ and $j=1,..., l$ $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{0\leq t\leq T}\int_{x_0+\epsilon'-vt}^{\infty} \;(\partial_x^{s+j}u(x,t))^2dx<c^*=c^*(\epsilon';v;x_0;j;l;s) \label{thm:a15}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^T\;\int_{x_0+\epsilon'-vt}^{x_0+R-vt}\;(\partial_x^{s+l+1}u(x,t))^2dxdt<c^{**}=c^{**}(\epsilon';R;v;x_0;j;l;s).
\label{thm:a16}\end{aligned}$$
.1in
In the proof of Theorem \[thm:1\] we shall only consider the integral equation version of the IVP and estimates which hold for complex and real valued solutions. In the case of Theorem \[thm:2\] the proof is based on weighted energy estimates performed in the differential equations for which we need to have real-valued solutions.
.2in
Below we shall use the notation: $${\left\lVert F \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_t L^{2}_x}}=\sup_{t\in{\mathbb{R}}}\|F(t)\|_2,\;\;\;{\left\lVert F \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x L^{2}_t}}=\sup_{x\in{\mathbb{R}}}\,(\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}|f(x,t)|^2dt)^{1/2},$$ with ${\left\lVert F \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}$ and ${\left\lVert F \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}$ denoting the corresponding norms restricted to the time interval $[0,T]$. .1in
In section 2 we shall state the necessary estimates for the proofs of Theorems \[thm:1\] and \[thm:2\]., which will be given in section 3.
Preliminaries
=============
We start this section presenting some linear estimates. The first one is concerning the sharp (homogeneous) version of Kato smoothing effect found in [@KPV].
Let $\{U(t)\,:\,t\in{\mathbb{R}}\}=\{e^{-it\pa_x^3}\,:\;t\in {\mathbb{R}}\}$ denote the unitary group describing the solution of the associated linear problem to . Then, for any $f\in L^2({\mathbb{R}})\,$ complex or real valued $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert U(t)f \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_t L^{2}_x}} + {\left\lVert \pa_x U(t)f \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x L^{2}_t}} &{} = \Big(1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\Big) {\left\lVert f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}}. \label{lest:1}
$$
.1in
Next, we collect some estimates necessary to prove the main results.
\[lem:0\] Let $\mu>0,\;r\in{\mathbb{Z}}^+ $. Then for any ${{\color{black}}\theta} \in[0,1]$ with $(1-\theta)r\in{\mathbb{Z}}^+$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{\theta \mu} \pa_x^{(1-\theta)r} f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} \le{}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{\mu} f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}}^{\theta} {\left\lVert \pa_x^{r} f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}}^{1-\theta} +L.O.T. \label{kest:1}
\end{aligned}$$
where the lower order terms $\,L.O.T.$ in are bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{0\leq\beta\leq 1,\;(1-\beta)(r-1)\in{\mathbb{Z}}^+}\;\;\;{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{\beta(\mu-1)} \pa_x^{(1-{{\color{black}}\b})(r-1)} f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} . $$ .15in
The proof of this estimate follows by successive integration by parts.
The inequality is related with the following estimates found in [@NP].
For any $a$, $b>0$ and $\ga \in (0,1)$, there exists $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert J^{\ga a}({\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{(1-\ga)b}f) \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} \le C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^b f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}}^{1-\ga}{\left\lVert J^a f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}}^{\ga}, \\ {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{\ga a}(J^{(1-\ga)b}f) \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} \le C{\left\lVert J^b f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}}^{1-\ga}{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^a f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}}^{\ga}. $$
.1in
Proof of the main results.
===========================
To simplify the exposition and without lost of generality we shall consider real valued functions. Let us introduce the complete metric space $$\begin{aligned}
X_T = {}&\left\{ u \in C([0,T]; H^s({\mathbb{R}})); \right.
{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_{X_T} := {\left\lVert u\right\rVert}_{L^{{\infty}}_T H^{s}_x} + {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} u\right\rVert}_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{\infty}_x} \\
&{} \qquad + \sum_{l=1}^4 {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa^l_x u\right\rVert}_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^2_x} + {\left\lVert \pa_x^{s+1} u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x L^{2}_T}} \le 5C_1 \d, \\
{}& \qquad \left. \sup_{0 \le t \le T} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (u(t)-u_0) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}}} \le \frac{\l}2 \right\}\end{aligned}$$ [equipped with the distance function $$d_{X_T}(u,v) ={} {{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u-v
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_{X_T}$$ ]{}for any $s \ge 2m+4$ with $s \in {\mathbb{Z}}^+$, $m= \left[ \frac{1}{\a} \right] +1$. Notice that we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\l}{2} \le {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m |u(x,t)| \le {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m |u_0(x)| + \frac{\l}{2} \label{cond:1}\end{aligned}$$ for any $(x,t) \in {\mathbb{R}}\times [0,T] $ as long as $u \in X_T$. Here the constant $C_1$ will be chosen later. Set $$\begin{aligned}
\P(u(t)) = U(t)u_0 \mp \int_0^t U(t-s)(|u|^{\a}\pa_x u)(s) ds. \label{ieq:1}\end{aligned}$$ We will prove that $\P$ is a contraction map in $X_T$. Let us first show that $\P$ maps from $X_T$ to itself. Recall that $${\left\lVert f \right\rVert_{H^{s}}} \approx {\left\lVert \partial_x^s f \right\rVert_{L^{2}_x}} + {\left\lVert f \right\rVert_{L^{2}_x}}.$$ By using and [the]{} Leibniz rule, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
&{}{\left\lVert \pa_x^{s} \P(u) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + {\left\lVert \pa_x^{s+1} \P(u) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x L^{2}_T}} \\
\le {}& C_0 {\left\lVert \pa_x^s u_0 \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} +c\,\|\partial_x^s (|u|^{\a} \pa_x u)\|_{L_T^1L_x^2} \\
\le {}& C_0 {\left\lVert \pa_x^s u_0 \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} + c\,\sum_{j=0}^{s} {\left\lVert \pa_x^j (|u|^{\a}) \pa_x^{s+1-j} u \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
=: {}& 2C_0 {\left\lVert \pa_x^s u_0 \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} + c\,\sum_{j=0}^{s} A_j.
\end{aligned}
\label{est:00}\end{aligned}$$
We shall consider $A_j$. A use of the Hölder inequality gives us $$\begin{aligned}
A_0 = {}& {\left\lVert |u|^{\a} \pa_x^{s+1} u \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le {}& CT^{1/2} {\left\lVert \pa_x^{s+1}u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x L^{2}_T}} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle} |u|^{\a} \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{-1} \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} \\
\le {}& CT^{1/2} {\left\lVert \pa_x^{s+1}u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x L^{2}_T}} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}}^{\a},\end{aligned}$$ which yields $$\begin{aligned}
A_0 \le CT^{1/2} \d^{\a+1}. \label{est:0}\end{aligned}$$ [The estimates for the intermediate terms $A_j$ ($2 \le j \le s-1$) can be obtained by the interpolation between the terms in $A_0$ and $A_s$. Hence,]{} we shall consider $A_s$. One sees that $$\begin{aligned}
A_s ={}& {\left\lVert \pa_x^s (|u|^{\a}) \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le {}& CT \( {\left\lVert |u|^{\a-s}|\pa_x u|^{s} \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + \cdots + {\left\lVert |u|^{\a-1}|\pa_x^s u| \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \) \\
=:{}& CT \( A_{s,s} + \cdots + A_{s,1} \).\end{aligned}$$ Since the middle term $A_{s,j}$ ($2 \le j \le s-1$) can be estimated by the interpolation between $A_{s,1}$ and $A_{s,s}$, it suffices to estimate $A_{s,1}$ and $A_{s,s}$.
Using that $$\label{lowbound}
\langle x\rangle^{m}\geq c\,\lambda\,|u(x,t)|^{-1}$$ and [Sobolev embedding]{} we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
A_{s,1} = {}& {\left\lVert |u|^{\a-1}|\pa_x^s u| \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le {}& C{\left\lVert |u|^{\a-1}|\pa_x u| \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} {\left\lVert \pa_x^s u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le {}& C{\left\lVert \langle x\rangle^{m(1-\a)}|\pa_x u| \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} {\left\lVert \pa_x^s u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le {}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m-1}\pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} {\left\lVert \pa_x^s u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le {}& C\( {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m}\pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m}\pa_x^2 u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \) {\left\lVert \pa_x^s u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}.\end{aligned}$$ By using and [Sobolev embedding]{} again, one has $$\begin{aligned}
A_{s,s} = {}& {\left\lVert |u|^{\a-s}|\pa_x u|^{s} \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le {}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m(s-\a)}|\pa_x u|^{s} \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le {}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}}^{s} {\left\lVert \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le {}& C\( {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}^{s} + {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x^2 u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}^{s} \) {\left\lVert \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
A_s \le{}& CT \( {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m}\pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m}\pa_x^2 u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \) {\left\lVert \pa_x^s u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ CT \( {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}^{s} + {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x^2 u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}^{s} \) {\left\lVert \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le {}& CT(\d^2 + \d^{s+1}).
\end{aligned}
\label{est:1}\end{aligned}$$
Combining with and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
&{}{\left\lVert \pa_x^{s} \P(u) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + {\left\lVert \pa_x^{s+1} \P(u) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x L^{2}_T}} \\
\le{}& 2C_0 \d + CT^{1/2}\d^{\a+1} + CT\d (\d + \d^s).
\end{aligned}
\label{est:4}\end{aligned}$$ One also sees from Sobolev embedding that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert \P(u) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \le{}& {\left\lVert u_0 \right\rVert_{L^{2}_x}} + CT {\left\lVert u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}}^{\a} {\left\lVert \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le {}& {\left\lVert u_0 \right\rVert_{L^{2}_x}} + CT {\left\lVert u\right\rVert}_{L^{{\infty}}_T H^1_x}^{\a+1} \\
\le {}& \d + CT\d^{\a+1}.
\end{aligned}
\label{est:2}\end{aligned}$$
Let us next consider $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa^l_x \P(u)\right\rVert}_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^2_x}\end{aligned}$$ for any $l \in [1,4]$. Note that $$U(-t)xU(t)f = xf - 3t \pa_x^2 f.$$ This implies $$x^{j}U(t)f = U(t)(x-3t \pa_x^2)^{j} f$$ for any $j \in {\mathbb{Z}}^+$. Therefore, by interpolation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{}{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^j U(t)f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}}
\le{}& C\({\left\lVert U(t)f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} + {\left\lVert |x|^j U(t)f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} \) \\
\le{}& C{\left\lVert f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} + C{\left\lVert (x+3it \pa_x^2)^{j}f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} \\
\le{}& C{\left\lVert f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} + C {\left\lVert x^{j}f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} + C\,t^{j} {\left\lVert \pa_x^{2j} f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}},\end{aligned}$$ which yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^j U(t)f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} \le C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{j}f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} + C\,t^{j} {\left\lVert \pa_x^{2j} f \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} \label{evo:1}\end{aligned}$$ for any $j \in {\mathbb{Z}}^{+}$. Thus, from , we deduce that $$\begin{split}
&{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa^l_x \P(u) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}\\
&\le {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} U(t) \pa^l_x u_0 \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + {\left\lVert \int_0^t {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} U(t-s) \pa^l_x \( |u|^{\a}\pa_x u\)(s) ds \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&\le C {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x^l u_0 \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} + C T^{m}{\left\lVert \pa_x^{2m+l}u_0 \right\rVert_{L^{2}}} \\
&\hskip10pt+ CT {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x^l (|u|^{\a}\pa_x u) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + CT^{m+1} {\left\lVert \pa_x^{2m+l} (|u|^{\a}\pa_x u) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}.
\end{split}$$ Since $s \ge 2m+4$, as in the proof of and , the interpolation argument gives us $$\label{est:in}
\begin{split}
\|\pa_x^{2m+l} (|u|^{\a}\pa_x u)\|_{L^{\infty}_TL^2_x} \le{}& C {\left\lVert |u|^{\a}\pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + C{\left\lVert \pa_x^{s} (|u|^{\a}\pa_x u) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C{\left\lVert u\right\rVert}^{\a+1}_{L^{{\infty}}_T H^1_x} +CA_0 +CA_s \\
\le {}& C\d^{\a+1} + C(\d^2 + \d^{s+1}).
\end{split}$$
By means of interpolation once more, we deduce that $$\begin{aligned}
&{}{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x^l (|u|^{\a}\pa_x u) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m |u|^{\a} \pa_x^{l+1} u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x^{l}(|u|^{\a}) \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m |u|^{\a}\pa_x^{l+1} u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{} + C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m |u|^{\a-l} |\pa_x u|^{l+1} \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m |u|^{\a-1} |\pa_x^l u| \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
=: {}& \textrm{I}_1 + \textrm{I}_2 +\textrm{I}_3.\end{aligned}$$ Firstly, $\textrm{I}_1$ is estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{I}_1 \le {}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} {\left\lVert |u|^{\a-1}\pa_x^{l+1}u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m-1} \pa_x^{l+1}u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C\d^2.\end{aligned}$$ Note that when $l=4$, we work with . Further, one sees from [Sobolev embedding]{} and $m(l-\a) < ml$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{I}_2 \le{}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m(l-\a)} |\pa_x u|^l \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} {\left\lVert |u|^{m} \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}}^{l} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C \( {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x^2 u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \)^{l} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C\d^{l+1}.\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, by using [Sobolev embedding]{} again, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\textrm{I}_3 \le{}& C {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m-1} \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x^{l} u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& \( {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x^2 u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \) {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x^{l} u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C\d^2.\end{aligned}$$ Combining these estimates, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x^l (|u|^{\a}\pa_x u) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \le C\d^2 + C\d^{l+1}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa^l_x \P(u)\right\rVert}_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^2_x} \le C \d + CT\d (1 + \d^{s}) \label{est:3}\end{aligned}$$ as long as $T \le 1$.
Next we estimate $${\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \P(u) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}}.$$ By using and the fact $$\frac{d}{dt} U(t)u_0 = -\pa_x^3 U(t) u_0,$$ together with Sobolev embedding, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\le {}&{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (U(t)u_0 -u_0) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x}}\\
\le {}& {\left\lVert \int_0^t \frac{d}{ds}\({\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m U(s)u_0 \) ds \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x}} \\
\le {}& {\left\lVert \int_0^t {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m U(s) \pa_x^3 u_0 ds \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x}} \\
\le {}& CT \( {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x^3 u_0 \right\rVert_{L^{2}_x}} + {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x^4 u_0 \right\rVert_{L^{2}_x}} \) + CT^{m+1} {\left\lVert u_0 \right\rVert_{H^{2m+4}}},
$$ which implies $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (U(t)u_0 -u_0) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} \le CT\d. \label{est:5}\end{aligned}$$ if $T \le 1$. From it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
&{}{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \int_0^t U(t-s) \( |u|^{\a}\pa_x u\)(s) ds \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x}} \\
\le{}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \int_0^t U(t-s) \( |u|^{\a}\pa_x u\)(s) ds \right\rVert_{L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \int_0^t U(t-s) \pa_x \( |u|^{\a}\pa_x u\)(s) ds \right\rVert_{L^{2}_x}} \\
\le {}& C \int_0^t {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \( |u|^{\a}\pa_x u\)(s) \right\rVert_{L^{2}_x}} ds \\
&{}+ C \int_0^t |t-s|^{m} {\left\lVert \pa_x^{2m} \( |u|^{\a}\pa_x u\)(s) \right\rVert_{L^{2}_x}} ds \\
&{}+ C \int_0^t {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x \( |u|^{\a}\pa_x u\)(s) \right\rVert_{L^{2}_x}} ds \\
&{}+ C \int_0^t |t-s|^{m} {\left\lVert \pa_x^{2m+1} \( |u|^{\a}\pa_x u\)(s) \right\rVert_{L^{2}_x}} ds \\
\le {}& CT \( {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} |u|^{\a}\pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x \(|u|^{\a}\pa_x u\) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \) \\
&{} + CT^{m} \( {\left\lVert \pa_x^{2m} \(|u|^{\a}\pa_x u\) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + T {\left\lVert \pa_x^{2m+1} \(|u|^{\a}\pa_x u\) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \).
$$ Also, [Sobolev embedding]{} provides that $$\begin{aligned}
&{} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x (|u|^{\a}\pa_x u) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} |u|^{\a-1}(\pa_x u)^2 \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}+ {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m}|u|^{\a}\pa_x^2 u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{2m-\a m} (\pa_x u)^2 \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}+ {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m}|u|^{\a}\pa_x^2 u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}+ C\|u\|^{\a}_{L^{\infty}_TL^{\infty}_x}{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m}\pa_x^2 u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C(\delta^{1+{{\color{black}}\a}}+\d^2).\end{aligned}$$ Further, a similar computation as in gives us $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert \pa_x^{\b}(|u|^{\a} \pa_x u) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \le C\d^{\a+1} + C(\d^2 + \d^{s+1}) \end{aligned}$$ for some $\b \in [0,s]$. Therefore it follows from these estimates that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
&{}{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \int_0^t U(t-s) \( |u|^{\a}\pa_x u\)(s) ds \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} \\
\le{}& CT\d^{2} + CT^{m+1} (\d^{\a+1} + \d^{s+1}).
\end{aligned}
\label{est:6}\end{aligned}$$ Combining with , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \P(u) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}}
\le{}& {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m}u_0 \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x}} + {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m\( U(t)u_0-u_0\) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} \\
&{}+ {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \int_0^t U(t-s)\(|u|^{\a}\pa_x u\)(s) ds \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} \\
\le{}& \d + CT(\d+\d^{s+1})
\end{aligned}
\label{est:7}\end{aligned}$$ whenever $T \le 1$. Therefore, by using and together with and , one establishes that $$\begin{aligned}
{{\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert\kern-0.25ex\left\vert u
\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert\kern-0.25ex\right\vert}}_{X_T}
\le{}& 2C_0 \d + CT^{1/2}\d^{\a+1} + CT\d (\d + \d^s) + \d + CT\d^{\a+1} \\
&{}+ C \d + CT\d (1 + \d^{s}) + \d + CT(\d+\d^{s+1}) \\
\le{}& 4C_1\d + CT^{1/2}\d^{\a+1} + CT\d (1 + \d^{s}) \\
\le{}& 5C_1\d,\end{aligned}$$ where $C_1 = \max(2C_0, C, 1)$ as long as $T = T(\a, \d, s)$ is small enough. Moreover, as in the proof of , it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
&{}\sup_{0 \le t \le T} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (\P(u(t))-u_0) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}}} \\
\le{}& {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}\( U(t)u_0-u_0\) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x}} + {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \int_0^t U(t-s)\(|u|^{\a}\pa_x u\)(s) ds \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x}} \\
\le {}& CT(\d + \d^{1+s}) \le \frac{\l}2 \end{aligned}$$ if $T = T(\d, s, \l)$ is sufficiently small. Thus, $\P(u) \in X_T$ holds.
Let us show $\P$ is a contraction map in $X_T$. By using , we first estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
&{}{\left\lVert \pa_x^{s} \( \P(u)-\P(v)\) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + {\left\lVert \pa_x^{s+1} \( \P(u)-\P(v)\) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x L^{2}_T}} \\
\le {}& \sum_{j=0}^{s} {\left\lVert \pa_x^j (|u|^{\a}) \pa_x^{s+1-j} u - \pa_x^j (|v|^{\a}) \pa_x^{s+1-j} v \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
=: {}& \sum_{j=0}^{s} B_j.
\end{aligned}
\label{est:d1}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly to the above, by the interpolation argument, it suffices to deal with $B_0$ and $B_s$. Here we observe that $$\label{est:d2}
||u|^{\a} - |v|^{\a}|=\alpha (\theta\,|u|+ (1-\theta)|v|)^{\a-1})(|u|-|v|) \leq c\,\langle x\rangle^{m(1-\a)}|u-v|$$ for $\t\in (0,1)$ and any $\a \in {\mathbb{R}}$. Together with , a similar computation as in shows that $$\label{est:d2a}
\begin{split}
B_0 =& {\left\lVert |u|^{\a}\pa_x^{s+1}u - |v|^{\a}\pa_x^{s+1}v \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C {\left\lVert |u|^{\a} \pa_x^{s+1}(u -v) \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} + C{\left\lVert (|u|^{\a-1} + |u|^{\a-1})|u-v|\pa_x^{s+1}v \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& CT^{1/2} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{-1} \right\rVert_{L^{2}_x}} {\left\lVert \pa_x^{s+1}(u-v) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x L^{2}_T}} \\
&+ CT^{1/2} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (u-v) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{-1} \right\rVert_{L^{2}_x}} {\left\lVert \pa_x^{s+1}v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x L^{2}_T}}.
\end{split}$$ This implies $$\begin{aligned}
B_0 \le CT^{1/2}\d d_{X_T}(u,v). \label{est:d3}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, we see from that $$\begin{aligned}
B_s \le{}& CT {\left\lVert |u|^{\a-s}(\pa_x u)^{s+1} - |v|^{\a-s}(\pa_x v)^{s+1} \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{} + \dots \\
&{} + CT {\left\lVert |u|^{\a-1}\pa_x^s u \pa_x u - |v|^{\a-1} \pa_x^s v \pa_x v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
=:{}& CT(B_{s,1} + \dots + B_{s,s}). \end{aligned}$$ Similarly to , the middle terms $B_{s,j}$ ($2 \le j \le s-1$) can be estimated by the interpolation between $B_{s,1}$ and $B_{s,s}$, so it suffices to estimate $B_{s,1}$ and $B_{s,s}$. By using [Sobolev embedding]{} and , one has that $$\begin{aligned}
B_{s,1} \le{}& {\left\lVert |u|^{\a-s} ( (\pa_x u)^{s+1} - (\pa_x v)^{s+1}) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}\\
& + {\left\lVert ( |u|^{\a-s} - |u|^{\a-s}) (\pa_x v)^{s+1} \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& \( {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}^{s} + {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}^{s} \) {\left\lVert \pa_x (u-v) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ \( {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}^{s} + {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x^2 v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}^{s} \)\\
& \;\times {\left\lVert \pa_x v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (u-v) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} \\
\le{}& \d^{s} (1+\d) d_{X_T}(u,v).\end{aligned}$$ We also obtain that $$\begin{aligned}
B_{s,s} ={}& {\left\lVert |u|^{\a-1}\pa_x^s u \pa_x u - |v|^{\a-1} \pa_x^s v \pa_x v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& {\left\lVert |u|^{\a-1} \pa_x^s u \pa_x (u-v) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + {\left\lVert |u|^{\a-1} \pa_x^s (u-v) \pa_x v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ {\left\lVert (|u|^{\a-1} - |v|^{\a-1}) \pa_x^s v \pa_x v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
=:{}& E_1 + E_2 + E_3.\end{aligned}$$ To estimate $E_1$ and $E_2$ we follow an argument similar to the one used in , so that one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
E_1 +E_2 \le{}& C \( {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m}\pa_x (u-v) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m}\pa_x^2 (u-v) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \) {\left\lVert \pa_x^s u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ C \( {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x^2 u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \) {\left\lVert \pa_x^s (u-v) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C\d d_{X_T}(u,v). \end{aligned}$$ From [Sobolev embedding]{} and , $E_3$ is estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
E_3 ={}& {\left\lVert (|u|^{\a-1} - |v|^{\a-1}) \pa_x^s v \pa_x v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C{\left\lVert (|u|^{\a-2} + |v|^{\a-2})|u-v| \pa_x^s v \pa_x v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{2m-1} |u-v| \pa_x^s v \pa_x v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} (u-v) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} {\left\lVert \pa_x^s v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{} \; \times \( {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} \pa_x^2 v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}\) \\
\le{}& C\d^2 d_{X_T}(u,v).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, since $$\begin{aligned}
B_{s,s} \le E_1 + E_2 + E_3 \le C\d(1+\d) d_{X_T}(u,v),\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
B_s \le CT\d(1+\d^s) d_{X_T}(u,v). \label{est:d4}\end{aligned}$$ Combining with and , it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
&{}{\left\lVert \pa_x^{s} \( \P(u)-\P(v)\) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + {\left\lVert \pa_x^{s+1} \( \P(u)-\P(v)\) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_x L^{2}_T}} \\
\le {}& CT^{1/2}\d d_{X_T}(u,v) + CT\d(1+\d^s) d_{X_T}(u,v).
\end{aligned}
\label{est:d5}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, by using and Sobolev embedding, together with , we deduce that $$\begin{split}
&{}{\left\lVert \P(u) -\P(v) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& CT{\left\lVert |u|^{\a} \pa_x (u-v) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + CT {\left\lVert (|u|^{\a} - |v|^{\a}) \pa_x v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& CT{\left\lVert u\right\rVert}_{L^{{\infty}}_T H^1_x}^{\a} {\left\lVert \pa_x (u-v) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + CT {\left\lVert (|u|^{\a-1} + |v|^{\a-1})|u-v| \pa_x v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& CT{\left\lVert u\right\rVert}_{L^{{\infty}}_T H^1_x}^{\a} {\left\lVert \pa_x (u-v) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} + CT {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m |u-v| \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} {\left\lVert \pa_x v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}},
\end{split}$$ which yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\left\lVert \P(u) -\P(v) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \le CT(\d+\d^{\a})d_{X_T}(u,v). \label{est:d6}\end{aligned}$$
Let us estimate $${\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \( \P(u)-\P(v)\) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}}.$$ Arguing as in , by means of the Sobolev embedding and , we first compute $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
&{}{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (\P(u)-\P(v)) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} \\
\le{}& C{\left\lVert \int_0^t {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m} U(t-s)(|u|^{\a}\pa_x u - |v|^{\a}\pa_x v)(s) ds \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ C{\left\lVert \int_0^t {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m U(t-s) \pa_x (|u|^{\a}\pa_x u - |v|^{\a}\pa_x v)(s) ds \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (|u|^{\a}\pa_x u - |v|^{\a}\pa_x v) \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ C {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x (|u|^{\a}\pa_x u - |v|^{\a}\pa_x v) \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ CT^{m} {\left\lVert \pa_x^{2m} (|u|^{\a}\pa_x u - |v|^{\a}\pa_x v) \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ CT^m {\left\lVert \pa_x^{2m+1} (|u|^{\a}\pa_x u - |v|^{\a}\pa_x v) \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
=:{}& J_1 + J_2 +J_3 +J_4.
\end{aligned}
\label{est:d7}\end{aligned}$$ Using interpolation the terms $J_3$ and $J_4$ can be handled applying the same argument as in and . Thus $$\begin{aligned}
J_3 + J_4 \le{}& CT^{1/2}\d d_{X_T}(u,v) + CT\d(1+\d^s) d_{X_T}(u,v) \label{est:d8}\end{aligned}$$ whenever $T \le 1$. Further, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
J_1 \le{}&
CT {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m u \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m-1} \pa_x (u-v) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ CT {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (u-v) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m-1} \pa_x v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}},\end{aligned}$$ which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
J_1 \le CT\d d_{X_T}(u,v). \label{est:d9}\end{aligned}$$ Next, we estimate $J_2$, indeed, $$\begin{aligned}
J_2 \le{}& C {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (|u|^{\a-1}(\pa_x u)^2 - |v|^{\a-1}(\pa_x v)^2) \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ C {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (|u|^{\a}\pa_x^2 u - |v|^{\a}\pa_x^2 v) \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
=:{}& J_{2,1} +J_{2,2}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, it comes from and [Sobolev embedding]{} that $$\begin{aligned}
J_{2,1} \le{}& C {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m |u|^{\a-1}((\pa_x u)^2 -(\pa_x v)^2) \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ C {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (|u|^{\a-1}-|v|^{\a-1}) (\pa_x v)^2 \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& CT\d(1+\d)d_{X_T}(u,v).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, we obtain employing once again and the argument leading to that $$\begin{aligned}
J_{2,2} \le{}& C {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (|u|^{\a} - |v|^{\a}) \pa_x^2 v \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} + C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m |u|^{\a} \pa_x^2 (u-v) \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& CT\d d_{X_T}(u,v).\end{aligned}$$ Hence one establishes that $$\begin{aligned}
J_{2} \le CT\d(1+\d)d_{X_T}(u,v). \label{est:d10}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, collecting , , and , it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
&{}{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (\P(u)-\P(v)) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{{\infty}}_x}} \\
\le{}& CT^{1/2}\d d_{X_T}(u,v) + CT\d(1+\d^s) d_{X_T}(u,v)
\end{aligned}
\label{est:d11}\end{aligned}$$ as long as $T \le 1$. Finally, we turn to consider $${\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x^l (\P(u)-\P(v)) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}}$$ for any $l \in [1,4]$. By using one has $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
&{}{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x^l (\P(u)-\P(v)) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x^l (|u|^{\a}\pa_x u - |v|^{\a}\pa_x v) \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ CT^{m} {\left\lVert \pa_x^{2m+l} (|u|^{\a}\pa_x u - |v|^{\a}\pa_x v) \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
=:{}& F_1 +F_2.
\end{aligned}
\label{est:d12}\end{aligned}$$ $F_2$ can be estimated following the argument in . Hence we have $$\begin{aligned}
F_2 \le{}& CT^{1/2+m}\d d_{X_T}(u,v) + CT^{m+1}\d(1+\d^s) d_{X_T}(u,v) \label{est:d13}.\end{aligned}$$ Let us estimate $F_1$. A use of the triangle inequality tells us that $$\begin{aligned}
F_1 \le{}& C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m ( |u|^{\a-l}(\pa_x u)^{l+1} - |v|^{\a-l}(\pa_x v)^{l+1} ) \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m ( |u|^{\a-1}\pa_x^{l} u \pa_x u - |v|^{\a-1}\pa_x^{l} v \pa_x v) \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m ( |u|^{\a} \pa_x^{l+1} u - |v|^{\a} \pa_x^{l+1} v) \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
=:&{} F_{1,1} +F_{1,2} +F_{1,3}.\end{aligned}$$ It comes from , and [Sobolev embedding]{} that $$\begin{aligned}
F_{1,1} \le{}& C {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m |u|^{\a-l}((\pa_x u)^{l+1} -(\pa_x v)^{l+1}) \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ C {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (|u|^{\a-l}-|v|^{\a-l}) (\pa_x v)^{l+1} \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& CT\d^l (1+\d)d_{X_T}(u,v).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, combining and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
F_{1,3} \le{}& C {\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (|u|^{\a} - |v|^{\a}) \pa_x^{l+1} v \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} + C{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m |u|^{\a} \pa_x^{l+1} (u-v) \right\rVert_{L^{1}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& CT\d d_{X_T}(u,v).\end{aligned}$$ Observe that if $l=4$ we use to estimate $F_{1,3}$. As for $F_{1,2}$, one sees from and that $$\begin{aligned}
F_{1,2}
\le{}& CT{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m |u|^{\a-1} \pa_x^{l} u \pa_x (u-v) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ CT{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m |u|^{\a-1} \pa_x^{l} (u-v) \pa_x v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
&{}+ CT{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m (|u|^{\a-2} - |v|^{\a-2})|u-v| \pa_x^{l} v \pa_x v \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& CT\d d_{X_T}(u,v).\end{aligned}$$ Combining these estimates, it holds that $$\begin{aligned}
F_1 \le CT\d d_{X_T}(u,v) + CT\d^l (1+\d)d_{X_T}(u,v). \label{est:d14}\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, by unifying , and , we establish $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
&{}{\left\lVert {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m \pa_x^l (\P(u)-\P(v)) \right\rVert_{L^{{\infty}}_T L^{2}_x}} \\
\le{}& CT^{1/2}\d d_{X_T}(u,v) + CT\d(1+\d^s) d_{X_T}(u,v)
\end{aligned}
\label{est:d15}\end{aligned}$$ if $T \le 1$. In conclusion, combining with , and , we see that $$\begin{aligned}
d_{X_T}(\P(u),\P(v)) \le \frac12 d_{X_T}(u, v)\end{aligned}$$ as long as $T = T(\d, s)$ is sufficiently small. This tells us $\P$ is a contraction map in $X_T$, that is, has a unique local solution in $X_T$. The reminder of the proof is standard, so we omit the detail. This completes the proof.
Without loss of generality we shall assume $\,x_0=0$. First, we introduce a two parameter family of cut-off functions $\,\chi_{\epsilon, b}$ : for any $\epsilon>0, \,b\geq 5\epsilon$ $$\chi_{\epsilon,b}(x)=
\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
& 0,\;\;\;\;x<\epsilon,\\
&1,\;\;\;\;x>b-\epsilon,
\end{aligned}
\end{cases}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
&\chi'_{\epsilon,b}(x)\geq 0,\;\;\;\operatorname{supp}(\chi_{\epsilon,b})\subseteq [\epsilon,\infty),\;\;\;\operatorname{supp}(\chi'_{\epsilon,b})\subseteq [\epsilon,b-\epsilon],\\
\\
&\chi'_{\epsilon,b}(x)\geq \frac{1}{b-4\epsilon},\;x\in[2\epsilon,b-2\epsilon],\\
\\
&\chi_{\epsilon/2,b}(x)\geq c_{\epsilon,b}(\chi_{\epsilon,b}(x)+\chi'_{\epsilon,b}(x)),\;\;\;\;\;x\in{\mathbb{R}}.
\end{cases}
\end{aligned}$$ .1in By formally taking the $s+j,$ ($j=1,...,l$) derivative of the equation in , multiplying the result by $\,\partial_x^{s+j}u(x,t)\,\chi_{\epsilon,b}(x+vt)$ for arbitrary $\epsilon>0, v>0$ and $\,b\geq 5\epsilon$ and integrating the result in the space variable, after some integration by parts, it follows that $$\label{A3}
\begin{aligned}
&\frac12\frac{d}{dt}\int (\partial_x^{s+j} u)^2(x,t)\chi_{\epsilon,b}(x+vt)\,dx\\
&-\underset{A_1}{ \underbrace{{{\color{black}}\frac{v}{2}} \int (\partial_x^{s+j} u)^2(x,t)\chi_{\epsilon,b}'(x+vt)\,dx}}\\
&+\underset{A_2}{\underbrace{\frac32\int (\partial_x^{s+j+1} u)^2(x,t)\chi_{\epsilon,b}'(x+vt)\,dx}}
\\
&-\underset{A_3}{ \underbrace{\frac12\int (\partial_x^{s+j}u)^2(x,t)\chi_{\epsilon,b}'''(x+vt)\,dx}}\\
&{{\color{black}}\pm} \underset{A_4}{ \underbrace{\int \partial_x^{s+j}(|u|^{\alpha}\partial_x u)\partial_x^{s+j}u(x,t)\,\chi_{\epsilon,b}(x+vt)\,dx}}=0.
\end{aligned}$$ [Note that the above formal computation is justified by arguing as in [@ILP Section 3].]{} The idea is to use the formula and induction argument in $ l\in{\mathbb{Z}}^+$ to establish and . .1in : We observe that the term $A_2$ in is positive. Also, after integration in the time interval $[0,T]$[,]{} the terms $A_1$ and $A_3$ are bounded by using the second statement in . Hence, one just needs to consider the contributions of the term $A_4$ in .
Thus, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A4}
\partial_x^{s+1}(|u|^{\alpha}\partial_xu)=&|u|^{\alpha}\partial_x^{s+2}u+2\alpha |u|^{\alpha-1} \partial_xu\partial^{s+1}_xu+\dots\\
&+c_{\alpha,s}|u|^{\alpha-(s+1)}(\partial_xu)^{s+1}\partial_xu.
\end{aligned}$$
By integration by parts[,]{} one sees that $$\label{A5}
\begin{split}
\int |u|^{\alpha} &\partial_x^{s+2}u\partial_x^{s+1}u(x,t)\,\chi_{\epsilon,b}(x+vt)\,dx\\
=&
-\frac{\alpha}{2} \int {{\color{black}}|u|^{\alpha-2}u} \partial_xu(\partial_x^{s+1}u(x,t))^2\,\chi_{\epsilon,b}(x+vt)\,dx\\
&\;-\frac{1}{2} \int|u|^{\alpha}(\partial_x^{s+1}u(x,t))^2\,\chi'_{\epsilon,b}(x+vt)\,dx={{\color{black}}:} B_1+B_2.
\end{split}$$ Since for $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$ $$\label{A5a}
|u|^{\alpha-1}|\partial_xu|(x,t)\leq c \|{\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m(1-\alpha)}\partial_xu(t)\|_{\infty},$$ combining the facts that after integration in the time interval $[0,T]$[,]{} $$\label{A5b}
\int(\partial_x^{s+1}u(x,t))^2\,\chi'_{\epsilon,b}(x+vt)\,dx$$ is bounded [with]{} $$\label{A5c}
\sup_{0\leq t \leq T}\|u(t)||_{\infty}<\infty,$$ one can control the contributions of the terms $B_1$ and $B_2$ in for $l=1$. The argument to estimate the second term in the right hand side (r.h.d.) of is similar to that already done for $B_{{\color{black}}1}$ in . So it remains to consider the third term in the r.h.s. of . For this we write $$\label{A6}
\begin{aligned}
&|\int |u|^{\alpha-(s+1)}(\partial_xu)^{s+1}\partial_xu\partial_x^{s+1}u(x,t)\,\chi_{\epsilon,b}(x+vt)\,dx|\\
&\leq c {\color{black} \int {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m(s+1-\alpha)}|\partial_x u|^{s+2} |\partial_x^{s+1}u(x,t)|\,|\chi_{\epsilon,b}(x+vt)|\,dx} \\
&\leq c \| {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m}\partial_xu\|_{\infty}^{s+1} \|\partial_xu\|_2 (\int(\partial_x^{s+1}u(x,t))^2\,\chi_{\epsilon,b}(x+vt)\,dx)^{1/2},
\end{aligned}$$ whose contribution can be bounded after using Gronwall’s inequality in .
This basically completes the proof of the case $l=1$ in the induction argument, i.e. and with $j=l=1$. We remark that the terms omitted in (and in the proof of Theorem \[thm:1\]) can be handled as they will be done in the next step, see -. .1in Now assuming the result and for $l=r$ we shall prove it for $l=r+1$.
Thus, we consider the identity with $j=l+1$. As before the term $A_2$ is positive and the term $A_1$ and $A_3$ are bounded by the hypothesis of induction with $l=r$ for an appropriate value of $\epsilon'$ and $R$ there. Therefore, it remains to consider $A_4$ with $\,j=l+1$.
First, we notice that by Theorem \[thm:1\] one has $${\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m\,\partial_x^ku\in L^2({\mathbb{R}}),\;\;\;k=1,\dots,4,$$ and by hypothesis of induction for any $\epsilon>0$ and $b\geq 5\epsilon$ $$\label{A8}
\partial_x^{s+j}u(x,t)\varphi_{\epsilon,b}(x+vt)\in L^2({\mathbb{R}}),\;\;\;j=1,\dots, r,\;\;\;\varphi_{\epsilon,b}(x)=\sqrt{\chi_{\epsilon,b}(x)}.$$ Using that $$\label{A9}
{\left\langle x \right\rangle}^m\,\chi_{\epsilon,b}'(x+vt)\leq c \chi_{\epsilon/2,b}(x+vt),\;\;\;\;\;\;c=c(m;v;t;\epsilon;b),$$ successive integration by parts show that for any $\theta\in[0,1]$ with $\theta k+(1-\theta)(s+r)\in{\mathbb{Z}},\;k=1,2,3,4$ $$\label{A10}
{\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{\theta m}\partial_x^{\theta k+(1-\theta)(s+r)}u(x,t)\varphi_{\epsilon,b}(x+vt)\in L^2({\mathbb{R}}),$$ and by Sobolev embedding $$\label{A11}
{\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{\theta m}\partial_x^{\theta k+(1-\theta)(s+r)-1}u(x,t)\chi_{\epsilon,b}(x+vt)\in L^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}),$$ since the one already has the estimates for the lower order terms.
Thus, we need to estimate the term in $$\label{A12}
\int \partial_x^{s+r+1}(|u|^{\alpha}\partial_x u)\partial_x^{s+r+1}u(x,t)\,\chi_{\epsilon,b}(x+vt)\,dx,$$ so, we write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{A13}
\partial_x^{s+r+1}(|u|^{\alpha}\partial_xu) = &\, |u|^{\alpha}\partial_x^{s+r+2}u+2\alpha |u|^{\alpha-1} \partial_xu\partial^{s+r+1}_xu\\
&+D_{s+r+1}.
\end{aligned}$$ The argument to handle the contribution of the first two terms in the r.h.s. of is similar to that described in - so it will be omitted. Then it remains to consider the contribution of $D_{s+r+1}{{\color{black}}=:}D$ in when it is inserted in the term $A_4$ in with $j=r+1$. We observe that $D$ is the sum of terms which are product of factors involving at derivatives of order at most $s+r$. In fact, one has that $$\label{A15}
D=\sum_{n+\beta_0=s+r+1\atop 0\leq \beta_0\leq s+{{\color{black}}r}-1}\;\sum_{\beta_1+\dots+\beta_n=n>1\atop 1\leq \beta_1,\dots,\beta_n\leq s+r}c_{\vec{\beta}}|u|^{\alpha-n}\,\partial_x^{\beta_1}u\dots\partial_x^{\beta_n}u\,\partial_x^{\beta_0+1}u.$$
When [$D$]{} is inserted in the term $A_4$ in yields an expression of the form $$\label {A16}
\int |u|^{\alpha-n}\,\partial_x^{\beta_1}u\dots\partial_x^{\beta_n}u\,\partial_x^{\beta_0+1}u\partial_x^{s+r+1}u(x,t)\,\chi_{\epsilon,b}(x+vt)\,dx$$ which are bounded in absolute value by $$\label {A17}
\int {\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m(n-\alpha)} {{\color{black}}|} \partial_x^{\beta_1}u\dots\partial_x^{\beta_n}u\,\partial_x^{\beta_0+1}u\partial_x^{s+r+1}u(x,t){{\color{black}}|}\,\chi_{\epsilon,b}(x+vt)\,dx.$$ Consequently, it suffices to see that $$\label{A18}
E_1= \|{\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m(n-\alpha)}\,\partial_x^{\beta_1}u\dots\partial_x^{\beta_n}u\,\partial_x^{\beta_0+1}u\,\varphi(x+vt)\|_2$$ is controlled by a product of the terms in - which have been already bounded in the previous [case]{} $ l=r$. By an appropriate modification of the parameters in $\chi$, see -, one gets $$\label{A19}
\begin{aligned}
E_1\leq
\prod_{j=1}^n & \|{\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m\theta_j}\,\partial_x^{(1-\theta_j)(s+r)+\theta_jk_j-1}u\,\tilde{\chi}\|_{\infty}\\
&{{\color{black}}\times} \|{\left\langle x \right\rangle}^{m\theta_0}\,\partial_x^{(1-\theta_0)(s+r)+\theta_0k_j}u\,\tilde{\varphi}\|_{2}{{\color{black}},} \\
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{A20}
\begin{aligned}
&k_0,\;k_j\in\{1,\dots,4\},\;\;\;j=1,\dots, n,\\
&\beta_j=(1-\theta_j)(s+r)+\theta_jk_j-1,\;\;j=1,\dots,n,\\
& \beta_0=(1-\theta_0)(s+r)+\theta_0k_0-1.
\end{aligned}$$
We shall complete the proof by establishing that $$\label{A21}
\theta_0+\theta_1+\dots+\theta_n\geq n-\alpha.$$ After some computations from one finds that $$\label{A22}
{{\color{black}}n+2}=(n-(\theta_0+\theta_1+\dots+\theta_n))(s+r)+\theta_0k_0+\theta_1k_1+\dots+\theta_nk_n,$$ which implies that $$\label{A23}
\begin{aligned}
\theta_0+\theta_1+\dots+\theta_n&=n+\frac{\theta_0k_0+\theta_1k_1+\dots+\theta_nk_n-{{\color{black}}(n+2)}}{r+s}\\
&\geq n+\frac{\theta_0+\theta_1+\dots+\theta_n-{{\color{black}}(n+2)}}{r+s},
\end{aligned}$$ since $k_0,\;k_j\in\{1,\dots,4\}$ [and $j=1,\dots,n$.]{} Recalling that $n>1\; (n\geq 2)$ [and $s \geq 2/\a +4$]{}, one gets the desired result $$\label{A24}
\theta_0+\theta_1+\dots+\theta_n\geq\,\frac{n(s+r)-{{\color{black}}(n+2)}}{s+r-1} \geq {{\color{black}}n- \frac{2}{r+3+\frac2{\a}}} > n-\alpha.$$
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
This work was done while H.M. was visiting the Department of Mathematics of the University of California at Santa Barbara whose hospitality he gratefully acknowledges. H.M. was supported by the Overseas Research Fellowship Program by National Institute of Technology. F.L. was partially supported by CNPq and FAPERJ/Brazil.
[99]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Order picking is the problem of collecting a set of products in a warehouse in a minimum amount of time. It is currently a major bottleneck in supply-chain because of its cost in time and labor force. This article presents two exact and effective algorithms for this problem. Firstly, a sparse formulation in mixed-integer programming is strengthened by preprocessing and valid inequalities. Secondly, a dynamic programming approach generalizing known algorithms for two or three cross-aisles is proposed and evaluated experimentally. Performances of these algorithms are reported and compared with the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) solver Concorde.'
address: 'Univ.Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, G-SCOP, 38000 Grenoble, France'
author:
- Lucie Pansart
- Nicolas Catusse
- Hadrien Cambazard
title: Exact algorithms for the order picking problem
---
integer programming,order picking,Steiner TSP,TSP,dynamic programming
Introduction \[sec:intro\]
===========================
The order picking activity lies at the heart of logistic. It consists in collecting products from storage in a specific quantity given by a customer order. This process is often considered as the most important warehousing process since it is estimated that it accounts for 55% of the total operational warehouse costs [@tompkins2010facilities]. Many order picking systems are currently used in warehouses. The methods are classified following who picks the orders (humans or machines), who moves (picker or products) and the strategy used. We focus here on manual systems where the order picker moves in a regular rectangular warehouse.
An efficient way to optimize order picking in this case is to reduce picker travel time. Thus, we are concerned with the following issue: **how to optimize the routing time in the warehouse?** This problem is called order picking problem, picker routing problem, or picking problem for sake of simplicity. To the best of our knowledge, this problem cannot be solved in polynomial time, except when the number of cross-aisles is bounded [@roodbergen2001routingDP; @cambazard2015fixed].\
We show in this paper that the problem can be efficiently solved optimally with mixed integer programming using a sparse formulation as well as adequate preprocessing and valid inequalities. Moreover, we extend a dynamic programming algorithm initially proposed by Ratliff and Rosenthal for 2 cross-aisles [@ratliff1983order], to any number of cross-aisles and evaluate it experimentally. It turns out to scale for a number of cross-aisles large enough to deal with real-life warehouses. This approach is however less suited to accommodate side-constraints. This article begins with a description of the picking problem and a literature review (section \[sec:pb\]). Section \[sec:pp\] presents different ways of preprocessing the data to improve algorithms efficiency. Two exact algorithms are then presented in sections \[sec:milp\] and \[sec:pdyn\]. Finally, we report experimental results in section \[sec:results\].
Problem description and literature review \[sec:pb\]
====================================================
We consider a regular rectangular warehouse with a single depot used to take the order and to drop it off. The warehouse is made of $v$ **vertical aisles** and $h$ **horizontal cross-aisles**. Products are located on both sides of vertical aisles. Cross-aisles do not contain any products but enable the order picker to navigate in the warehouse (see Figure \[fig:pb\]). We make two common hypothesis on the warehouse:
Aisles are narrow (the distance for crossing is considered null). \[hyp:narrow\]
All aisle’s lengths are equal. All cross-aisle’s lengths are equal. \[hyp:equi\]
[-3cm]{}[-3cm]{}
An **order** is given by a picking list, *i.e.* a set of $n$ products, indexed from $1$ to $n$ and described by their location in the warehouse. We define by $\mathbf{R}$ the indexes of all locations to visit (the products) including $0$ which is the index of the depot so $R = \{0,\ldots,n\}$. The set $\mathbf{I}$ denotes the indexes of intersections between aisles and cross-aisles of the warehouse, excluding the depot. The set of all relevant locations in the warehouse is therefore $\mathbf{V} = I \cup R$. The problem is stated as follows: given $n$ products to pick in a rectangular warehouse, what is the shortest tour (beginning and ending at the depot) to collect all these products?
It is a particular case of the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP), the well-known $\mathcal{NP}$-hard [@karp1972reducibility] problem, where the salesman is the order picker and cities are products to collect. This problem, introduced by Dantzig, Fulkerson and Johnson in 1954 [@dantzig1954solution], is one of the most studied in Operations Research. The survey of Orman and Williams [@orman2006survey] gives an overview of integer programming formulations for the TSP. Efficient exact algorithms have been designed for the TSP and Concorde is one of the best exact solver (see Hahsler and Hornik [@hahsler2007tsp] or Mulder and Wunsch [@mulder2003million]). To solve the specific case of picking problem, many heuristics have been proposed in particular by Hall [@hall1993distance]. Some performance analysis of the most popular heuristics were made by Petersen [@petersen1997evaluation] and by Roodbergen and De Koster [@roodbergen2001routingH]. Theys, Br[ä]{}ysy, Dullaert and Raa [@theys2010using] proposed to combine classical TSP heuristics with picking heuristics and provided a benchmark which is used in this work.
An exact approach using dynamic programming has been proposed for the first time by Ratliff and Rosenthal in the case of a single block (i.e., 2 cross-aisles) in 1983 [@ratliff1983order]. It was extended by Roodbergen and De Koster [@roodbergen2001routingDP] in the case of three cross-aisles. These algorithms are polynomial in the number of aisles and products of the warehouse and used in heuristics for cases with more than three cross-aisles [@vaughan1999effect; @roodbergen2001routingH]. Cambazard and Catusse developed a dynamic programming approach which can solve any rectilinear TSP [@cambazard2015fixed]. This algorithm can be applied to the picking problem for any rectangular warehouse with $h$ cross-aisles, but it is exponential in $h$. Although this extension was suggested in several articles [@roodbergen2001routingDP; @ratliff1983order], it has never been detailed nor implemented. The reason is that the extensive analysis made by [@ratliff1983order; @roodbergen2001routingDP] of the possible states of the dynamic program does not easily generalize beyond three cross-aisles. We give in section \[sec:pdyn\] a simple and general version of this exact algorithm for any number of cross-aisles to use it as a baseline in the experiments.\
Practical comparisons have been performed between heuristics and exact algorithms, notably by De Koster and Van der Poort [@dekoster1998routing]. They compared the dynamic program with the commonly used S-shape heuristic and conclude that “the numerical results suggest that the savings in travel time may be substantial when using the optimal algorithm instead of the S-shape heuristic”. This result strengthens the motivation for exact and efficient algorithms.
The problem can be seen as a Steiner TSP [@scholz2016new] which is a variant of the TSP proposed independently by Fleischmann [@fleischmann1985cutting] and Cornuéjols, Fonlupt and Naddef in 1985 [@cornuejols1985traveling] although Orloff introduced the idea some years before [@orloff1974fundamental]. Burkard *et al.* [@burkard1998well] categorized the picking problem applied to the case of series-parallel graph in well-solvable special cases of the TSP, which includes warehouses with 2 cross-aisles [@cornuejols1985traveling]. Our Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) model is based on the compact MILP formulations proposed by Letchord, Nasiri and Theis [@letchford2013compact].\
The Steiner TSP (also known as subset TSP) is stated in a directed graph $\mathbf{D=(V,A)}$ (see Figure \[fig:graph\]) where $V$ is the set of vertices and $A$ is the set of arcs, defined as follows: $\forall i,j \in V, \ (ij) \in A \Leftrightarrow $ one of the following conditions holds:
1. $i$ and $j$ are horizontally adjacent intersections (e.g. 4 and 5 in Figure \[fig:graph\]).
2. $i$ and $j$ are extreme intersections of an empty sub-aisle (e.g. 4 and 8).
3. $j$ is an extreme products and $i$ the adjacent intersection (e.g. 3 and 16).
4. $i$ and $j$ are adjacent products (e.g. 2 and 3).
Each arc $(ij)$ is weighted by $d_{ij}$, the distance between $i$ and $j$ in the warehouse. We study here the symmetric TSP, which means the graph D is such that $\forall (ij) \in A : (ji) \in A$ and $d_{ij} = d_{ji}$. We generalize this distance by defining the function $d : V \times V \rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ as follows: $d(i,j)$ is the distance of a shortest path between vertices $i$ and $j$.
We define by $P_{ij}$ the set of all shortest paths between the two products $i$ and $j$. More formally, $P_{ij} = \{ P=(v_0v_1v_2...v_K) | v_0 = i, \, v_K =j, \,(v_{k-1}v_{k})\in A$\
$ \forall k=1...K \text{ and } \sum\limits_{k=1}^K d_{v_{k-1}v_{k}} = d(i,j)$}. The set of **neighbors** of a vertex $i$ is denoted $\Gamma(i)$ so that $\Gamma(i)=\{ j \in V | (ij) \in A\}$. Note that we don’t need to distinguish the successeurs and predecessors of a vertex since they are the same by construction of $D$.
Preprocessing \[sec:pp\]
========================
The size of the problem can be considerably reduced, which is a good lever to reduce computation time. First, we can reduce the size of the picking list, i.e., the number of vertices in $R$. Then, we show how to reduce the number of arcs in the graph, keeping a sufficient set of arcs to find an optimal solution. Figure \[fig:spanner\] shows an example of the impact of the preprocessing.
![Example of an instance and its preprocessing. Red edges show edges forced by the node preprocessing. The instance has 105 vertices and 270 arcs while the preprocessed instance has 65 vertices and 156 arcs.\[fig:spanner\]](i2_sanslayout.png "fig:") ![Example of an instance and its preprocessing. Red edges show edges forced by the node preprocessing. The instance has 105 vertices and 270 arcs while the preprocessed instance has 65 vertices and 156 arcs.\[fig:spanner\]](pp_sanslayout.png "fig:")
Reducing the number of vertices
-------------------------------
In this part, we describe two preprocessings reducing the number of products without changing the problem. The first algorithm must be used only when the solver accepts additional constraints while the second one is general.
Both algorithms are based on the following result due to Ratliff and Rosenthal: in an optimal solution, there exists six unique ways to traverse a sub-aisle (shown in Figure \[fig:6ways\]) [@ratliff1983order]. Case is the only configuration that might not be unique. However, only configurations where the gap between black and white groups is the largest will occur in an optimal solution. The largest gap of a sub-aisle is defined as the longest empty distance between two vertices of a sub-aisle. Several configurations can still exist if the largest gap is not unique in the sub-aisle, but they will all have the same cost in an optimal solution.
### Additional constraints available \[sec:ppbasic\]
In any case, the black vertices are all picked in one go (one after the other) and the white vertices as well. So, for both subsets, we can keep only extreme products and impose an arc to be taken between these two extreme products.
The vertex preprocessing is defined by the following algorithm:\
Note that $S$ and $T$ can be empty or singletons ($t_S = b_S$). Figure \[fig:6waysPP\] shows the result after preprocessing the sub-aisle depicted. The vertices of set $S$ are drawn in black whereas the vertices of $T$ are white. Note that the six configurations have either $(t_S b_S)$ or $(b_S t_S)$ (or both) on one side and either $(t_T b_T)$ or $(b_T t_T)$ (or both) on the other side, hence the constraints added by the preprocessing.
The preprocessing does not change the value of the optimal solution and leaves **at most 4 products** by sub-aisle.
A similar preprocessing was proposed independently by Scholz *et al.* [@scholz2016new], using different constraints to force all the products of one set (S or T) to be picked together.
### With a distance matrix \[sec:ppconcorde\]
When it is not allowed to add constraints, for example when using Concorde, we can still suppress some vertices. Indeed, the constraints added by the preprocessing are required only if the removal of vertices changes the position of the largest gap in the sub-aisle. Thus, we can still suppress vertices as long as the largest gap remains between $b_T$ and $t_S$ (see Figure \[fig:6waysPPC\]).
Reducing the number of arcs
---------------------------
Let’s now focus on the arcs. We compute the minimum 1-spanner in terms of number of edges, i.e., we are looking for a subset of the arcs preserving at least one original shortest path between any pairs of required vertices. The rationale is that any solution of the picking problem gives a tour where two products picked successively are linked by a shortest path. So any optimal solution can be found in a 1-spanner of $G$.
A **k-spanner** of a graph $G$ is a sub-graph $H \subset G$ such that:
- $H$ contains all the vertices of $G$.
- The distance between each pair of vertices in $H$ is at most $k$ times their distance in $G$.
In our case, we search for a minimum “1-spanner” in the Steiner graph, restricted to the required vertices, which can also be seen as a particular case of the Minimum Manhattan Network. Let’s consider the undirected graph $G = (V = I \cup R , E)$ where $E$ is defined as $A$ by removing orientation. We search for a subgraph of $G$ such that between each pair $(i,j)$ of required vertices there exists a shortest path which keeps the initial distance $d(i,j)$. Namely we search a graph $H = (V_H, E_H) $ such that: $R \subset V_H $, $V_H \subset V$, $E_H \subset E$ and $\forall i,j \in V_H : \exists $ a $(i,j)$-path $P \in H | \sum\limits_{(uv)\in P} d_{uv} = d(i,j)$.\
To compute a minimum 1-spanner, we choose the minimum set of edges with respect to the preceding properties. We use an integer linear program to solve the problem of the **1-spanner**, based on a model for the Minimum Manhattan Network from Benkert *et al.* ([@benkert2006minimum]). The resulting set of selected edges $E^*$ forms the 1-spanner which can be used to state the Steiner TSP.
The Minimum Manhattan Network is $\mathcal{NP}$-hard [@chin2011minimum] but its resolution with MILP turns out to be really fast in practice for the benchmark considered. Finally, note that we don’t need to compute the optimal network and any feasible 1-spanner can be used for preprocessing.
MILP formulation \[sec:milp\]
=============================
The Steiner variant of the TSP was proposed by Cornuéjols, Fonlupt and Naddef in 1985 [@cornuejols1985traveling]. It was introduced especially to solve problems where the graph is sparse. The principle is that the graph contains some **required vertices** which **must** be visited and some **Steiner vertices** which **can** be visited. Moreover, in a Steiner Traveling Salesman Problem (STSP), the graph is not complete and edges as well as **vertices can be visited more than once**. In this section, we apply a Steiner approach to the picking problem.
We define the Steiner graph from the directed graph modeling an instance (see Figure \[fig:graph\]): the required vertices are the products plus the depot and the Steiner vertices are the intersections in the warehouse. We look for a shortest tour in this graph, going through all the required vertices **at least** once.
Flow-based formulation \[ssec:scfs\]
------------------------------------
We can use the compact single commodity flow formulation proposed by Letchford, Nasiri and Theis [@letchford2013compact]. It follows the flow principle: the order picker leaves the depot with $n$ units of a commodity and delivers one unit each time he picks a product.\
We define the variables: $\forall (ij) \in A $\
$ x_{ij} = \left\{
\begin{aligned} &1 \text{ if the tour uses the arc $(ij)$} \\
&0 \text{ otherwise} \\
\end{aligned} \right. $\
$ y_{ij} = $ amount of commodity passing through arc $(ij)$.\
The solution of the STSP is then found by solving the following mixed-integer linear program further called **SCFS**, standing for Single Commodity Flow Formulation for a Steiner TSP: \[SCFS\]\
[crllcr]{} \*[$(SCFS)$]{} & $z^* = min \quad $& $\sum\limits_{(ij)\in A} d_{ij}x_{ij} $& &[$(\theequation)$]{}\[eq:SCFS\_obj\] &\
& s.t. & $\sum\limits_{j\in \Gamma(i)} x_{ij} \geq 1$ & $\forall i \in R $ & [$(\theequation)$]{}\[eq:SCFS\_ass1\]&\
&& $\sum\limits_{j\in \Gamma(i)} x_{ij} = \sum\limits_{j\in \Gamma(i)} x_{ji} \quad$ &$\forall i \in V $ & [$(\theequation)$]{}\[eq:SCFS\_ass2\] &\
&& $\sum\limits_{j\in \Gamma(i)} y_{ji} - \sum\limits_{j\in \Gamma(i)} y_{ij} = 1 \quad$ &$\forall i \in R\setminus\{0\} $ & [$(\theequation)$]{}\[eq:SCFS\_flowR\] &\
&& $\sum\limits_{j\in \Gamma(i)} y_{ji} - \sum\limits_{j\in \Gamma(i)} y_{ij} = 0 \quad$ &$\forall i \in V\setminus\{R\} $ & [$(\theequation)$]{}\[eq:SCFS\_flowS\] &\
&&$ y_{ij} \leq n x_{ij}$ & $\forall (ij) \in A $ & [$(\theequation)$]{}\[eq:SCFS\_ybound\]&\
&& $x_{ij} \in \mathbb{N}$ &$\forall (ij) \in A $ & [$(\theequation)$]{}\[eq:SCFS\_xdomain\]&\
&& $y_{ij} \geq 0$ &$\forall (ij) \in A $ & [$(\theequation)$]{}\[eq:SCFS\_ydomain\]&
$ $\
Constraints ensure that each required vertex is visited **at least** once. Constraints ensure that the tour arrives in any vertex as many times as it leaves it. The flow constraints are different depending on whether a vertex is required or not: constraints impose that the order picker delivers one unit of the commodity to each product while constraints impose that the flow stays the same through a non-required vertex. Constraints link the $y$ to the $x$ variables so that if some flow transits through $(ij)$ then the arc $(ij)$ is chosen.
The variables $y$ are real variables (8) but the optimal solution will be integer due to the fact that $y$ represent a flow.
We know from Lemma 1 in Letchford, Nasiri and Theis [@letchford2013compact] that every optimal solution of the STSP uses an arc at most once and thus satisfies $x_{ij}\leq 1$, $\forall (ij) \in A $. It is therefore sufficient to define $x$ as a positive integer (constraints ). So the linear relaxation amounts to $x_{ij} \geq 0$.
This formulation is compact and really sparse, especially thanks to the preprocessings described above. However, we notice that the quality of the lower bound given by the linear relaxation is weaker than the one given by a more standard formulation as it is explained below.
Theoretical study of the formulation
------------------------------------
In this section, we compare the formulation described above with a standard flow-based formulation for the TSP. We consider the problem of finding a shortest tour in the complete and directed graph composed of all the products and where the distance between two vertices is the shortest distance in the warehouse. For sake of simplicity, we use the directed version of the TSP. Thus, we compare the standard single-commodity flow formulation for the TSP (as defined by Gavish & Graves [@gavish1978travelling]) with the single-commodity flow formulation described above for the Steiner TSP.
We recall the Gavish and Graves formulation (denoted by **SCF**), adapted to a directed graph:
[crllcr]{} \*[$(SCF)$]{} & $z'^* = min \quad $& $\sum\limits_{\substack{i,j\in R\\i\neq j}} d(i,j)x'_{ij}$& &[$(\theequation)$]{}\[eq:SCF\_obj\] &\
& s.t. & $\sum\limits_{\substack{j\in R\\j\neq i}} x'_{ij} = 1$ & $\forall i \in R $ & [$(\theequation)$]{}\[eq:SCF\_ass1\]&\
&& $\sum\limits_{\substack{j\in R\\j\neq i}} x'_{ji} = 1$ &$\forall i \in R $ & [$(\theequation)$]{}\[eq:SCF\_ass2\] &\
&& $\sum\limits_{\substack{j\in R\\j\neq i}} y'_{ji} - \sum\limits_{\substack{j\in R\\j\neq i}}y'_{ij} = 1 \quad$ &$\forall i \in R\setminus\{0\} $ & [$(\theequation)$]{}\[eq:SCF\_flow\] &\
&&$ y'_{ij} \leq n x'_{ij}$ & $\forall i,j \in R, \ i\neq j $ & [$(\theequation)$]{}\[eq:SCF\_ybound\]&\
&& $x'_{ij} \in \{0,1\}$ &$\forall i,j \in R, \ i\neq j $ & [$(\theequation)$]{}\[eq:SCF\_xdomain\]&\
&& $y'_{ij} \geq 0$ &$\forall i,j \in R , \ i\neq j $ & [$(\theequation)$]{}\[eq:SCF\_ydomain\]&\
$ $\
Constraints and are usual assignment constraints ensuring that each vertex is visited **exactly** once. Constraints ensure that, except for the depot, the salesman deliver one unit at each vertex and retains the rest of the flow. Constraints are *Big-M* constraints linking $y$ and $x$. Finally, the objective is to minimize the total distance of the tour.
To compare both formulations, we define a projection $proj$ which projects a fractional solution of (SCF) in the space of (SCFS) by keeping the distance value. The idea is to divide the value $x'$ between two required vertices on all the shortest paths.
$$\begin{aligned}
proj: & & \mathbb{R}^{|R|^2} \rightarrow & \mathbb{R}^{|A|} & \\
& & x' \rightarrow & x
\end{aligned}$$
Where $proj (x')$ is defined by: $$x_{uv} = \sum\limits_{i,j\in R}\sum\limits_{\substack{P\in P_{ij} \\ (uv) \in P}} \frac{x'_{ij}}{|P_{ij}|} \ \forall (uv) \in A$$
By construction, the conservation is checked at each vertex (property ) and each required vertex is “visited” at least as many times as in the standard TSP solution (property ). A required vertex can be visited more if it lies on a shortest path between two other required vertices.
Let $x' \in \mathbb{R}^{|R|^2}$ and $x = proj(x')$. Then: $$(i) \:\: \sum\limits_{j\in \Gamma(i)}x_{ij} \geq \sum\limits_{j\in R} x'_{ij} \ \forall i \in R \ \label{eq:P1_1}$$
$$(ii) \:\: \sum\limits_{j\in \Gamma(i)}x_{ij} = \sum\limits_{j\in \Gamma(i)}x_{ji} \ \forall i \in V \label{eq:P1_2}$$
$$(iii) \:\: \sum\limits_{(ij)\in A}x_{ij}d_{ij} = \sum\limits_{i,j\in R}x'_{ij}d(i,j)$$
The linear relaxation of the Steiner single commodity flow formulation (SCFS) is **weaker** than the linear relaxation of the standard TSP single commodity flow formulation (SCF).
$ $ Every projection of an optimal solution of SCF is feasible in SCFS, so $z_{LP}'^* \geq z_{LP}^*$ and there exists a case for which $z_{LP}'^* \neq z_{LP}^*$ so that SCF is a better formulation than SCFS. The two cases are detailed below:
- $z_{LP}^* \leq z_{LP}'^* $
Let $(x',y')$ an optimal fractional solution of the linear relaxation of (SCF) and $(x,y) = (proj(x'),proj(y'))$. Then $(x,y)$ is a feasible solution for the linear relaxation of (SCFS) since:
- Assignment constraints are respected due to the property of $proj$.
- Conservation constraints are respected due to the property of $proj$.
- For the same reasons, the flow constraints and are respected.
- Constraints is respected: since the transformation is the same on $x'$ and $y'$ to obtain $x$ and $y$, the ratio is kept: $ \frac{y_{uv}}{x_{uv}} = \frac{y'_{ij}}{x'_{ij}} \leq n$ so\
$ y_{uv} \leq nx_{uv}\ \forall (uv) \in P_{ij}, \forall i,j \in R$
Thus, $(x,y)$ is feasible for $SCFS$ and $z_{LP}=z_{LP}'$.
- $z_{LP}^* \neq z_{LP}'^* $
We consider an example with 3 products and show that $z_{LP}^*\leq 18 < z_{LP}'^* = 20$. Figure \[fig:representations\] shows the representations of this example with the Steiner graph and with the complete graph.
Solving the linear relaxation of (SCF) leads to $z_{LP}'^* = 20$ because of constraints (10) and (11). On the other side, we can easily build a feasible solution of the linear relaxation of (SCFS) with a cost $18$ as shown on Figure \[fig:feassol\]. Thus, in this example we have $z^{*}_{LP} < z'^{*}_{LP}$.
In the following, we introduce improvements to offset the weakness of the initial formulation and get closer, or overcome, the quality of the Standard TSP single-commodity flow formulation.
Strengthening of the bound\[sssec:bf\]
--------------------------------------
Constraints are big-M constraints that make the formulation quite weak and can be improved following Letchford, Nasiri and Theis [@letchford2013compact].
Without loss of generality, we can assume that the order picker delivers the unit of commodity due to each required vertex at his first visit. Due to the warehouse structure, a minimum number $n_R(i)$ of required vertices might have to be visited before visiting vertex $i$ (in particular after preprocessing). We can apply a shortest path algorithm to compute $n_R(i)$ and reinforce the bound on $y_{ij}$. Constraints are replaced by: $$y_{ij} \leq \left(n - n_R(i)\right) x_{ij} \ \forall i \in V, j\in \Gamma(i) \label{eq:SCFS_ybound+}\\$$
Additional cuts
---------------
The Dantzig-Johnson-Fulkerson formulation based on sub-tour elimination constraints is the most well known formulation of the TSP and exhibits a very strong linear relaxation. We consider here a polynomial number of sub-tour elimination constraints depending on the warehouse dimensions rather than the number of products. In the single-flow formulation, the connectivity between all the required vertices is guaranteed. However, because of the big-M constraints , the fractional value of $x$ can be really small. Many sets of vertices are violating the sub-tour elimination constraints in practice. We focus on sets defined as cuts $(S,\bar{S})$ partitioning the warehouse into two subsets $S$, $\bar{S} \subset V$ where $S\cap R \neq \emptyset$ and $\bar{S}\cap R \neq \emptyset$. In other words, each subset contains at least one required vertex. Thus, there must be at least one arc going from $S$ to $\bar{S}$ and at least one arc going from $\bar{S}$ to $S$. The following valid inequality is added for each cut $(S,\bar{S})$: $$x\left(S:\bar{S}\right) \geq 1$$
It is easy to see, with constraints of conservation that this inequality is sufficient to impose also $x\left(\bar{S}:S\right) \geq 1$
![Examples of the different cuts in a warehouse \[fig:cuts\]](coupes.png)
We introduce the following cuts (see Figure \[fig:cuts\]):
- Line cuts: horizontal (resp. vertical) cuts $C = (S,\bar{S})$ separating the warehouse horizontally (resp. vertically). See cuts (a) and (b) on Figure \[fig:cuts\].
- Corner boxes cuts: we can combine horizontal and vertical cuts to create boxes attached to a corner of a warehouse. See cut (c) on Figure \[fig:cuts\].
- Sub-aisle connexity: we define $S \subset V$ as a set of adjacent vertices in the same sub-aisle ($|S| \geq 2$). See cut (d) on Figure \[fig:cuts\]. There exists at most 6 sets of adjacent vertices in a sub-aisle since there are at most 4 products.
- Cross cuts: S is defined as the interval between the highest product and the lowest product of two adjacent sub-aisles in the same aisle. See cut (e) on Figure \[fig:cuts\].
Note that the total number of cuts considered is polynomial in the size of the warehouse (complexity in $\mathcal{O}(h v) $). We can also add valid inequalities implied by the structure of the graph:
- Intersection connexity: a path reaching an intersection (except the depot) can not immediately backtrack in an optimal solution. Namely, if an arc comes in an intersection, i.e, a Steiner vertex, by one side, an arc must go out by **another** side. Thus, we add the following constraints:\
$$\begin{aligned}
x_{ij} \leq \sum\limits_{k \in \Gamma(i)\setminus \{j\}} x_{ki} \quad \forall i \in I , j \in \Gamma(i) \\
x_{ji} \leq \sum\limits_{k \in \Gamma(i)\setminus \{j\}} x_{ik} \quad \forall i \in I, j \in \Gamma(i)\end{aligned}$$
- Patterns: we can identify logical implications from the 6 ways to go through a sub-aisle. We recall that a sub-aisle is surrounded by two intersections (denoted $s$ and $t$) and, after the preprocessing, contains at most 4 products (denoted $a$,$b$,$c$,$d$).
[m[8cm]{}r]{} $ $ &\
$x_{sd} \Rightarrow x_{dc} \text{ and } x_{ds} \Rightarrow x_{cd} $ &\
$ $ &\
$x_{ta} \Rightarrow x_{ab} \text{ and } x_{at} \Rightarrow x_{dc}$ &\
$ $ &\
$x_{cb} \Rightarrow x_{dc} \wedge x_{ba} \text{ and } x_{bc} \Rightarrow x_{ab} \wedge x_{cd}$ &\
$ $ &
They are added as linear constraints thanks to the following scheme: $ P \Rightarrow Q $ is linearized into $P\leq Q$ and $P \Rightarrow Q \wedge R $ is linearized into $z \geq Q + R - 1$, $z \leq Q$, $z \leq R$ and $P\leq z$, where $P$, $Q$, $R$ and $z$ are boolean variables.
Finally, notice that any tour leads to a symmetric one by reversing the direction of traversal. Although constraints can be added to break this symmetry, it did not pay off in our experiments and they were removed.
Dynamic programming \[sec:pdyn\]
================================
A dynamic programming algorithm has been proposed by Ratliff and Rosenthal for the picking problem in a rectangular warehouse with two cross-aisles in 1983 [@ratliff1983order]. It was extended in 2001 to the case of three cross-aisles by Roodbergen and De Koster [@roodbergen2001routingDP]. More generally, the rectilinear TSP can be solved by dynamic programming using the very same ideas. An algorithm, proposed by Cambazard and Catusse [@cambazard2015fixed], is proved to have a $O(hn7^h)$ (or more precisely $O(hv7^h)$) runtime complexity where $n$ cities are located on $h$ horizontal lines and $v$ vertical lines. The distance considered between any pair of cities is the $l_1$ (rectilinear or manhattan) distance. This algorithm is directly applicable to the picking problem which can be seen as a specific case. We will now give the key ideas and a summary of this approach in the present section. We refer the reader to [@cambazard2015fixed] for the details and in particular the proofs of correctness and complexity analysis.
We consider the problem in an undirected grid graph such as the one shown in Figure \[fig:graph\]. The set of vertices located on a vertical aisle or two adjacent vertical aisles is a planar **separator** of this grid graph (e.g. $\{5,9,14\}$, $\{d,9,14\}$ or $\{d,10,14\}$ are separators in the graph of Figure \[fig:graph\]). The rationale of the dynamic programming algorithm is that the problem can be split into two sub-problems, to the right and to the left of a separator by considering all the possible configurations of the separator (degree parity of the vertices and connected components described below). The algorithm builds a **tour subgraph** that can be directed as a post-processing step to obtain a picking tour. An example of such tour subgraph is shown on Figure \[toursbg\].
![The black edges represent a partial tour subgraph and the dashed edges represent one possible completion to a complete tour subgraph. The white vertices in the gray area represents the current state {(E,E,E)(1,1,2)}. \[toursbg\]](partial_graph.pdf "fig:") \[fig:partial\_graph\]
States
------
A state of the dynamic program is a possible configuration of a separator. In the following, such a state $\omega$ is denoted $\omega = \{(x_1, \ldots, x_h),(c_1, \ldots, c_h)\}$ where $x_i \in \{U,E,0\}$ and $c_i$ are respectively the parity label and the connected component of the $i$-th vertex of $\omega$. We use the same notation as Ratliff and Rosenthal [@ratliff1983order] to describe degree parities: even = E, odd = U (uneven) and zero = 0. Connected components are described by their indices or “$-$” for a zero degree. Figure \[toursbg\] gives an example of a state where all vertices have an even degree and belong to two distinct connected components.
Transitions
-----------
There are two types of transitions between states: vertical and horizontal transitions, corresponding to the decisions made on vertical or horizontal edges of the grid graph. Horizontal transitions are of three kinds: no edge, a single edge or a double edge. Vertical transitions are of the six kinds identified by Ratliff and Rosenthal [@ratliff1983order]: no edge, a single edge, a single double edge, two double edges connected to the top vertex, two double edges connected to the bottom vertex and four double edges defined by the largest gap (see Figure \[fig:6ways\]).
$\omega_0 \leftarrow \{(0,\ldots,0), (-,\ldots,-)\}$; $T(w_0, 0) = 0$; $Layer_0 \leftarrow \{w_0\}$ $l \leftarrow 0$ \[line4\] $Layer_{l+1} \leftarrow \emptyset$ \[line5\] \[line6\] $\omega' \leftarrow \omega + tr$ \[line7\] \[lcheck\] \[line10\] $T(\omega', l+1)\leftarrow T(\omega, l) + length(tr)$ $T(\omega', l+1)\leftarrow T(\omega, l) + length(tr)$ $Layer_{l+1} \leftarrow Layer_{l+1} \cup \{\omega'\}$ \[line14\] $l \leftarrow l+1$ $w_{opt} \leftarrow {\arg\!\min}_{\omega \in L_{hv}} T(\omega, hv)$ $w_{opt}$
Outline of the algorithm
------------------------
Algorithm \[algogo\] processes the edges of the grid graph from bottom to top and then from left to right (line \[line4\]). Typically on Figure \[fig:graph\], the edges would be considered in the following order: (4,8), (8,13), (4,5), (8,9), (13,14), (5,9) and so on. All the states obtained after adding $l$ transitions (denoted $Layer_l$) belong to the l-th layer and the algorithm can be seen as a shortest path algorithm in a layered graph (see Figure \[fig:gpdyn\]). From any state (line \[line5\]), the possible transitions are considered (line \[line6\]); three or six depending if the edge considered is a vertical or horizontal one. We denote by $T(\omega, l)$ the value of the shortest path to reach state $\omega$ located on layer $l$. Lines \[line7\]-\[line14\] update the possible states of the next layer (l+1) by extending the considered state $\omega$ of layer $l$ with the considered transition $tr$. The new state $\omega'$ might not be a valid tour subgraph and it is checked line \[lcheck\]. For instance, a partial tour subgraph is not valid if a vertex is left with an odd number of incident edges, if a product is not collected (zero degree) or if it has more than one connected component on the last layer (since the final tour subgraph must be connected). A shortest partial tour subgraph might be already known to reach $\omega'$ and this is checked line \[line10\].
An illustrative execution of the algorithm is given Figure \[fig:gpdyn\], where a particular path is outlined showing the relation between states and partial tour subgraphs.
![Example of the graph underlying the dynamic programming algorithm. Each layer is identified with a value of l. Three transitions are possible from each state. The partial toursubgraph obtained by following the black path is shown on the bottom right corner. \[fig:gpdyn\]](graphepdyn_orient.pdf)
Experimental results \[sec:results\]
====================================
Implementation
--------------
We used the CPLEX Java API (version 12.6) to solve the different linear programs. An initial upper bound is given as “warm start” and obtained with the Lin-Kernighan heuristic [@helsgaun2000effective] implemented in the software LKH (freely available at <http://webhotel4.ruc.dk/~keld/research/LKH/>). This gives a better comparison with the TSP solver Concorde that takes advantage of an initial accurate upper bound[@applegate2003chained]. The instances solved come from an academic benchmark proposed by Theys, Dullaert and Herroelen [@theys2007routing]. Some of these instances seem bigger than realistic data, but allow to test the limits of the algorithms and to perform a comparison with previously published results on the exact same instances [@theys2010using]. Experiments were performed on an Intel Xeon E5-2440 v2 @ 1.9 GHz processor and 32 GB of RAM. The experiments ran with a memory limit of 8 GB of RAM.
Description of the instances
----------------------------
The benchmark of Theys *et al.* contains 108 classes of instances, where a class is defined by 5 parameters described in Table \[tab:instances\]. The storage policy is either random-based or volume-based. A random policy means the products are randomly affected in the warehouse. A volume-based policy means a twenty percent of the most demanded items are located near the first cross-aisle. For more details on the instance, see Theys *et al.* [@theys2010using].
parameter values
-------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
the number of vertical aisles { 5, 15, 60 }
the number of cross-aisles { 3, 6, 11 }
the number of products in the picking list { 15, 60, 240 }
the storage policy { volume (V), random (R) }
the location of the depot in the warehouse { central, decentral }
: Parameters and values of the instances \[tab:instances\]
Early experiments showed that the location of the depot (central or decentral) does not affect the efficiency of our models. Thus, we report our results on the 54 classes with a central depot where each class contains 10 instances.
Results
-------
The performances of the following algorithms are compared:
- SCFS: the basic Steiner single commodity flow formulation
- SCFS\_PP: SCFS with preprocessing of section \[sec:pp\]
- SCFS+: SCFS with preprocessing and the additional valid inequalities
- SCF+: the standard single commodity flow formulation with vertex preprocessing \[sec:ppbasic\]
- CDE: Concorde
- CDE+: Concorde with preprocessed input (described in section \[sec:ppconcorde\])
- PDYN: dynamic programming (section \[sec:pdyn\])
To start with, we report an analysis of the problem’s size, which is the biggest advantage of the SCFS formulation. Then, we look at the strength of the linear relaxation of each formulation and note that SCFS strongly benefits from the improvements proposed. In the end, we compare resolution times. The tables report the average value of the quantity studied (size, gap, cpu times) for all instances restricted to the value of the parameter given as the column header.
#### Size analysis
[-.5in]{}[-.5in]{}
[1.3]{}[|c|c| \*[11]{}[|>X]{}|]{} & & & & &\
& & R & V & 5 & 15 & 60 & 3 & 6 & 11 & 15 & 60 & 240\
TSP & 20580 & 20580 & 20580 & 20580 & 20580 &20580 & 20580 & 20580 & 20580 & 240 & 3660 & 57840\
TSP+ & 6676 & 9228 & 4123 & 2319 & 6042 & 11665 & 3744 & 7238 & 9046 & 217 & 2350 & 17460\
Evolution & -68% & -55% & -80% & -89% & -71% & -43% & -82% & -65% & -56% & -9% & -36% & -70%\
Steiner & 768 & 790 & 746 & 192 & 481 & 1633 & 355 & 705 & 1245 & 678 & 743 & 884\
Steiner+ & 474 & 543 & 405 & 157 & 347 & 917 & 267 & 456 & 698 & 216 & 446 & 760\
Evolution & -38% & -31% & -46% & -18% & -28% & -44% & -25% & -35% & -44% & -68% & -40% & -14%\
Table \[tab:size\] shows the number of arcs in the TSP case (complete graph) and in the Steiner graph with and without the preprocessing \[sec:pp\]. The lines “Evolution” show the percentage of arcs removed when the preprocessing is applied. We notice that the preprocessing is really more efficient in the TSP case due to the completeness of the graph. We also notice that the number of aisles, cross-aisles and products have an opposite effect depending on the solver. Finally note that the number of arcs in the Steiner graph is much smaller than in the complete graph which significantly improve the memory scaling of the MILP formulations.
#### Analysis of lower bounds
[-.5in]{}[-.5in]{}
[1.3]{}[|c|c| \*[11]{}[|>X]{}|]{} & & & & &\
& & R & V & 5 & 15 & 60 & 3 & 6 & 11 & 15 & 60 & 240\
SCFS & 46.4% & 43.12% & 49.68% & 34.85% & 45.8% & 58.53% & 41.95% & 47.13% & 50.11% & 46.9% & 45.24% & 47.05%\
SCFS\_PP & 39.32% & 37.41% & 41.22% & 24.49% & 38.91% & 54.55% & 33.23% & 40.68% & 44.03% & 44.74% & 40.55% & 32.65%\
SCFS+ & 1.4% & 1.68% & 1.13% & 2.7% & 1.05% & 0.46% & 1.72% & 1.28% & 1.21% & 0.4% & 1.21% & 2.6%\
[-.5in]{}[-.5in]{}
[1.3]{}[|c|c| \*[11]{}[|>X]{}|]{} & & & & &\
& & R & V & 5 & 15 & 60 & 3 & 6 & 11 & 15 & 60 & 240\
SCFS+ & 0.65% & 1.01% & 0.29% & 1.33% & 0.36% & 0.27% & 0.81% & 0.53% & 0.61% & 0.04% & 0.34% & 1.59%\
SCF+ & 6.44% & 7.47% & 5.48% & 2.39% & 4.73% & 13.3% & 7.6% & 6.27% & 5.34% & 0.37% & 5.09% & 15.36%\
CDE+ &\
Table \[tab:scfs\_comp2\] compares the average gap between the **linear relaxation** and the optimal value for each parameter and for the different single-commodity flow formulations. The gap is computed as $\frac{z^{*} - z^*_{LP}}{z^*} \times 100 $. The results clearly demonstrate that the improvements proposed are very effective to strengthen the linear relaxation. The gap moves from 46% to 1% in average without increasing significantly the computing time which moves from 0.07 second to 0.2 second in average. To compare our results to Concorde (see Table \[tab:scfs\_comp21\]), we observe the gap between the **lower bound at the root node** of the search tree and the optimal value. This lower bound is better than the linear relaxation since CPLEX and Concorde apply many techniques to improve it.
SCFS+ has a strong linear relaxation despite the fact that the initial formulation SCFS is weaker than all the other ones. In practice, we observe that the linear relaxation of the improved Steiner single commodity flow formulation (SCFS+) is significantly **stronger** than the linear relaxation of the improved standard single commodity flow formulation (SCF+).
#### Performances
We set a time-limit of 30 minutes for SCFS+ and SCF+. Some instances were unsolved in this time limit. Table \[tab:bad\_comp\] shows the number of unsolved instances after 30 minutes of processing depending on the different parameters.
[-.5in]{}[-.5in]{}
[1.3]{}[|c|c| \*[11]{}[|>X]{}|]{} & & & & &\
& & R & V & 5 & 15 & 60 & 3 & 6 & 11 & 15 & 60 & 240\
SCFS+ & 18 & 18 & 0 & 1 & 4 & 13 & 1 & 2 & 15 & 0 & 0 & 18\
SCF+ & 136 & 88 & 48 & 19 & 34 & 83 & 51 & 41 & 44 & 0 & 26 & 110\
PDYN & 180 & 90 & 90 & 60 & 60 & 60 & 0 & 0 & 180 & 60 & 60 & 60\
\# instances & 540 & 270 & 270 & 180 & 180 & 180 & 180 & 180 & 180 & 180 &180 &180\
[-.5in]{}[-.5in]{}
[1.3]{}[|c|c| \*[11]{}[|>X]{}|]{} & & & & &\
& & R & V & 5 & 15 & 60 & 3 & 6 & 11 & 15 & 60 & 240\
SCFS+ & 1.3% & 1.3% & - & 0.85% & 0.46% & 1.59% & 0.23% & 0.29% & 1.51% & - & - & 1.3%\
SCF+ & 19.63% & 19.1% & 20.51% & 10.19% & 18.8% & 23.45% & 16.37% & 21.19% & 23.91% & - & 7.79% & 23.47%\
The improved Steiner formulation completely outperforms the standard compact TSP formulation. It still cannot solve some instances but they are from only 5 classes from the biggest ones and only with a random policy (15\_11\_240\_R, 5\_11\_240\_R 60\_11\_240\_R, 60\_3\_240\_R, 60\_6\_240\_R). On the other hand, instances from 16 classes cannot be solved by the SCF solver. The only parameter guaranteeing an optimal resolution is \# products = 15. Moreover, as the Table \[tab:scfs\_badgap\] shows, the gap between the lower and upper bounds is really smaller for the SCFS+, which indicates that the upper bound can be used as a good feasible solution.\
The dynamic program solves all the instances with less than 11 cross-aisles. This is a known limitation of this approach since the algorithm has an exponential complexity in the number of cross-aisles.
To compare resolution time, we choose the instances solved in less than 30 minutes by solver SCFS+. Formulation SCF+ has too many unsolved instances after this time limit so it appears irrelevant to include it in the comparison. Table \[tab:time\_comp\] shows the numerical results. For each parameter, SCFS+ is slower than Concorde and dynamic programming. However, on many instances the computing time is reasonable.\
We also included results for solver CDE to show the impact of the preprocessing on the Concorde solver. Note that, with the preprocessing, any instance of the entire benchmark of [@theys2010using] can be solved optimally in less than 1 minute by Concorde.\
The dynamic programming approach is the quickest since all the accepted instances are solved in less than a second.
[-.5in]{}[-.5in]{}
[1.3]{}[|c|c| \*[11]{}[|>X]{}|]{} & & & & &\
& & R & V & 5 & 15 & 60 & 3 & 6 & 11 & 15 & 60 & 240\
SCFS+ & 36.07 & 61.21 & 12.62 & 23.89 & 56.96 & 27.12 & 3.44 & 35.88 & 71.69 & 0.07 & 4.05 & 111.64\
PDYN & 0.27 & 0.28 & 0.27 & 0.05 & 0.16 & 0.61 & 0 & 0.54 & - & 0.24 & 0.27 & 0.30\
CDE & 6.86 & 12.8 & 0.93 & 17.61 & 2.11 & 0.88 & 14.82 & 3.89 & 1.88 & 0.01 & 0.13 & 20.45\
CDE+ & 1.60 & 2.97 & 0.23 & 3.45 & 1.04 & 0.30 & 2.20 & 1.55 & 1.04 & <0.01 & 0.1 & 4.68\
#### Instances from Scholz *et al*
Scholz *et al.* introduced other instances for the case of a single-block layout [@scholz2016new].
parameter values
---------------------------------------- ---------------------------
number of products in a sub-aisle 45
number of cross-aisles 2
number of vertical aisles { 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 }
number of products in the picking list { 30, 45, 60, 75, 90 }
location of the depot in the warehouse decentral
: Parameters and values of the Scholz instances \[tab:Sinstances\]
The parameters are given in table \[tab:Sinstances\] and form 30 classes of instances. For each one of their classes, we generated 10 instances of the same size. As expected, since these instances have only one block, the dynamic program is extremely efficient and solves any instance optimally in less than a second. Our MILP model also provides optimal solution for all instances almost instantaneously. Indeed, the maximal time of resolution is 6.7 seconds for the biggest instance (30 aisles and 90 products) and the average on all the instances is 0.28 seconds. Moreover, the model introduced by Scholz *et al.* fails to find the optimal solution for 44 instances. Table \[tab:Stime\_comp\] details the computation time to find the optimal solution for these solvers. Please note that our instances are not exactly the same than those solved by Scholz *et al.* but were generated with the same parameters.
[-.5in]{}[-.5in]{}
[1.3]{}[|c|c| \*[14]{}[|>X]{}|]{} & & &\
& & 5 &10 & 15 & 20 & 25 & 30 & 30 & 45 & 60 & 75 & 90\
Scholz & 167.7 & 0.11 & 1.21 & 10.54 & 170.91 & 314.56 & 508.87 & 45.53 & 87.56 & 149.03 & 233.24 & 323.14\
SCFS+ & 0.28 & 0.06 & 0.09 & 0.13 & 0.34 & 0.54 & 0.54 & 0.07 & 0.13 & 0.25 & 0.38 & 0.6\
PDYN & $<$ 0.001 &\
#### Discussion
A number of fast heuristics have been proposed in the past to solve the order picking problem without any guarantee of optimality. And some of these heuristics have been improved to achieve better solution at the expanse of their running time[@theys2010using]. Note that the dynamic program proposed in this paper can solve instances up to 6 cross-aisles with an average time of 0.27 seconds *i.e.*, the same order of running time reported in Theys et al (between 0.34 and 0.43 seconds for 3 and 6 cross-aisles) for advanced heuristics. We also showed that the use of Concorde with the preprocessing we propose in this paper gives excellent results even beyond 6 cross-aisles. In average, the computation time is less than 2 seconds to compute an exact solution and this method can be applied on instances of any size. The use of heuristics is therefore not relevant in our opinion if we are only concerned with minimizing the distance of the tour, since the dynamic program or Concorde with preprocessing provide an exact solution in a really small amount of time. However, these methods share a weakness with the dedicated heuristics: they cannot easily accommodate side-constraints. Our MILP model is not as efficient as the other methods but it outperforms previously proposed MILP and solve many instances in a reasonable amount of time. Thus, it is relevant to employ it when the user wants an exact solution and has specific requirements that can be modeled with linear constraints.
Conclusion \[sec:conclusion\]
=============================
We have studied two exact algorithms for the picking problem based on dynamic programming and mixed integer linear programming.\
The first approach was previously proposed for warehouses with up to three cross-aisles. We extend it to any number of cross-aisles which has often been mentioned but never done before. This algorithm proves to be extremely efficient for realistic size of warehouses. However, it can not accommodate side constraints such as precedences, flow directions or multiple depots: a MILP is better suited to deal with these requirements.\
With this in mind, we showed that, on one hand, the compact formulations based on modeling the problem as a TSP do not scale in memory and are unable to solve realistic size instances. On the other hand, a flow based formulation modeling the problem as a Steiner TSP is very sparse but has a weak linear relaxation. As a result, it is also inefficient in practice.\
Scholz *et al.* proposed a new formulation, with improvement by preprocessing. However, their model is rather complex and does not yet provide convincing results regarding its efficiency when the layout grows[@scholz2016new]. We thus propose a number of improvements by taking advantage of the warehouse structure. These improvements are based on valid inequalities and procedures to significantly reduce the instance’s size without loosing optimality. The resulting model remains sparse and exhibits a strong linear relaxation in practice. It outperforms the compact TSP model and solves very large instances almost as efficiently as dedicated TSP approaches on the benchmark studied. Note finally that some of the ideas proposed here can be applied to improve the efficiency of Concorde. The entire benchmark proposed by Theys, Br[ä]{}ysy, Dullaert and Raa [@theys2010using] can thus be solved to optimality very efficiently without the need of the heuristics proposed by the same authors.
The analysis of the results showed that the improvement was stronger when the products were stored with a volume policy. It may be a promising track to solve the picking problem jointly with other warehouse issues such as storage policy or batching. Valle *et al.* follow this track in a recent paper [@valle2016modelling] as did Won and Olafsson a few years ago[@won2005joint].
[10]{}
David Applegate, William Cook, and Andr[é]{} Rohe. Chained lin-kernighan for large traveling salesman problems. , 15(1):82–92, 2003.
Marc Benkert, Alexander Wolff, Florian Widmann, and Takeshi Shirabe. The minimum manhattan network problem: approximations and exact solutions. , 35(3):188–208, 2006.
Rainer E Burkard, Vladimir G Deineko, Ren[é]{} van Dal, Jack AA van der Veen, and Gerhard J Woeginger. Well-solvable special cases of the traveling salesman problem: a survey. , 40(3):496–546, 1998.
Hadrien Cambazard and Nicolas Catusse. Fixed-parameter algorithms for rectilinear steiner tree and rectilinear traveling salesman problem in the plane. , 2018.
Francis YL Chin, Zeyu Guo, and He Sun. Minimum manhattan network is <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NP</span>-complete. , 45(4):701–722, 2011.
G[é]{}rard Cornu[é]{}jols, Jean Fonlupt, and Denis Naddef. The traveling salesman problem on a graph and some related integer polyhedra. , 33(1):1–27, 1985.
George Dantzig, Ray Fulkerson, and Selmer Johnson. Solution of a large-scale traveling-salesman problem. , 2(4):393–410, 1954.
Ren[é]{} De Koster and Edo Van der Poort. Routing orderpickers in a warehouse: a comparison between optimal and heuristic solutions. , 30(5):469–480, 1998.
Bernhard Fleischmann. A cutting plane procedure for the travelling salesman problem on road networks. , 21(3):307–317, 1985.
Bezalel Gavish and Stephen C Graves. The travelling salesman problem and related problems. 1978.
Michael Hahsler and Kurt Hornik. Tsp infrastructure for the traveling salesperson problem. , 23(1):1–21, 2007.
Randolph W Hall. Distance approximations for routing manual pickers in a warehouse. , 25(4):76–87, 1993.
Keld Helsgaun. An effective implementation of the lin–kernighan traveling salesman heuristic. , 126(1):106–130, 2000.
Richard M Karp. . Springer, 1972.
Adam N Letchford, Saeideh D Nasiri, and Dirk Oliver Theis. Compact formulations of the steiner traveling salesman problem and related problems. , 228(1):83–92, 2013.
Samuel A Mulder and Donald C Wunsch. Million city traveling salesman problem solution by divide and conquer clustering with adaptive resonance neural networks. , 16(5):827–832, 2003.
CS Orloff. A fundamental problem in vehicle routing. , 4(1):35–64, 1974.
AJ Orman and H Paul Williams. A survey of different integer programming formulations of the travelling salesman problem. , 9:93–106, 2006.
Charles G Petersen. An evaluation of order picking routeing policies. , 17(11):1098–1111, 1997.
H Donald Ratliff and Arnon S Rosenthal. Order-picking in a rectangular warehouse: a solvable case of the traveling salesman problem. , 31(3):507–521, 1983.
Kees Jan Roodbergen and Ren[é]{} De Koster. Routing order pickers in a warehouse with a middle aisle. , 133(1):32–43, 2001.
Kees Jan Roodbergen and René De Koster. Routing methods for warehouses with multiple cross aisles. , 39(9):1865–1883, 2001.
Andr[é]{} Scholz, Sebastian Henn, Meike Stuhlmann, and Gerhard W[ä]{}scher. A new mathematical programming formulation for the single-picker routing problem. , 253(1):68–84, 2016.
Christophe Theys, Olli Br[ä]{}ysy, Wout Dullaert, and Birger Raa. Using a tsp heuristic for routing order pickers in warehouses. , 200(3):755–763, 2010.
Christophe Theys, Wout Dullaert, and Willy Herroelen. Routing order pickers in multiple block warehouses. In [*Proceedings of the BIVEC-GIBET Transport Research Day, 2007/Hilferink, Pieter \[edit.\]*]{}, pages 10–30, 2007.
James A Tompkins, John A White, Yavuz A Bozer, and Jose Mario Aza[ñ]{}a Tanchoco. . John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
Cristiano Arbex Valle, John E Beasley, and Alexandre Salles da Cunha. Modelling and solving the joint order batching and picker routing problem in inventories. In [*International Symposium on Combinatorial Optimization*]{}, pages 81–97. Springer, 2016.
TS Vaughan. The effect of warehouse cross aisles on order picking efficiency. , 37(4):881–897, 1999.
J Won and S Olafsson\*. Joint order batching and order picking in warehouse operations. , 43(7):1427–1442, 2005.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
amssym.def amssym.tex format epsf macros title sect1 sect2 sect3 sect4 sect5 sect6 sect7 appa appb appc appd appe biblio
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Qinghua Liu, Rui Zhang, and Yao Xie'
bibliography:
- 'reference.bib'
title: |
Distributed Change Detection via\
Average Consensus over Networks
---
Introduction {#sec:1}
============
Detecting an abrupt change from data collected by distributed sensors has been a fundamental problem in diverse applications such as cybersecurity [@lakhina2004diagnosing; @tartakovsky2002efficient] and environmental monitoring [@chen2017textsf; @valero2017real]. In various applications, it is important to perform [*distributed detection*]{}, in that sensors perform local decisions rather than having to send all information to a central hub to form a global decision. Some common reasons include (1) local decision at each sensor is needed, such as VANET [@li2016order; @karagiannis2011vehicular], where the vehicles need to make immediate decision for traffic condition, by using their own information and by communicating with their neighbors, and (2) limited communication bandwidth, e.g., in distributed geophysical sensor networks [@valero2017real] where sensors can only communicate with their neighboring sensors, but cannot communicate to far-away sensors since the channel bandwidth is interference limited, and (3) avoid communicate delay: for seismic early warning systems, it is also not ideal for seismic sensors to send all information to a fusion hub and receiving a global decision, but rather let them to make local decision, to avoid two-way communication delay.
With the above motivation, in this paper, we propose a distributed multi-sensor change-point detection procedure based on average consensus [@xiao2004fast]. The scheme lets sensors to exchange their local CUSUM statistics and makes a local decision by comparing their [*consensus*]{} statistic with a statistic. Note that this scheme does not involve explicit point-to-point message passing or routing; instead, it diffuses information across the network by updating their own statistics by performing a weighted average of neighbors’ statistics [@xiao2005scheme]. The main theoretical contributions of the paper are the analysis of our detection procedure in terms of the two fundamental performance metrics: the average run length (ARL) which is related to the false alarm rate, and the expected detection delay. We show that for a system consisting of $N$ sensors, using the average consensus scheme, the expected detecting delay can nearly be reduced by a factor of $N$ compared to a system without communication, under the same false alarm rate. We demonstrate the good performance of our proposed method via numerical examples.
Related work
------------
Various distributed change-point detection methods have been developed based on the classic CUSUM [@page1954continuous] and Shiryaev-Roberts statistics. Many existing distributed methods [@tartakovsky2002efficient; @tartakovsky2003quickest; @tartakovsky2008asymptotically; @mei2010efficient] assume a fusion center that gathers information (raw data or statistics) from all sensors to perform decision globally. Thus, they are different from our approach where each sensor performs a local decision. On the other hand, there is another type of approaches such as the “one-shot” scheme, where each sensor makes a decision using its own data and only transmits a one-bit signal to central hub once a local alarm has been trigged (e.g., [@hadjiliadis2009one; @tartakovsky2008asymptotically]). However, this approach can be improved if the change is observed by more than one sensor, and we can allow neighboring sensors to exchange information. Fig. \[fig0\] illustrates a comparison of our approach versus the other two types of approaches.
Some recent works [@li2016order; @SahuKar2016; @LiuMei2017] study a related but different problem: distributed sequential hypothesis test based on average consensus. A major difference, though, is that in the sequential hypothesis test, the local log-likelihood statistic accumulates linearly, while in sequential change-point detection, the local detection statistic accumulates nonlinearly as a reflected process (through CUSUM). This results in a more challenging case and requires significantly different techniques.
Moreover, recent works [@raghavan2010quickest; @ludkovski2012bayesian; @fellouris2016second; @kurt2017multi] study the model under the general setting where not all the nodes have a change point or have different change points; [@kurt2017multi; @raghavan2010quickest; @ludkovski2012bayesian] assume the influence from the source propagates to each sensor nodes sequentially under some prior distribution. Here we do not make an assumption about how the change is observed by different sensors.
Background
----------
We first introduce some necessary notations. Given two distinct distributions $\mathcal{P}_1$ and $\mathcal{P}_2$. Let the probability density function of $\mathcal{P}_1$ and $\mathcal{P}_2$ be $f_1({\bf x})$ and $f_2({\bf x})$, respectively. Then the log-likelihood ratio function (LLR) between distribution $\mathcal{P}_2$ and $\mathcal{P}_1$ is defined as $
L({\bf x}) = \log [f_2({\bf x})/f_1({\bf x})].
$ Assume a sequence of observations $\{ {\bf x}^{t}\}_{t=1}^{+\infty}$. There may exist a change-point $\tau$, such that for $t < \tau$, ${\bf x}^t\stackrel{i.i.d.}\sim \mathcal{P}_1$ and for $t\ge \tau$, ${\bf x}^t\stackrel{i.i.d.}\sim \mathcal{P}_2$. The classical CUSUM procedure is based on the LLR to detect the change of the data distribution. It is a stopping time that stops the first time the LLR based statistic exceeds a threshold $b$: $
T_s = \inf\big\{t>0: \max_{1\le i \le t}\sum_{k=i}^{t}L({\bf x}^k)\ge b \big\}.
$ The stopping time $T_s$ has a recursive implementation: $
y^{t+1} = \max \{y^t+L ({\bf x}^{t+1}),0\}, y^0 = 0,$ and $T_s = \inf\big\{t>0: y^t\ge b \big\}. $
Distributed consensus detection procedure
=========================================
We represent an $N$-sensor network using a graph $G = (\mathcal{V},\mathcal{E})$, where $\mathcal{V}$ and $\mathcal{E}$ are the sensor set and edge set, respectively. There exists an edge between sensor $i$ and sensor $j$ if and only if they can communicate with each other. Without loss of generality, we assume that the $G$ is connected (if there is more than one connected component, we can apply our algorithm to each of them separately.) Assume the topology of the sensor network is known (e.g., by design).
Denote data observed by the sensor $v$ at time $t$ as ${\bf x}_{v}^{t}$. Consider the following change-point detection problem. When there is no change, the sensor observations ${\bf x}_v^t \stackrel{i.i.d.}\sim \mathcal{P}_{1},\ \forall v, t = 1, 2, \ldots$. When there is a change, at least one sensor will be affected a change that happens at an unknown time $\tau$, such as $\ {\bf x}_v^1,\cdots,{\bf x}^{\tau-1}_v \stackrel{\rm i.i.d.}\sim \mathcal{P}_{1},$ and ${\bf x}_v^{\tau},\cdots,{\bf x}^{T}_v \stackrel{\rm i.i.d.}\sim \mathcal{P}_{2}$. Our goal is to detect the change as quickly as possible (for at least one sensor that has been affected by the change), subject to the false-alarm constraint.
Our [*distributed consensus change-point detection procedure*]{} consists of three steps at each sensor: (1) Each sensor forms local CUSUM statistic using their own data: $
y_v^{t+1} = \max \{y_v^t+L_v ({\bf x}_v^{t+1}),0\}, \ v\in\mathcal{V};
$ (2) Sensors exchange information with their neighbors according to the pre-determined network topology and weights to form the [*consensus*]{} statistic: $
z_v^{t+1} = \sum_{u \in \mathcal{N}(v)} W_{vu}\left(z_u^t + y_u^{t+1}- y_u^{t} \right),\ v\in\mathcal{V}, $ where $\mathcal{N}(v)$ includes sensor $v$ and its neighbors. (3) Perform detection by comparing $z_v^t$ with a predetermined threshold $b$ at each sensor $v\in\mathcal{V}$. If a global decision is necessary, as long as there exists one sensor $v\in\mathcal{V}$ that raises an alarm: $z_v^t\ge b$ a global alarm is raised. In summary, our detection procedure corresponds to the following stopping time $$\label{stoptime}
T_s = \inf\big\{t>0: \max_{v\in\mathcal{V}} z_v^t \ge b\big\}.$$
We assume the weighted consensus matrix ${\bf W} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times N}$, which the sensors use to exchange information, will satisfy the following conditions. As long as the graph is connected, the consensus matrix ${\bf W}$ satisfying the above conditions always exists [@boyd2004fastest].
1. $W_{ij}>0$ if sensor $i$ and sensor $j$ are connected and $W_{ij}=0$ if sensor $i$ and sensor $j$ are not connected.
2. Assume communication in the network is symmetrical, i.e. $W_{ij} = W_{ji}$; this happens when sensors broadcast to their neighbors.
3. ${\bf W}{\bf 1} = {\bf 1}$, meaning that the information is not augmented or shrunken during communication, where [**1**]{} is the all-one vector.
4. The second largest eigenvalue modulus of the matrix $\lambda_{2}({\bf W})$ is smaller than $1$ (to ensure convergence of the algorithm).
Theoretical analysis of ARL and EDD
===================================
We now present the main theoretical results. We adopt the standard performance metrics for sequence change-point detection: the average run length (ARL) and the expected detection delay (EDD) [@xie2013sequential], defined as ${\rm ARL} =\mathbb{E}[T_s|\tau = \infty]$, and ${\rm EDD} = \mathbb{E}[T_s|\tau = 1]$ (assuming the change occurs that the first moment, for simplicity). In the definition above, $\tau = \infty$ means that the change-point never occurs. Intuitively, ${\rm EDD}$ can be interpreted as the delay time before detecting the change and ${\rm ARL}$ can be interpreted as the expected duration between two false alarms. We make the following assumptions
1. All the sensors share the same pre- and post-change distributions $\mathcal{P}_1$ and $\mathcal{P}_2$ (if the change occurs).
2. For ${\bf x} \sim \mathcal{P}_1$ and ${\bf x} \sim \mathcal{P}_2$, random $L({\bf x})$ follows a non-central sub-Gaussian distribution [@buldygin1980sub]. Assumption for LLR to be a non-central sub-gaussian distribution can capture many commonly seen cases. For instance, Gaussian distributions $\mathcal{P}_1 = \mathcal{N}({\bf 0},{\bf I})$, $\mathcal{P}_2 = \mathcal{N}({\bf u},{\bf I})$ lead to $L({\bf x}) = {\bf u}^{\rm T}{\bf x}-\Vert {\bf u}\Vert^2/2$, which follows $L({\bf x})\sim \mathcal{N}(\Vert {\bf u}\Vert^2/2,\Vert {\bf u}\Vert^2)$.
The above assumption is made purely for theoretical analysis. The detection procedure can still be implemented without these assumptions. First we present an asymptotic lower bound for the ARL. Assume that the mean and variance of $L({\bf x})$ when ${\bf x} \sim \mathcal{P}_1$ are given by $\mu_1$ and $\sigma_1$, respectively. Note that $(-\mu_1$) corresponds to the Kullback-Leibler (KL)-divergence from $\mathcal{P}_2$ to $\mathcal{P}_1$, and $(-\mu_1) \geq 0$ always holds, which can be shown using Jensen’s inequality.
\[thm1\] When $b\rightarrow \infty$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& {\rm ARL} \ge \exp\bigg\{ \frac{(-\mu_1) b}{\sigma_1^{2}}\left[2N-2\left(\frac{N}{N+1}\right)^2\right] \\
&\quad + \left[\frac{ \sqrt{-\mu_1}\mu_1\lambda_{2}({\bf W})}{\sigma_1^2\left[1-\lambda_{2}({\bf W})\right]}\left(4N^2-4N\left(\frac{N}{N+1}\right)^2\right)+o(1)\right]\sqrt{b}\bigg\}.
\end{aligned}$$
The theorem shows that the ARL increases exponentially with threshold $b$, which is a desired property of a detection procedure. Moreover, it shows that it increases at least exponentially as $N$ increases. The detailed proof is delegated to appendix.
Now we present an asymptotic lower bound to EDD. Denote the mean and the variance of $L({\bf x})$ for ${\bf x} \sim \mathcal{P}_2$ as $\mu_2$ and $\sigma_2$, respectively. Note that $\mu_2 \geq 0$ corresponds to the KL-divergence from $\mathcal{P}_1$ to $\mathcal{P}_2$.
\[thm2\] When $b\rightarrow\infty$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm EDD}\le \frac{b}{\mu_2}\left(1+o(1)\right).\end{aligned}$$
Comparing the upper bound with the lower bound in [@lorden1971procedures], we may be able to show that the proposed procedure is first-order asymptotically optimal (which is omitted here due to space limit). Moreover, combining Theorem \[thm1\] with Lemma \[thm2\], we can characterize the relationship between ARL and EDD as follows
\[arl-edd\] When $b\rightarrow\infty$, if ${\rm ARL} \ge \gamma$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm EDD} \le \frac{\log\gamma \left(1+o(1)\right)}{N\mu_2} \times \frac{\sigma_1^2}{-2\mu_1\left(1-N/(N+1)^2\right)}.\end{aligned}$$
Corollary \[arl-edd\] shows that the ratio between the EDD of our algorithm and that of the one-shot scheme [@hadjiliadis2009one] is no larger than $\sigma_1^2/ [-2N\mu_1\left(1-N/(N+1)^2\right)]$. Similarly, by comparing Theorem \[arl-edd\] with the results in [@tartakovsky2003quickest; @mei2010efficient], the ratio is no larger than $\sigma_1^2/ [-2\mu_1\left(1-N/(N+1)^2\right)]$.
Numerical Experiments
=====================
In this section, we present several numerical experiments to demonstrate the performance of our algorithm. Assume $\mathcal{P}_1$ is $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ and $\mathcal{P}_2$ is $\mathcal{N}(1,1)$. Thus, $\mu_1 = -0.5$, $\mu_2 = 0.5$ and $\sigma_1=\sigma_2=1$. We consider a simple network with $N = 4$ for illustrative purposes. Consider two network topology, a line network (where sensors communicate with their neighbors) and K4 (a fully connected network, which can be viewed as unrealistic upper bound for performance). The second largest eigenvalue modulus for line network and K4 are 0.9 and 0, respectively. Their weight matrices are given by $$\begin{aligned}
%\begin{scriptsize}
\mbox{Line:\ }
\left(
\begin{matrix}
5/8 & 3/8 & 0 & 0 \\
3/8 & 1/2 & 1/8 & 0 \\
0 & 1/8 & 1/2& 3/8 \\
0 & 0 & 3/8 &5/8
\end{matrix}
\right)
\quad
\mbox{K4:\ }
\left(
\begin{matrix}
1/4 & 1/4 & 1/4 & 1/4 \\
1/4 & 1/4 & 1/4 & 1/4 \\
1/4 & 1/4 & 1/4 & 1/4 \\
1/4 & 1/4 & 1/4 & 1/4
\end{matrix}
\right)
% \end{scriptsize}
\end{aligned}$$ We compare the the performance of our proposed procedure with the one-shot scheme [@hadjiliadis2009one] and the centralized approach where the sum of all local CUSUM statistics is compared with a threshold. We calibrate the threshold of all approaches by simulation, so that they will have the same ARL when there is no change, to have a fair comparison.
[**Synchronous changes**]{}. In the first experiment, we assume the change-point happens at the same time at all sensors. The results are presented in Fig. \[fig\_sameChange\]. We find that the performance of K4 and centralized approach are the same in this case, since all sensor information are used. Since the change-point happens at all sensors synchronously, the one-shot scheme is least favored because each sensor works alone and did not utilize information at other sensors.
\[fig3.0\]
[**Asynchronous changes.**]{} The benefit of our proposed procedure is more significant in the asynchronous case, i.e., when the change-point happens at affected sensors at a different time. In this experiment, we consider three cases: (1) the change-point observed at sensors with random delay in a small range, (2) two sensors observe the change-point with random delay in a small range, and others with random delay in a larger range, and (3) all sensors experience a large range of random delay. Fig. \[fig3.1\] shows that in Case (1), the centralized approach is the best which is similar to the synchronous change-point case. Fig. \[fig3.3\] shows Case (3), the one-shot scheme is the best since the changes observed at different sensors may be far apart in time and less helpful in making a consensus decision. Fig. \[fig3.2\] shows that in Case (2), our proposed procedure can be better than both the one-shot and centralized procedures. This shows that when there is a reasonable delay between changes at different sensors, the consensus algorithm may be the best approach.
[**Optimize consensus weights.**]{} To demonstrate the effect of consensus weights, we compare two networks with the same topology: the first network is the maximum degree chain network [@boyd2004fastest], which uses unity weights on all edges, and the second network uses optimized weights, which are obtained using the algorithm in [@boyd2004fastest] for a fixed topology by minimizing the second largest eigenvalue modulus to achieve faster convergence. We test the performance of our algorithm on the optimal consensus matrix and another type of consensus matrix, the maximum degree chain matrix. The topology and optimal weights used in this experiment is shown in Fig. \[fig5\]. The maximum degree chain network has the following weights $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{small}
W_{ij}=
\begin{cases}
1/\max_{i \in \mathcal{V}} d_i, &i\neq j \mbox{ and } (i,j)\in \mathcal{E}\cr 1-\sum_{j\in \mathcal{N}(i)} W_{ij}, &i=j \cr 0, &\mbox{otherwise}, \end{cases}
\end{small}\end{aligned}$$ where $d_i$ is the number of neighbors of sensor $i$. Their second largest eigenvalue modulus are $0.5722$ (optimized weights) and $0.7332$ (maximum degree network), respectively. Fig. \[fig5\] shows that the optimized consensus matrix achieves certain performance gain by optimizing weights for the same network topology, which is consistent with Theorem \[thm1\]. This example shows that when fixing the network topology (which corresponds to fixing the support of ${\bf W}$, i.e., the location of the non-zeros), there are still gains in optimizing the weights to achieve better performance.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we present a new distributed change-point detection algorithm based on average consensus, where sensors can exchange CUSUM statistic with their neighbors and perform local detection. Our proposed procedure has low communication complexity and can achieve local detection. We show by numerical examples that by allowing sensors to communicate and share information with their neighbors, the sensors can be more effective in detecting asynchronous change-point locally.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Professor Ansgar Steland for the opportunity to submit an invited paper. This work was partially supported by NSF grants CCF-1442635, CMMI-1538746, DMS-1830210, an NSF CAREER Award CCF-1650913, and a S.F. Express award.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
For simplicity, we first inded the sensors from $1$ to $N$. Use vector ${\bf L}^t$ to represent $\left(L({\bf x}_1^{t}),\cdots,L({\bf x}_N^{t})\right)^{\rm T}$, vector ${\bf y}^t$ to represent $\left(y_1^t,\cdots,y_N^t\right)^{\rm T}$ and vector ${\bf z}^t$ to represent $\left(z_1^t,\cdots,z_N^t\right)^{\rm T}$. Now, our algorithm can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rule}
&{\bf y}^{t+1} = ( {\bf y}^t + {\bf L}^{t+1})^+, {\bf z}^{t+1} = {\bf W}({\bf z}^t + {\bf y}^{t+1}-{\bf y}^t),
&T_s = \inf\big\{t>0: \Vert {\bf z}^t \Vert_{\infty} \ge b\big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Firstly, we prove some useful lemmas before reaching the main results.
Since ${\bf W}{\bf 1} = {\bf 1}$, ${\bf W}^{\rm T}={\bf W}$ and $z^0_v = y^0_v=0$, simple proof by m.i. can verify $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sumz_y}
\sum_{v\in\mathcal{V}} z_v^t = \sum_{v\in\mathcal{V}} y_v^t \mbox{ holds for all } t,\end{aligned}$$
([**Hoeffding Inequality**]{}) Let $X_i$ be independent, mean-zero, $\sigma_i^2$-sub-Gaussian random variables. Then for $K>0$, $
\mathbb{P}(\sum_{i=1}^{n} X_{n}\ge K)\le \exp \left(-\frac{K^2}{2\sum_{i=1}^{n}\sigma_i^2}\right).
$
\[lemma\_3\] Consider a sequence of random variables $X_k \stackrel{i.i.d.}\sim \mathcal{P}$, for $k=1,2,\ldots,t$. $\mathcal{P}$ is a sub-Gaussian distribution and its mean and variance are defined as $\mu_1<0$ and $\sigma_1$, respectively. Given $K>0$ large enough, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^{t}\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{q=1}^{k} X_{q} > K\right) < -\frac{2K}{\mu_1} \exp\left(\frac{2K\mu_1}{\sigma_1^{2}}\right).\end{aligned}$$
[**Case 1**]{}. For $0 < t \le [-\frac{2K}{\mu_1}]$, by Hoeffding Inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq2}
\sum_{k=1}^{t}\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{q=1}^{k} X_{q} > K\right)
< \sum_{k=1}^{t} {\rm exp}\left(-\frac{1}{2}(\frac{K-k\mu_1}{\sqrt{k}\sigma_1})^{2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Using $\frac{K-k\mu_1}{\sqrt{k}} \ge 2\sqrt{-K\mu_1}$ and $t \le -\frac{2K}{\mu_1}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq4}
\sum_{k=1}^{t}\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{q=1}^{k} X_{q} > K\right) < -\frac{2K}{\mu_1} {\rm exp}\left(\frac{2K\mu_1}{\sigma_1^{2}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ [**Case 2.**]{} For $[-\frac{2K}{\mu_1}]+1 \le t $, by , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq51}
\sum_{k=1}^{t}\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{q=1}^{k} X_{q} > K\right)
< -\frac{2K}{\mu_1} {\rm exp}\left(\frac{2K\mu_1}{\sigma_1^{2}}\right)+ \sum_{k=[-\frac{2K}{\mu_1}]+1}^{t}\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{q=1}^{k} X_{q} > K\right).\end{aligned}$$ Utilizing Hoeffding Inequality and $k\ge[-\frac{2K}{\mu_1}]+1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq60}
\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{q=1}^{k} X_{q} > K\right)<{\rm exp}\left(-\frac{1}{2}(\frac{K-k\mu_1}{\sqrt{k}\sigma_1})^{2}\right)
\le {\rm exp}\left(\frac{9K\mu_1}{4\sigma_1^2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Besides, for $k \ge [-\frac{2K}{\mu_1}]+1$ ,we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq6}
\frac{ {\rm exp}\left(-\frac{1}{2}(\frac{K-(k+1)\mu_1}{\sqrt{k+1}\sigma_1})^{2}\right) }{ {\rm exp}\left(-\frac{1}{2}(\frac{K-k\mu_1}{\sqrt{k}\sigma_1})^{2}\right)}
= {\rm exp}\left(-\frac{\mu_1^2}{2\sigma_1^2}+\frac{K^2}{2k(k+1)\sigma_1^2}\right)
< {\rm exp}\left(-\frac{3\mu_1^2}{8\sigma_1^2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Then, from Hoeffding Inequality, and , we derive $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq71}
& \sum_{k=[-\frac{2K}{\mu_1}]+1}^{t}\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{q=1}^{k} X_{q} > K\right)
< \sum_{k=[-\frac{2K}{\mu_1}]+1}^{t}{\rm exp}\left(-\frac{1}{2}(\frac{K-k\mu_1}{\sqrt{k}\sigma_1})^{2}\right)\\
<& \sum_{k=[-\frac{2K}{\mu_1}]+1}^{t} {\rm exp}\left(\frac{9K\mu_1}{4\sigma_1^2}\right) \times {\rm exp}\left(-\frac{3\mu_1^2}{8\sigma_1^2} \left(k-[-\frac{2K}{\mu_1}]-1\right)\right)
<\frac{ {\rm exp}\left(\frac{9K\mu_1}{4\sigma_1^2}\right)}{1-{\rm exp}\left(-\frac{3\mu_1^2}{8\sigma_1^2}\right)}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ From , we know that the second term on the RHS of is a small quantity compared with the first term provided $K$ large enough, so we can neglect it to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq5}
\sum_{k=1}^{t}\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{q=1}^{k} X_{q} > K\right) < -\frac{2K}{\mu_1} {\rm exp}\big(\frac{2K\mu_1}{\sigma_1^{2}}\big).\end{aligned}$$
Note that $
\mathbb E_{f_1} [L(x_j^t)] = \mu_1 < 0
$, $
\mathbb E_{f_2} [L(x_j^t)] = \mu_2 > 0
$, $
\mbox{Var}_{f_1} [L(x_j^t)] = \sigma_1^2
$, $
\mbox{Var}_{f_2} [L(x_j^t)] = \sigma_2^2
$.
Given $\varepsilon >0$ and $p>0$, Define event $$B(\varepsilon,p)= \{ |L({\bf x}_i^t)|< \varepsilon b,\mbox{ for }i=1,\ldots,N\mbox{ and }t=1,\ldots,p \},$$ where $b$ is the pre-specified threshold in detection. Besides, we use $\{T_s = p\}$ to represent the event that our algorithm detects the change at $t=p$. We have the following lemma
\[lemma\_1\] For any $t \le p $, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\{T_s = t\}\wedge B(\varepsilon,p)
\subset \big\{ \frac{\sum _{j=1}^{N} y_{j}^{t}}{N}> (1- \frac{ \sqrt{N}\varepsilon \lambda_{2} }{1- \lambda_{2}})b \big\} \wedge B(\varepsilon,p).
\end{aligned}$$
Note that $
{\bf W} = \frac 1 N {\bf 1} {\bf 1}^\intercal + \sum_{j=2}^N \lambda_j u_j u_j^\intercal.
$ Throughout the proof, we assume under the condition that $B(\varepsilon,p)$ occurs. First, by the recursive form of our algorithm in , the result in and the definition of $B(\varepsilon,p)$, for any sensor $j$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&|z_{j}^{t} - \frac{\sum _{i=1}^{N} y_{i}^{t}}{N} | = | z_{j}^{t} - \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N} z_{i}^{t}}{N} |
\le \Vert {\bf z}^t - \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{N} z_{i}^{t}}{N} {\bf 1}\Vert_2
= \Vert \sum_{k=1}^{t} ({\bf W}^{t-k+1}-\frac{1}{N}{\bf 1}{\bf 1}^{\rm T})({\bf y}^{k}-{\bf y}^{k-1}) \Vert_{2}\\
\le& \sum_{k=1}^{t} \lambda_{2}^{t-k+1} \Vert{\bf y}^{k}-{\bf y}^{k-1} \Vert_{2}
\le \sum_{k=1}^{t} \lambda_{2}^{t-k+1} \Vert{\bf L}^{k} \Vert_{2}
\le \sum_{k=1}^{t} \lambda_{2}^{t-k+1} \sqrt{N}\varepsilon b
\le \frac{ \sqrt{N}\varepsilon \lambda_{2}b}{1- \lambda_{2}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_2$ is the second largest eigenvalue modulus of ${\bf W}$. If $\{T_s = t\}$ happens, then $z_{j}^{t}>b$ holds for some $j$, which, together with the inequality above, leads to $
\frac{\sum _{j=1}^{N} y_{j}^{t}}{N}> (1- \frac{ \sqrt{N}\varepsilon \lambda_{2}}{1- \lambda_{2}})b.
$
\[lemma\_2\] Assume a sequence of independent random variables $Y_1,\cdots,Y_N$. Take any integer $M>N$ and let $$\begin{aligned}
C(M,N) \big\{(i_1,\cdots,i_N): i_j \in \mathbb{N} \ \mbox{and}\ M-N \le \sum_{j=1}^{N}i_{j} \le M \big\}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{N} Y_j > K \right) \le \sum_{C(M,N)} \prod_{j=1}^{N}\mathbb{P}\left( Y_j > \frac{i_j K}{M} \right).\end{aligned}$$
$\forall (y_1,\cdots,y_N) \in \{(Y_1,\cdots,Y_N): \sum_{j=1}^{N} Y_{j}> K\}$, take $
i_j = \left[ \frac{y_j M}{ \sum_{j=1}^{N} y_{j}}\right]$, for $j=1,\ldots,N.
$ We can easily verify that $M-N \le \sum_{j=1}^{N} i_j \le M$ and $y_{j} > i_j K/M$. Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\big\{(Y_1,\cdots,Y_N):\ \sum_{j=1}^{N} Y_{j}> K\big\}
\subset \bigcup_{ C(M,N)} \left\{ (Y_1,\cdots,Y_N): \ Y_{j} > \frac{i_j K}{M} \mbox{ for }j=1,\ldots,N \right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $Y_{j}$’s are independent with each other, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}\left(\sum_{j=1}^{N} Y_{j}> K \right) \le \sum_{C(M,N)} \prod_{j=1}^{N}\mathbb{P}\left( Y_{j} > \frac{i_j K}{M} \right).\end{aligned}$$
Proof of Theorem $1$ {#proof-thm1}
--------------------
First, we calculate the probability that our algorithm stops within time $p$. The value of $p$ is to be specified later. $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber &\sum_{t=1}^{p} \mathbb{P}(T_s=t)
= \sum_{t=1}^{p} \left( \mathbb{P}\left(\{T_s=t\} \wedge B(\varepsilon,p)\right)+ \mathbb{P}\left(\{T_s=t\} \wedge \bar{B}(\varepsilon,p)\right) \right) \\
\nonumber \le & \sum_{t=1}^{p} \mathbb{P}\left(\{T_s=t\}\wedge B(\varepsilon,p)\right)+ \mathbb{P}\left(\bar{B}(\varepsilon,p)\right) \\
\le & \sum_{t=1}^{p} \mathbb{P}\left( \{T_s=t\} \wedge B(\varepsilon,p) \right)+ 2Np\times {\rm exp}\left(-\frac{(\varepsilon b - \mu_1)^2}{2\sigma_1^2}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality is from Hoeffding Inequality and assumptions in Section 3. The value of $\varepsilon$ is to be specified later.
Denote $\bar{b} = N(1- \frac{ \sqrt{N}\varepsilon \lambda_{2}}{1- \lambda_{2}})b$, then $\bar{b}$ will also tend to infinity as $b$ tends to infinity provided $\varepsilon$ small enough. By Lemma \[lemma\_1\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq7}
\sum_{t=1}^{p} \mathbb{P}(T_s=t) \le& \sum_{t=1}^{p} \mathbb{P}\left(\{\sum _{j=1}^{N} y_{j}^{t}> \bar{b}\} \wedge B(\varepsilon,p)\ \right)
+ 2Np \times {\rm exp}\left(-\frac{(\varepsilon b - \mu_1)^2}{2\sigma_1^2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[lemma\_2\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq10}
\mathbb{P}\left(\{\sum _{j=1}^{N} y_{j}^{t}> \bar{b}\}\wedge B(\varepsilon,p)\ \right)
\le \sum_{C(M,N)} \prod_{j=1}^{N}\mathbb{P}\left( \{y_{j}^{t} > \frac{i_j \bar{b}}{M}\} \wedge B_j(\varepsilon,p) \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $B_j(\varepsilon, p) = \{ |L({\bf x}_j^t)|< \varepsilon b,\mbox{ for }t=1,\ldots,p \}$ and the value of $M$ is to be specified later. If $y_{j}^{t}>i_j \bar{b}/M$, then there must exist $1\le k\le t $ such that $y_{j}^{t} = \sum_{q=k}^{t} L({\bf x}_j^q) \ge i_j \bar{b}/M$. So, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq8}
\mathbb{P}\left( \{y_{j}^{t} > \frac{i_j \bar{b}}{M}\} \wedge B_j(\varepsilon,p) \right)
\le \sum_{k=1}^{t} \mathbb{P}\left( \{\sum_{q=k}^{t} L({\bf x}_j^q)> \frac{i_j \bar{b}}{M}\}\wedge B_j(\varepsilon,p) \right).\end{aligned}$$ The influence of $B_j(\varepsilon,p)$ in can be interpreted as truncating the original distribution of $L(\cdot)$. It’s obvious that the new distribution is still sub-Gaussian. Besides, the mean and variance almost keep unchanged provided $\varepsilon b$ large enough.
If $i_j=0$, we just set the upper bound of the probability in to be $1$. If $i_j\neq 0$, by Lemma \[lemma\_3\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq9}
\sum_{k=1}^{t} \mathbb{P}\left( \{\sum_{q=k}^{t} L({\bf x}_j^q) > \frac{i_j \bar{b}}{M}\} \wedge B_j(\varepsilon,p) \right)
< -\frac{2i_j \bar{b}}{M\mu_1} {\rm exp}\left(\frac{2i_j \bar{b}\mu_1}{M\sigma_1^{2}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Plugging into , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq11}
&\sum_{C(M,N)} \prod_{j=1}^{N}\mathbb{P}\left(\{ y_{j}^{t} > \frac{i_j \bar{b}}{M} \} \wedge B_j(\varepsilon,p) \right) < \sum_{C(M,N)} \prod_{i_j\neq 0} \frac{2i_j \bar{b}}{-M\mu_1} {\rm exp}\left(\frac{2i_j \bar{b}\mu_1}{M\sigma_1^{2}}\right)\\
%\nonumber & = \sum_{C(M,N)} \frac{2\bar{b}\prod_{i_j\neq 0}i_j }{-M\mu_1} {\rm exp}\left(\frac{2i_j \bar{b}\mu_1}{M\sigma_1^{2}}\right)\\
\nonumber \le& \sum_{C(M,N)} \left( \frac{2\bar{b}}{-\mu_1}\right)^N {\rm exp}\left(\frac{2\bar{b}\mu_1}{\sigma_1^{2}}(1-\frac{N}{M})\right)
= |C(M,N)| \left( \frac{2\bar{b}}{-\mu_1}\right)^N {\rm exp}\left(\frac{2\bar{b}\mu_1}{\sigma_1^{2}}(1-\frac{N}{M})\right).\end{aligned}$$ Plugging and into , we obtain $$\label{eq91}
\sum_{t=1}^{p} \mathbb{P}(T_s=t) < \sum_{t=1}^{p} |C(M,N)| \left( \frac{2\bar{b}}{-\mu_1}\right)^N {\rm exp}\left(\frac{2\bar{b}\mu_1}{\sigma_1^{2}}(1-\frac{N}{M})\right) + 2Np \times {\rm exp}\left(-\frac{(\varepsilon b - \mu_1)^2}{2\sigma_1^2}\right)$$ $$= p\left|C(M,N)\right| \left( \frac{2\bar{b}}{-\mu_1}\right)^N {\rm exp}\left(\frac{2\bar{b}\mu_1}{\sigma_1^{2}}(1-\frac{N}{M})\right) + 2Np\times {\rm exp}\left(-\frac{(\varepsilon b - \mu_1)^2}{2\sigma_1^2}\right).$$ Next, we will show that as $b$ tends to infinity, the second term on the RHS of is a small quantity in comparison with the first term if we choose the value of $M$ and $\varepsilon$ properly. Note that $2Np$ is a small quantity in comparison with $ p\left|C(M,N)\right| \left( -2\bar{b}/\mu_1\right)^N$, so we only require $\frac{2\bar{b}\mu_1}{\sigma_1^{2}}(1-\frac{N}{M}) \ge -\frac{(\varepsilon b - \mu_1)^2}{2\sigma_1^2}.$ Choose $M=(N+1)^2$. Recall that $\bar{b} = N(1- \frac{ \sqrt{N}\varepsilon \lambda_{2}}{1- \lambda_{2}})b$, the equation above can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq92}
\frac{(\varepsilon b - \mu_1)^2}{2\sigma_1^2}
\ge -\frac{2(N^3+N^2+N)\mu_1 b}{(N+1)^2\sigma_1^2}\left(1- \frac{ \sqrt{N}\varepsilon \lambda_{2}}{1- \lambda_{2}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ To ensure that holds as $b$ tends to infinity, $\varepsilon = 2\sqrt{-N\mu_1/b}$ is sufficient. Plugging the value of $M$ and $\varepsilon$ into and neglecting the second term, we get $$\begin{aligned}
& \mathbb{P}\left(T_s \le p \right)\le |C((N+1)^2,N)| \left( \frac{2\bar{b}}{-\mu_1}\right)^N \\
& \cdot {\rm exp}\big(\frac{2(N^3+N^2+N)\mu_1 b}{(N+1)^2\sigma_1^{2}}-\frac{4N(N^3+N^2+N) \sqrt{-\mu_1}\mu_1\lambda_{2}\sqrt{b}}{(N+1)^2(1-\lambda_{2})\sigma_1^2}+\ln(p)\big).\end{aligned}$$ So $\forall l > -\frac{4N(N^3+N^2+N) \sqrt{-\mu_1}\mu_1\lambda_{2}}{(N+1)^2(1-\lambda_{2})\sigma_1^2}$, if we choose $
p = {\rm exp}\left(-\frac{2(N^3+N^2+N)\mu_1 b}{(N+1)^2\sigma_1^{2}} - l\sqrt{b}\right),
$ $$\begin{aligned}
& \lim_{b\rightarrow +\infty} \mathbb{P}\left(T_s \le p \right) \le \\
& \lim_{b\rightarrow +\infty} |C((N+1)^2,N)| \left( \frac{2\bar{b}}{-\mu_1}\right)^N {\rm exp}\left(-\left(l+\frac{4N(N^3+N^2+N) \sqrt{-\mu_1}\mu_1\lambda_{2}}{(N+1)^2(1-\lambda_{2})\sigma_1^2}\right)\sqrt{b}\right)
=0,\end{aligned}$$ which together with the definition of ${\rm ARL}$ leads to $
{\rm ARL} \ge p$, $\forall l > -\frac{4N(N^3+N^2+N) \sqrt{-\mu_1}\mu_1\lambda_{2}}{(N+1)^2(1-\lambda_{2})\sigma_1^2}$. This leads to our desired result when $b$ tends to infinity.
Proof of Lemma $1$ {#proof-lem1}
------------------
First of all, note that $\mathbb{P}\left(T_s =+\infty\right)=0$, so given $\varepsilon>0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq00}
{\rm EDD} \le \frac{b(1+\varepsilon)}{\mu_2} + \sum_{t=[\frac{b(1+\varepsilon)}{\mu_2}]+1}^{+\infty}\mathbb{P}\left(T_s=t\right) t.\end{aligned}$$ If $T_s=t$, then we have that $z_j^{t-1}<b$ holds for all $j$. Since $\sum_{j=1}^{N} z_{j}^{t-1} = \sum_{j=1}^{N} y_{j}^{t-1}$, there must exist some $y_j^{t-1}<b$. Therefore, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq12}
\sum_{t=[\frac{b(1+\varepsilon)}{\mu_2}]+1}^{+\infty}\mathbb{P}\left(T_s=t\right) t
\le \sum_{t=[\frac{b(1+\varepsilon)}{\mu_2}]+1}^{+\infty} \sum_{j=1}^{N} \mathbb{P}\left( y_j^{t-1}<b \right) t.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $y_j^{t-1}\ge\sum_{q=1}^{t-1}L({\bf x}_j^q) $, together with Hoeffding Inequality, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq13}
\mathbb{P}\left( y_j^{t-1}<b \right)t \le& \mathbb{P}\left( \sum_{q=1}^{t-1}L({\bf x}_j^q)<b \right)
= {\rm exp}\left(-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{b-(t-1)\mu_2}{\sqrt{t-1}\sigma_2}\right)^{2}\right)t.\end{aligned}$$ When $b$ is large enough, for any $t>[\frac{b(1+\varepsilon)}{\mu_2}]$, utilizing the similar technique in , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq14}
\frac{{\rm exp}\left(-\frac{1}{2}(\frac{b-t\mu_2}{\sqrt{t}\sigma_2})^{2}\right)}{ {\rm exp}\left(-\frac{1}{2}(\frac{b-(t-1)\mu_2}{\sqrt{t-1}\sigma_2})^{2}\right)} \times \frac{t+1}{t}
\le {\rm exp}\left( -\frac{b}{2}(1-\frac{1}{(1+\varepsilon)^2})\right).\end{aligned}$$ Plugging and into , utilizing the similar technique in , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq15}
& \sum_{t=[\frac{b(1+\varepsilon)}{\mu_2}]+1}^{+\infty}\mathbb{P}\left(T_s=t\right) t
\le \sum_{t=[\frac{b(1+\varepsilon)}{\mu_2}]+1}^{+\infty} N\times {\rm exp}\left(-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{b-(t-1)\mu_2}{\sqrt{t-1}\sigma_2}\right)^{2}\right)t\\
\le & N \left(\frac{b(1+\varepsilon)}{\mu_2}+1\right)
\frac{{\rm exp}\left(-\frac{\varepsilon^2 b}{2(1+\varepsilon)\sigma_2^2}\right)}{1-{\rm exp}\left( -\frac{b}{2}(1-\frac{1}{(1+\varepsilon)^2})\right)}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\forall \varepsilon >0$, as $b$ tends to infinity, the RHS of would converge to zero. Therefore, by , we get $
{\rm EDD}\le \frac{b\big(1+o(1)\big)}{\mu_2}.
$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Shasha Li
- Shitong Zhu
- Sudipta Paul
- |
\
Amit Roy-Chowdhury
- Chengyu Song
- Srikanth Krishnamurthy
- |
\
Ananthram Swami
- Kevin S Chan
bibliography:
- 'newbib.bib'
title: 'Connecting the Dots: Detecting Adversarial Perturbations Using Context Inconsistency [^1]'
---
[^1]: This paper is accepted by ECCV 2020
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we define a notion of automatic randomness tests (ART) which capture measure theoretic typicalness of infinite binary sequences within the framework of automata theory. An individual ART is found to be equivalent to a deterministic Büchi automaton recognizing $\omega$-language of (Lebesgue) measure zero. A collection of ART’s induce a notion of automatic random sequence. We provide a purely combinatorial characterization of an automatic random sequence in the form of a disjunctive property for sequences. At last, we compare two kinds of automatic randomness tests presented in this paper.'
author:
- Birzhan Moldagaliyev
bibliography:
- 'Reference.bib'
title: Automatic Randomness Tests
---
[**Keywords:** Algorithmic randomness; Automata Theory]{}
Introduction
============
The theory of algorithmic randomness [@Downey] tries to explain what kind of properties make an individual element of a sample space to appear random. Mostly the theory deals with infinite binary sequences. One of the first works in the field could be attributed to Borel [@Borel] with his notion of normal numbers. An emergence of the computability theory allowed to formalize a notion of randomness with respect to certain classes of algorithms. Loosely speaking, an object is considered random, when any kind of algorithm fails to find sufficient patterns in the structure of that object. There are many kinds of randomness definitions within the theory, however most of them arise from three paradigms of randomness:
1. Unpredictability
2. Incompressibility
3. Measure theoretical typicalness
Each paradigm has its own tools to explore randomness. In relation to the unpredictability paradigm different kinds of effective martingales are considered [@Schnorr1971]. On the other hand, the incompressibility paradigm works with a notion of complexity, the most famous example being the Kolmogorov complexity [@Kolmogorov]. Finally, the measure theoretical typicalness paradigm tries to effectivize a notion of a nullset in measure-theoretic sense, with the most prominent example in the face of Martin-Löf randomness tests [@Lof]. An interesting part is that one could choose an appropriate definition from each paradigm so that arising classes of random infinite sequences coincide. This interconnection is thought to symbolize a universality of the notion. In almost all of these studies, a full computational strength of a Turing machine is used. On the one hand, it guarantess a generality of resulting theory, because any kind of effective process can be designed as an instance of a Turing machine. However, nothing prevents us from considering weaker variants of computational machines. For example, one could consider a polynomial-time computability, which gives rise to the notion of resource-bounded measure [@Lutz]. One can go even further and consider finite state machines, thus hitting the bottom of a computational machines hierarchy. Most paradigms for randomness have their variants adopted for finite state machines. As for the unpredictability paradigm, there are automatic martingales [@Stimm] and finite state predicting machines [@OConnor]. As for the incompressibility paradigm, one has several variants of automatic complexity for finite strings [@Shallit; @Hyde; @Calude2; @Becher; @Shen]. On top of that, there are approaches [@Busse] to study a notion of genericity from the computability theory, in the context of automata theory. From perspective of measure typicalness, we have a notion of regular nullset defined by Staiger [@Null; @Monadic]. Those regular nullsets correspond to Buchi recognizable $\omega$-languages of measure zero. Our aim is to replicate the construction of Martin-Löf randomness tests, where nullsets are defined as intersection of classes having some algorithmic property, within automata theoretic framework.
Background
==========
In this section we review concepts on which the main part of the paper going to rely on.
Finite State Machines
---------------------
Let $S$ be a finite set, elements of which are to be interpreted as states. Consider a binary alphabet $\Sigma=\{0,1\}$. By concatentating elements of $\Sigma$, we obtain words, e.g. $00$, $101$, etc. We denote the collection of all words $\Sigma^*$, which is a monoid under concatenation and an identity element of the empty string, $\varepsilon$. Let $\Sigma$ act on $S$ from the right using a function $f: S \times \Sigma \rightarrow S$ and we can extend $f$ to an action $\cdot$ on the full monoid $\Sigma^*$ by defining $$s \cdot \varepsilon = s \mbox{ and }
s \cdot a = f(s,a) \mbox{ and } s \cdot (xy) = (s \cdot x) \cdot y$$ for all states $s \in S$ and letters $a \in S$ and words $x,y \in \Sigma^*$. We choose some state, $s_0$, to be a *starting state*. Furthermore, we are going to assume that all other states are reachable from $s_0$, i.e. for all $s\in S$, there is $w\in \Sigma^*$ such that $s_0\cdot w = s$. A *Finite State Machine (FSM)* is given as a triple of data: $(S,f,s_0)$. Given two words $x,y$ such that $x=yz$ for some word $z$, $y$ is said to be a *prefix* of $x$, which is denoted as $y\preceq x$. In case $x\neq y$, it is said to be a *strict prefix*, denoted as $y\prec x$. A term *language* refers to any subcollection of $\Sigma^*$.
#### Connected Components of FSM {#connected-components-of-fsm .unnumbered}
Suppose we are given a FSM, $M=(S,f,s_0)$. We can turn $S$ into a partially ordered set as follows: $$x\ge y\, \Leftrightarrow \,\exists w\in \Sigma^* \text{ such that } x\cdot w = y$$ In other words, $x\ge y$ iff $y$ is reachable from $x$, for $x,y\in S$. The given partial order is reflexive and transitive, so it is possible to define following equivalence relation $\sim$ on $S$: $$x\sim y \, \Leftrightarrow x\ge y\text{ and } y\ge x$$ Above equivalence relation tells that $x,y\in S$ belong to the same connected component. By taking quotient of $S$ under $\sim$ we end up with collection of connected components $[M]$ with inherited partial order. We call $g\in [M]$ a *leaf connected component* if it is minimal, i.e. there is no element of $[M]$ strictly less than $g$. We denote a collection of leaf connected components of $M$ as $(M)$.
#### Finite Automata {#finite-automata .unnumbered}
Let us enrich the structure of finite state machine, $(S,f,s_0)$, by introducing a set of *accepting states* $F\subseteq S$. In order to simplify the notation, we reserve the letter $M$ for all of machines to be introduced. A *(deterministic) finite automaton*, $M$, is given by a quadruple of data: $(S,f,s_0,F)$. A word $w\in \Sigma^*$ is said to be accepted by $M$ if: $$s_0\cdot w\in F$$ Given a finite automaton $M$, the language of $M$, $L(M)$, corresponds to the collection of all words accepted by $M$. A language $L\subseteq \Sigma^*$ is said to be *regular* if there is a finite automaton $M$ recognizing it, i.e. $L=L(M)$.
#### Automatic Relation {#automatic-relation .unnumbered}
A membership of some word $w$ in a regular language $L$ can be easily checked on a corresponding finite automaton of $L$. Although this property is rather convenient, it is quite limiting in a sense that it is unary. There is a way to extend a notion of ’regularity’ or ’automaticity’ on relationships of arbitrary arity. Given some input of $k$ words $(w_1,w_2,\ldots,w_k)$ it is possible to convolute them into the one block in the following manner: $$\left[
\begin{array}{ c c c c c c}
( & \cdots & w_1 & \cdots & \#\# & )\\
(& \cdots & w_2 & \cdots & \cdots & )\\
(& \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & \cdots & )\\
(& \cdots & w_k & \cdots & \# & )
\end{array}
\right]$$ where length of the block is equal to the length of the longest word, while empty spaces at the end of shorter words are filled with a special symbol such as $\#$. Each column of such a block can be considered as a single symbol coming from a product space $\Sigma_{\#}^k$, where $\Sigma_{\#}$ refers to $\Sigma$ with added special symbol, i.e. $\Sigma_{\#}=\{0,1,\#\}$. By analogy with finite state machines, let $\Sigma_{\#}^k$ act on some finite set $S$ forming a function $f$: $$f:S\times \Sigma_{\#}^k\to S$$ This function is then extended to the action of $(\Sigma_{\#}^k)^*$ on $S$, defining a finite state machine $M=(S,f,s_0,F)$ with some $s_0\in S$ and $F\subseteq S$. Given block $u$ of above type is said to be accepted by $M$, if the run of $u$ on $M$ finishes at an accepting state, i.e. $s_0\cdot u\in F$. A relation $R\subseteq \Sigma^k$ is said to be automatic if there is a finite automaton $M$ which recognizes elements of $R$ given in the block form as above. A function $\phi:\Sigma^k \to \Sigma^m$ is said to be automatic if its graph forms an automatic relation, i.e. $graph(\phi)=\{(x,\phi(x))\mid x\in \Sigma^k\}\subseteq \Sigma^{k+m}$ is automatic. Let us give an example of automatic relation:\
Let $R$ be a binary relation on words, $R\subseteq (\Sigma^*)^2$, such that $(x,y)\in R$ iff $\vert x \vert \le \vert y \vert$. We can construct a following finite automaton $M=(S,f,s_0,F)$ to recognize $R$. Firstly, we set $S=\{s_0,s_1\}$ with $F = \{s_0\}$. As for a function $f$, we set: $$\begin{aligned}
s_0\cdot\begin{pmatrix}a\\b\end{pmatrix} = \begin{cases} s_1, & \text{ if } a=\#\\s_0,& \text{ otherwise }\end{cases}
&&
s_1\cdot\begin{pmatrix} a\\b \end{pmatrix} = s_1, \text{ for all } a,b\end{aligned}$$ Automatic relations enjoy quite convenient properties from logical point of view. This fact is captured by the following theorem by Khoussainov and Nerode [@Kho]:
Let $R$ be a first-order definable relation on $(\Sigma^*)^k$ from given functions $(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_n)$ and relations $(R_1,R_2,\ldots,R_m)$. If each of these functions and relations is automatic, then $R$ is also automatic.
#### Automatic Family {#automatic-family .unnumbered}
In the computability theory, there is a notion of uniformly computably enumerable sets. This notion allows to look at the collection of sets from a single effective frame of reference. A somewhat parallel notion exists in automata theory known as *Automatic family* [@Jain].
An automatic family is a collection of languages $\mathcal{U} = (U_i)_{i\in I}$ such that:
1. $I$ is a regular set;
2. $\{(x,i)\mid x\in U_i\}$ is an automatic relation.
Infinite sequences
------------------
While we refer to elements of $\Sigma^*$ as strings or words, we refer to an one-way infinite sequence on $\Sigma$ as a *sequence* or $\omega$-*word*. Alternatively, $\omega$-word $X$ can be a thought as a function: $$X:\mathbb{N}\to \{0,1\}$$ Given a sequence $X$, its elements can be indexed as $X=X_1X_2X_3\ldots$. Given a word $w$ and a sequence $X$, one can concatenate them, forming a sequence $Y=wX$. Herein, $w$ is called a *prefix* of $Y$ and denoted as $w\prec Y$. If the length of $w$ is $i$, $\vert w \vert = i$, then $w$ is denoted as $Y[i]$. A collection of all prefixes of $Y$ is denoted as $Pref(Y)$. On the other hand $X$ is called *suffix* of $Y$ and denoted as $X=Y[i:]$. A collection of all sequences, $\{0,1\}^{\mathbb{N}}$, is also called a *Cantor Space*. A subcollection of the Cantor space is usually referred to as a *class* and denoted with italicized capital letters. Given a language $L$ and a class $\mathcal{C}$, we can take their product: $$L\cdot \mathcal{C} = \{wX\mid w\in L,\, X\in\mathcal{C}\}$$
#### Büchi Automata {#büchi-automata .unnumbered}
Automata which process sequences are usually called $\omega$-automata. The simplest of such automata are *Büchi automata*. As we are going to work with deterministic Büchi automata, we limit ourselves revewing such automata only. However, reader should note that the term Büchi automata, generally, refers to nondeterministic Büchi automata. A deterministic Büchi automaton $M$ is given by a quadruple $M=(S,f,s_0,F)$ just as finite automata. However, an acceptance condition needs to be revised. Given a sequence $X$, it induces an infinite run of states, $S(X)$, in the following manner: $$\begin{aligned}
S(X)_1 = s_0 && S(X)_n \cdot X_n = S(X)_{n+1}, \text{ for all } n\end{aligned}$$ Let us denote the collection of elements of $S$ which appear infinitely often in $S(X)$ as $I(X)$. A sequence $X$ is accepted by $M$ iff $s\in F$ for some $s\in I(X)$, i.e. some accepting state appears infinitely often in $S(X)$. A collection all sequences accepted by $M$ forms the class $L(M)$. A class $\mathcal{C}$ is said to be recognized by determinstic Büchi automata if there $M$ as above such that $L(M)=\mathcal{C}$. A Büchi automaton $M$ is said to be of measure $m$ if $\mu(L(M))=m$, where $\mu$ is the Lebesgue measure on the Cantor Space.
#### Muller Automata {#muller-automata .unnumbered}
To review a structure of deterministic Muller automata, we start with a finite state machine $(S,f,s_0)$. We enrich its structure by a subset of powerset of $S$, i.e. accepting collection $F\subseteq \mathcal{P}(S)$. A Muller automata $M$ is given by a quadruple: $M=(S,f,s_0,F)$. A sequence $X$ is said to be accepted by $M$ if $$I(X)\in F$$ Again, a collection of all sequences accepted by $M$ forms the language of $M$, $L(M)$. A class $\mathcal{C}$ is said ot be recognized by determinsitic Muller automata if there is $M$ as above such that $L(M)=\mathcal{C}$. A Muller automaton $M$ is said to be of measure $m$ if $\mu(L(M))=m$, where $\mu$ is the Lebesgue measure on the Cantor Space.
#### Equivalence of Büchi and Muller automata {#equivalence-of-büchi-and-muller-automata .unnumbered}
It turns out that nondeterministic Büchi automata are equivalent to deterministic Muller automata in expressive power. This result is known as McNaughton’s theorem [@Mc].
Measure on the Cantor space
---------------------------
The Cantor space can be given a Lebesgue measure, $\mu$, full details of which can be found in the book by Oxtoby [@Oxtoby]. For the sake of completeness, we are going to review essentials needed for upcoming discussions. A given measure $\mu$ can be thought of as a product Bernoulli measure induced by the equiprobable measure $\mu_0$ on $\{0,1\}$. Given a word $w$, let $$[w] = \{w\}\cdot \{0,1\}^{\mathbb{N}}$$ In a more general way, given a language $L$: $$[L]=L\cdot \{0,1\}^{\mathbb{N}}$$ be the class of all sequences extending elements of $L$. Former classes form basic open classes with $\mu[w]=2^{-\vert w \vert}$. Given a language $W$, it is said to be an $\alpha$-cover of a class $\mathcal{C}$ if: $$\mathcal{C}\subseteq \bigcup_{w\in W}[w]\quad \text{and} \quad\sum_{w\in W}\mu[w] \le \alpha$$
A class $\mathcal{C}$ is said to be of measure $0$, if there is $2^{-n}$-cover of $\mathcal{C}$, for all $n\ge 0$. A class $\mathcal{C}$ is said to be of measure $1$, if $\overline{\mathcal{C}}$ is of measure $0$.
#### Disjunctive sequences {#disjunctive-sequences .unnumbered}
We are going to review a definition of *disjunctive property* [@Calude] for sequences, which is going to be useful later on.
An infinite sequence $X$ is said to be disjunctive if any word $w\in \Sigma^*$ appears in $X$ as a subword.
Let $\mathcal{D}$ denote the collection of all disjunctive sequences. It has been shown [@Calude] that $\mu(\mathcal{D})=1$.
Definitions
===========
Main Definitions
----------------
In this section we are going to define a notion of randomness tests in the context of automata theory. In doing so, we draw inspiration from the original definition of effective randomness tests by Martin-Löf [@Lof]. The main contribution of the mentioned paper is a process of defining measure zero classes in an algorithmic fashion. More precisely, one considers a uniformly recursively enumerable collection of languages, $\mathcal{V}=(V_i)_{i\in \mathbb{N}}$, such that the measure of an individual class satisfies $\mu[V_i]\le 2^{-i}$. An effective nullset corresponding to the test $\mathcal{V}$ is given by $\bigcap_{i\in \mathbb{N}}[V_i]$. This shows that a definition of randomness tests requires only two concepts:
- Uniform collection of languages.
- Condition on their measure.
In order to translate a concept of randomness tests into the domain of automata theory, we adopt a following strategy. As for a uniform collection of languages, we adopt a notion of an automatic family. As for a condition on their measure, we let measures of these sets be arbitrarily small. These ideas are captured in the following definitions.
Let $\mathcal{U}=(U_i)_{i\in I}$ be an automaic family. We say that $\mathcal{U}$ forms a Martin-Löf automatic randomness test (MART) if: $$\mu[U_i]\le 2^{-\vert i \vert} \text{ for all }i\in I$$
Above definition is a direct analog of Martin-Löf randomness tests, because any individual class has a condition on its measure. This is an example of a local condition on the measures. Instead, one could also have a global condition on the measures. This way, we obtain an analog of weak 2-randomness [@Downey].
Let $\mathcal{U}=(U_i)_{i\in I}$ be an automatic family. We say that $\mathcal{U}$ forms an Automatic randomness test (ART) if $$\liminf_{i\in I}\mu[U_i]=0$$
Corresponding nullsets are defined in the manner of Martin-Löf randomness tests.
Given an (M)ART $\mathcal{U}=(U_i)_{i\in I}$, let $$F(\mathcal{U})=\bigcap_{i\in I}[U_i]$$ be its covering region. An infinite sequence $X$ is said to be covered by $\mathcal{U}$ if it belongs to the covering region of $\mathcal{U}$, i.e. $X\in F(\mathcal{U})$. A pair of (M)ART’s $(\mathcal{U},\mathcal{V})$ is said to be equivalent if $F(\mathcal{U})=F(\mathcal{V})$.
Finally, we define a notion of a random sequence in parallel with the original definition by Martin-Löf:
An infinite sequence $X$ is said to be *Martin-Löf automatic random (MAR)* if $X$ is not covered by any MART. Similarly, an infinite sequence $X$ is said to be *automatic random (AR)* if $X$ is not covered by any ART.
A theory of ART is more general and richer compared to that of MART. For this reason, we are going to focus our attention on ART’s. Closer to the end of the paper, we are going to show that ART’s are not equivalent to MART’s.
Examples
--------
Let us provide some examples of automatic randomness tests. As groups are understood by their actions, ART’s are understood by the type of sequences they cover. Let us construct an automatic randomness test covering some ultimately periodic infinite sequence $X$, i.e. $X=uv^{\omega}$ for some $u,v\in \Sigma^*$. To build covering ART, $\mathcal{U}=(U_i)_{i\in I}$, let us have: $$I = uv^*, \quad U_i = \{i\}$$ In some sense, ultimately periodic sequences are too rigid, so it does not take a significant effort to come up with an ART covering it. To consider more complex examples, let us take a following class of infinite sequences: $$\mathcal{C} = \{X\mid X_{2i}=0 \text{ for all }i\in \mathbb{N}\}$$ In other words class $\mathcal{C}$ is a collection of sequences having $0$ at even numbered positions. In terms of the computability theory, each member, $X$, of $\mathcal{C}$ has a form $X=A\oplus 0^{\omega}$. To construct ART $\mathcal{U}=(U_i)_{i\in I}$ covering the class $\mathcal{C}$, let us take: $$I=(00)^*,\quad U_i=(\Sigma 0)^{\frac{\vert i \vert}{2}}$$ It is clear that $(U_i)_{i\in I}$ is a valid automatic family. Since $\mu[U_i]=2^{-\frac{\vert i \vert}{2}}$, we have that $\lim_{i}\mu[U_i]=0$. Moreover $X\in \mathcal{C}$ if and only if $X\in [U_i]$ for all $i\in I$. Hence, $\mathcal{C}$ is exactly a covering region of $\mathcal{U}$. With reference to computability theory, Turing degree of $X=A\oplus 0^{\omega}$ is that of $A$. As $A$ can be chosen to be a sequence of any Turing degree, we have a following fact:
There is ART covering sequences of arbitrarily high Turing degree
This result might come as a quite unexpected, as ART covered sequences are thought to be of low computational complexity.
Properties
==========
In this section we study properties of an ART. Firstly, we would like to focus on immediate properties.
Immediate Properties
--------------------
We are going to show that an ART can be assumed to have a simple form.
Let $\mathcal{U}$ be an ART. Then there is an equivalent ART $\mathcal{V}=(V_j)_{j\in J}$ satisfying following properties:
- $J = 0^*$;
- $(V_j)_{j\in J}$ is a decreasing sequence, i.e. $V_i\supseteq V_j$ for $i\prec j$;
- A length of an word contained in $V_i$ is at least $\vert i \vert+1$, i.e. $x\in V_i\Rightarrow \vert x \vert > \vert i \vert$.
Firstly, we construct an automatic family $\mathcal{W} = (W_j)_{j\in J}$ as an intermediate step. Let $J=0^*$ and we construct each member of the automatic family as follows: $$W_j = \{x\mid \forall i[\vert i \vert \le \vert j \vert\Rightarrow \exists y\in U_i(y\prec x)] \}$$ Due to the first-order definability property of automatic structures, $(W_j)_{j\in J}$ is a proper automatic family. From the definition it is clear that $(W_j)_{j\in J}$ is a decreasing sequence of languages. As for measure-theoretic properties, we have $\mu[W_j]\le \mu[U_i]$ for all $i$ such that $\vert i \vert \le \vert j \vert$. This shows that $\lim_{j\in J} \mu[W_j] = 0$, which makes $\mathcal{W}$ a proper ART. It is clear from construction that $\mathcal{U}$ and $\mathcal{W}$ are equivalent. So far, we have satisfied all of the desired conditions, except for the condition on a length of words. To address this condition, let us consider a following function, $\phi:0^* \to \Sigma^*$: $$\phi(j) = \min_{ll}(W_j) = \{x\mid x\in W_j,\, \forall y\in W_j(x\le_{ll}y)\}$$ where $ll$ refers to *length-lexicographic* linear order(sometimes called *shortlex*) defined as follows: $$x\le_{ll} y \Leftrightarrow \vert x \vert < \vert y \vert \text{ or } \vert x \vert = \vert y \vert,\, x\le_{lex}y$$ where $lex$ refers to usual lexicographic order. Both $lex$ and $ll$ are automatic relations. Hence, the function $\phi$ is automatic, due to the first-order definability property. Being an automatic function, $\phi$ has some pumping constant $c$. We are going to argue that any element of $W_j$ is no shorter than $\vert j \vert - c$ for any $j\in 0^*$. Otherwise, we have a pair $(x,j)$ such that $\phi(j)=x$ and $\vert j \vert > \vert x \vert + c$. Applying the pumping lemma for this instance, we assert an existence of arbitraily long $i$ such that $\phi(i)=x$. However, it contradicts the fact that $\lim_{j\in J}[W_j] = 0$. Hence, following condition on a length of words holds: $$x\in W_j \Rightarrow \vert x \vert \ge \vert j \vert - c$$ Finally, we get rid of the constant $c$ in order to construct desired ART: $$V_j = W_{j0^{c+1}}$$ Observe that the satisfaction of all other desired conditions remains intact by this shift in indexing. This completes our construction. As a final remark, let us observe that the conclusion of the theorem holds if we replace ART with MART, for the resulting randomness test preserves MART property.
#### Universal randomness tests {#universal-randomness-tests .unnumbered}
In the original theory of Martin-Löf radnomness(MLR) there is a notion of a *universal ML test*. This test is expected to subsume all other Martin-Löf tests, so that testing a sequence against an universal ML test reveals its randomness properties. In our notations, universal ART Test $\mathcal{V}$ is expected to satisfy the following property: for any ART $\mathcal{U}$, we have that $F(\mathcal{U})\subseteq F(\mathcal{V})$. We are going to show that there is no such universal test in our case. Firstly we verify some facts.
Suppose we are given a finite automaton $M=(S,f,s_0,F)$. Assume that for every state, $q\in S$, there is a word, $u$, such that $q\cdot u\in F$. Then a measure of all sequences which never visit an accepting state when run on $M$ is zero.
Let $\{s_0,s_1,\ldots,s_n\}$ be states of $M$. We construct a word $w$, processing which from any state results in a visit to some accepting state. The desired word $w=w_0w_1\ldots w_n$ is constructed inductively. Choose $w_0$ such as $s_0\cdot w_0\in F$. For any $i>0$, choose $w_i$ such that $(s_iw_0w_1\ldots w_{i-1})\cdot w_i\in F$. In this way final word $w$ satisfies given requirements. Let us denote the class of sequences which never visits an accepting state as $\mathcal{C}$. Given any $X\in \mathcal{C}$, it is clear that $X$ does not contain $w$ as a subword. Thus, $X$ is not disjunctive. This implies $\mathcal{C}$ is a subcollection of nondisjunctive sequences. Since the latter has measure zero, the former should also have measure zero.
There is no universal ART. In other words, there is no ART $\mathcal{V}$ such that for any ART $\mathcal{U}$ we have $F(\mathcal{U})\subseteq F(\mathcal{V})$
Let us assume contrary, i.e. there is an universal randomness test $\mathcal{V}=(V_j)_{j\in J}$. It implies that for an arbitrary ART $\mathcal{U}=(U_i)_{i\in I}$we have: $$F(\mathcal{U})\subseteq F(\mathcal{V})$$ Since $\liminf_j \mu[V_j]=0$, there is an index $j\in J$ such that $\mu[V_j]<1$. We wish to show that the class $[V_j]$ is not dense, i.e. there is some string $w$ which cannot be extended to an element of $[V_j]$. If this is a case, one can easily construct an ART $\mathcal{U}=(U_i)_{i\in I}$ so as to achieve a contradiction: $$U_i=\{wi\}$$ where $I=0^*$. Clearly, an infinite sequence $w0^{\omega}\in F(\mathcal{U})$, yet $w0^{\omega}\not\in F(\mathcal{V})$ due to the fact that $w0^\omega\not\in [V_j]$. To complete the proof, we are left to show that $[V_j]$ is not a dense class. Let us observe that being a member of automatic family, $V_j$ is a regular language on its own, with some underlying finite automaton $M$. Since $[V_j]$ is an extension of all strings in $V_j$, it can be viewed a collection of all infinite sequences visiting some accepting state of $M$. To show that $[V_j]$ is not dense, it suffices to show an existence of some state, $q$ in $M$ such that for any word $w$, we have that $q\cdot w\not\in F$. If it is not the case, then according to Lemma 1, we have $\mu[V_j]=1$. As we are given that $\mu[V_j]<1$, there must be such a state $q$. Let $w$ be a word such that $s_0 \cdot w=q$. Then $w$ exhibits the fact that $[V_j]$ is not dense. Together with earlier argument, this completes the proof.
Machine version of ART
----------------------
One of the common practices in automata theory is a search for machine characterization of a particular phenomenon. In our case, we are interested in a covering of an infinite sequence $X$ by some ART $\mathcal{U}$. A natural question to ask: if this can be checked on some machine model. Since $X$ is an infinite sequence, we need to deal with $\omega$-automata. It turns out that for given ART $\mathcal{U}$, its covering region $F(\mathcal{U})$ can be described as a language corresponding to some deterministic Büchi automata of measure zero. Moreover, converse statement also holds.
Let $\mathcal{U}$ be an ART. Then $F(\mathcal{U})$ is recognized by a deterministic Büchi automaton of measure zero.
We are going to provide two genuinely different proofs. The first proof is based on a direct construction of a desired Büchi automata. The second proof is based on an indirect argument, where we do not know how a corresponding automaton is going to look like.
According to Theorem 1, we can assume that $\mathcal{U}=(U_i)_{i\in I}$, where $I=0^*$ and the length of words in $U_i$ is larger than that of $i$ for all $i\in I$. Our aim is to construct a deterministic Büchi automaton $M$ such that $F(\mathcal{U})=L(M)$. The final automaton $M$ is based on deterministic movements of multiple markers inside of a some automaton. The idea is similar to the one of constructing a deterministic finite automaton equivalent to a given nondeterministic finite automaton. Recall that $X\in F(\mathcal{U})$ if and only if for all $i\in I$, there is $x_i\in U_i$ such that $x_i\prec X$. So, $M$ should somehow verify if above condition is satisfied while reading elements of $X$. The idea is to check for an existence of $x_i$ for each $i$ one-by-one. Suppose we want to check existence of $x_i$ for $i=0^n$. Let $N$ be an automaton recognizing automatic relation corresponding to $\mathcal{U}$. First we feed a following block into $N$: $$\begin{pmatrix}
X[n]\\
0^n
\end{pmatrix}$$ Then we associate a red marker with this process to keep track a state of $N$, when subsequent blocks in the form of $(X_i,\#)$ are fed. If the given red marker is ever to visit an accepting state of $N$, then it is bound to disappear. Observe that the condition on existence of $x_i$ is now replaced by the condition on a disappearance of the created red marker. Now this procedure can be performed for all $n$ as we read elements $X$ bit-by-bit. The global condition, $X\in F(\mathcal{U})$, can be formulated as eventual disappearance of all created red markers. This procedure poses two kinds of problems:
- Number of red markers might grow indefinitely
- As new red markers are being constantly produced, we might fail to keep track of the disappearance of older red markers.
To address the first issue, we are going to merge all red markers corresponding to the same state. This ensures that at any given stage, we have at most $\vert N \vert$, number of states in automaton corresponding to $N$, many red markers. In order to address the second issue, we introduce a notion of old and new red markers. We refer to old red markers as grey markers. Then we divide overall dynamics into phases. At the beginning of each phase, all existing red markers are transformed into grey markers. Grey markers behave just as red markers. The end of each phase is characterized by the disappearance of all grey markers, after which the next phase begins. Observe that, the disappearance of all created red markers is equivalent to witnessing ends of mentioned phases infinitely often. Thus, if one sets all accepting states to the end of phases and assigns states for each possible configuration of markers, then we have a condition corresponding to an acceptance condition for the final Büchi automaton. This completes the construction.
Given an ART, $\mathcal{U}=(U_i)_{i\in I}$, satisfying properties given in Theorem 1, we wish to build a deterministic Büchi automaton of measure zero recognizing the language $F(\mathcal{U})$. Since $F(\mathcal{U})$ is of measure zero, it suffices to show that $F(\mathcal{U})$ is recognized by some deterministic Büchi automaton. Recall that given class $\mathcal{C}$ is recognizable a deterministic Büchi automaton if there is a regular language $R$ satisfying: $$X\in \mathcal{C} \Leftrightarrow Pref(X)\cap R\text{ is an infinite set}$$ So we need to exhibit a regular language $R$ satisfying the above condition for $F(\mathcal{U})$. Recall that $X\in F(\mathcal{U})$ iff for all $i\in I$, there is $x_i\in U_i$ such that $x_i\prec X$. Since $(U_i)_{i\in I}$ is assumed to be a decreasing sequence, we have $X\in F(\mathcal{U})$ if and only if there is infinitely many $i\in I$ such that the mentioned property holds, i.e. $\exists^{\infty} i\in I$ such that there is $x_i\in U_i$ with $x_i\prec X$. Then we turn each $U_i$ into a prefix-free language, which gives us a new automatic family $\mathcal{V} = (V_i)_{i\in I}$. Formally, $$V_i = \{x\in U_i: \forall y\in U_i(y\not\prec x)\}$$ We can easily verify that $X\in F(\mathcal{U})$ if and only if $\exists^{\infty}i\in I$ such that there is $x_i\in V_i$ with $x_i\prec X$. As for a forward direction, given $X\in F(\mathcal{U})$, we have $\exists^{\infty}i\in I$ there is $x_i\in U_i$ such that $x_i\prec X$. For each mentioned $i\in I$, we select $y_i\preceq x_i\prec X$ such that $y_i\in V_i$. On the other hand, suppose that $\exists^{\infty}i\in I$ such that there is $x_i\in V_i$ with $x_i\in X$. By a virtue of $V_i$ being a subset of $U_i$, we have that $\exists^{\infty}i\in I$ such that there is $x_i\in U_i$ with $x_i\prec X$. Finally, let us define the desired regular language $R$: $$R = \bigcup_{i\in I}V_i = \{x\mid \exists i(x\in V_i)\}$$ Due to the first-order definability for automatic structures, $R$ is indeed a regular language. Let us show that it satisfies the desired properties. Suppose that $X\in F(\mathcal{U})$, then we know $\exists^{\infty}i\in I$ such that there is $x_i\in V_i$ with $x_i\prec X$. Since the initial $\mathcal{U}$ is assumed to satisfy the condition on the length of words, we have $$x\in V_i \Rightarrow \vert x \vert > \vert i \vert$$ Together with former observation, we conclude that $R\cap Pref(X)$ is indeed an infinite set. On the other hand, suppose that $R\cap Pref(X)$ is infinite. Since each $V_i$ is a prefix-free language, no two elements of $Pref(X)$ can belong to the same $V_i$. Hence, there are infinitely many $i\in I$ such that there is $x_i\in V_i$ with $x_i\prec X$. This implies that $X\in F(U)$. Thus, $R$ indeed satisfies the desired properties.
Now we state a converse direction of the previous theorem.
Let $M$ be a deterministic Büchi automaton of measure zero. Then there is ART $\mathcal{U}$ such that $L(M)=F(\mathcal{U})$.
Let $R$ be a language corresponding to $M$, when it is viewed as a finite automaton, instead of the determinsitic Büchi automaton. Set $I=0^*$ and define $\mathcal{U} = (U_i)_{i\in I}$ as follows: $$U_i = \{x\mid \vert x \vert \ge \vert i \vert,\, x\in R\}$$ Due to the first-order definability of automatic structures $\mathcal{U}$ is a proper automatic family. Moreover $\mathcal{U}$ is a decreasing family in a sense that $U_i\supseteq U_j$ for $i\prec j$. Recall that $X\in L(M)$ if and only if $Pref(X)\cap R$ is an infinite set. The latter is equivalent to saying that $X\in [U_i]$ for all $i\in I$, i.e. $X\in F(\mathcal{U})$. This argument shows that $L(M)=F(\mathcal{U})=\bigcap_{i\in I}[U_i]$. Since a measure of the Cantor space itself is bounded, we apply Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem to the previous equation, which gives us: $$\mu(L(M)) = \lim_{i\in I} \mu[U_i]$$ As $\mu(L(M))=0$, we have that $\mathcal{U}$ forms a proper ART which satisfies the desired properties.
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a class of the Cantor Space. The following are equivalent:
1. There is ART $\mathcal{U}$ such that $\mathcal{C}=F(\mathcal{U})$.
2. There is a deterministic Büchi automaton of measure zero such that $\mathcal{C}=L(M)$
We have encountered deterministic Büchi automata of measure zero. A natural question to ask would be: when is a given deterministic Büchi automaton of measure zero. To answer this question, we need to verify few things given in the form of lemmas. We should note that some of the following results also appear in the work of Staiger [@Null; @Monadic], but we wish to give our own proofs.
Let $M=(S,f,s_0)$ be an FSM. Then a run of any disjunctive sequence $X$ is going to reach a leaf connectied component, i.e. $\exists i\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $s_0\cdot X[i]\in g$ for some $g\in (M)$.
Firstly, let us observe that for any state $q\in S$ there is a word $w$ such that $q\cdot w$ is in some leaf connected component. Following an idea in the proof of the lemma 1, it is possible to construct a word $w$ such that no matter from which state one starts with, processing $w$ brings one to a leaf connected component. Given a disjunctive sequence $X$, it contains $w$ as a subword by definition. Hence, a run of disjunctive sequence $X$ on $M$ is going to end up in some leaf connected component.
Given a disjunctive sequence $X$, any suffix of $X$ is also a disjunctive sequence.
Suppose that we want to prove that $X[i:]=X_{i+1}X_{i+2}\ldots$ is disjunctive for some $i$. Let us pick some word $w$. In order to show that $w$ appears as a subword in $X[i:]$, let us observe that $0^iw$ appears as a subword in $X$. Since no part of $w$ could appear in $X[i]=X_1X_2\ldots X_i$, we have that $w$ appears as a subword in $X[i:]$.
Let $M=(S,f,s_0)$ be an FSM. Then for any disjunctive sequence $X$, we have that $I(X)=g$ for some $g\in (M)$.
According to Lemma 2 processing any disjunctive sequence $X$ will lead the automaton $M$ to some leaf connected component. Let $g\in (M)$ to be a leaf connected component in which $X$ ends up to be. Clearly $I(X)\subseteq g$, so we we need to show that $g\subseteq I(X)$. For an arbitrary state $q\in g$, we can apply the argument used in the proof of lemma 1 in the context of an FSM $g$ and an accepting state $q\in g$. There is a word $w_q$ such that processing $w_q$ starting from any state of $g$ would visit $q$ at least once. Now, if $I(X)\neq g$, then there should be a state $q\in g$ such that $q$ is never visited from some point onwards during the run of $X$. This implies that for some $i\in \mathbb{N}$, $X[i:]=X_{i+1}X_{i+2}\ldots$ does not contain $w_q$ as a subword. Thus, $X[i:]=X_{i+1}X_{i+2}\ldots$ is not disjunctive, which contradicts to our initial assumption according to Lemma 3.
Finally, we provide a condition of a deterministic Büchi automaton to be of measure zero.
Let $M=(S,f,s_0,F)$ be a deterministic Büchi automaton. Then $\mu(L(M))=0$ if and only if $F\cap g=\emptyset$ for all leaf connected components $g\in (M)$.
Forward direction $(\Rightarrow):$\
Assume that $q\in F\cap g$ for some leaf cpnnected component $g$. Since we assume that all states are reachable from starting state, $s_0$, there is a word $w$ such that $s_0\cdot w=q$. Now consider any disjunctive sequence $X\in\mathcal{D}$. By applying Theorem 5 for a component $g$ and a starting state $q$, we infer that $wX$ visits every element of $g$ infinitely often. This means that $wX$ is going to be an accepting sequence. Since the measure of all disjunctive sequences is one, we have that $\mu(w\mathcal{D})=2^{-\vert w \vert}$. Hence $\mu(L(M))\ge 2^{-\vert w \vert}>0$. Thus, the forward direction follows.\
Backward direction $(\Leftarrow):$\
Assume $F\cap g=\emptyset$ for all leaf components $g\in (M)$. According to Theorem 5, for any disjunctive $X$, $I(X)=g$ for some leaf component $g\in (M)$. This means that any sequence accepted by $M$ is not disjunctive, and $L(M)$ is a subcollection of nondisjunctive sequences. As a latter has the measure of zero. Former should also have the measure of zero. This completes the backward direction, and the overall proof of the given theorem.
Since deterministic Muller automata are close to deterministic Büchi automata, we provide same type of condition for deterministic Muller automata. Later this observation turns out to be useful for us.
Let $M=(S,f,s_0,F)$ be a deterministic Muller automaton. Then $\mu(L(M))=0$ if and only if $F\cap (M) = \emptyset$.
The proof is similar to the one of above theorem. Forward direction\
$(\Rightarrow):$\
Again assume that $g\in F$ for some leaf component $g\in(M)$. Let us choose an arbitrary state, $q\in g$. By an initial assumption on automata, there is a word $w$ such that $s_0\cdot w=q$. Then applying Theorem 5 for a connected component $g$ with a starting state $q$, we observe that for $wX$ where $X\in \mathcal{D}$, we have $I(wX)=g$. Since the measure of disjuncitve sequences is one, $\mu(w\mathcal{D})=2^{-\vert w \vert}$. This implies that $\mu(L(M))\ge 2^{-\vert w \vert}>0$. This completes the forward direction.\
Backward direction, $(\Leftarrow):$\
Assume $g\not\in F$ for any leaf connected component $g\in(M)$. According to the Theorem 5, for any disjunctive sequence $X$, we have $I(X)=g$ for some leaf component $g\in(M)$. For any sequence $X$, accepted by $M$, we have that $X$ is not disjunctive. Hence $L(M)$ is a subcollection of nondisjunctive sequences. As a latter has the measure zero, former should also have the measure zero. This completes the backward direction, and the whole proof of the given theorem.
Characterization
----------------
In this section we summarize our observations in the form of a characterization result for sequences covered by an ART. Again, note that equivalence of last three statements is known from Staiger [@Null; @Monadic]
Given an infinite sequence $X$ the following are equivalent:
1. $X\in F(\mathcal{U})$ for some ART $\mathcal{U}$
2. $X$ is accepted by a deterministic Büchi automaton of measure zero.
3. $X$ is accepted by a deterministic Muller automaton of measure zero.
4. $X$ is not a disjunctive sequence
$(1\Rightarrow 2):$\
Suppose a sequence $X$ is covered by an ART $\mathcal{U}$. By Theorem 1, $F(\mathcal{U})$ is recognized by a deterministic Büchi automaton $M$ of measure zero. So clearly, $X$ is accepted by $M$, which has desired properties.\
$(2\Rightarrow 3):$\
Suppose that a sequence $X$ is accepted by a deterministic Büchi automaton $M$ of measure zero. It is known that nondeterministic Büchi automata is equivalent to deterministic Muller automata. As any deterministic Büchi automaton can be viewed as a nondeterministic Büchi automaton, every language recognized by a deterministic Büchi automaton has a corresponding determinsitic Muller automaton. So, there is a deterministic Muller automaton $N$ such that $L(M)=L(N)$. As $X\in L(N)$, we have that $X$ is accepted by $N$.\
$(3\Rightarrow 4):$\
Suppose that a sequence $X$ is accepted by a deterministic Muller automaton $M$ with accepting collection $F$. According to Theorem 7, we have $F\cap(M)=\emptyset$. Combining this observation with Theorem 5, we obtain that any sequence accepted by $M$ is nondisjunctive. In particular, $X$ is not disjunctive.\
$(4 \Rightarrow 1):$\
Suppose that $X$ is nondisjunctive, i.e. there is some word $w$ which does not appear in $X$ as a subword. To construct ART covering $X$, let us take: $$U_i = \{x\mid \vert x \vert = \vert i \vert, \, x \text{ does not contain }w\text{ as a subword}\}$$ with $I=0^*$. Clearly, $\mathcal{U}=(U_i)_{i\in I}$ is an automatic family. Furthermore, a measure of $\mu[U_i]$ could be bounded in a straightforward manner. Assuming that $\vert w \vert = d$, consider an element $u\in U_{dk}$ for some $k\in \mathbb{N}$. As $u$ can be divided into $k$ blocks of size $d$, and none of the block is allowed to be $w$, we have: $$\mu[U_{0^{dk}}]\le \left(1-\frac{1}{2^d}\right)^k$$ As the limiting value of the right hand side approaches zero as $k\to \infty$, we have $\liminf_{i\in I} \mu[U_i]=0$. This shows that $(U_i)_{i\in I}$ is a proper ART. Since $X\in [U_i]$ for all $i\in I$, we have $X\in F(\mathcal{U})$, i.e. $X$ is covered by $\mathcal{U}$.
An infinite sequence $X$ is automatic random (AR) if and only if it is disjunctive.
Focusing on $(1)$ and $(4)$ of the above theorem (Theorem 8), we are aware of the following equivalence: $$X \text{ is covered by some ART }\Leftrightarrow X\text{ is not disjunctive }$$ This is equivalent to saying: $$X \text{ is AR}\Leftrightarrow X \text{ is disjunctive }$$ This way, we obtained a complete combinatorial equivalent of AR condition.
On relation between ART and MART
--------------------------------
At last, we would like to say few words regarding a relationship between ART and MART. Clearly ART subsumes MART, because each MART can be viewed as an ART. A natural questions to ask is an equivalence of these notions. Do these notions coincide or do they give rise to different classes of randomness? We are going to show that these two notions are not equivalent, i.e. there is a class $\mathcal{C}$ such that $\mathcal{C} = F(\mathcal{U})$ for some ART $\mathcal{U}$, yet $\mathcal{C} \neq F(\mathcal{V})$ for any MART $\mathcal{V}$.
ART and MART are not equivalent as randomness notions.
Let us consider a class presented as an example earlier in the paper: $$\mathcal{C} = \{X\mid X_{2i}=0\text{ for all } i\in \mathbb{N}\}$$ We have shown that there is an ART $\mathcal{U} = (U_i)_{i\in I}$ given as: $$I=(00)^*,\quad U_i=(\Sigma 0)^{\frac{\vert i \vert}{2}}$$ such that $\mathcal{C} = F(\mathcal{U})$. Observe that for each $x\in U_i$, we have $\vert x \vert = \vert i \vert$. Moreover $\vert U_i \vert = 2^{\frac{\vert i \vert}{2}}$. We need to show that $\mathcal{C} \neq F(\mathcal{V})$ for any MART $\mathcal{V}$. Assume contrary: there is a such MART $\mathcal{V}$. Let us apply Theorem 1, to transform $\mathcal{V}$ to more favorable MART $\mathcal{W} = (W_e)_{e\in E}$ satisfying:
- $E = 0^*$.
- $(W_e)_{e\in E}$ is decreasing, i.e. $W_i\supseteq W_j$ for $i\prec j$.
- The length of words contained in $W_e$ is larger than $\vert e \vert$, i.e. $x\in W_e\Rightarrow \vert x \vert > \vert e \vert$.
Let us consider $W_{0^{2k}}$ for some $k$. For the sake of notational convenience, we are going to write $kk$ in place of $0^{2k}$. Any $X\in \mathcal{C}$ should have some prefix $x_{2k}\prec X$ in $W_{kk}$, satisfying $\vert x_{2k}\vert > 2k$. This means that any $x\in U_{kk}$ has some extension $y$ in $W_{kk}$. Let $c$ a pumping constant corresponding to the automatic relation for $\mathcal{W}$. For any string $y\in W_{kk}$ such that $\vert y\vert > 2k + c$, we can apply the pumming lemma to pump down $y$ to $y'$ such that $\vert y' \vert \le 2k + c$. Hence, for any $x\in U_{kk}$ we can assume that its extension $y$ has a length of at most $2k+c$. Finally, we estimate the measure of $[W_{kk}]$: $$\mu[W_{kk}]\ge \sum_{x\in U_{kk}}2^{-\vert y \vert} \ge 2^k(2^{-2k-c})=2^{-k-c}> 2^{-2k}$$ provided that $k> c$. This fact contradicts the requirement of $\mathcal{W}$ being a MART.
So far, we have seen a difference between ART and MART on a class level, i.e. there is a class $\mathcal{C}\subseteq \{0,1\}^{\mathbb{N}}$ which is covered by some ART and none of MART. It turns out the difference goes further into a sequence level. In particular, we are going to show an existence of some sequence $X$ which is random with respect to MART, yet not random with respect to ART.
There is a sequence $X$ which is Martin-Löf automatic random (MAR), yet it is not automatic random (AR).
Let $A$ be some disjunctive sequence and $X=A\oplus 0^{\omega}=A_10A_20\ldots$. Clearly, $X$ is not AR, for there is ART covering $X$ as shown in Examples subsection of the current paper. We are left to show that $X$ is MAR, i.e. no MART covers $X$. Assume contrary, suppose there is some MART $\mathcal{U}=(U_i)_{i\in I}$ covering $X$, which can be assumed to satisfy properties given in Theorem 1. Let us restrict our attention to even indexed language families, $U_{0^{2k}}$. Again for the sake of notational convenience, we replace an index of $0^{2i}$ by $ii$. Let us consider an induced family of languages, $\mathcal{V}=(V_i)_{i\in I}$ with $I=0^*$: $$V_i = \{a_1a_2\ldots a_n\mid (a_10a_20\ldots a_n\in U_{ii})\text{ or }(a_10a_20\ldots a_n0\in U_{ii})\}$$ It is possible to construct a finite automaton recognizing $\mathcal{V}$ from that recognizing $\mathcal{U}$ by ’skipping’ $0$ transitions. This argument shows that $\mathcal{V}$ is actually an automatic family. Furthermore, we have that $A\in \bigcap[V_i]$. This points out that $\mathcal{V}$ is not ART, for $A$ is a disjunctive sequence. In order to understand $\mathcal{V}$ better, let us switch to the realm of Büchi automata. As we know, there is some Büchi automaton $M$ recognizing $\bigcap[U_{ii}]$. A modification of $M$ consisting of ’skipping’ over $0$ transitions, gives as a Büchi automaton $N$ recognizing $\bigcap[V_i]$. As for $N$, we know following facts: it is of positive measure and $A\in L(N)$. The latter fact can be interpreted as a presence of an accepting state in a connected component where the run of $A$ ends up in. Thus there is a prefix $w\prec A$ such that for any disjunctive sequence $X\in \mathcal{D}$, we have that $wX\in L(N)$, equivalently $wX\in [V_i]$ for all $i$. Now we can use this observation to derive a lower bound for the measure of $U_{ii}$, thus achieving a contradiction. Given any string $v$ of length $\vert i \vert$ such that $w\preceq v$, there is an extension of $v$ in $V_i$. Translating this statement for $U_{ii}$, we have: given $a_1a_2\ldots a_{\vert i \vert} \succeq w$, there is some string $u\in U_{ii}$ extending $a_10a_20\ldots a_n$. Thanks to pumping lemma, a length of $u$ can be assumed to be no greater than $2\vert i \vert + c$, where $c$ is a pumping constant correspong to automatic relation $\mathcal{U}$. Just as in previous proof, we now estimate $\mu[U_{ii}]$: $$\mu[U_{ii}]\ge \sum_{v}2^{-\vert u \vert} \ge 2^{\vert i \vert - \vert w \vert}2^{-2\vert i \vert - c} = 2^{-\vert i \vert - \vert w \vert - c} > 2^{-2\vert i \vert}$$ given large enough $\vert i \vert$. This clearly violates conditions for being MART, which indicates falsity of the initial assumption. Hence, $\mathcal{U}$ could not be MART.
So far, we have seen that it is impossible, in general, to impose a condition of $\mu[U_i]\le 2^{-\vert i \vert}$ on ART without altering its randomness properties. A question now is what can we say about individual measures at all? Can we impose some weaker conditions? It turns out individual measures can be assumed to decrease exponentially.
Suppose that $\mathcal{C}=F(\mathcal{U})$ for some ART $\mathcal{U}$. Then there is an ART $\mathcal{V} = (V_j)_{j\in J}$ subsuming $\mathcal{U}$, such that $\mu[V_j]\le \gamma^{\vert j \vert}$ for some $\gamma<1$.
Invoking a machine characterization of ART, there is a deterministic Büchi automaton of measure zero, $M=(S,f,s_0,F)$, recognizing $\mathcal{C}$. By Theorem 6, none of accepting states of $M$ is in a leaf connected component. Applying the argument used in the proof of Lemma 1, there is a word $w$ which brings any state of $M$ into a leaf connected component. This means that for any $X\in \mathcal{C}$, $X$ does not contain $w$ as a subword. Let $\mathcal{C}_w$ be a collection of all sequences not having $w$ as a subword. By the previous argument $\mathcal{C}\subseteq \mathcal{C}_w$. Recall that in the proof of Theorem 9, we have constructed an ART, $\mathcal{W}=(W_i)_{i\in I}$, corresponding to $\mathcal{C}_w$: $$W_i = \{x\mid \vert x \vert = \vert i \vert, \, x \text{ does not contain }w\text{ as a subword}\}$$ We have shown that $\mathcal{W}$ is indeed an ART such that $\mathcal{C}_w = F(\mathcal{W})$. Furthermore, we have shown that: $$\mu[W_{0^{dk}}]\le \left(1-\frac{1}{2^d}\right)^k$$ where $d=\vert w \vert$. Observe that $([W_j])_{j\in J}$ is a decreasing sequence, in a sense that $[W_i]\supseteq [W_j]$ for $i\prec j$. Hence, a condition $X\in F(\mathcal{W})$ can be stated as $\exists^{\infty}i\in I$ with $x_i\in W_i$ and $x_i\prec X$. Thus, choosing any infinite collection of members from $\mathcal{W}$ results in the exact same covering region. We only need to ensure that this choice somehow selects a regular language of indices. Collection $J = (0^d)^+ = 0^d(0^d)^*$ forms a regular language. So we set a new ART $\mathcal{V} = (V_j)_{j\in J}$ so that $V_j = W_j$. Given $j\in J$ such that $\vert j \vert = dk$, we have: $$\mu[V_j] \le (1-\frac{1}{2^d})^{k} = \gamma^{\vert j \vert}, \text{ where } \gamma = \left(1 - \frac{1}{2^d}\right)^{\frac{1}{d}}$$ This completes the construction.
Discussions
===========
We have defined and investigated properties of randomness tests in the context of automata theory. These investigations led to quite unexpected connections between randomness tests and $\omega$-automata such as by Büchi and Muller. Furthermore, a purely combinatorial characterization of automatic randomness in the form of disjunctive property for sequences has been found. Let us compare our results with automatic randomness notions arising from other paradigms. As for the unpredictability paradigm considered in [@Stimm; @OConnor], automatic random sequences correspond to normal sequences as in [@Borel]. Similarly, for the incompressibility paradigm considered in [@Becher; @Shen] random sequences correspond to normal ones. Clearly, a normality is much stronger property than being disjunctive. Hence, the current automatic randomness tests result in much larrger class of random sequences. It is an open question if one could modify the definition of automatic randomness tests, so that resulting randomness class coincides with that of normal sequences. Moreover, we hope that many more notions from the theory of algorithmic randomness could find their counterparts in the context of automata theory.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Frank Stephan for numerous discussions held in person as well as via e-mail.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
(BES Collaboration)\
M. Ablikim$^{1}$, J. Z. Bai$^{1}$, Y. Ban$^{12}$, J. G. Bian$^{1}$, X. Cai$^{1}$, H. F. Chen$^{16}$, H. S. Chen$^{1}$, H. X. Chen$^{1}$, J. C. Chen$^{1}$, Jin Chen$^{1}$, Y. B. Chen$^{1}$, S. P. Chi$^{2}$, Y. P. Chu$^{1}$, X. Z. Cui$^{1}$, Y. S. Dai$^{18}$, L. Y. Diao$^{9}$, Z. Y. Deng$^{1}$, Q. F. Dong$^{15}$, S. X. Du$^{1}$, J. Fang$^{1}$, S. S. Fang$^{2}$, C. D. Fu$^{1}$, C. S. Gao$^{1}$, Y. N. Gao$^{15}$, S. D. Gu$^{1}$, Y. T. Gu$^{4}$, Y. N. Guo$^{1}$, Y. Q. Guo$^{1}$, K. L. He$^{1}$, M. He$^{13}$, Y. K. Heng$^{1}$, H. M. Hu$^{1}$, T. Hu$^{1}$, G. S. Huang$^{1}$$^{a}$, X. T. Huang$^{13}$, X. B. Ji$^{1}$, X. S. Jiang$^{1}$, X. Y. Jiang$^{5}$, J. B. Jiao$^{13}$, D. P. Jin$^{1}$, S. Jin$^{1}$, Yi Jin$^{8}$, Y. F. Lai$^{1}$, G. Li$^{2}$, H. B. Li$^{1}$, H. H. Li$^{1}$, J. Li$^{1}$, R. Y. Li$^{1}$, S. M. Li$^{1}$, W. D. Li$^{1}$, W. G. Li$^{1}$, X. L. Li$^{1}$, X. N. Li$^{1}$, X. Q. Li$^{11}$, Y. L. Li$^{4}$, Y. F. Liang$^{14}$, H. B. Liao$^{1}$, B. J. Liu$^{1}$, C. X. Liu$^{1}$, F. Liu$^{6}$, Fang Liu$^{1}$, H. H. Liu$^{1}$, H. M. Liu$^{1}$, J. Liu$^{12}$, J. B. Liu$^{1}$, J. P. Liu$^{17}$, Q. Liu$^{1}$, R. G. Liu$^{1}$, Z. A. Liu$^{1}$, Y. C. Lou$^{5}$, F. Lu$^{1}$, G. R. Lu$^{5}$, J. G. Lu$^{1}$, C. L. Luo$^{10}$, F. C. Ma$^{9}$, H. L. Ma$^{1}$, L. L. Ma$^{1}$, Q. M. Ma$^{1}$, X. B. Ma$^{5}$, Z. P. Mao$^{1}$, X. H. Mo$^{1}$, J. Nie$^{1}$, H. P. Peng$^{16}$$^{d}$, R. G. Ping$^{1}$, N. D. Qi$^{1}$, H. Qin$^{1}$, J. F. Qiu$^{1}$, Z. Y. Ren$^{1}$, G. Rong$^{1}$, L. Y. Shan$^{1}$, L. Shang$^{1}$, C. P. Shen$^{1}$, D. L. Shen$^{1}$, X. Y. Shen$^{1}$, H. Y. Sheng$^{1}$, H. S. Sun$^{1}$, J. F. Sun$^{1}$, S. S. Sun$^{1}$, Y. Z. Sun$^{1}$, Z. J. Sun$^{1}$, Z. Q. Tan$^{4}$, X. Tang$^{1}$, G. L. Tong$^{1}$, D. Y. Wang$^{1}$, L. Wang$^{1}$, L. L. Wang$^{1}$, L. S. Wang$^{1}$, M. Wang$^{1}$, P. Wang$^{1}$, P. L. Wang$^{1}$, W. F. Wang$^{1}$$^{b}$, Y. F. Wang$^{1}$, Z. Wang$^{1}$, Z. Y. Wang$^{1}$, Zhe Wang$^{1}$, Zheng Wang$^{2}$, C. L. Wei$^{1}$, D. H. Wei$^{1}$, N. Wu$^{1}$, X. M. Xia$^{1}$, X. X. Xie$^{1}$, G. F. Xu$^{1}$, X. P. Xu$^{6}$, Y. Xu$^{11}$, M. L. Yan$^{16}$, H. X. Yang$^{1}$, Y. X. Yang$^{3}$, M. H. Ye$^{2}$, Y. X. Ye$^{16}$, Z. Y. Yi$^{1}$, G. W. Yu$^{1}$, C. Z. Yuan$^{1}$, J. M. Yuan$^{1}$, Y. Yuan$^{1}$, S. L. Zang$^{1}$, Y. Zeng$^{7}$, Yu Zeng$^{1}$, B. X. Zhang$^{1}$, B. Y. Zhang$^{1}$, C. C. Zhang$^{1}$, D. H. Zhang$^{1}$, H. Q. Zhang$^{1}$, H. Y. Zhang$^{1}$, J. W. Zhang$^{1}$, J. Y. Zhang$^{1}$, S. H. Zhang$^{1}$, X. M. Zhang$^{1}$, X. Y. Zhang$^{13}$, Yiyun Zhang$^{14}$, Z. P. Zhang$^{16}$, D. X. Zhao$^{1}$, J. W. Zhao$^{1}$, M. G. Zhao$^{1}$, P. P. Zhao$^{1}$, W. R. Zhao$^{1}$, Z. G. Zhao$^{1}$$^{c}$, H. Q. Zheng$^{12}$, J. P. Zheng$^{1}$, Z. P. Zheng$^{1}$, L. Zhou$^{1}$, N. F. Zhou$^{1}$$^{c}$, K. J. Zhu$^{1}$, Q. M. Zhu$^{1}$, Y. C. Zhu$^{1}$, Y. S. Zhu$^{1}$, Yingchun Zhu$^{1}$$^{d}$, Z. A. Zhu$^{1}$, B. A. Zhuang$^{1}$, X. A. Zhuang$^{1}$, B. S. Zou$^{1}$
date: 'Received: date / Revised version: date'
title: |
Measurements of the absolute branching fractions for $D \to \overline K\pi e^+\nu_e$, $D \to \overline K^* e^+\nu_e$ and determination of $\Gamma(D^+ \to \overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e)/\Gamma(D^+ \to
\overline K^0 e^+\nu_e)$
---
Introduction
============
Semileptonic decays offer access to weak interaction matrix elements since the effects of weak and strong interactions can be separated reasonable well. Measurements of branching fractions for exclusive decays of $D$ mesons play an important role to develop and to test models of their decay mechanisms.
Earlier theoretical predictions [@wirbel][@lubicz] implied that the ratio of the vector to pseudoscalar $D$ meson semileptonic decay rates $R=\Gamma(D \to \overline K^* e^+ \nu_e)/\Gamma(D \to
\overline K e^+ \nu_e)$ lies in the range from 0.9 to 1.2 [@richman]. E691 Collaboration reported a measurement with a lower ratio $\Gamma(D^+ \to \overline K^{*0} e^+ \nu_e)/
\Gamma(D^0 $\
$\to K^- e^+ \nu_e) = 0.45\pm 0.11$ [@e691], while MARK-III Collaboration obtained $\Gamma(D \to \overline K\pi e^+ \nu_e)/
\Gamma(D \to \overline K e^+ \nu_e) = 1.0^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ [@mark3] which is consistent with the early theoretical predictions. Since then, some controversies evolved concerning the $R$ ratio from both theoretical predictions and experimental measurements. Contrary to the earlier expectations, recent theoretical predictions and experimental measurements tend to support a smaller value [@focus][@cleo]. A compilation of predictions and experimental values can be found in [@focus]. The $R$ ratio is governed by form factors of the hadronic currents. So a measurement of $R$ is essential to test form factor calculations.
In this paper, we report direct measurements of the branching fractions for the decays $D^+ \to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e$ (throughout this paper, charge conjugation is implied), $D^0 \to \overline K^0 \pi^-e^+\nu_e$, $D^+ \to
\overline K^{*0} e^+\nu_e$ and $D^0 \to K^{*-} e^+\nu_e$ by analyzing the data sample of about 33 pb$^{-1}$ [@c5][@c6] collected at and around the center-of-mass energy 3.773 GeV with the BES-II detector at the BEPC collider.
\[intro\]
BES-II detector
===============
The BES-II is a conventional cylindrical magnetic detector that is described in detail in Ref. [@c7]. A 12-layer Vertex Chamber(VC) surrounding a beryllium beam pipe provides input to event trigger, as well as coordinate information. A forty-layer main drift chamber (MDC) located just outside the VC yields precise measurements of charged particle trajectories with a solid angle coverage of $85\%$ of 4$\pi$; it also provides ionization energy loss ($dE/dx$) measurements for particle identification. Momentum resolution of $1.7\%\sqrt{1+p^2}$ ($p$ in GeV/$c$) and $dE/dx$ resolution of $8.5\%$ for Bhabha scattering electrons are obtained for the data taken at $\sqrt{s}=3.773$ GeV. An array of 48 scintillation counters surrounding the MDC measures time of flight (TOF) of charged particles with a resolution of about 180 ps for electrons. Outside the TOF counters, a 12 radiation length, lead-gas barrel shower counter (BSC), operating in limited streamer mode, measures the energies of electrons and photons over $80\%$ of the total solid angle with an energy resolution of $\sigma_E/E=0.22/\sqrt{E}$ ($E$ in GeV) and spatial resolutions of $\sigma_{\phi}=7.9$ mrad and $\sigma_Z=2.3$ cm for electrons. A solenoidal magnet outside the BSC provides a 0.4 T magnetic field in the central tracking region of the detector. Three double-layer muon counters instrument the magnet flux return and serve to identify muons with momentum greater than 500 MeV/c. They cover $68\%$ of the total solid angle.
**Data analysis**
=================
The $\psi(3770)$ resonance is produced in electron-positron ($e^+e^-$) annihilation at the center-of-mass energy of about 3.773 GeV. It is believed to decay predominately into $D^0\bar D^0$ and $D^+D^-$ pairs. Therefore, if a $\bar D$ meson is fully reconstructed (this is called a singly tagged $\bar D$ meson) [@c5][@c6], the $D$ meson must exist in the system recoiling against the singly tagged $\bar D$ meson. In the system recoiling against singly tagged $D^-$ and $\bar D^0$ mesons, we select semileptonic decays $D^+ \to K^- \pi^+(\overline K^{*0})e^+\nu_e$ and $D^0\to \overline K^0
\pi^-(K^{*-})e^+\nu_e$ respectively, and measure branching fractions for the decays directly.
**Event selection**
-------------------
In order to ensure the well-measured 3-momentum vectors and the reliability of the charged-particle identification, all charged tracks are required to be well reconstructed in the MDC with good helix fits, and to satisfy a geometry cut $|\rm{cos\theta}|<0.85$, where $\theta$ is the polar angle. Each track, except for those from $K^0_S$ decays, must originate from the interaction region, which is defined by $V_{xy}<2.0$ cm and $|V_z|<20.0$ cm, where $V_{xy}$ and $|V_z|$ are the closest approach of the charged track in the $xy$-plane and $z$ direction.
Pions and kaons are identified using the $dE/dx$ and TOF measurements, with which the combined confidence levels ($CL_{\pi}$ or $CL_K$) for a pion or kaon hypotheses are calculated. A pion candidate is required to have $CL_{\pi}>
0.001$. In order to reduce misidentification, a kaon candidate is required to satisfy $CL_K>CL_{\pi}$. Electrons are identified using the $dE/dx$, TOF and BSC measurements, with which the combined confidence level ($CL_e$) for the electron hypotheses is calculated. An electron candidate is required to have $CL_e>0.001$ and satisfy the relation $CL_e/(CL_e+CL_K+CL_{\pi})>0.8$.
Neutral kaons are reconstructed through the decay $K^0_S \to \pi^+\pi^-$. The difference between the invariant mass of $\pi^+\pi^-$ combinations and the $K^0_S$ nominal mass should be less than $20$ MeV/$c^2$.
Neutral pions are reconstructed through the decay $\pi^0 \to \gamma\gamma$. A good photon candidate must satisfy the following criteria: (1) the energy deposited in the BSC is greater than 70 MeV; (2) the electromagnetic shower starts in the first 5 readout layers; (3) the angle between the photon and the nearest charged track is greater than $22^\circ$; (4) the opening angle between the direction of the cluster development and the direction of the photon emission is less than $37^\circ$.
(-150,5.0)[Invariant Mass(GeV/$c^2$)]{} (-225,80) (-190,205)[(a)]{} (-84,205)[(b)]{} (-190,168.5)[(c)]{} (-84,168.5)[(d)]{} (-190,108)[(e)]{} (-84,108)[(f)]{} (-190,71.5)[(g)]{} (-84,71.5)[(h)]{} (-190,33.5)[(i)]{} (-84,33.5)[(j)]{}
(-150,5.0)[Invariant Mass(GeV/$c^2$)]{} (-225,80) (-180,205)[(a)]{} (-180,157.5)[(b)]{} (-180,110.0)[(c)]{} (-180,62.5)[(d)]{}
**Singly tagged $D^-$ and $\bar D^0$ samples**
----------------------------------------------
The singly tagged $D^-$ and $\bar D^0$ samples used in this analysis were selected in the previous work [@c5][@c6], we here give a brief description for the selection of the singly tagged $D^-$ and $\bar D^0$ samples.
The singly tagged $D^-$ mesons are reconstructed in nine hadronic decay modes of $K^+\pi^-\pi^-$, $K^0 \pi^-$, $K^0 K^-$, $K^+ K^-\pi^-$, $K^0
\pi^-\pi^-\pi^+$, $K^0\pi^-\pi^0$, $K^+\pi^-\pi^-\pi^0$, $K^+\pi^-\pi^-
\pi^-\pi^+$ and $\pi^-\pi^-\pi^+$. And the singly tagged $\bar D^0$ mesons are reconstructed in four hadronic decay modes of $K^+\pi^-$, $K^+\pi^-
\pi^-\pi^+$, $K^0\pi^+\pi^-$ and $K^+\pi^-\pi^0$.
In order to improve the momentum resolution and the ratio of signal to combinatorial background in the invariant mass spectra, the center-of-mass energy constraint kinematic fit is imposed on each of the $nKm\pi \hspace{0.1cm}
(n=0,1,2;$\
$m=1,2,3,4)$ combinations. If there is a $K_S^0$ or $\pi^0$ among the $D$ daughter particles, an additional constraint kinematic fit will be imposed on the decay $K_S^0 \to \pi^+\pi^-$ or $\pi^0 \to \gamma \gamma$. Combinations with a kinematic fit probability greater than $0.1\%$ are accepted. If more than one combination satisfies the criteria in an event, only the combination with the largest fit probability is retained.
The resulting distributions of the fitted invariant masses of the $nKm\pi$ combinations, which are calculated using the fitted momentum vectors from the kinematic fit, are shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 for the singly tagged $D^-$ and $\bar D^0$ modes, respectively. A maximum likelihood fit to the mass spectrum with a Gaussian function for the $\bar D$ signal and a special function [@c5][@c6] to describe the background shape yields the observed numbers of the singly tagged $D^-$ and $\bar D^0$ mesons for each mode. These give the total number of the reconstructed singly tagged $\bar D$ mesons, $5321\pm149\pm160$ for $D^-$ [@c5] and $7584\pm198\pm341$ for $\bar D^0$ [@c6], where the first error is statistical and the second systematic obtained by varying the parameterization of the background.
Candidates for $D^+ \to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e$ and $D^0 \to \overline K^0 \pi^-e^+\nu_e$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Candidates for the semileptonic decays $D^+ \to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e$ and $D^0 \to \overline K^0 \pi^-e^+\nu_e$ are selected from the surviving tracks in the system recoiling against the singly tagged $\bar D$ mesons. For the selected candidate events, it is required that there should be no extra charged track or isolated photon, which has not been used in the reconstruction of the singly tagged $\bar D$ mesons. The isolated photon detected in the BSC should have an energy exceeding 100 MeV and should satisfy the photon selection criteria described earlier. There are possible hadronic backgrounds for each semileptonic decay due to misidentification of a charged pion as an electron, for example, the decay $D^+ \to K^-\pi^+\pi^+$ ($D^0 \to \overline K^0 \pi^+\pi^-$) could be misidentified as $D^+ \to K^- \pi^+e^+\nu_e$ ($D^0 \to \overline K^0 \pi^-e^+\nu_e$). However, these events can be suppressed by requiring the invariant masses of $K^-\pi^+e^+$ ($\overline K^0\pi^-e^+$) combinations to be less than 1.75 GeV/$c^2$.
(-130,5.0)[$U_{miss}$(GeV)]{} (-225,85) (-180,205)[(a)]{} (-180,157.5)[(b)]{} (-180,110.0)[(c)]{} (-180,62.5)[(d)]{}
(-130,5.0)[$U_{miss}$(GeV)]{} (-225,85) (-180,205)[(a)]{} (-180,110.0)[(b)]{}
In the semileptonic decays, there is one massless neutrino which is undetected. To obtain information about missing neutrinos, a kinematic quantity $U_{miss}
\equiv E_{miss} - p_{miss}$ is used [@c5][@c6], where $E_{miss}$ and $p_{miss}$ are the total energy and momentum of all missing particles. To select the semileptonic decays, it is required that the candidates for the semileptonic decays should have their $|U_{miss,i}| <3\sigma_{U_{miss,i}}$, where the $\sigma_{U_{miss,i}}$ is the standard deviation of the $U_{miss,i}$ distribution obtained by analyzing the Monte Carlo events of $D^+ \to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e$ ($D^0 \to \overline K^0\pi^- e^+ \nu_e$) versus the $i$th singly tagged $\bar D$ mode. Fig. 3 shows the distributions of the $U_{miss}$, with each peak centered at zero as expected, for the Monte Carlo events of $D^+ \to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e$ versus $D^- \to K^+\pi^-\pi^-$, $D^+ \to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e$ versus $D^- \to K^+\pi^-\pi^-\pi^0$, $D^0 \to \overline K^0 \pi^-e^+\nu_e$ versus $\bar D^0 \to K^+\pi^-$ and $D^0 \to \overline K^0 \pi^-e^+\nu_e$ versus $\bar D^0 \to
K^+\pi^-\pi^0$, respectively. Fig. 4(a) and Fig. 4(b) respectively show the distributions of the $U_{miss}$ for the selected candidates for $D^+ \to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e$ and $D^0 \to \overline K^0 \pi^-e^+\nu_e$ from the data.
(-160,5.0)[Invariant Mass(GeV/$c^2$)]{} (-225,85) (-180,205)[(a)]{} (-180,110.0)[(b)]{}
Figure 5 shows the distributions of the fitted invariant masses of the $nKm\pi$ combinations from the events in which the candidates for $D^+ \to K^-\pi^+e^+
\nu_e$ and $D^0 \to \overline K^0\pi^-e^+\nu_e$ are selected in the system recoiling against the $nKm\pi$ combinations. Fig. 5(a) indicates that an obvious signal of $D^+ \to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e$ via the $D^-$ tags is observed. There are 37 events in the $\pm 3\sigma_{M_{D_i}}$ mass window of the fitted $D$ meson mass $M_{D_i}$, and 18 events in the outside of the signal regions, where $\sigma_{M_{D_i}}$ is the standard deviation of the $nKm\pi$ distribution for the $i$th mode. By assuming that the distribution of background is flat, $5.6\pm1.4$ background events in the signal regions are estimated. After subtracting the number of background events, $31.4\pm6.2$ candidates for $D^+ \to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e$ are retained. A similar analysis of the events in Fig. 5(b) yields $9.9\pm3.4$ candidates for $D^0 \to \overline K^0 \pi^-e^+\nu_e$. There may also be the $\pi^+\pi^-$ combinatorial background. By selecting the events in which the invariant masses of the $\pi^+\pi^-$ combinations on the recoil side of the tags are outside of the $K^0_S$ mass window, we estimate that there are $0.6\pm0.2$ background events in the candidate events. After subtracting the number of background events, $9.3\pm3.4$ candidate events are retained.
**Candidates for $D^+ \to
\overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e$ and $D^0 \to K^{*-}e^+\nu_e$**
--------------------------------------------------------
To select the candidates for $D^+ \to \overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e$ and $D^0 \to K^{*-}e^+\nu_e$, we calculate the invariant masses of $K^-\pi^+$ ($\overline K^0\pi^-$) combinations from the selected candidates for $D^+\to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e$ ($D^0\to \overline K^0\pi^-e^+\nu_e$). Fig. 6(a) and Fig. 6(b) show the distributions of the invariant masses of $K^-\pi^+$ and $\overline K^0\pi^-$ combinations for the events in which the invariant masses of the $nKm\pi$ combinations are within the $\pm 3\sigma_{M_{D_i}}$ mass window of the fitted $D$ meson mass $M_{D_i}$. A clear $\overline K^{*0}$ signal is observed in Fig. 6(a). Fitting the $K^-\pi^+$ invariant mass spectrum with a Gaussian function for the $\overline K^{*0}$ signal and a S-wave $K\pi$ phase space background shape, we obtain $29.1\pm6.6$ candidates for $D^+ \to\overline K^{*0} e^+\nu_e$. In the fit, the mass and width of $\overline K^{*0}$ are respectively fixed to 0.8961 GeV/$c^2$ and 50.7 MeV/$c^2$ quoted from PDG [@c8], the mass resolution is fixed to 10 MeV/$c^2$ determined by Monte Carlo simulation. Using the same background shape, a similar fit to the $\overline K^0\pi^-$ invariant mass spectrum in Fig. 6(b) yields $7.4\pm3.3$ candidates for $D^0 \to K^{*-}e^+\nu_e$. After subtracting the number of $\pi^+\pi^-$ combinatorial background of $0.1\pm0.1$ events, $7.3\pm3.3$ candidate events are retained.
(-160,5.0)[Invariant Mass(GeV/$c^2$)]{} (-225,80) (-180,205)[(a)]{} (-180,110.0)[(b)]{}
However, there are still some $K^*$ contaminations from other modes of $D$ meson decays or from continuum background due to the combinatorial background in the singly tagged $\bar D$ signal regions. These $K^*$ contaminations must be subtracted from the fitted number of the selected candidates for $D^+ \to \overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e$ and $D^0 \to K^{*-}e^+\nu_e$. They are estimated by using the $\bar D$ sideband events. The numbers of the events satisfying the selection criteria in the $\bar D$ sideband are then normalized to obtain the numbers of the background events in the $\bar D$ signal regions. Totally $0.8\pm0.8$ and $0.7\pm0.5$ background events for $D^+\to\overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e$ and $D^0\to K^{*-}e^+\nu_e$ are obtained respectively. After subtracting the numbers of the background events, $28.3\pm6.6$ and $6.6\pm3.3$ candidate events for $D^+ \to \overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e$ and $D^0 \to K^{*-}e^+\nu_e$ are respectively retained.
The distribution of the momentum of the electrons from the selected candidates for $D^+ \to \overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e$ is shown in Fig. 7, where the points with error bars are from the data and the histogram is from the Monte Carlo events of $D^+ \to \overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e$. The contaminations from hadronic and some other semileptonic decays have been subtracted from the observed events based on study of the Monte Carlo events of $e^+e^-\to D \bar D$.
(-170,5.0)[Momentum of electron(GeV/c)]{} (-225,80)
**Other backgrounds**
---------------------
The events from other hadronic or semileptonic decays may also satisfy the selection criteria for the semileptonic decays and are misidentified as the semileptonic decay events. The numbers of the misidentified events have to be subtracted from the candidates for the semileptonic decays. The numbers of the background events are estimated by analyzing the Monte Carlo sample which is about 14 times larger than the data. The Monte Carlo events are generated as $e^+e^- \to D\bar D$, where the $D$ and $\bar D$ mesons are set to decay into all possible final states with the branching fractions quoted from PDG [@c8] excluding the decay modes under study. The particle trajectories are simulated with the GEANT3 based Monte Carlo simulation package for the BES-II detector [@c9]. The number of the events satisfying the selection criteria is then normalized to the data. Monte Carlo study shows that the dominant background for $D^+ \to K^-\pi^+(\overline K^{*0})e^+\nu_e$ is from $D^+ \to \overline K^{*0}\mu^+\nu_{\mu}$, and the background for $D^0 \to \overline K^0 \pi^-(K^{*-})e^+\nu_e$ is from $D^0 \to K^{*-}\pi^+$. Totally $2.5\pm0.5$, $0.8\pm0.3$, $0.7\pm0.3$ and $0.2\pm0.3$ background events for $D^+ \to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e$, $D^0 \to \overline K^0\pi^-e^+\nu_e$, $D^+ \to\overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e$ and $D^0 \to
K^{*-}e^+\nu_e$ are obtained, respectively. After subtracting the numbers of the background events, $28.9\pm6.2$, $8.5\pm3.4$, $27.6\pm6.6$ and $6.4\pm3.3$ signal events for the semileptonic decays $D^+ \to K^- \pi^+e^+\nu_e$, $D^0 \to
\overline K^0 \pi^-e^+\nu_e$, $D^+ \to \overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e$ and $D^0\to K^{*-}e^+\nu_e$ are obtained.
**Results**
===========
**Monte Carlo efficiency**
--------------------------
The detection efficiencies for the semileptonic decays $D^+ \to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e$, $D^0 \to\overline K^0\pi^-e^+\nu_e$, $D^+ \to \overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e$ and $D^0 \to K^{*-}e^+\nu_e$ are estimated to be $\epsilon_{D^+\to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e}=(15.51\pm0.12)\%$, $\epsilon_{D^0 \to \overline K^0\pi^-e^+\nu_e}=(4.30\pm0.05)\%$, $\epsilon_{D^+ \to \overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e}$\
$=(10.26\pm0.08)\%$ and $\epsilon_{D^0 \to K^{*-}e^+\nu_e}=(2.94\pm0.04)\%$ by Monte Carlo simulation, which include the branching fractions for the intermediate sub-resonance decays.
**Branching fractions**
-----------------------
The branching fraction for the semileptonic decay $D \to j$ (where $j$ = $K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e$, $\overline K^0\pi^-e^+\nu_e$, $\overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e$ and $K^{*-}e^+\nu_e$) can be determined by $${BF}(D \to j)=\frac{N_{D \to j}}
{N_{\bar D_{tag}}\times\epsilon_{D \to j}},
\label{brsemi}$$ where $N_{D \to j}$ is the number of the signal events for the $j$th mode; $N_{\bar D_{tag}}$ is the total number of the singly tagged $D^-$ or $\bar D^0$ mesons; $\epsilon_{D\to j}$ is the detection efficiency for the $j$th mode. Inserting these numbers in Eq. (\[brsemi\]), we obtain the branching fractions for the semileptonic decays to be $${BF}(D^+ \to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e)=(3.50\pm0.75\pm0.27)\%,$$ $${BF}(D^0 \to \overline K^0\pi^-e^+\nu_e)=(2.61\pm1.04\pm0.28)\%,$$ $${BF}(D^+ \to \overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e)=(5.06\pm1.21\pm0.40)\%$$ and $${BF}(D^0 \to K^{*-}e^+\nu_e)=(2.87\pm 1.48\pm 0.39)\%,$$ where the first error is statistical and the second systematic. The systematic error arises mainly from the uncertainties in tracking efficiency ($\sim$2.0% per track), in particle identification ($\sim$0.5% per track for charged pion or kaon, $\sim$1.0% per track for electron), in photon selection ($\sim$2.0%), in $K^0_S$ selection ($\sim$1.1%), in $U_{miss}$ selection ($\sim$0.6%), in background subtraction \[$\sim$(2.5%$\sim$9.3%)\], in Monte Carlo statistics \[$\sim$(0.8%$\sim$1.4%)\], in the number of the singly tagged $\bar D$ mesons ($\sim$3.0% for $D^-$ and $\sim$4.5% for $\bar D^0$) and in the fit to the mass spectrum of $K^-\pi^+$ or $\overline K^0 \pi^-$ combination ($\sim$1.7% for $D^+\to \overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e$ and $\sim$2.5% for $D^0 \to K^{*-}e^+\nu_e$). These uncertainties are added in quadrature to obtain the total systematic error, yielding $\sim$7.6%, $\sim$10.8%, $\sim$8.0% and $\sim$13.7% for the semileptonic decays $D^+ \to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e$, $D^0 \to \overline K^0\pi^-e^+\nu_e$, $D^+ \to \overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e$ and $D^0 \to K^{*-}e^+\nu_e$, respectively.
**The ratio of $\frac{\Gamma(D^+ \to \overline K
^{*0}e^+\nu_e)}{\Gamma(D^+ \to \overline K^0 e^+\nu_e)}$**
----------------------------------------------------------
With the measured branching fraction for $D^+ \to \overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e$ and the previously measured branching fraction ${BF}(D^+ \to \overline K^0 e^+\nu_e)= (8.95\pm1.59\pm0.67)\%$ by BES Collaboration [@c5], we obtain the ratio of the vector to pseudoscalar $D$ meson semileptonic decay rates to be $$\frac {\Gamma(D^+ \to\overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e)}
{\Gamma(D^+ \to \overline K^0 e^+\nu_e)}=0.57\pm0.17\pm0.02,$$ where the first error is statistical and the second systematic which arises mainly from the uncanceled systematic uncertainties including $K^0_S$ selection ($\sim$1.1%), background subtraction ($\sim$3.5%), Monte Carlo statistics ($\sim$1.1%) and the fit to the mass spectrum of $K^-\pi^+$ combinations ($\sim$1.7%).
**Summary**
===========
Using the data of about 33 pb$^{-1}$ collected around 3.773 GeV with the BES-II detector at the BEPC collider, the absolute branching fractions for the decays $D^+ \to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e$, $D^0\to \overline K^0\pi^-e^+\nu_e$, $D^+ \to \overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e$ and $D^0 \to K^{*-}e^+ \nu_e$ are measured to be ${BF}(D^+ \to K^-\pi^+e^+\nu_e)=(3.50\pm0.75\pm0.27)\%$, ${BF}(D^0 \to \overline K^0\pi^-e^+\nu_e)=(2.61\pm1.04\pm0.28)\%$, ${BF}(D^+ \to \overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e)=(5.06\pm1.21\pm0.40)\%$ and ${BF}(D^0 \to K^{*-}e^+\nu_e)=(2.87\pm 1.48\pm 0.39)\%$. With the measured branching fraction for $D^+ \to \overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e$ and the previously measured branching fraction for $D^+ \to \overline K^0 e^+\nu_e$, the ratio of the vector to pseudoscalar $D$ meson semileptonic decay rates $\Gamma(D^+\to\overline K^{*0}e^+\nu_e)/\Gamma(D^+\to\overline K^0e^+\nu_e)$ is determined to be $0.57\pm0.17\pm0.02$, which is in good agreement with theoretical predictions and other measurements [@focus][@cleo] within error.
Acknowledgment
==============
The BES collaboration thanks the staff of BEPC and computing center for their hard efforts. This work is supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under contracts Nos. 10491300, 10225524, 10225525, 10425523, the Chinese Academy of Sciences under contract No. KJ 95T-03, the 100 Talents Program of CAS under Contract Nos. U-11, U-24, U-25, and the Knowledge Innovation Project of CAS under Contract Nos. U-602, U-34 (IHEP), the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Contract No. 10225522 (Tsinghua University).
M. Wirbel, B. Stech and M. Baucer, Z. Phys. [**C**]{} 29 (1985) 637. V. Lubicz et. al, Phys. Lett. [**B**]{} 274 (1992) 415. J.D. Richman and P.R. Burchat, Rev. Mod. Phys. 67 (1995) 893. The Tagged Photon Spectrometer Collaboration, J.C. Anjos et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 62 (1989) 722. Mark III Collaboration, Z. Bai et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 66 (1991) 1011. FOCUS Collaboration, J.M. Link et al., Phys. Lett. [**B**]{} 598 (2004) 33. CLEO Collaboration, G.S. Huang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 181801. BES Collaboration, M. Ablikim, et al., Phys. Lett. [**B**]{} 608 (2005) 24. BES Collaboration, M. Ablikim, et al., Phys. Lett. [**B**]{} 597 (2004) 39. BES Collaboration, J.Z. Bai et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods [**A**]{} 458 (2001) 627. S. Eidelman et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Lett. [**B**]{} 592 (2004) 1. BES Collaboration, M. Ablikim, et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods [**A**]{} 552 (2005) 344.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
A method for the asteroseismic analysis of [$\beta$ Cephei]{} stars is presented and applied to the star [$\nu$ Eridani]{}. The method is based on the analysis of rotational splittings, and their asymmetries using differentially-rotating asteroseismic models. Models with masses around $7.13\,{{\mathrm{M}_\odot}}$, and ages around 14.9Myr, were found to fit better 10 of the 14 observed frequencies, which were identified as the fundamental radial mode and the three $\ell=1$ triplets ${\rm g}_1$, ${\rm p}_1$, and ${\rm p}_2$. The splittings and aymmetries found for these modes recover those provided in the literature, except for ${\rm p}_2$. For this last mode, all its non-axysimmetric components are predicted by the models. Moreover, opposite signs of the observed and predicted splitting asymmetries are found. If identification is confirmed, this can be a very interesting source of information about the internal rotation profile, in particular in the outer regions of the star.
In general, the seismic models which include a description for shellular rotation yield slightly better results as compared with those given by uniformly-rotating models. Furthermore, we show that asymmetries are quite dependent on the overshooting of the convective core, which make the present technique suitable for testing the theories describing the angular momentum redistribution and chemical mixing due to rotationally-induced turbulence.
author:
- 'J.C. Suárez and A. Moya and P.J. Amado and S. Martín-Ruiz and C. Rodríguez-López and R. Garrido'
title: 'Seismology of [$\beta$ Cephei]{} stars: differentially-rotating models for interpreting the oscillation spectrum of [$\nu$ Eridani]{}'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The [$\beta$ Cephei]{} star [$\nu$ Eridani]{} () is nowadays one of the most in-depth studied stars. Classified as a B2III star, it presents a relatively simple internal structure, characterised by a large convective core. The $\kappa$ mechanism located in the metal opacity bump situated around $2\times10^{5}\,\mathrm{K}$ [@DziembowskiAlosha93; @GautschySaio93], drives its oscillations. In addition, the pulsation periods of [$\beta$ Cephei stars]{}, varying in the range of 3–8 hours, makes them suitable for detecting and analysing oscillation frequencies. Several photometric and spectroscopic multisite observational campaigns for [$\nu$ Eridani]{} have been set up since 2002 with subsequent frequency analysis from spectroscopy [@Aerts04nueri] and from photometry [@Handler04nueri; @Jerzy05nueri]. In these later works, two independent low-frequency, high-order ${\rm g}$ modes were detected. As a consequence, [$\nu$ Eridani]{} can also be classified as a SPB star. In terms of light curves, these multisite observations constitute the largest time-series ever collected for a [$\beta$ Cephei]{} star. Nowadays, [$\nu$ Eridani]{} presents the richest oscillation spectrum (14 independent frequencies) of the [$\beta$ Cephei]{}-type class. Such privileged scenario for asteroseismology has led to several authors to analyse its oscillation spectrum and perform seismic models of the star.
Several attempts have been carried out to provide a plausible seismic model which explains the observed frequencies of [$\nu$ Eridani]{}. In @Ausseloos04 (hereafter ASTA04), a massive exploration of standard and non-standard stellar models was undertaken in order to fit the oscillation data. The authors showed that an increase in the relative number fraction of iron throughout the whole star, or a large decrease in the initial hydrogen abundance, made the stellar models satisfy all the observational constraints, in particular, the modes around the fundamental radial mode are predicted unstable.
@Alosha04nueri performed a seismic analysis of the oscillation spectrum of [$\nu$ Eridani]{} taking the excitation of modes into account. In that work only three frequencies were fitted, failing to reproduce mode excitation in the broad observed frequency range of the ($\ell=1, p_2$) modes, associated with the highest frequency peak in the spectrum. Nevertheless, they also inferred some properties of the internal rotation rate using the rotational splittings of two dipole ($\ell=1$) modes identified as ${\rm g}_1$ and ${\rm p}_1$. In particular, their results suggest that the mean rotation rate in the core and the $\mu$-gradient zone is about three times higher than in the envelope, for their two standard models fitting the three aforementioned frequencies.
Recently, @Wojtek08nueri have analysed the impact of considering uncertainties in the opacity and element distributions on the interpretation of [$\nu$ Eridani]{}’s oscillation spectrum. No satisfactory explanation of the low-frequency modes was found. Moreover, the authors concluded that some enhancement of the opacity in the driving zone is required.
The rotational splitting asymmetries of [$\nu$ Eridani]{} have also been studied under different hypothesis. In particular, @Dziembowski03nueri suggested that the asymmetry of the $\ell=1$ triplet (around $5.64\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$), as measured by @vanHoof61, could be explained by two principal effects: the quadratic effects of rotation and a strong magnetic dipole field of the order of 5–10kG. Such a magnetic field was searched for by @Schnerr06 using spectropolarimetry with no success.
Motivated by these results, the present work aims at performing a complete modelling of [$\nu$ Eridani]{} taking the effect of rotation up to second order into account, with the special feature of considering the presence of a radial differential rotation in the seismic modelling. To do so, a method based on the analysis of rotational splittings and their asymmetries is discussed.
The paper is organised as follows: Section \[sec:modelling\] describes the modelling procedure and provide details of both the evolutionary models and the oscillation spectra computation. In Section \[sec:constparam\], the different sources for constraining the stellar parameters are compared, which include a stability analysis. Then, Sections \[sec:procedure\] and \[sec:discussion\] explain the method here presented and discuss its application to the particular case of [$\nu$ Eridani]{}. Finally, conclusions and final remarks are written in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
Seismic modelling {#sec:modelling}
=================
The seismic modelling described below consists in the computation of evolutionary models and their corresponding adiabatic and non-adiabatic oscillation spectra. This is described in the following sections.
Equilibrium models {#ssec:eqmodels}
------------------
To theoretically characterise [$\nu$ Eridani]{}, we build equilibrium models representative of the star with the evolutionary code [[cesam]{}]{} [@Morel97]. In particular, models taking first-order effects of rotation into account are constructed. Such models are the so-called pseudo-rotating models, whose spherically averaged contribution of the centrifugal acceleration is included by means of an effective gravity ${\rm g}_{\mathrm{eff}}=g-{\cal A}_{c}(r)$, where ${\rm g}$ is the local gravity, $r$ is the radius, and ${\cal A}_{c}(r)=2/3\,r\,\Omega^2(r)$ is the centrifugal acceleration of matter elements. This spherically averaged component of the centrifugal acceleration does not change the order of the hydrostatic equilibrium equations [@KipWeig90]. The non-spherical components of the centrifugal acceleration (which are not included in the equilibrium models), are included in the adiabatic oscillation computations (see next section) by means of a linear perturbation analysis according to Soufi, Goupil & Dziembowski (1998) (see also Suárez, Goupil & Morel 2006). It is possible to evaluate the impact of a differential rotation, using two simple hypothesis when prescribing the rotation profile [@Sua06rotcel]: 1) instantaneous transport of angular momentum in the whole star (global conservation) which thus yields a uniform rotation, or 2) local conservation of the angular momentum (shellular rotation), except in the convective core whose rotation is assumed to be rigid. In both cases, no mass loss is considered at any evolutionary stage, that is, the total angular momentum is assumed to be conserved. These hypothesis represent extreme cases, so reality is presumably somewhere in between. In fact, similar rotation profiles have been found when analysing the evolution of giant stars including rotationally induced mixing of chemical elements and transport of angular momentum [@MaederMeynet04].
Input physics have been adequately chosen for main sequence B stars. Particularly, for the mass range treated in this work ($7$–$13\,{{\mathrm{M}_\odot}}$), the CEFF equation of state [@ceff] is used, in which, the Coulombian correction to the classical EFF [@Eggleton73] has been included. The opacity tables are taken from the OPAL package [@Igle96]. For the metal mixture, the abundances given by @GrevesseNoels96 are used.
A weak electronic screening is assumed, which is valid in the evolutionary stages considered in this work [see @Clayton68 for more details]. For adiabatic stellar models, the Eddington’s $T(\tau)$ law (grey approximation) is considered for the atmosphere reconstruction. For non-adiabatic stellar models, the atmospheres are reconstructed using the Kurucz equilibrium atmospheric models [@Kurucz93cd13] from a specific Rosseland optical depth until the the last edge (around $\tau=10^{-3}$) of the star is reached.
Convection is treated with the mixing-length theory [@BohmVit58] which is parametrised with $\alpha_{\rm MLT}=l/H_{\rm p}$, where $l$ is the mean path length of the convective elements, and $H_{\rm p}$ is the pressure scale height. In addition, we use the overshoot parameter, defined as ${{d_{\rm ov}}}$ ($l_{\rm ov}$ being the penetration length of the convective elements).
The grid of equilibrium models has been constructed with steps of 0.002 dex, 0.01, and 0.05, in the metallicity $Z$, overshoot parameter ${{d_{\rm ov}}}$, and mass $M$, respectively.
Oscillations {#ssec:oscillations}
------------
Adiabatic eigenfrequencies of selected pseudo-rotating models described in the previous section have been computed with the oscillation code [[filou]{}]{} [see @filou; @SuaThesis]. In this code, oscillation frequencies are obtained by means of a perturbative method taking into account up to second order effects of rotation. In the case of near-degenerate frequencies, i.e. when two or more frequencies are close to each other ($\omega_{nlm}\sim\omega_{n'l'm}$), the corrections for near degeneracy are included. As detailed in @Sua06rotcel, the oscillations computation also takes into account the presence of a radial differential rotation profile under the form [ $$\Omega(r)={\bar \Omega}\,\Big(1+\eta_0(r)\Big)\label{eq:defOmega}$$]{} where ${\bar \Omega}$ represents the angular rotational velocity at the surface and $\eta_0(r)$ a radial function. This rotation profile is equivalent to the *shellular* rotation profile obtained with the pseudo-rotating models described in the previous section.
Concerning the instability computations, non-adiabatic theoretical observables are obtained using [[graco]{}]{} code [@Moya04]. This code solves the stellar pulsation equation in a non-adiabatic non-rotating frame by dividing the star in two parts, 1) the interior, by means of the non-adiabatic equations described in @Unno89, and 2) the atmosphere, taking into account the interaction with the pulsation as prescribed by @Dupret02.
Comparison of numerical seismic packages {#ssec:mlrelation}
----------------------------------------
As it is widely known, in stellar modelling, and in particular, in the field of stellar seismology, the use of different codes with different numerical techniques, can be crucial for the correct interpretation of seismic data [see @Moya08estacorot]. ASTA04 compared two seismic packages: the [[liège package]{}]{}, which comprises the evolutionary code [[cles]{}]{} [@Scuflaire07], plus the oscillation code [[losc]{}]{} [@Boury75cles], and the [[warsaw-new jersey package]{}]{} [by @Dziembowski03nueri] which comprises the [[warsaw-new jersey]{}]{} code and its corresponding oscillation code. Following ASTA04, these codes are compared (through a mass-metallicity relation) with our seismic modelling package, the [[granada package]{}]{}, which is composed by the evolutionary code [[cesam]{}]{} [@Morel97], and the oscillation code [[graco]{}]{} [@Moya08graco] and [[filou]{}]{} [@Sua08filou], described in Sections \[ssec:eqmodels\] and \[ssec:oscillations\], respectively. Hereafter, those three packages are called LP, WP, and GP, respectively.
Similarly as done in ASTA04, the mass $M$, metallicity $Z$, overshoot parameter ${{d_{\rm ov}}}$, and initial hydrogen content ${X_{\rm i}}$, are then varied such as to fit the two observed frequencies, $f_1$ and $f_4$ (Table \[tab:freqobs\]) by using non-rotating models. This procedure yields a mass-metallicity relation for each ${{d_{\rm ov}}}$ value, which is compatible with the similar study described in ASTA04 (see Fig. \[fig:compcodes\]). It is found that, under similar conditions, i.e. for a given metallicity, ${{\alpha_{\rm MLT}}}$ and ${{d_{\rm ov}}}$, GP predicts higher mass values, around $0.25\,{{\mathrm{M}_\odot}}$. These differences increase slightly when ${{d_{\rm ov}}}$ increases. Such a different behaviour can be explained by the different treatments of the overshooting implemented in the evolutionary codes. Indeed, for the overshooting description, the Liège evolutionary code only takes the density variations (in the overshooted region) into account, which slightly affects the temperature gradient, whereas [[cesam]{}]{}considers an additional restriction by imposing that the *real* temperature gradient must be equal to the adiabatic one, i.e. $\nabla=\nabla_{\rm ad}$. This would imply that, either transport of heat is purely radiative, or it is efficiently transported outwards from the stellar core through convective movements (as a result of the overshooting), respectively. This constitutes an interesting challenge for asteroseismology because the oscillation modes are sensitive to the physical description of the $\mu$-gradient zone.
Constraining stellar parameters {#sec:constparam}
===============================
The modelling of any star entails the constraint of its stellar parameters. For doing so, the choice of the set of free parameters to be fixed generally depends on the observational material available. In the case of [$\nu$ Eridani]{}, the following space of free parameters was chosen [ $${\cal P}={\cal P}\,(M,t,{{d_{\rm ov}}},Z;\Omega)\,\nonumber\label{eq:param}$$]{} where $M$ is the stellar mass, $t$ the age, ${{d_{\rm ov}}}$ the overshooting parameter, $Z$ the metallicity, and $\Omega$ the angular rotational velocity. From photometric and spectroscopic observations, we search for an estimate of the star location in the HR diagram. This allows us to constrain the metallicity and to have an estimate of the evolutionary stage of the star. Stability analysis significantly reduces the region of the HR diagram in which representative models can be searched.
Then, the fitting of four of the observed frequencies permits to better constrain the mass, metallicity, evolutionary stage (age) and overshooting parameter of the star. The small observed ${{\mathrm{v}\!\sin\!i}}$ of [$\nu$ Eridani]{} allows the use of non-rotating models for this exercise. However, further model constraining makes it necessary to take the stellar rotation into account. In particular, seismic models including shellular rotation profiles are used (see Section \[sec:modelling\]). Finally, analysis of the rotationally-split modes and their asymmetries allows to make a refined search for representative models of the star.
Locating [$\nu$ Eridani]{} in the HR diagram {#ssec:HR}
--------------------------------------------
In order to locate the star in the HR diagram we followed the works by @MorelT06 and @DeRidder04, based on high-precision spectroscopy. The error box shown in Fig. \[fig:HR\] takes into account the results reported in both papers.
![Growth rates $\eta$ as a function of the oscillation frequency. Each curve represents the growth rate obtained for oscillation modes with different degree ($\ell$ ranging from 0 to 3). The lowest frequencies correspond to the SPB-type pulsation frequencies. Only the frequencies around the fundamental radial mode are predicted unstable (positive growth rate), which are those kept for the present investigation.[]{data-label="fig:growthrates"}](f3.eps){width="8.5cm"}
On the other hand, the location of stars in the HR diagram depends on both the rotational velocity of the star and the inclination angle with respect to the observer, $i$. A technique to estimate and correct for the effect of fast rotation on the determination of fundamental parameters for pulsating stars is described in @MiHer99. This technique was then refined by @Pe99, who applied it to [$\delta$ Scuti stars]{} in clusters. A first consequence that can be extracted from those works is that rotation increases the size of the uncertainty box of stars in the HR diagram (when obtained from photometry). In general, such additional uncertainties increase for increasing rotational velocities (for a given angle of inclination of the star). **For [$\nu$ Eridani]{}, a projected rotational velocity of ${{\mathrm{v}\!\sin\!i}}\sim16\,{{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}}$ has been observed. This value has been derived by @MorelT06 from high-resolution spectroscopy, taking into account the broadening due to oscillations.** In principle, it can be considered as a slow rotator so that the additional uncertainties coming from the effect of rotation can be considered within the already large photometric uncertainties.
Instability predictions {#ssec:instab}
-----------------------
Once the star is located in the HR diagram, models which predict the observed frequencies to be unstable (considering the constraints on physical parameters given above) are searched for.
To do so, no specific *ad-hoc* modification of the iron mixture throughout the star is proposed. The search for the best models is then enhanced by using the ${{M-Z}}$ relations presented in Section \[ssec:mlrelation\]. We recall that lines in Fig. \[fig:compcodes\] represent the models which fit simultaneously both $f_1$ and $f_4$. These models constitute a first guess to the best solution. Finally, our best solution is given by those models that also fit $f_6$ and $f_9$. Consistently with ASTA04, when using standard solar mixture for the metallicity, an initial hydrogen content of ${X_{\rm i}}\sim0.50$ is required in order to predict unstable the observed frequencies. In Fig. \[fig:HR\], the different evolutionary tracks shown have been computed using ${X_{\rm i}}=0.50$ in the ZAMS. From our grid of models (see Section \[ssec:eqmodels\]), the *best* model (filled circle in Fig. \[fig:HR\]) was selected to be the one which predicts unstable and better fits the observed frequencies $f_1$, $f_4$, $f_6$, and $f_9$. This *best* non-rotating model is characterised by a mass of $7.13\,{{\mathrm{M}_\odot}}$, a solar metallic mixture (with an initial hydrogen content of ${X_{\rm i}}=0.50$), and by the physical parameters ${{\alpha_{\rm MLT}}}=1$, $d_{\mathrm{ov}}=0.28$ (NR1 in Table \[tab:models\]). Note that rotation has not been taken into account in the instability predictions described above. The lack of theories describing the effect of rotation on mode stability makes it difficult to estimate this effect for [$\nu$ Eridani]{}. Nevertheless, as stated by @Alosha75, mode stability depends predominantly on the effective temperature of the models [see @Sua07gammes for an interesting discussion on this issue], whose variations due to rotation are expected to be small (due to the low rotational velocity of the star).
The results of the stability analysis obtained for that model are depicted in Fig. \[fig:growthrates\], in terms of growth rate as a function of the oscillation frequency. As expected, in the frequency region around the fundamental radial mode, the results obtained for the different spherical degrees $\ell$ are quite similar, which implies that this parameter cannot be discriminated.
Procedure {#sec:procedure}
=========
As discussed in Sections \[ssec:eqmodels\]-\[ssec:oscillations\], the small rotational velocity of the star makes it plausible to initially adopt the parameters of the non-rotating models which were found to be representative of the star. **In particular, in order to work with models located in the HR error box which predict unstable the observed frequencies, a value of ${X_{\rm i}}=0.5$ for the initial hydrogen fraction is kept (see previous section). Indeed, such a value is rather unrealistic. This can be solved either by considering an ad-hoc iron enhancement in the driving zone [as done by @Alosha04nueri], or by modifying (uniformly throughout the stellar interior) the relative number fraction of iron (as done by ASTA04). However, the modelling techniques used here do not allow to make such modifications. Instead, following ASTA04 we simulate the metallicity change by modifying the initial hydrogen fraction. This yields, similarly to ASTA04 (see Table 1 in that paper), models around $7\,{{\mathrm{M}_\odot}}$ and $Z=0.018-0.019$. Similarly to previous works, standard models, i.e. those with ${X_{\rm i}}\sim0.7$, within the HR error box present masses higher than $8\,{{\mathrm{M}_\odot}}$, $Z\sim0.015$, for similar surface rotational velocities. Such variations with respect to the non-standard models have no significant impact neither on the rotation profile nor on the splitting asymmetries.**
A systematic search for representative models within the error box was then performed locally varying the mass, initial rotational velocity, and age of the models. The mass was varied around $7.10\,{{\mathrm{M}_\odot}}$, in particular from 7 to $7.20\,{{\mathrm{M}_\odot}}$, in steps of $0.01\,{{\mathrm{M}_\odot}}$. Rotation was considered under two main assumptions: uniform rotation and differential rotation (see Section \[sec:modelling\] for more details). For both assumptions, the rotational velocities considered range from to 5 to $20\,{{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}}$ at the stellar surface. Then, the modelling was refined by analysing the rotational splittings and their asymmetries. Rotational splittings are defined as [ $$S=\frac{1}{2}\big(\nu_{+1}-\nu_{-1}\big)\label{eq:defs}$$]{} and asymmetries of these splittings are defined as [ $$A = \nu_{-1}+\nu_{+1}-2\nu_{0}\,.\label{eq:defasym1}$$]{} where sub-indices $\pm1$ represent the value of the azimuthal order $m$ for a given $\ell$. The information provided by the asymmetries can be completed by the semi-splittings, which corresponds with ${\Delta^{+}}= \nu_{+1}-\nu_{0}$, and ${\Delta^{-}}= \nu_{0}-\nu_{-1}$, respectively. Both quantities are related such as Eq. \[eq:defasym1\] transforms into [ $$A = {\Delta^{+}}-{\Delta^{-}}\,.\label{eq:defasym2}$$]{} Moreover, this analysis also permits to extract information about the internal rotation profile of the star, since, as we discuss in the next sections, $S$ and $A$ are both sensitive to changes in the rotation profile.
Results and discussion {#sec:discussion}
======================
Models with a mean density of about $\bar \rho=0.064\, {\rm g\,cm}^{-3}$ were found to fit better the observed frequencies. The models within $\pm0.05\,{{\mathrm{M}_\odot}}$ of the mass value calibrated using non-rotating models yield similar results, but for slightly different ages. Due to the so small rotational velocity, it is plausible to assume the same ${{\alpha_{\rm MLT}}}$ and ${{d_{\rm ov}}}$ parameters which were calibrated by the non-rotating models. Therefore, only the mass, age, and initial rotational velocity of the models were varied.
Models were then selected to fit at least the observed frequencies $f_1$ (identified as the fundamental radial mode) and the triplet $(f_3,f_4,f_2)$, identified as ${\rm g}_1$. With these criteria, a model with a mass of $7.13\,{{\mathrm{M}_\odot}}$, a rotational velocity (in the surface) of about $7\,{{\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}}}$, and an age of about 14.9 Myr (which corresponds with $\log{{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}=4.365$) was found to better fit the observational frequencies. As expected, when rotation is taken into account, the stellar parameters of the models are similar to those of the non-rotating *best* model (NR1). For each type of rotation, i.e. uniform and shellular rotation, the models better matching the observed frequencies, splittings, and asymmetries, are UR1 and SR1, whose characteristics are summarised in Table \[tab:models\] (their corresponding list of frequencies are reported in Table \[tab:freqteor\]), **and whose internal rotation profiles are depicted in Fig. \[fig:profiles\]**. Figure \[fig:evolfreq\] shows the evolution of the theoretical frequencies of the ${\rm g}_1$, ${\rm p}_1$ and ${\rm p}_2$ $\ell=1$ triplets for the selected model (assuming shellular rotation).
With these models, nine of the observed frequencies were identified as two $\ell=1$ triplets: a ${\rm g}_1$ triplet composed by the observed frequencies $(f_3,f_4,f_2)$, a ${\rm p}_1$ triplet which corresponds with $(f_{12},f_6,f_{7})$, and a ${\rm p}_2$ triplet which corresponds with $(f_5,f_9,f_{10})$. Furthermore, $f_1$ was identified as the fundamental radial mode. **For the remaining frequencies ($f_{8}$ and $f_{11}$), the selected models present similar predictions. While $f_{8}$ is identified as a ($n=0,\ell=2$), all the models match $f_{11}$ with a $\ell\geq7$ mode. In particular the best identification found corresponds to $(n,\ell,m)=(-3,9,8)$.**
**In general, these results are compatible with previous studies that can be found in the literature, except that we do identify and use (for asteroseismic purposes) all the non-axisymmetric components of the $\ell=1$ triplets, in particular ${\rm p}_2$. Differences with @Wojtek08nueri’s work are principally related to this last split mode, whose identification depends strongly on the use of standard or non-standard models.**
Analysis of rotational splittings and asymmetries {#ssec:asym}
-------------------------------------------------
In Fig. \[fig:deltapmasym\], the predicted semi-splittings (left column) and asymmetries (right column), are compared with the corresponding observed values given in Table \[tab:identif\]. For all panels in that figure, the shaded vertical regions indicate the range of ${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$ values given by the best models SR1 and UR1 (see Table \[tab:models\]).
This comparison is performed simultaneously for models evolved assuming uniform and shellular rotation profiles (hereafter UR and SR models). For the sake of brevity, in the following, $A_{x}$, $A_{x}^{\rm o}$, are used to represent the predicted and observed asymmetries, $x$ representing the triplets ${\rm g}_1$, ${\rm p}_1$, or ${\rm p}_2$. Similarly, $\Delta^{+,-}$ and $\Delta_{\rm o}^{+,-}$ are used to represent the predicted and observed semi-splittings. Let us now examine each selected triplet separately.
### The ${\rm g}_1$ triplet {#sssec:g1}
Analysis of the ${\rm g}_1$ triplet (Fig. \[fig:deltapmasym\], left top panel) reveals that for the SR models, the predicted $|{\Delta^{+}}|$ remain lower than $|{\Delta^{-}}|$ for almost the whole range of effective temperature studied (almost identical in the shaded region). On the other hand, for UR models, $|{\Delta^{-}}|$ are predicted lower than $|{\Delta^{+}}|$ for effective temperatures higher than 23014 K ($\log{{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}=4.362$), approximately. The deviation of the semi-splitting predictions (in the shaded region), defined as ${\epsilon_{\Delta^{+,-}}}=\Delta^{+,-}-\Delta^{+,-}_{\rm o}$, is about $2\times10^{-3}\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$ for the SR models and 3-$4\times10^{-3}\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$ for the UR models. On the other hand, cooler SR models would fit better the observations (${\epsilon_{\Delta^{+,-}}}=10^{-6}\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$ for models around $\log{{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}=4.35$). In general, the evolution of the semi-splittings for both types of rotation is found to be quite different. This is somehow expected since ${\rm g}$ modes are very sensitive to variations of the rotational velocity of the core. In fact, it was shown by @Sua06rotcel that a shellular rotation profile modifies significantly the radial displacement eigenfunctions, especially for ${\rm g}$ and mixed modes. This implies that the presence of shellular rotation may affect both the rotational splitting itself and its asymmetry. The general definition of the first-order rotational splitting kernel can be written as
[ $${\cal K} ={\displaystyle}{{\Big[\big(2\,y_{01}z_{0}+z_{0}^2\big)+
\eta_0\big(y_{01}^2+
\Lambda z_{0}^2-2\,y_{01}z_{0}-z_{0}^2\big)\Big]
\,\rho_0\,r^4}\over
{{{\displaystyle}\int_0^R [y_{01}^2+\Lambda\,z_0^2]\,\rho_0\,r^4
\,{\rm d}r}}},
\label{eq:defK}$$]{} where $\Lambda=\ell(\ell+1)$, and $y$ and $z$ represent the vertical and horizontal displacement normalised eigenfunctions, respectively. The second term within the square brackets accounts for the presence of shellular rotation through $\eta_0$, defined in Eq. \[eq:defOmega\]. When a uniform rotation is considered, this term becomes null. In Fig. \[fig:kernels\] such kernels are depicted for the ${\rm g}_1$, ${\rm
p}_1$, and ${\rm p}_2$ triplets. Notice that, when considering a shellular rotation profile, a bump in the energy distribution near the $\mu$-gradient zone (see Fig. \[fig:profiles\]) comes up, for ${\rm g}_1$, at the expense of the energy of the outer layers, which could explain the different behaviour of the semi-splittings predicted by the UR and SR models.
Concerning the asymmetries, $A_{{\rm g}_1}$ are predicted to diminish for decreasing effective temperature (Fig. \[fig:deltapmasym\], right panel on top). In other words, asymmetries decrease while the star evolves. For UR models, such a decreasing is more rapid than for the SR models, and the asymmetries fit the observed value at $\log{{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}\sim4.357$, which represents a difference of $\sim400\,$ K with respect to the models that fit the observed frequencies (shaded area). On the other hand, the asymmetries predicted by the SR models never fit exactly the observed value. In the shaded region, the deviation of the asymmetry defined as ${{\epsilon_{A}}}=A_{{\rm g}_1}-A_{{\rm g}_1}^{\rm o}$, is found to be $6\times10^{-4}\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$ for the SR models whereas for UR models ${{\epsilon_{A}}}=10^{-3}\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$. Such deviations are respectively, two and three orders of magnitude larger than the observed asymmetry uncertainty.
As for the ${\rm g}_1$ semi-splittings, better results are found for cooler models, especially for UR models around $\log{{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}=4.357$, and for SR models near $\log{{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}=4.35$. In any case, for low order ${\rm g}$ and ${\rm p}$ modes, asymmetries are sensitive to variations of the rotation profile near the core. Indeed, as shown by @Sua06rotcel, the analytical form of $A$ (using a perturbative theory) can be written as the second-order term [ $$A = -{{6 m^2}\over{4\Lambda-3}}{{{\bar \Omega}^2}\over{\omega_0}}
{\cal J}_c\,.$$]{} where ${\bar \Omega}$ is the rotational velocity at the stellar surface, and $\omega_0$ is the unperturbed oscillation frequency. The ${\cal J}_c$ integral contains a complex combination of structure and oscillation terms which are modified by the rotation profile and its derivatives. Analysis of this term is definitely necessary to construct simplified kernels for $A$ (work in progress). Such kernels will help us to better understand the behaviour of the asymmetries, and, especially their sensitivity to variations of the internal rotation profile.
![Rotation profile normalised to the rotation velocity in the surface, $\Omega_{\rm s}$, as a function of the normalised stellar radius, for the *best* SR model. For comparison, the rotation profile of UR model with similar $\Omega_{\rm s}$ is also depicted. For illustration purposes, the [Brunt-Väisäla]{} frequency for the SR model (re-scaled as to fit the plot) has been used to indicate the location of the $\mu$-gradient zone ($r\sim0.15-0.2\,{{\mathrm{R}_\odot}}$).[]{data-label="fig:profiles"}](f4.eps){width="10cm"}
### The ${\rm p}_1$ triplet {#sssec:p1}
For ${\rm p}_1$, the predicted curves of $|{\Delta^{+}}|$ remain lower than those of $|{\Delta^{-}}|$ in the whole range of effective temperature studied, which is compatible with the observations (Fig. \[fig:deltapmasym\], left middle panel). Notice that, in the shaded region, the SR models predict absolute values for the semi-splittings closer to the observed ones (${\epsilon_{\Delta^{+,-}}}\sim10^{-4}\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$) than those predicted by the UR models, for which ${\epsilon_{\Delta^{+,-}}}=4\times10^{-3}\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$. However, this situation is reversed for the splitting asymmetries (Fig. \[fig:deltapmasym\], right middle panel). In particular, around $\log{{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}=4.365$, the asymmetries predicted by the UR models (${{\epsilon_{A}}}=6\times10^{-4}\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$) are slightly closer to the observed values than those predicted by the SR models (${{\epsilon_{A}}}=2\times10^{-4}\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$). Even so, such differences are of the order of magnitude of the observational uncertainty of $A_{{\rm p}_1}$, which makes it difficult to discriminate between both types of rotation. Contrary to the ${\rm g}_1$ results, cooler models do not fit better the observations.
### The ${\rm p}_2$ triplet {#sssec:p2}
In the case of ${\rm p}_2$, the predicted semi-splittings are larger than the observed value in the whole range of effective temperatures, except for $\log{{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}\sim4.35$, for which SR predictions are almost coincident with the observations (Fig. \[fig:deltapmasym\], left bottom panel). In the shaded region ${\epsilon_{\Delta^{+,-}}}=6\times10^{-3}\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$ for the SR models and ${\epsilon_{\Delta^{+,-}}}=1.6\times10^{-2}\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$ for the UR models. Similarly to the ${\rm g}_1$ case, the best results are given by the SR models for effective temperatures around the cooler limit of the photometric uncertainty box ($\log{{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}=4.35$).
![Evolution of the theoretical oscillation frequencies corresponding, from to bottom, to the $\ell=1$ triplets ${\rm p}_2$, ${\rm p}_1$ and ${\rm g}_1$, for the selected $7.13\,{{\mathrm{M}_\odot}}$ model. Horizontal lines represent the observed frequencies, bottom to top, $f_4$, $f_6$, and $f_9$, identified as the $m=0$ components of the triplets ${\rm p}_2$, ${\rm p}_1$ and ${\rm g}_1$, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:evolfreq"}](f5.eps){width="10cm"}
Furthermore, it is worth noting that contrary to the ${\rm p}_1$ and ${\rm g}_1$ cases, the observed semi-splitting $|{\Delta^{-}}|$ is smaller than $|{\Delta^{+}}|$, whereas both SR and UR models predict $|{\Delta^{-}}|>|{\Delta^{+}}|$ (Fig. \[fig:deltapmasym\], left bottom panel). This results in a positive observed asymmetry, whereas both UR and SR models predict negative values (Fig. \[fig:deltapmasym\], right bottom panel). In the vicinity of $\log{{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}=4.365$ (shaded region), the difference between the observed and predicted asymmetries is about ${{\epsilon_{A}}}=10^{-3}\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$ (${{\epsilon_{A}}}=1.5\times10^{-3}\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$ for the SR models and ${{\epsilon_{A}}}=2.8\times10^{-3}\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$ for the UR models), which represents a difference of one order of magnitude with respect to the observed value. Such apparently marginal contradiction between predictions and observations could be a consequence either of 1) an incorrect mode identification, that is, the observed frequencies concerned do not belong to the rotationally split mode, or 2) the use of a wrong description for the rotation profile, particularly in the outer shells of the star (note the small influence of the selected rotation profile near the $\mu$-gradient zone, Fig. \[fig:kernels\]). A priori, none of the these possibilities can be discarded. In order to solve this problem, improvements on both the observations and modelling are required. From the observational side, an improvement of accuracy with which the concerned observed frequencies are determined might help to confirm the observed asymmetry and its sign. Moreover, the detection of additional frequencies (e.g. with the help of space missions), may provide new insight on the current mode identification.
From the theoretical side, the second possibility given above is related with angular momentum redistribution, which plays an important role. In particular, balance between rotationally induced turbulence and meridional circulation generates mixing of chemicals and redistribution of angular momentum [@Zahn92], which affects the rotation profile and the evolution of the star. The present technique is, therefore, especially suitable for testing that theory by providing estimates for the coefficients of turbulence using only asteroseismic observables. This can be illustrated by artificially modifying the physical conditions beyond the convective core, which can be done varying the overshooting parameter.
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}
{width="6.5cm"} {width="6.5cm"}
As expected, such variations principally affect the low-order ${\rm
g}_1$ and ${\rm p}_1$ (see Fig. \[fig:kernels\] for a comparison between the rotational kernels of UR, SR-${{d_{\rm ov}}}=0.28$, and SR-${{d_{\rm ov}}}=0.24$ models). In Fig. \[fig:asymcomp\], the results for the asymmetries given in Fig. \[fig:deltapmasym\] (right column), which were computed with an overshooting parameter of ${{d_{\rm ov}}}=0.28$, are compared with those obtained from SR models computed with ${{d_{\rm ov}}}=0.24$. The best model found for this overshooting parameter value is SR2 (see Tables \[tab:models\] and \[tab:freqteor\]). In particular, a variation in ${{d_{\rm ov}}}$ of 0.04 results in differences in the asymmetry of the order of those found between UR and SR (${{d_{\rm ov}}}=0.28$) models, i.e. a few $10^{-4}\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$ for ${\rm g}_1$ and ${\rm p}_1$, and about $10^{-4}\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$, which represents almost one order of magnitude smaller than the difference between the results yield by the UR and SR (${{d_{\rm ov}}}=0.28$) models. Moreover, in the case of ${\rm p}_1$, the SR (${{d_{\rm ov}}}=0.24$) models fit the observed asymmetry in the limits of the observational uncertainties.
![First-order rotational splitting kernel, from top to bottom, for the ${\rm g}_1$, ${\rm p}_1$, and ${\rm p}_2$ modes for the selected uniformly-rotating models (UR, dashed line) and differentially-rotating models (SR). For the latter models, two ${{d_{\rm ov}}}$ values are considered: 0.28 (continuous line) and 0.24 (dot-dashed line). Note that the position of the zeros and maxima for UR models is slightly shifted with respect to those of the SR models. This can be explained by small differences in the radii of both models, which, as expected, principally affects to the ${\rm g}_1$ and ${\rm p}_1$ split modes. []{data-label="fig:kernels"}](f7a.eps "fig:"){width="6.8cm"} ![First-order rotational splitting kernel, from top to bottom, for the ${\rm g}_1$, ${\rm p}_1$, and ${\rm p}_2$ modes for the selected uniformly-rotating models (UR, dashed line) and differentially-rotating models (SR). For the latter models, two ${{d_{\rm ov}}}$ values are considered: 0.28 (continuous line) and 0.24 (dot-dashed line). Note that the position of the zeros and maxima for UR models is slightly shifted with respect to those of the SR models. This can be explained by small differences in the radii of both models, which, as expected, principally affects to the ${\rm g}_1$ and ${\rm p}_1$ split modes. []{data-label="fig:kernels"}](f7b.eps "fig:"){width="6.8cm"} ![First-order rotational splitting kernel, from top to bottom, for the ${\rm g}_1$, ${\rm p}_1$, and ${\rm p}_2$ modes for the selected uniformly-rotating models (UR, dashed line) and differentially-rotating models (SR). For the latter models, two ${{d_{\rm ov}}}$ values are considered: 0.28 (continuous line) and 0.24 (dot-dashed line). Note that the position of the zeros and maxima for UR models is slightly shifted with respect to those of the SR models. This can be explained by small differences in the radii of both models, which, as expected, principally affects to the ${\rm g}_1$ and ${\rm p}_1$ split modes. []{data-label="fig:kernels"}](f7c.eps "fig:"){width="6.8cm"}
![Comparison of the splitting asymmetries shown in Fig. \[fig:evolfreq\] (for models with ${{d_{\rm ov}}}=0.28$), with those given by the models computed with ${{d_{\rm ov}}}=0.24$ (dot-dashed line). The additional vertical shaded band represents the range of ${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$ defined by the models SR1, SR2, and UR1.[]{data-label="fig:asymcomp"}](f8a.eps "fig:"){width="8.cm"} ![Comparison of the splitting asymmetries shown in Fig. \[fig:evolfreq\] (for models with ${{d_{\rm ov}}}=0.28$), with those given by the models computed with ${{d_{\rm ov}}}=0.24$ (dot-dashed line). The additional vertical shaded band represents the range of ${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$ defined by the models SR1, SR2, and UR1.[]{data-label="fig:asymcomp"}](f8b.eps "fig:"){width="8.cm"} ![Comparison of the splitting asymmetries shown in Fig. \[fig:evolfreq\] (for models with ${{d_{\rm ov}}}=0.28$), with those given by the models computed with ${{d_{\rm ov}}}=0.24$ (dot-dashed line). The additional vertical shaded band represents the range of ${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$ defined by the models SR1, SR2, and UR1.[]{data-label="fig:asymcomp"}](f8c.eps "fig:"){width="8.cm"}
Furthermore, recent theoretical studies (Andrade, Suárez & Goupil 2008, work in progress), seem to indicate that even rough variations of the rotation profile may modify the asymmetries of the split modes. This modification can be as important as to change the sign of the asymmetries. According to this, the frequencies around ${\rm p}_2$ cannot be discarded as belonging to a rotationally split mode. However, if confirmed, the presence of such different asymmetries in the oscillation spectrum is very interesting, since they may significantly constrain the models providing information about the structure and rotation profile in the zones where they have more amplitude.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
An asteroseismic analysis of the [$\beta$ Cephei]{} star [$\nu$ Eridani]{} is presented, with focus on the study of the internal rotation profile. To this aim, a new method is presented based on the analysis of rotational splittings and their asymmetries. Some of the most updated asteroseismic modelling techniques are used, in particular, analysis of mode stability and improved descriptions for rotation effects. Regarding the latter, the so-called pseudo-rotating models are used, which consider radial differential rotation profiles (shellullar rotation) in both the evolutionary models and adiabatic oscillations computations. This represents an important qualitative step with respect to previous theoretical works.
The present work is divided into two parts. In the first part, a comparison of the different numerical packages (Liège, Warsaw-New Jersey, and Granada packages) was performed (the latter has been used in the present work). This comparison was performed using a mass-metallicity relation of the models fitting two of the observed frequencies. In that case, important differences in mass, up to $0.25\,{{\mathrm{M}_\odot}}$ between Liège models and ours, were found. Interestingly, differences between ASTA04’s models and ours can be explained by the different treatments of the overshooting implemented in the evolutionary codes. ASTA04’s models only take into account density variations in the overshooted region, which slightly affects the temperature gradient. On the other hand, our models were constructed considering an additional restriction by imposing that the real temperature gradient must equal the adiabatic gradient. Physically, this implies that, either the heat is transported efficiently outwards from the stellar core through convective movements due to the overshooting (the latter case), or purely by radiation (ASTA04’s treatment). This constitutes a very interesting challenge for asteroseismology, since the oscillation modes (low-order g and p modes) are sensitive to the physical description of the $\mu$ gradient zone.
Then, the previous exercise is extended to four frequencies with mode excitation included. In that case, models were also constrained to match the fundamental radial mode and three $m=0$ splitting components. Non-standard models built with a significant decrease of the initial hydrogen abundance, ${X_{\rm i}}=0.50$, were necessary to match and excite the modes. This provided models similar, but not identical,[^1] to those found by ASTA04 using a solar iron relative abundance, and the same initial hydrogen abundance. The remaining differences between ASTA04’s models and ours indicate that, for this level of the model accuracy, the present modelling still depend on the core overshooting. This parameter may change the physical conditions beyond the convective core. In that region, other physical processes take place, such as the mixing of chemical elements due to rotation. In particular, balance between rotationally induced turbulence and meridional circulation generates mixing of chemicals and redistribution of angular momentum [@Zahn92]. This affects the rotation profile and the evolution of the star.
Secondly, the method here presented studies the asymmetries of the split modes in order to refine the modelling, and more importantly, provide information about the rotation profile of the star. To do so, pseudo-rotating models were built using the physical parameters provided in the first part of the work. Models with masses around $7.13\,{{\mathrm{M}_\odot}}$, and ages around 14.9Myr, were found to fit better 10 of the 14 observed frequencies, which were identified as the fundamental radial mode and the three $\ell=1$ triplets ${\rm g}_1$, ${\rm
p}_1$, and ${\rm p}_2$. For these modes, a comparison between the observed and predicted splittings and their asymmetries was performed. Two type of rotation profiles were considered: uniform rotation and shellular rotation profiles. Differences between predictions and observations were found to be of the order of $5\times10^{-3}$ and $10^{-4}\,{{\rm d}^{-1}}$, for the rotational splittings and their asymmetries, respectively. For this last mode, none of the selected models reproduce neither the splittings, generally larger than the observed ones, nor the asymmetries, whose predictions have the opposite sign than the observed values. Although this result might indicate that the frequencies around ${\rm p}_2, m=0$ mode do not belong to this rotationally-split mode, other possibilities cannot be discarded. In fact, a wrong physical description of the rotation profile may be responsible for a so peculiar result, particularly in the outer regions of the star. This result is very important because, up to now, none of the physical phenomena in which rotation plays a role predict variations of the rotation profile in that region. Furthermore, it is shown that asymmetries are quite dependent on the overshooting of the convective core. Therefore, the method here presented is suitable for testing the theories describing the angular momentum redistribution and chemical mixing due to rotationally-induced turbulence.
In general, the seismic models which include a description for shellular rotation yield slightly better results as compared with those given by uniformly-rotating models. Even so, further improvements are necessary in order to better constrain the modelling of [$\nu$ Eridani]{}. In particular, efforts should be focused in searching a better description of the rotation profile, for which a detailed study of asymmetries is required (work in progress). This may be enhanced by analysing other [$\beta$ Cephei]{} stars with larger rotational velocities, so that splittings and asymmetries are not of the same order than the frequency uncertainties.
JCS acknowledges support by the “Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía” by an I3P contract financed by the European Social Fund and from the Spanish “Plan Nacional del Espacio” under project ESP2007-65480-C02-01. PJA acknowledges financial support from a “Ramon y Cajal” contract of the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science. CRL acknowledges financial support from an “Ángeles Alvariño” contract of the “Xunta de Galicia”, local government.
[38]{}
, C., [De Cat]{}, P., [Handler]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2004, , 347, 463
, D. R. & [Ferguson]{}, J. W. 1994, , 437, 879
, M., [Scuflaire]{}, R., [Thoul]{}, A., & [Aerts]{}, C. 2004, , 355, 352 (ASTA04)
A., [Auvergne]{} M., [Barge]{} P., [Buey]{} J.-T., [Catala]{} C., [Michel]{} E., [Weiss]{} W., [COROT Team]{}, 2002, in [Battrick]{} B., [Favata]{} F., [Roxburgh]{} I. W., [Galadi]{} D., eds, ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 259, Radial and Nonradial Pulsations as Probes of Stellar Physics. Astron. Soc. Pac., San Francisco, p. 17
E., 1958, Zeitschrift für Astrophysics, 46, 108
, A. and [Gabriel]{}, M. and [Noels]{}, A. and [Scuflaire]{}, R. and [Ledoux]{}, P. 1975, , 41, 279
, J. & [Daeppen]{}, W. 1992, , 4, 267
, D. D. 1968, [Principles of stellar evolution and nucleosynthesis]{} (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968)
, J., [Telting]{}, J. H., [Balona]{}, L. A., [et al.]{} 2004, , 351, 324
, M.-A., [De Ridder]{}, J., [Neuforge]{}, C., [Aerts]{}, C., & [Scuflaire]{}, R. 2002, , 385, 563
, W. A. & [Jerzykiewicz]{}, M. 2003, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, 319
, W. A. & [Pamiatnykh]{}, A. A. 1993, , 262, 204
, P. P., [Faulkner]{}, J., & [Flannery]{}, B. P. 1973, , 23, 325
, A. & [Saio]{}, H. 1993, , 262, 213
, N. & [Noels]{}, A. 1996, in Holt, S. S. and Sonneborn, G. eds, Vol. 99, Astron. Soc. Pac. Conference Series, 117
, G., [Shobbrook]{}, R. R., [Jerzykiewicz]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2004, , 347, 454
, C. A. & [Rogers]{}, F. J. 1996, , 464, 943
, M., [Handler]{}, G. & [Shobbrook]{}, R. R., [et al.]{} 2005, , 360, 619 , R. & [Weigert]{}, A. 1990, “Stellar structure and evolution”, Astronomy and Astrophysics library (Springer-Verlag)
, R. 1993, ATLAS9 Stellar Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s grid. Kurucz CD-ROM No. 13. Cambridge, Mass.: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, 1993., 13
, A. & [Meynet]{}, G. 2004, in Maeder, A. and Eenens, P. eds, IAU Symposium, Vol. 215, Evolution of Massive Stars with Rotation and Mass Loss. Astron. Soc. Pac., San Franciscop. 500
, E. and [Hern[' a]{}ndez]{}, M. M. and [Houdek]{}, G. and [Goupil]{}, M. J. and [Lebreton]{}, Y. and [Hern[' a]{}ndez]{}, F. P. and [Baglin]{}, A. and [Belmonte]{}, J. A. and [Soufi]{}, F. 1999, , 342, 153
, P. 1997, , 124, 597
, T. and [Butler]{}, K. and [Aerts]{}, C. and [Neiner]{}, C. and [Briquet]{}, M. 2006, , 457, 651
, A. and [Garrido]{}, R. and [Dupret]{}, M. A. 2004, , 414, 1081
, A. and [Garrido]{}, R. 2008, , in press.
, A. and [Christensen-Dalsgaard]{}, J. and [Charpinet]{}, S. and [Lebreton]{}, Y. and [Miglio]{}, A. and [Montalban]{}, J. and [Monteiro]{}, M. J. P. F. G. and [Provost]{}, J. and [Roxburgh]{}, I. W. and [Scuflaire]{}, R. and [Suárez]{}, J. C. and [Suran]{}, M. 2008, , in press.
A. A., 1975, in [Sherwood]{}, V. E., [Plaut]{}, L. eds, IAU Symp. 67. Variable Stars and Stellar Evolution. Dordrecht, Reidel Publishing, pp. 247
, A. A., [Handler]{}, G., & [Dziembowski]{}, W. A. 2004, , 350, 1022
, F. and [Claret]{}, A. and [Hern[á]{}ndez]{}, M. M. and [Michel]{}, E. 1999, , 346, 586
, R. S. and [Verdugo]{}, E. and [Henrichs]{}, H. F. and [Neiner]{}, C. 2006, , 452, 969
, R. and [Th[é]{}ado]{}, S. and [Montalb[á]{}n]{}, J. and [Miglio]{}, A. and [Bourge]{}, P.-O. and [Godart]{}, M. and [Thoul]{}, A. and [Noels]{}, A. 2007, (in press), arXiv:0712.3471
, M. A. 1983, , 265, 338
, J. C. 2002, Ph.D. Thesis, ISBN 84-689-3851-3, ID 02/PA07/7178
, J. C., [Goupil]{}, M. J., & [Morel]{}, P. 2006, , 449, 673
, J. C. and [Goupil]{}, M. J. 2008, , in press
, J. C. and [Michel]{}, E. and [Houdek]{}, G. and [P[é]{}rez Hern[á]{}ndez]{}, F. and [Lebreton]{}, Y. 2007, , 379, 201
, F. & [L�on]{}, L. 1995, in Roxburg, I. W., Maxnou, J. L., eds., Physical Processes in Astrophysics. Springer Verlag, Berlin., 219
, W., [Osaki]{}, Y., [Ando]{}, H., [Saio]{}, H., & [Shibahashi]{}, H. 1989, [Nonradial oscillations of stars]{} (Nonradial oscillations of stars, Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1989, 2nd ed.)
, A. 1961, Zeitschrift fur Astrophysik, 53, 106
, W. A. and [Pamyatnykh]{}, A. A. 2008, , 385, 2061
J.-P., 1992, , 265, 115
[^1]: Cf. the explanation given above when matching only two frequencies
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The two-dimensional Levinson theorem for the Klein-Gordon equation with a cylindrically symmetric potential $V(r)$ is established. It is shown that $N_{m}\pi=\pi \left(n_{m}^{+}-n_{m}^{-}\right)=
[\delta_{m}(M)+\beta_{1}]-[\delta_{m}(-M)+\beta_{2}]$ ,where $N_{m}$ denotes the difference between the number of bound states of the particle $n_{m}^{+}$ and the ones of antiparticle $n_{m}^{-}$ with a fixed angular momentum $m$, and the $\delta_{m}$ is named phase shifts. The constants $\beta_{1}$ and $\beta_{2}$ are introduced to symbol the critical cases where the half bound states occur at $E=\pm M$.
author:
- |
Shi-Hai Dong[^1]\
[Institute of High Energy Physics, P. O. Box 918(4), Beijing 100039, The People’s Republic of China]{}\
\
Xi-Wen Hou\
[Institute of High Energy Physics, P. O. Box 918(4), Beijing 100039]{}\
[and Department of Physics, University of Three Gorges, Yichang 443000, The 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, The People’s Republic of China]{}
title: 'Levinson’s Theorem for the Klein-Gordon Equation in Two Dimensions'
---
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 23.5cm-0.4in 15.5cm0.25in0.25in
0.5cm
PACS numbers: 03.65.Ge, 11.80.-m and 73.50.Bk.
I. Introduction {#i.-introduction .unnumbered}
===============
The Levinson theorem\[3\], an important theorem in scattering theory, established the relation between the total number of bound states and the phase shifts at zero momentum. During the past half century, the Levinson theorem has been proved by several authors with different methods, and generalized to different fields \[4-11\]. Rough speaking, there are three main methods used to prove the Levinson theorem. One \[3\] is based on the elaborate analysis of the Jost function first introduced by Jost. The second is relied on the Green function method \[7\]. The third method is used to demonstrate the Levinson theorem by the Sturm-Liouville theorem \[8-10\]. This simple, intuitive method is readily to be generalized and has been verified by the proofs of many physical problems \[8-10,22-24\]. Furthmore, some obstacles and ambiguities, which may occur in other two methods, disappear in the third method. However, it is found in the later proof that the Sturm-Liouville theorem can’t be directly used to prove the Levinson theorem for the Klein-Gordon equation, but a modified method which is similar to the Sturm-Liouville theorem will be applied to prove the Levinson theorem. Consequently, such a generalization may be useful for the method of bosonization method which has been widely utilized in the literature\[26\].
The Klein-Gordon equation, which describes the motion of a relativistic scalar particle, is a second-order differential equation with respect to both space and time. When there exists a potential as the fourth component of the vector field, the energy eigenvalues are not necessarily real and the eigenfunctions satisfy the orthogonal relations with a weight factor\[1-2\] such that a parameter ${\bf \epsilon}$ which is not always real and positive appears in the normalized relation with a weight factor. As pointed out by Pauli and Snyder ${\it at~al}$\[1-2\] ,after bose quantization, that those amplitudes with real and positive ${\bf \epsilon} $ describe particles, but those with real and negative ${\bf \epsilon} $ antiparticles.
Recalling in the three-dimensional spaces, two main methods are used to set up the Levinson theorem for the Klein-Gordon equation. One is relied on some formulae which are valid for the cases without complex energies\[7\]. The other, which is similar to that of Sturm-Liouville theorem, is applied to arrive at the Levinson theorem for the Klein-Gordon equation\[9\]. This result is correct for the cases both without complex energies and with complex energies.
The reasons why we write this paper are that, on the one hand the Levinson theorem in two dimensions has been studied in experiment \[19\] as well as in theory \[20-24\] in virtue of the wide interest in lower-dimensional field theories and other modern physics \[12-18\], on the other hand the Levinson theorem for the Klein-Gordon equation in two dimensions has never been appeared in the literature. In our previous works\[22-24\], some surprised results are obtained from the nonrelativistic and relativistic particle as well as the non-local interactions in two dimensions. We attempt to set up the Levinson theorem for the Klein-Gordon equation in two dimensions. What new results will be appeared?
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we review the properties of the Klein-Gordon equation, especially those related with the parameter ${\bf \epsilon} $. In Sec. III, it is proved that the difference between the numbers of bound states of particle and the ones of antiparticle only relies on the changes of the logarithmic derivatives of the wave functions at $E=\pm M$ as the potential $V(r)$ changes from zero to the given value. In Sec. IV, it is also turned out that these changes are closely connected with the phase shifts at $E=\pm M$ which then results in the establishment of the two-dimensional Levinson theorem for the Klein-Gordon equation.
II. the Klein-Gordon Equation {#ii.-the-klein-gordon-equation .unnumbered}
=============================
Throughout this paper the natural units $\hbar=c=1$ are employed. Consider a relativistic scalar particle satisfying the Klein-Gordon equation $$\left(-\nabla ^{2}+M^2\right)\psi(x)
=\left[E-V(x)\right]^{2}\psi(x),\eqno(1)$$ where the potential $V(x)$ is the fourth component of a vector field and the $M,E$ denote the mass and the energy of the particle, respectively. In order to simplify the discussion, we only research that the potential is static and cylindrical symmetric one $$V(x)=V(r),\eqno(2)$$ and its asymptotic behavior is written $$r|V(r)|\rightarrow 0~~~~
{\rm when}~~~~ r\longrightarrow 0,\eqno(3a)$$
and $$V(r)=0~~~{\rm when}~~r>r_{0}.\eqno(3b)$$ Equation (3a) is required to make the wave function single value at the origin, and (3b) is called the cutoff potential for the sake of the simplicity of discussion, i.e it is vanishing beyond a sufficiently large radius $r_{0}$. It is proved that, following the method \[22-23\], the results obtained in this paper will not change the essence of the proof if the potential vanishes faster than $r^{-2}$ at infinity.
Introduce a parameter $\lambda$ for the potential $V(r)$ $$V(r,\lambda)=\lambda V(r), \eqno (4)$$
which shows that the potential $V(r,\lambda)$ changes from zero to the given potential $V(r)$ when $\lambda$ increases from zero to one
Due to the symmetry of the potential, Let $$\psi(\bf x,\lambda)=r^{-1/2} R_{m}(r,\lambda) e^{ \pm im\varphi},
~~~~~m=0, 1, 2, \ldots, \eqno (5)$$
where the radial wave equation $R_{m}(r,\lambda)$ satisfies the radial equation $$\displaystyle {\partial^{2} R_{m}(r,\lambda) \over \partial r^{2} }
+\left\{(E^2-M^2)-(2EV-V^2)-
\displaystyle{\frac{m^2-1/4}{r^2}}\right\}
R_{m}(r,\lambda)=0.\eqno(6)$$
Denote by ${R}_{m1}(r,\lambda)$ the solution to Eq.(6) for the energy $E_{1}$ $$\displaystyle {\partial^{2}R_{m1}(r,\lambda) \over \partial
r^{2}}
+\left\{(E_{1}^2-M^2)-(2E_{1}V-V^2)-
\displaystyle {m^{2}-1/4 \over r^{2}} \right\}
R_{m1}(r,\lambda)=0. \eqno (7)$$
Multiplying Eq.(6) and Eq.(7) by $R_{m1}(r,\lambda)$ and $R_{m}(r,\lambda)$, respectively, and calculating their difference, we have $$\displaystyle {\partial \over \partial r} \left\{ R_{m}(r,\lambda)
R_{m1}^{\prime \ast}(r,\lambda)
-R_{m1}(r,\lambda) R_{m}^{\prime \ast}(r,\lambda)\right\}
=-(E_{1}^{\ast}-E)R_{m1}^{\ast}(r,\lambda)~\cdot~(E_{1}^{\ast}+E-2V)
R_{m}(r,\lambda),\eqno (8)$$
where the primes denote the derivative of the radial wave function with respect to the variable $r$. As we know, the energy eigenvalues are not necessarily real for some potential $V(r)$ which origins from the Klein paradox. Integrating (8) over the whole space and noting that $R_{m}(r,\lambda)R_{m1}^{\prime \ast}(r,\lambda)-
R_{m1}(r,\lambda)R_{m}^{\prime \ast}(r,\lambda)$ vanishes both at the origin and at infinity for the physically admissible solutions with the different energies $E$ and $E_{1}$, we get the weighted orthogonality relation of the radial wave function $$(E_{1}^{\ast}-E)\int_{0}^{\infty}
R_{m1}^{\ast}(r,\lambda)(E_{1}^{\ast}+E-2V)R_{m}(r,\lambda)dr=0.\eqno(9)$$
As a matter of fact, we always able to obtain the ${\it real}$ solutions for the ${\it real}$ energies. However, it is easy to see from Eq. (9) that the normalized relation for the solutions with real energies are not always positive on account of the weight factor $(E_{1}^{\ast}+E-2V)$: $$\int_{0}^{\infty}R_{m1}(r,\lambda)(E_{1}+E-2V)R_{m}(r,\lambda)dr
=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
{\bf \epsilon_{E}}\delta(E_{1}-E),&|E|>M,\\
{\bf \epsilon_{E}}\delta_{E_{1}E},&|E|<M.
\end{array}
\right.\eqno(10)$$
The parameter ${\bf \epsilon}_{E}$, which depends on the particular radial wave function $R_{m}(r,\lambda)$, may be either positive, negative or vanishing. Normalized factors of the solutions can’t change the sign of ${\bf \epsilon}$. Generally speaking, if the solution $R_{m}(r,\lambda)$ with a complex energy $E$ is complex, then $R_{m}^{\ast}$ is also a solution with complex energy $E^{\ast}$ and a complex ${\bf \epsilon}_{E}$ appears for a pair of the complex solutions. It is evident after bose quantization that those $R_{m}(r,\lambda)$ with positive ${\bf \epsilon}_{E}$ describes particles and those with negative ${\bf \epsilon}_{E}$ antiparticles. In the case zero ${\bf \epsilon}_{E}$, the solution can be regarded as a pair of particle and antiparticle bound states. The Hamiltonian and charge operator can’t be written as the diagonal forms for the solutions with complex energy ${\bf \epsilon}_{E}$, therefore they describe neither particles nor antiparticles. In this paper, we only count the number of bound states with the real positive and negative nonvanishing ${\bf \epsilon}_{E}$ is named particle and antiparticle bound states, respectively.
Since we are always able to arrive at the ${\it real}$ solution for the ${\it real}$ energy, we can now solve Eq.(6) in two regions and match two solutions at $r_{0}$. Actually, the solutions in the region $[0,r_{0}]$ with $R_{m}(0)=0$ can be arrived at in principle. We only need one matching condition at $r_{0}$ for the logarithmic derivative of the radial wave function $$A_{m}(E,\lambda)\equiv \left\{ \displaystyle {1 \over R_{m}(r,\lambda) }
\displaystyle {\partial R_{m}(r,\lambda) \over \partial r}\right\}_{r=r_{0}-}
=\left\{ \displaystyle {1 \over R_{m}(r,\lambda) }
\displaystyle {\partial R_{m}(r,\lambda) \over \partial r}
\right\}_{r=r_{0}+} \equiv B_{m}(E).
\eqno (11)$$
Only one solution is convergent at the origin because of the condition (3a). For example, for the free particle ($\lambda=0$), the solution to Eq. (6) at the region $[0,r_{0}]$ is proportional to the Bessel function $J_{m}(x)$: $$R_{m}(r,0)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\sqrt{\displaystyle {\pi kr \over 2 }}J_{m}(kr),~~~~~
&{\rm when}~~|E|>M~~{\rm and}~~k=\sqrt{E^2-M^2} \\
e^{-im\pi/2}\sqrt{\displaystyle {\pi \kappa r \over 2 }}J_{m}(i\kappa r)
,~~~~~&{\rm when}~~|E|<M~~{\rm and}~~\kappa=\sqrt{M^2-E^2},
\end{array} \right. \eqno (12)$$
The solution $R_{m}(r,0)$ given in Eq. (12) is a real function. A constant factor on the radial wave function $R_{m}(r,0)$ is not important.
In the region $[r_{0},\infty)$, we have $V(r)=0$. For $|E|>M$, there are two oscillatory solutions to Eq. (6). Their combination can always satisfy the matching condition (11), so that there is a continuous spectrum for $|E|>M$. $$R_{m}(r,\lambda)=\sqrt{\displaystyle {\pi kr \over 2 }}
\left\{ \cos \eta_{m}(k,\lambda)J_{m}(kr)-\sin \eta_{m}(k,\lambda)
N_{m}(kr) \right\}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$$ $$~~~~~~~~ \sim \cos \left(kr-\displaystyle{m\pi \over 2}-
\displaystyle {\pi \over 4} +\eta_{m}(k,\lambda) \right),~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{\rm when}~~r\longrightarrow \infty. \eqno (13)$$
where $N_{m}(kr)$ is the Neumann function.
However, there is only one convergent solution in the region $[r_{0},\infty)$ for $|E|\leq M$ the matching condition (11) is not always satisfied. $$R_{m}(r,\lambda)=e^{i(m+1)\pi/2}\sqrt{\displaystyle
{\pi \kappa r \over 2 }}
H^{(1)}_{m}(i\kappa r) \sim e^{-\kappa r}, ~~~~~
{\rm when}~~r\longrightarrow \infty. \eqno (14)$$
where $H^{(1)}_{m}(x)$ is the Hankel function of the first kind. When the condition (11) is satisfied, a bound state appears at this energy. It means that there is a discrete spectrum for $|E|\leq M $.
As mentioned above, in the case with the ${\it real}$ energy solutions, integrating the Eq. (6) in two regions $[0,r_{0}]$ and $[r_{0},\infty)$ ,respectively, and taking the limit $E_{1}\rightarrow E$, we will obtain the following equations in terms of the boundary condition that $R_{m}(0)=0$ and $R_{m}(\infty)=0$ for $|E|<M$ $$\begin{array}{rl}
\displaystyle {\partial A_{m}(E,\lambda) \over \partial E}&\equiv~
\displaystyle {\partial \over \partial E} \left(
\displaystyle {1 \over R_{m}(r,\lambda)}
\displaystyle {\partial R_{m}(r,\lambda)\over \partial r}
\right)_{r=r_{0}-} \\
&=~-R_{m}(r_{0},\lambda)^{-2}
\displaystyle \int_{0}^{r_{0}}R_{m}(r,\lambda)^{2}~2~[E-V(r)]~dr<0.
\end{array} \eqno (15a)$$
and
$$\begin{array}{rl}
\displaystyle {dB_{m}(E) \over dE}&\equiv~
\displaystyle {\partial \over \partial E} \left(
\displaystyle {1 \over R_{m}(r,\lambda)}
\displaystyle {\partial R_{m}(r,\lambda)\over \partial r}
\right)_{r=r_{0}+}\\
&=~R_{m}(r_{0},\lambda)^{-2}
\displaystyle \int_{r_{0}}^{\infty}R_{m}(r,\lambda)^{2}2~E~dr~>0.
\end{array} \eqno (15b)$$
which demonstrates from Eq. (15) that $A_{m}(E,\lambda)$ is no longer monotonic with respect to energy, but $B_{m}(E)$ is still monotonic with respect to energy if the energy doesn’t change sign.
From the matching condition (11) we have $$\tan \eta_{m}(k,\lambda)=\displaystyle {J_{m}(kr_{0}) \over
N_{m}(kr_{0})} ~\cdot ~\displaystyle
{A_{m}(E,\lambda)-kJ'_{m}(kr_{0})/
J_{m}(kr_{0})-1/(2r_{0})
\over A_{m}(E,\lambda)-kN'_{m}(kr_{0})/
N_{m}(kr_{0})-1/(2r_{0}) }. \eqno (16)$$ $$\eta_{m}(k)\equiv \eta_{m}(k,1). \eqno (17)$$
where the prime denotes the derivative of the Bessel function, the Neumann function, and later the Hankel function with respect to their argument. However, it is not true for $|E|<M$ because of no adjustable phase shift $\delta_{m}(E)$. Once the matching condition is satisfied, we will get the discrete bound states.
The phase shift $\eta_{m}(k,\lambda)$ is determined from (16) up to a multiple of $\pi$ due to the period of the tangent function. In this paper, for the free particle $(V(r)=0)$, the definition of phase shift $\eta_{m}(k,0)$ is defined to be zero, i.e $$\eta_{m}(k,0)=0,~~~~{\rm where}~~\lambda=0, \eqno (18)$$ which is same as our previous definition\[8-9,22-24\].
It is shown from Eq. (10) that scattering states—-$|E|>M$—-are normalized as the Dirac $\delta$ function, and that the main contribution to the integration Eq. (10) comes from the radial wave functions in the region$[r_{0},\infty)$ where there is no potential. For this reason we obtain $$\epsilon_{E}=\pi \sqrt{E^2-M^2}~\cdot~\frac {E}{|E|},~~~|E|>M.\eqno(19)$$
All the scattering states with positive energy $(E>M)$ describe particles and those with negative energy $(E<-M)$ describe antiparticles. It is easy to see that this conclusion is not true for the critical case $E=\pm M$ except for $S$ waves where there is a half bound state at $E=\pm M$. The situations which ${\bf \epsilon}_{E}$ with $E=\pm M$ and $m>1$ may be positive, negative or vanishing are relied on the potential.
III. The Number of Bound States {#iii.-the-number-of-bound-states .unnumbered}
===============================
In our previous works, the Levinson theorem for the nonrelativistic and relativistic particles are set up under the help of Sturm-Liouville theorem. For the Sturm-Liouville problem, the fundamental trick is the definition of a phase angle which is monotonic with respect to the energy \[25\]. Although this method is very simple, intuitive and easy to be generalized, from the Eq. (6), it is the weight factor $(E_{1}^{\ast}+E-2V)$ that makes the Sturm-Liouville theorem not be used for the the Klein-Gordon equation. Nevertheless, a modified method is applied to prove the Levinson theorem for the Klein-Gordon equation. From the difference between the Eq.(15a) and Eq. (15b), we arrive at $$\displaystyle{\frac{dB_{m}(E)}{dE}}-
\displaystyle{\frac{\partial A_{m}(E,\lambda)}{\partial E}}
\equiv B'_{m}(E)-A'_{m}(E,\lambda)=
\displaystyle{\frac{1}{R_{m}(r_{0})}}{\bf \epsilon}_{E},
\eqno(20)$$
where here and hereafter the primes denote the derivative with respect to the energy.
From Eq. (14), we get $$B_{m}(E)=\displaystyle {i\kappa H^{(1)}_{m}(i\kappa r_{0})'
\over H^{(1)}_{m}(i\kappa r_{0}) }-\displaystyle {1 \over 2r_{0}}
=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} (-m+1/2)/r_{0}\equiv \rho_{m}
&{\rm when}~~k_{1}\longrightarrow 0 \\
-\kappa \sim -\infty &{\rm when}~~k_{1}\longrightarrow \infty.
\end{array} \right. \eqno (21)$$
The logarithmic derivative given in Eq. (21) does not depend on $\lambda$. On the other hand, when $\lambda=0$ we obtain from Eq. (12) $$A_{m}(E,0)=\displaystyle {i\kappa J'_{m}(i\kappa r_{0})
\over J_{m}(i\kappa r_{0}) }-\displaystyle {1 \over 2r_{0}}
=\left\{\begin{array}{ll} (m+1/2)/r_{0}
&{\rm when}~~k_{1}\longrightarrow 0\\
\kappa \sim \infty &{\rm when}~~k_{1}\longrightarrow \infty.
\end{array} \right. \eqno (22)$$
It is evident from the Eqs. (21) and (22) that both $B_{m}(E)$ and $A_{m}(E,0)$ are continuous curves with respect to energy which don’t intersect each other; i.e. the matching condition (11) is not satisfied if $|E|\leq M$ and $\lambda =0$. No bound states appear when there is no potential.
As $\lambda$ changes from the zero to the given potential, $B_{m}(E)$ don’t change, but $A_{m}(E,\lambda)$ changes continuously except the points where $R_{m}(r_{0})=0$ and $A_{m}(E,\lambda)$ tends to infinity. Generally speaking, $A_{m}(E,\lambda)$ is continuous except those finite points and intersects with the curve $B_{m}(E)$ several times for $|E|\leq M$. The bound state will appear only if the intersection happens. The points of the intersection determine the number of the bound states. It is shown from Eq. (20) that the relative slopes at the points of intersection decide whether the bound states describe particle or antiparticles.
When the potential $V(r)$ change with the $\lambda$, the number of intersection points will change, too. This only origins from the following two sources. Firstly, the intersection points move inward or outward at $E=\pm M$. Secondly, the curve $A_{m}(E,\lambda)$ intersects with the curve $B_{m}(E)$ or departs from it through the tangency point. For the second case, a pair of particle and antiparticle bound state will be created or annihilated at the same time, but the difference of the number of the particle $n_{m}^{+}$ and antiparticle bound state $n_{m}^{-}$ don’t change. That’s to say, the change of the whole bound states $N_{m}$ which expresses that the difference of the particle bound state and the antiparticle state only depends on the intersection points moving in or out at $E=\pm M$ where the critical cases occur. Hence, we only discuss this case. There are four cases when $A_{m}(M,\lambda)=B_{m}(M)$ when $A_{m}(M,\lambda)$ decreases across the value $B_{m}(M)=(-m+1/2)/r_{0}$ at $E=M$ $$(1)A'_{m}(M,\lambda)<B'_{m}(M),\eqno(23a)$$ $$(2)A^{(n)}_{m}(M,\lambda)=B^{(n)}_{m}(M),~~
(-1)^{n}A^{(n+1)}(M,\lambda)<(-1)^{n}B^{(n+1)}_{m}(M),\eqno(23b)$$ $$(3)A^{(n)}_{m}(M,\lambda)=B^{(n)}_{m}(M),~~
(-1)^{n}A^{(n+1)}_{m}(M,\lambda)>(-1)^{n}B^{(n+1)}_{m}(M),\eqno(23c)$$ $$(4)A'_{m}(M,\lambda)>B'(M).\eqno(23d)$$
Where here and hereafter $n$ is positive integer. For the first two situation, a interaction point moves inward from $E>M$ to $E<M$, which results in the appearance of new particle bound state. However, for the last two cases, the interaction point moves outward from $E<M$ to $E>M$, which causes the disappearance of an antiparticle bound state. The converse process occurs when $A_{m}(M,\lambda)$ increases to cross the value $B_{m}(M)$, i.e. the number of bound states $N_{m}$ increases by one only if each time $A_{m}(M,\lambda)$ decreases to cross the value $B_{m}(M)$ at $E=M$. Conversely, each time $A_{m}(M,\lambda)$ increases across the value $B_{m}(M)$ at $E=M$, $N_{m}$ decreases by one.
On the other hand, there are also four cases when $A_{m}(-M,\lambda)=B_{m}(-M)$: $$(1')A'_{m}(-M,\lambda)>B'_{m}(-M),\eqno(24a)$$ $$(2')A^{(n)}_{m}(-M,\lambda)=B^{(n)}_{m}(-M),
A^{(n+1)}_{m}(-M,\lambda)>B^{(n+1)}_{m}(-M),\eqno(24b)$$ $$(3')A^{(n)}_{m}(-M,\lambda)=B^{(n)}_{m}(-M),
A^{(n+1)}(M,\lambda)<B^{(n+1)}(M),\eqno(24c)$$ $$(4')A'_{m}(-M,\lambda)<B'_{m}(-M).\eqno(24d)$$
If $A_{m}(-M,\lambda)$ decreases across the value $B_{m}(-M)$ as $\lambda$ increases, for the first two cases a interaction moves inward from the $E<-M$ to $E>-M$ point which describes an antiparticle. But for the last two cases an interaction point moves outward from $E>-M$ to $E<-M$ which describes a particle. The number of bound states $N_{m}$ decreases by one only if each time $A_{m}(-M,\lambda)$ increases across the value $B(-M)$. The opposite process occurs when $A_{m}(-M,\lambda)$ increases across the value $B_{m}(-M)$.
We denote by $N_{m}(\pm M)$ the difference between the number of times $A(\pm M,\lambda)$ decreasing across the value $B(\pm M)$ and the number of the times that $A(\pm M,\lambda)$ increasing across that value. Hence, we obtain $$N_{m}\equiv n_{m}^{+}-n_{m}^{-}=n_{m}(+M)-n_{m}(-M).\eqno(25)$$
IV. The Phase Shifts {#iv.-the-phase-shifts .unnumbered}
====================
As we know, the solutions in the region $[r_{0},\infty)$ for the scattering states have been given by Eq. (13). The phase shift $\eta_{m}(0,\lambda)$ is the limit of the phase shift $\eta_{m}(k,\lambda)$ as $k$ tends to zero. Hence, what we are interested in is the phase shift $\eta_{m}(k,\lambda)$ at a sufficiently small momentum $k$, $k\ll 1/r_{0}$. For the small momentum we obtain from the matching condition (11)
$$\begin{array}{l}
\tan \eta_{m}(k,\lambda)\sim \\[2mm]
\sim\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle {-\pi (kr_{0})^{2m} \over 2^{2m}m!(m-1)!}
~\cdot~\displaystyle {A_{m}(0,\lambda)-(m+1/2)/r_{0} \over
A_{m}(0,\lambda)-c^{2}k^{2}-\rho_{m} \left(1-
\displaystyle {(kr_{0})^{2} \over (m-1)(2m-1) }\right) }
&{\rm when}~~m \geq 2 \\
\displaystyle {-\pi (kr_{0})^{2} \over 4}~\cdot~
\displaystyle {A_{m}(0,\lambda)-3/(2r_{0}) \over
A_{m}(0,\lambda)-c^{2}k^{2}-\rho_{1}
\left(1+ 2(kr_{0})^{2}\log(kr_{0})\right) }
&{\rm when}~~m = 1 \\
\displaystyle {\pi \over 2\log(kr_{0})}~\cdot~
\displaystyle {A_{m}(0,\lambda)-c^{2}k^{2}-\rho_{0} \left(
1-(kr_{0})^{2} \right) \over
A_{m}(0,\lambda)-c^{2}k^{2}-\rho_{0}\left(1+
\displaystyle {2 \over \log (kr_{0})} \right) }
&{\rm when}~~m =0. \end{array}\right. \end{array} \eqno (26)$$
In addition to the leading terms, we include in (26) some next leading terms, which is useful only for the critical case where the leading terms are canceled with each other.
and
$$\left. \displaystyle {\partial \eta_{m}(k,\lambda) \over
\partial A_{m}(E,\lambda)}\right|_{k}
=\displaystyle {-8r_{0}\cos^{2}\eta_{m}(k,\lambda) \over
\pi \left\{2r_{0}A_{m}(E,\lambda)N_{m}(kr_{0})-2kr_{0}N'_{m}(kr_{0})-
N_{m}(kr_{0})\right\}^{2} } \leq 0, \eqno (27)$$
which shows that the phase shift is monotonic with respect to the logarithmic derivative $A_{m}(E,\lambda)$ as $\lambda$ increases.
It is shown from Eqs. (26) and (27) that they are not different from those of Schrödinger equation. Therefore, we may simply discuss this problem by the same method. Each time $A_{m}(\pm M,\lambda)$ decreases across the value $B_{m}(\pm M)$ as the potential changes from the zero to the given potential, the phase shift $\delta_{m}(\pm M,\lambda)$ increases by $\pi$. Conversely, the phase shift $\delta_{m}(\pm M,\lambda)$ decreases by $\pi$ if $A_{m}(\pm M,\lambda)$ increases across the value $B_{m}(\pm M)$.
As $\lambda$ increases from zero to one, i.e. the potential changes from the zero to the given value, we have $$\delta_{m}(\pm M)\equiv \delta_{m}(\pm M,1)=n_{m}(\pm M)\pi,\eqno(28)$$ Thus, we draw a conclusion that the Levinson theorem for the Klein-Gordon equation if $A(\pm M,1)\not =B(\pm M)$ $$N_{m}\pi=\delta_{m}(M)-\delta_{m}(-M).\eqno(29)$$
We now discuss the critical cases $$A_{m}(M,1)=B_{m}(M)~~~~{\rm and}~~~~A_{m}(-M,1)=B_{m}(-M),\eqno(30)$$
where the potential changes from the zero to the given potential $V(r)$. Similar to the discussion\[22-24\], the phase shift $\delta_{m}(\pm M,\lambda)$ increases by $\pi$ for $m>1$ or an additional $\pi$ for the $P$ waves if $A_{m}(\pm M,\lambda)$ decreases from near and larger than the value $B_{m}(M)$ to smaller than that value when the potential changes from the zero to the given potential. Conversely, $\delta_{m}(\pm M,\lambda)$ doesn’t decrease by $\pi$ or an additional $\pi$ if $A_{m}(\pm M,\lambda)$ increases across the value $B_{m}(M)$ as the potential changes to the given potential $V(r)$. On the other hand, the states for $m=0,1$ are called a half bound state which is defined as its wave function is finite but not square integrable. Furthermore, the half bound state is not a bound state. For $M>1$ states in the critical situations, there is a bound state but its ${\bf \epsilon}_{E}$ may be either positive, negative or vanishing, which depends on the different cases (23) and (24). We consider the state with zero ${\bf \epsilon}_{E}$ as a pair of particle and antiparticle bound states.
Introduce two parameters $\beta_{1},\beta_{2}$ to describe the appearance or disappearance of the bound states at the critical cases. $\beta_{1}=0$ for the noncritical case $A(M,1)\not=B_{m}(M)$, and $\beta_{2}=0$ for the case $A_{m}(-M,1)\not=(-M)$.
\(1) If $A(M,1)=B_{m}(M),\beta_{1}=0$ for the cases (23a) or (23c) with $m>1$;$\beta_{1}=-1$ for the cases (23b) or (23d) with $m>1$; and $\beta_{1}=-1$ for the case (23a) with $m=1$.\
(2) If $A_{m}(-M,1)=B_{m}(-M),\beta_{1}=0$ for the cases (24a) or (24c) with $m>1$;$\beta_{1}=-1$ for the cases (24b) or (24d) with $m>1$; and $\beta_{1}=-1$ for the case (24a) with $m=1$, where $\lambda$ is substituted by one. Then, the Levinson theorem for the Klein-Gordon equation with the cylindrical symmetric potential $V(r)$ satisfying the asymptotic behavior(3) $$N_{m}\pi=\pi \left(n_{m}^{+}-N_{m}^{-}\right)
=[\delta_{m}(M)+\beta_{1}]-[\delta_{m}(-M)+\beta_{2}].\eqno(31)$$
According to the above discussion, it is easy to find, compared with the case in the three-dimensional spaces, that the phase shifts for the critical sates changes by an additional $\pi$ not by $\pi/2$. This conclusion is same as the relativistic and nonrelativistic particles.
. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Grant No. LWTZ-1298 of the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
[99]{}
W. Pauli, princeton mimeographed notes(1935). H. Snyder and J. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. [**15**]{} 307 (1940); L.I. Schiff, H. Snyder and J. Weinberg,[*ibid*]{} [**15**]{} 315 (1940). N. Levinson, K. Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Mat-fys. Medd. [**25**]{}, No. 9 (1949). R. G. Newton, J. Math. Phys. [**1**]{}, 319 (1960); [*ibid*]{} [**18**]{}, 1348, 1582 (1977); [*Scattering theory of waves and particles*]{}, (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2nd ed., 1982) and references therein. J. M. Jauch. Helv. Phys. Acta [**30**]{}, 143 (1957). A. Martin, Nuovo Cimento [**7**]{}, 607 (1958). G. J. Ni, Phys. Energ. Fort. Phys. Nucl. [**3**]{}, 432 (1979); Z. Q. Ma and G. J. Ni, Phys. Rev. [**D31**]{}, 1482 (1985). Z. Q. Ma, J. Math. Phys. [**26**]{}(8), 1995 (1985). Z. Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. [**D32**]{}, 2203 and 2213 (1985). Z. R. Iwinski, L. Rosenberg, and L. Spruch, Phys. Rev. [**31**]{}, 1229 (1985). N. Poliatzky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 2507 (1993); R. G. Newton, Helv. Phys. Acta [**67**]{}, 20 (1994); Z. Q. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 3654 (1996). Z. R. Iwinski, L. Rosenberg, and L. Spruch, Phys. Rev. [**A 33**]{}, 946 (1986); L. Rosenberg, and L. Spruch, Phys. Rev. [**A 54**]{}, 4985 (1996). R. Blankenbecler and D. Boyanovsky, Physica [**18D**]{}, 367(1986). A. J. Niemi and G. W. Semenoff, Phys. Rev. D[**32**]{}, 471(1985). F. Vidal and J. Letourneaux, Phys. Rev. [**C 45**]{}, 418(1992). K. A. Kiers, W. van Dijk, J. Math. Phys. [**37**]{}, 6033 (1996). M. S. Debianchi, J. Math. Phys., [**35**]{}, 2719 (1994). P. A. Martin and M. S. Debianchi, Europhys. Lett. [**34**]{}, 639 (1996). M. E. Portnoi and I. Galbraith, Solid State Commun. [**103**]{}, 325 (1997). D. Bollé, F. Gesztesy, C. Danneels, and S. F. J. Wilk, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{}, 900 (1986). Q. G. Lin, Phys. Rev. [**A56**]{}, 1938 (1997). Shi-Hai Dong, Xi-Wen Hou and Zhong-Qi Ma, Levinson’s theorem for the Schrödinger equation in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. A. accepted (will be published in August of 1998). Shi-Hai Dong, Xi-Wen Hou and Zhong-Qi Ma, The relativistic Levinson’s theorem in two dimensions, preprint, submitted to Phys. Rev. A. Shi-Hai Dong, Xi-Wen Hou and Zhong-Qi Ma, Levinson’s theorem for the non-local interactions in two dimensions, accepted to J. Phys. A. C. N. Yang, in [*Monopoles in Quantum Field Theory*]{}, Proceedings of the Monopole Meeting, Trieste, Italy, 1981, ed. by N. S. Craigie, P. Goddard, and W. Nahm (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982), p.237. C. G. Callan, Jr., Phys. Rev. [**26**]{}, 2058 (1982); E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys. [**92**]{}, 455 (1984).
[^1]: Electronic address: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Measurements of the polarization of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation are expected to significantly increase our understanding of the early universe. We present a design for a CMB polarimeter in which a cryogenically cooled half wave plate rotates by means of a high-temperature superconducting (HTS) bearing. The design is optimized for implementation in MAXIPOL, a balloon-borne CMB polarimeter. A prototype bearing, consisting of commercially available ring-shaped permanent magnet and an array of YBCO bulk HTS material, has been constructed. We measured the coefficient of friction as a function of several parameters including temperature between 15 and 80 K, rotation frequency between 0.3 and 3.5 Hz, levitation distance between 6 and 10 mm, and ambient pressure between $10^{-7}$ and 1 torr. The low rotational drag of the HTS bearing allows rotations for long periods of time with minimal input power and negligible wear and tear thus making this technology suitable for a future satellite mission.'
author:
- 'Shaul Hanany, Tomotake Matsumura, Brad Johnson, Terry Jones, John R. Hull, and Ki B. Ma[^1]'
title: A Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Polarimeter Using Superconducting Bearings
---
Introduction
============
bearings are often considered one of the major uses of bulk high-temperature superconductor (HTS), and considerable development effort of such bearings has occurred since the discovery of HTS [@hull_2000]. HTS bearings are characterized by very low drag torque. This, together with stiffness and damping against perturbations from equilibrium have led to investigations of their use in flywheel energy systems [@mulcahyetal_2001]-[@dayetal_2002], a lunar telescope [@leeetal_1999], sensitive gravimeters [@hulletal_grav_1999], and as a sensitive detector of gas pressure [@chewetal_1995]. Here we present a design for a cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation polarimeter that is based on levitating a rotating half wave plate by means of an HTS bearing.
There is intense scientific and popular interest in uncovering the physical conditions in the universe at epochs as close as possible to the big bang. Tremendous progress in this endeavor has been achieved already through detailed measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation [@partridge]. The CMB permeates the entire universe and has a black body spectrum with an equivalent temperature of 2.73 K [@mather_etal90]. Information about the [*spatial anisotropy*]{} in the intensity of the CMB, as measured by a number of recent experiments [@debernardis_etal2000]-[@halverson_etal2002] has revealed that the universe is topologically flat [@lange_etal2001]-[@pryke_etal2002] and has lent strong support to the idea that the universe has undergone a period of exponential growth, an ’inflation’, at about $10^{-34}$ seconds after the bang [@linde_inflation]. By combining the data from CMB and other astrophysical measurements we can now determine that only 5% of the matter and energy density in the universe is made of ordinary electrons, quarks, neutrinos and photons, and that the rest is split into $\sim 2/3$ ’vacuum energy’ and $\sim 1/3$ a new form of ’dark matter’. Aside from their existence, very little is known about either the vacuum energy or the dark matter. CMB measurements have also helped to constrain the age of the universe to within about 10% accuracy and to construct a reliable scenario for its evolution.
The *polarization* of the CMB radiation field encodes new and valuable information about the early universe and an intense research effort has begun to discover and characterize the polarization signal. Detection of the polarization signal will enhance our confidence in the prevailing cosmological model and will provide more information about the properties of the constituents of the universe [@Zal97]. More importantly, the polarization signal seems to be the only direct probe of the inflationary epoch close to the big bang [@KamKosSte97a]. A detection of such a signal will provide strong supporting evidence for the concept of inflation and will illuminate the physical processes involved. The polarization anisotropy of the CMB is expected to have two components, the ’scalar’ and ’tensor’ components [@KamKosSte97a]. The scalar component should have a magnitude of about a few , about a factor of 10 smaller than the 50 RMS temperature anisotropy. The tensor component, which has its origin in the inflationary epoch, is smaller by [*at least*]{} a factor of 100 compared to the temperature anisotropy. CMB receivers are just now reaching the sensitivity required to detect the scalar component. A high signal-to-noise ratio detection of the CMB polarization will require a combination of high sensitivity and strong rejection of systematic errors. An experimental approach that satisfies both of these requirements is to use bolometric detectors at the focal plane of an optical system that modulates the incoming polarization signal. Bolometers are the most sensitive detectors at the frequency range where the CMB is most intense [@lange2002]. Temporal modulation of the incoming signal and subsequent lock-in is a standard and powerful technique to separate small signals from noise. It is also an effective technique to reject systematic errors that appear at a frequency different from the signal modulation frequency.
The best technique currently available for modulating the polarization of the incident radiation is by turning a half wave plate (HWP). When a HWP is placed in the path of the incident light and turned at a rotation frequency $f$, the polarization vector of the output radiation rotates at a frequency of $4f$. The radiation is then passed through a ’polarization analyzer’, for example a fixed polarizing grid, and is then detected. The signal recorded by the detector is modulated at a frequency of $4f$ and standard lock-in techniques can be used to extract its magnitude. Although a rotating HWP has been used with many experiments, over a broad range of wavelengths [@jones_etal88]-[@leach_etal91] the challenge in adapting the technique to CMB polarimetry is coupling the rotation mechanism to bolometric detectors which have high sensitivity to microphonic noise. Standard mechanical rotation mechanisms, such as gears and bearings, have stick-slip friction which induce vibrations. The vibrations deposit mechanical energy in the detectors and cause wires to vibrate thereby inducing excess noise.
We have developed a magnetic bearing for use with polarization experiments that is based on magnetic levitation of a HWP above a high temperature superconductive (HTS) material. The apparatus is designed to fit in a balloon borne bolometric experiment MAXIPOL that will attempt to detect the scalar component of the CMB polarization [@maxipol]. The mechanism can be easily adapted to any polarization experiment and particularly for a future NASA satellite mission dedicated for detailed mapping of the tensor component of the CMB polarization. We describe the hardware in Section \[sec:hardware\], report on initial tests in Section \[sec:results\] and summarize in Section \[sec:summary\].
Description of Hardware {#sec:hardware}
=======================
Overview and Requirements
-------------------------
MAXIPOL consists of an array of 16 bolometric photometers coupled to a 3 mirror off-axis Gregorian telescope, see Fig. \[fig:maxima\_system\]. The experiment is optimized for stratospheric balloon borne ($\sim 38$ km) observations of the CMB. The high altitude significantly reduces photon noise and noise due to atmospheric fluctuations. The bolometers are maintained at a temperature of 0.1 K by means of an adiabatic demagnetization refrigerator [@hagmann]. The optical system consists of a 1.3 meter primary mirror and two additional mirrors that are maintained at liquid helium temperature.
![ Overall view of the MAXIPOL instrument. []{data-label="fig:maxima_system"}](maxima_system.ps){width="3in"}
Adapting a magnetic bearing system for a cryogenic balloon borne experiment poses a number of requirements on the particular implementation.
- The HWP must be cooled to liquid He temperatures to reduce the optical load on the detectors.
- The HWP must be located at the aperture stop of the optical system to eliminate a potential source of systematic error.
- Characteristic rotation frequencies are $\sim 5$ Hz, limited by the $\sim 10$ msec response time of the bolometric detectors.
- It should be possible to accelerate the rotor periodically with minimal friction or electro-magnetic interference.
- The bearing system needs to be locked during periods of very strong accelerations, for example during launch or flight termination, and then released to begin operations. The latching mechanism needs to be remote-controlled.
- The bearing system stiffness must be sufficiently high to operate through a range of tilt angles. Damping should be high to dampen oscillations that may occur during typical observing conditions.
- All bearing properties must be stable over long periods of time.
The HWP and Magnetic Bearing Mechanism
--------------------------------------
The HWP and its rotation mechanism are located at the aperture stop of the optical system, which is between the tertiary mirror and the focal surface of the system, see Fig. \[fig:hts\_hwp\]. A polarizing wire grid mounted at the entrance to the photometers transmits only one component of the incident polarization vector.
![ The HWP and the magnetic bearing are located at the aperture stop of the optical system, between the tertiary mirror and the focal surface. A wire-grid polarizer, mounted at the entrance aperture of the photometer array, is used to select only one component of the incident polarization. []{data-label="fig:hts_hwp"}](hts_hwp.ps){width="2.in"}
The HWP consists of a 3.2 mm thick z-cut sapphire disk with a radius of 2.54 cm which is mounted inside a permanent ring-shaped magnet. The magnet and the HWP are the rotor of a magnetic bearing that is levitated above a ring of YBCO HTS material. The sintered NdFeB magnet has an inside radius of 2.54 cm, an outside radius of 3.56 cm, thickness of 1.2 cm, and mass of 0.2 kg. It is polarized in the axial direction and has a remnance of $\sim 11\times 10^{3}$ Gauss and an energy product of $30 \times 10^{6}$ Gauss-Oersted. The moments of inertia of the HWP and magnet are 83 and 1910 gr$\cdot$cm$^{2}$, respectively. A HWP holder, made of Delrin and with a gear at its outer circumference, holds the magnet/HWP combination together and is part of the rotor, see Fig. \[fig:mbearing\].
The magnet is held at an appropriate distance $d$ above a ring of HTS material which consists of 12 pieces of melt-textured YBCO [@supercon]. The distance $d$ is a free parameter and is typically between 4 to 10 mm. Two clamps, each resembling a plier, hold the rotor in place during the cool-down of the system. A cryogenic stepping motor that drives a shaft and a pair of cams is used to open and close the clamps. The HTS material and the clamps are mounted on a G-10 board.
Rotation of the rotor is achieved by means of a half gear that is driven by a second stepping motor that is mounted outside of the cryostat. During cool-down the half gear and the gear at the outer circumference of the rotor are engaged. Once the system has cooled to 4 K, the clamps are opened and the half gear is turned with a pre-programmed acceleration.
If the need arises to re-rotate the rotor, the half-gear can be stepped slowly until it engages with the rotor, and the process repeats.
The axial spring constant at 77 K was measured to be 256 and 136 N/m for levitation distances of 8.6 and 10.7 mm, respectively. The corresponding resonant frequencies are about 5.5 and 4 Hz, respectively.
We tested all the mechanical components of the HTS bearing at liquid nitrogen, liquid helium and intermediate temperatures. We carried out spin-down measurements between $\sim 3.5$ and $\sim 0.3$ Hz to determine the coefficient of friction of the bearing at various temperatures, levitation heights, ambient pressures, and as a function of the magnetic field structure of the magnet. Measurements between 4.2 and 77 K were conducted in a liquid He cryostat (LHC) in which the stator was mounted on a 0.9 cm thick copper cold-plate. The temperature of the HTS was controlled with heating resistors and measured with a calibrated resistance and diode thermometers. The rotation rate was measured with an LED and a photodiode.
Tests, Results and Interpretation {#sec:results}
=================================
Another set of spin-down measurements at 77 K were conducted in a liquid nitrogen cryostat (LNC) with the apparatus described by Hull [*et al.*]{} [@hulletal_1995]. This apparatus was designed to minimize energy losses due to eddy currents. The measurements with the LNC are summarized in Table \[tab:meas\_summary\]. In all measurements the rotor consisted of the magnet without the HWP.
We quantify the results of the spin-down measurements in terms of the coefficient of friction (COF) [@hulletal_1995] given by $$\mbox{COF} = - C \alpha,$$ where $C = 2.7\times10^{-3}$ sec$^{2}$ is a rotor specific constant, and $\alpha$ is the angular acceleration.
The angular acceleration $\alpha$ can be a function of the frequency of rotation $f$ and temperature $T$ and we parameterize it as ([@zeisberger_gawalek98]) $$\alpha (T) = 2\pi {df \over dt} = a_{0}(T) + 2 \pi a_{1}(T) f.$$ The coefficient $a_{0}$ has been interpreted as the contribution of hysteresis to the angular acceleration and $a_{1}$ quantifies the contributions from eddy currents and ambient pressure [@hulletal_1995]. If $a_{1}$ is non-zero then $f$ should be an exponential function of time.
------------- ---------------- ------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------
measurement distance Pressure COF $a_{0}$ $a_{1}$
($\pm 0.2$ mm) (torr) (rad/sec$^{2}$) (1/sec)
1 8.6 $8\times 10^{-7}$ $3.7\times 10^{-6}$ $1.4\times 10^{-3}$ 0
2 8.6 $3\times 10^{-4}$ $1.4\times 10^{-3}$ $1.2\times10^{-4}$
3 8.6 $3\times 10^{-3}$ $1.4\times 10^{-3}$ $2.2\times10^{-4}$
4 9.5 $7\times 10^{-7}$ $1.8\times 10^{-6}$ $6.6\times 10^{-4}$ 0
5 10.7 $8\times 10^{-7}$ $1.3\times 10^{-6}$ $4.9\times 10^{-4}$ 0
6 10.7 $3\times 10^{-4}$ $4.9\times 10^{-4}$ $7.9\times10^{-4}$
7 10.7 $8\times 10^{-4}$ $4.9\times 10^{-4}$ $8.9\times10^{-4}$
8 10.7 $3\times 10^{-3}$ $4.9\times 10^{-4}$ $1.1\times10^{-3}$
9 10.5 $8\times 10^{-7}$ $6.5\times 10^{-7}$ $2.4\times 10^{-4}$ 0
------------- ---------------- ------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------
\[tab:meas\_summary\]
COF Vs. Distance at 77 K: Hysteresis Losses {#sec:cof_vs_dist}
-------------------------------------------
A comparison of lines 1,4,5 in Table \[tab:meas\_summary\] gives a comparison of the COF as a function of distance from the HTS with low ambient pressures, and negligible contribution from eddy currents.
The COF decreases as the distance between the rotor and stator increases. This decrease is correlated well with a decrease in the inhomogeneity of the axial component of the magnetic field as the distance from the magnet increases. We measured the strength of the magnetic field as a function of distance from the surface of the magnet. Measurements were taken at the inner, middle and outer radii of the magnet and every 10 degrees in azimuth. Since in these measurements the major contribution to the coefficient of friction is expected to be hysteresis loss in the HTS, we follow Hull [*et al*]{} [@hulletal_1996] and quantify the inhomogeneity of the field by forming the quantity $$\label{eqn:deltab3}
\Delta B^{3}(d) \equiv
{ \sum_{i} \omega_{i} \left[\delta B_{z}^{3}(\theta,r_{i},d) \right]
\over \sum_{i} \omega_{i} },$$ where $i$ runs over the inner, middle and outer radii and $$\label{eqn:deltab}
\delta B_{z}(\theta,r_{i}) =
\left|B_{z,\mbox{max}}(\theta,r_{i},d) - B_{z,\mbox{min}}(\theta,r_{i},d)\right|.$$ The variables $\omega_{i}$ are weights that are proportional to the ratios of elements of area as a function of radius. Figure \[fig:b3\_vs\_height\] shows the quantity $\Delta B^{3}$ as a function of $d$. The reduction in magnetic field inhomogeneity with distance is evident.
![ The inhomogeneity of the magnetic field of the magnet as a function of distance from its surface for the bare magnet (stars) and for a configuration where the magnet is shimmed with high permeability steel (square). The inhomogeneity is quantified using (\[eqn:deltab3\]) and (\[eqn:deltab\]). The insert zooms on the difference of $1.65\times 10^{4}$ gauss$^{3}$ between the shimmed and non-shimmed configurations. The straight line is an approximate fit to the non-shimmed data and was used to find interpolated values. []{data-label="fig:b3_vs_height"}](b3_vs_height.ps){width="3.5in"}
By interpolating the data of $\Delta B^{3}$ vs. height (Fig. \[fig:b3\_vs\_height\]) we plot in Fig. \[fig:cof\_vs\_b3\] the COF as a function of $\Delta B^{3}$. The number of data points is small, nevertheless the data is suggestive of the linear relationship predicted by theory [@hulletal_1996].
![ The COF as a function of magnetic field inhomogeneity \[from (\[eqn:deltab3\])\]. The data suggests a linear relation as predicted by theory. []{data-label="fig:cof_vs_b3"}](cof_vs_b3.ps){width="3.5in"}
In order to reduce hysteresis losses and decrease the coefficient of friction we added shims in various locations on the surface of the magnet that pointed toward the HTS [@hulletal_1996]. The shims were made of 25 - 150 $\mu$m thick high permeability steel leaf. Measurements of the magnetic field at a distance of 7 mm away from the magnet gave less magnetic field inhomogeneity, as shown in Fig. \[fig:b3\_vs\_height\]. The COF was measured for a different shimming configuration (for which measurements of $\Delta B^{3}$ are not available) and gave the lowest COF measured with the LNC, see measurement 9.
COF Vs. Pressure {#sec:cof_vs_press}
----------------
Fig. \[fig:a1\_vs\_press\] shows the magnitude of the coefficient $a_{1}$ as a function of ambient pressure. The measurement is a compilation of data from two levitation distances. The data show a decrease of $a_{1}$ with ambient pressure and are in broad agreement with those of Weinberger et al. [@weinbergeretal_1991], which suggest that $a_{1}$ becomes negligible at pressures below $\sim 5 \times 10^{-5}$ torr.
![ The coefficient of friction as a function of ambient pressure for two levitation distances. All data was measured at a temperature of 77 K. []{data-label="fig:a1_vs_press"}](a1_vs_press.ps){width="3.5in"}
COF Vs. Temperature {#sec:cof_vs_temp}
-------------------
We used the LHC to measure the COF at levitation distances of 6 and 7.2 mm for various temperatures between 15 and 80 K and for frequencies between $\sim 0.3$ and 3.5 Hz. The magnet was released to levitate when the helium cold plate was at $\sim 50$ K and we have no information about the temperature of the magnet subsequently.
Measurements of the COF as a function of rotation frequency are shown in Figs \[fig:cof\_vs\_freq6mm\] and \[fig:cof\_vs\_freq7.2mm\]. At low temperatures ($\sim 15$ K) the data were consistent with a constant deceleration for most rotation frequencies with perhaps a slight increase in COF at frequencies below 1 Hz. At high temperatures, above about 60 K, the data show an increasing COF with frequency. The data at a levitation distance of 6 mm and 60 K show a transition between a constant COF above 1 Hz to a decreasing COF below 1 Hz.
![ The coefficient of friction as a function of frequency for temperatures of 16 K (stars), 60K (open triangles), 70 K (squares), 79 K (circles), 84 K (filled triangles) for a levitation distance of 6.0 mm. For clarity of presentation, the COF for temperatures of 70 K, 79 K, and 84 K, have been offset vertically up by 0.4, 0.8, and 1.2 ordinate units, respectively. []{data-label="fig:cof_vs_freq6mm"}](cof_vs_freq6mm.ps){width="3.5in"}
![ The coefficient of friction as a function of frequency for temperatures of 15 K (stars), 50 K (triangles), 62 K (squares) and 79 K (circles), for a levitation distance of 7.2 mm. For clarity of presentation, the COF for temperatures of 62 and 79 K have been offset vertically up by 0.3 and 0.8 ordinate units, respectively. []{data-label="fig:cof_vs_freq7.2mm"}](cof_vs_freq7.2mm.ps){width="3.5in"}
Fig. \[fig:cof\_vs\_temp1hz\] shows the COF as a function of temperature at a frequency of 1 Hz. A decrease in the COF by about a factor of $\sim 3$ is evident for both levitation heights.
![ The coefficient of friction at 1 Hz as a function of temperature for a levitation distance of 6 mm (squares) and 7.2 mm (triangles). In one measurement, shown with a horizontal error bar, the temperature varied between 29 and 35 K. []{data-label="fig:cof_vs_temp1hz"}](cof_vs_temp1hz.ps){width="3.5in"}
Hull et al. [@hulletal_1996] argue that the COF should be inversly proportional to the critical current $J_{c}$ in the HTS. Using data from Zeisberger et al.[^2] [@zeisberger_gawalek98] which give information about the critical current as a function of temperature we plot the COF as a function of $1/J_{c}$ in Fig. \[fig:cof\_vs\_jc\]. Since we don’t have data about the critical current as a function of temperature for [*our*]{} HTS samples, it is premature to conclude that there is a disagreement between the data and the model.
![ The coefficient of friction at 1 Hz as a function of $1/J_{c}$, where $J_{c}$ is the critical current in the HTS. []{data-label="fig:cof_vs_jc"}](cof_vs_jc.ps){width="3.5in"}
Discussion and Summary {#sec:summary}
======================
We have presented a working prototype for an HTS bearing for use with polarimeters that employ a HWP. The complete absence of stick-slip friction makes the magnetic bearing suitable for detector systems that are sensitive to microphonic excitation.
Our measurements indicate that with a readily available shimmed magnet and HTS, at the range of gas pressures expected in a liquid He cryostat and with no particular efforts to reduce eddy current losses we can expect a COF of $\sim 3\times 10^{-6}$ (factor 2 less than the measured COF at 15 K due to shimming), which would give rise to an angular deceleration of about $1.7\times10^{-4}$ Hz/sec. If the rotor is set in motion and then slows down over a frequency range of 20 Hz, suitable for CMB observations between 21 and 1 Hz given the time constant of current bolometeric detectors, the bearing would need to be reset in motion once in 33 hours. Since re-setting the bearing in motion should take only a few minutes, the duty cycle of such a magnetic bearing system is close to 100%. The present design could be implemented in ground based or short duration balloon polarimeters.
A COF of $\sim 3\times 10^{-6}$ is still two orders of magnitude larger than the smallest COF reported for the 300-400 gr mass category [@hull_2000], indicating that a more careful design of the bearing and the cryostat in which it operates can provide uninterrupted rotation for more than 4 months. Even just a factor of 10 improvement in the COF would give a continuous rotation for a month, more than adequate for a long duration balloon mission.
With a slowly decelerating rotor the frequency where the polarization signal appears will also decrease. This could provide a powerful check on systematic errors, but could also complicate the analysis of the data. Rather than let the bearing slow down over a long period of time, it could be driven continuously with an induction or standard brushless motor [@zhangetal_2002]. If necessary a feed-back loop can be implemented to maintain constant speed. Because of the small COF, minimal power is required to drive such a motor and this approach appears most attractive for a future satellite polarimetry mission.
Despite of the success of our prototype more testing needs to be done to characterize the bearing performance. In particular it is essential to measure bearing oscillations, particularly at low temperatures where hysteretic damping is lower compared to 77 K, and the stability of the bearing parameters, e.g. stiffness, and levitation distance, should be tested over a long period of time.
[11]{}
J. Hull, “Superconducting bearings,” [*Supercond. Sci. Technol.*]{}, Vol. 13, pp. R1 - R14, 2000.
T. M. Mulcahy, J. R. Hull, K. L. Uherka, R. G. Abboud, and J. Juna, “Test results of 2-kWh flywheel using passive PM and HTS bearings,” [*IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.*]{}, vol. 11, pp. 1729 - 1734, June 2001.
S. Nagaya, N. Kashima, M. Minami, H. Kawashima, and S. Unisuga, “Study on high- temperature superconducting magnetic bearing for 10 kWh flywheel energy storage system,” [*IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.*]{}, vol. 11, pp. 1649 - 1652, June 2001.
T. Coombs, A. M. Campbell, R. Storey, and R. Weller, “Superconducting magnetic bearings for energy storage flywheels,” [*IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.*]{}, vol. 9, pp. 968 - 971, June 1999.
Y. Miyagawa, H. Kameno, R. Takahata, and H. Ueyama, “A 0.5 kWh flywheel energy storage system using a high-Tc superconducting magnetic bearing,” [*IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.*]{}, vol. 9, pp. 996 - 999, June 1999.
A. C. Day, M. Strasik, K. E. McCrary, P. E. Johnson, J. W. Gabrys, J. R. Schindler, R. A Hawkins, D. L. Carlson, M. D. Higgins, and J. R. Hull, “Design and testing of the HTS bearing for a 10 kWh flywheel system,” [*Supercond. Sci. Technol.*]{}, vol. 15, pp. 838 - 841, 2002.
E. Lee, K. B. Ma, T. L. Wilson, and W.-K. Chu, “Characterization of superconducting bearings for lunar telescopes,” [*IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.*]{}, vol. 9, pp. 911 - 915, June 1999.
J. R. Hull and T. M. Mulcahy, “Gravimeter using high-temperature superconducting bearing,” [*IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.*]{}, vol. 9, pp. 390 - 393, June 1999.
A. D. Chew, A. Chambers, and A. P. Toup, “New technique for the measurement of the intrinsic drag torques of high temperature superconductor bearings,” [*Appl. Supercond.*]{}, vol. 3, pp. 327 - 338, 1995.
R. B. Partridge, [*3K: The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation*]{}. Cambridge University Press, 1995.
J. C. Mather [*et al.*]{} “A preliminary measurement of the cosmic microwave background spectrum by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite.” [*ApJ Lett.*]{} Vol. 354, pp. 37 - 40, 1990
P. de Bernardis, [*et al.*]{} “A flat Universe from high-resolution maps of the cosmic microwave background radiation”, [*Nature*]{}, Vol. 404, pp. 955 - 959, 2000.
S. Hanany, [*et al.*]{} “MAXIMA-1: a measurement of the cosmic microwave background anisotropy on angular acales of 10’ - 5$^{o}$”, [*ApJ*]{}, Vol. 545, pp. L5 - L9, 2000
A. T. Lee, [*et al.*]{} “A high spatial resolution analysis of the MAXIMA-1 cosmic microwave background anisotropy data”, [*ApJ*]{}, Vol. 561, pp. L1 - L5, 2001.
N. Halverson, [*et al.*]{} “Degree Angular Scale Interferometer first results: a measurement of the cosmic microwave background angular power spectrum”, [*ApJ*]{}, Vol. 568, pp. 38 - 45, 2002.
A. E. Lange, [*et al.*]{} “Cosmological parameters from the first results of Boomerang”, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} Vol. 63, pp. 042001-1 - 042001-8, 2001
A. Balbi, [*et al.*]{} “Constraints on cosmological parameters from MAXIMA-1’, [*ApJ*]{}, Vol. 545, pp. L1-L5, 2000; Erratum: ibid., Vol. 558, pp. L145, 2001
R. Stompor, [*et al.*]{} “Cosmological implications of the MAXIMA-I high resolution cosmic microwave background anisotropy measurement”, [*ApJ*]{}, Vol. 561, pp. L7 - L10, 2001
C. Pryke, [*et al.*]{} “Cosmological parameter extraction from the first season of observations with DASI” [*ApJ*]{} Vol. 568, pp. 46 - 51, 2002
A. D. Linde, [*Particle Physics And Inflationary Cosmology*]{}, Harwood (1990)
M. Zaldarriaga, “Polarization of the microwave background in reionized models” [*Phys. Rev. D*]{}, Vol. 55, pp. 1822 - 1829, 1997
M. Kamionkowski, A. Kosowsky, & A. Stebbins, “A probe of primordial gravity waves and vorticity” [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{}, Vol. 78, pp. 2058 - 2061, 1997
A. E. Lange, [*Proceedings of the Far-IR, Sub-MM, and MM Detector Technology Workshop*]{}, Monterey, California, April, 2002.
Jones, T.J., & Klebe, D.I., “A simple infrared polarimeter” [*PASP*]{}, Vol. 100, pp. 1158 - 1161, 1988
Platt, S. R., Hildebrand, R. H., Pernic, J., Davidson, J. A., & Novak, G. “100-micron array polarimetry from the Kuiper Airborne Observatory - instrumentation, techniques, and first results” [*PASP*]{}, Vol. 103, pp. 1193 - 1210, 1991
Leach, R. W., Clemens, D. P., Kane, B. D., & Barvainis, R., “Polarimetric mapping of Orion using MILLIPOL - magnetic activity in BN/KL” [*ApJ*]{}, Vol. 370, pp. 257 - 262, 1991
C. Hagmann and P.L. Richards, “Adiabatic demagnetization refrigerators for small laboratory experiments and space astronomy,” [*Cryogenics*]{}, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 303-309, 1995
http://www.physics.umn.edu/maxipol
Superconductive Components Inc.
J. R. Hull, T. M. Mulcahy, K. L. Uherka and R. G. Abboud, “Low rotational drag in high-temperature superconducting bearings”, [*IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercon.*]{} Vol. 5, pp. 626 - 629, 1995.
J. R. Hull, J. F. Labatille and J. A. Lockwood “Reduced hysteresis loss in superconducting bearings”, [*Appl. Supercond.*]{} Vol. 4, pp. 1 - 10, 1996.
M. Zeisberger and W. Gawalek, “Losses in magnetic bearings”, [*Mat. Scie. Eng.*]{} Vol. B53, pp. 193-197, 1998.
B. R. Weinberger, L. Lynds, J. R. Hull, and U. Balachandran, “Low friction in high temperature superconductor bearings”, [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} Vol. 59, pp. 1132 - 1134, 1991.
Y. Zhang, Y. P. Postrekhin, K. B. Ma, and W. K. Chu, “Reaction wheel with HTS bearings for mini-satellite attitude control”, [*Supercond. Sci. Tech.*]{} Vol. 15, pp. 1 - 3, 2002.
[^1]: S. Hanany, T. Matsumura, B. Johnson and T. Jones are with the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Minnesota/Twin Cities, USA (e-mail: [email protected]). J. R. Hull is with Argonne National laboratory. K. Ma is with the Texas Center for Superconductivity at the University of Houston
[^2]: The data of Zeisberger et al. [@zeisberger_gawalek98] is for 0, 1, and 2 Tesla and shows a weak dependence on magnetic field strength. In our case the magnetic field is $\sim 0.1$ T and we use the 0 T data.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Newtonian gravitational noise from seismic fields will become a limiting noise source at low frequency for second-generation, gravitational-wave detectors. It is planned to use seismic sensors surrounding the detectors’ test masses to coherently subtract Newtonian noise using Wiener filters derived from the correlations between the sensors and detector data. In this work, we use data from a seismometer array deployed at the corner station of the LIGO Hanford detector combined with a tiltmeter for a detailed characterization of the seismic field and to predict achievable Newtonian-noise subtraction levels. As was shown previously, cancellation of the tiltmeter signal using seismometer data serves as the best available proxy of Newtonian-noise cancellation. According to our results, a relatively small number of seismometers is likely sufficient to perform the noise cancellation due to an almost ideal two-point spatial correlation of seismic surface displacement at the corner station, or alternatively, a tiltmeter deployed under each of the two test masses of the corner station at Hanford will be able to efficiently cancel Newtonian noise. Furthermore, we show that the ground tilt to differential arm-length coupling observed during LIGO’s second science run is consistent with gravitational coupling.'
author:
- 'M. W. Coughlin'
- 'J. Harms'
- 'J. Driggers'
- 'D. J. McManus'
- 'N. Mukund'
- 'M. P. Ross'
- 'B. J. J. Slagmolen'
- 'K. Venkateswara'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Implications of dedicated seismometer measurements on Newtonian-noise cancellation for Advanced LIGO'
---
Detections of gravitational waves (GWs) from compact binaries such as binary black holes [@AbEA2016a; @AbEA2016e; @AbEA2017a; @AbEA2017c] and binary neutron stars [@AbEA2017b] can be facilitated by improving low-frequency sensitivity of GW detectors. In particular, detection of higher mass mergers (and at higher rates) is possible as the low-frequency sensitivity improves [@HaMa2018]. In addition, increasing sensitivity at low frequencies can significantly improve our ability to estimate certain signal parameters such as the individual masses of the two compact objects and lead to more stringent tests of general relativity [@SaEA2012; @LyEA2015].
One of the major noise contributions below 30Hz comes from terrestrial gravity fluctuations, also known as Newtonian noise (NN) [@Sau1984; @Har2015]. These gravity fluctuations are predominantly from two sources: density perturbations in the atmosphere, or from seismic fields. Seismic surface fields are predicted to dominate the NN contribution [@DHA2012], although recent measurements at Virgo show that the atmosphere can be important as well [@FiEA2018]. While the average NN is likely to lie below the instrumental noise of the Advanced LIGO and Virgo detectors, at times of higher environmental noise, it can dominate [@DHA2012].
It was proposed to mitigate NN by monitoring the environmental fields with sensor arrays [@Cel2000]. Since site-characterization measurements suggest that seismic fields at the LIGO sites are dominated by surface Rayleigh waves in the LIGO NN band between 10Hz and 20Hz from local sources [@CoMu2016], NN mitigation can be achieved by deploying a surface array around each test mass monitoring vertical ground displacements [@DHA2012].
{width="3.8in"} {width="3.2in"}
The conventional approach of NN subtraction is to create Wiener filters using data from sensor arrays, similar to feed-forward cancellation schemes already used with other detector noise [@GiEA2003; @DrEA2012; @DeEA2012]. Previous work was concerned with optimizing the placement of seismometers using high-dimensional samplers minimizing the expected noise residuals [@DHA2012; @CoMu2016]. Wiener filters are typically constructed using observed correlations between sensors, although models of the seismic field can be employed as well [@CoMu2016]. Harms and Venkateswara [@HaVe2016] also showed that a single seismic tiltmeter can be used to strongly reduce NN only limited by tiltmeter self-noise, provided that the seismic field is accurately represented by plane-wave models.
![ The measured correlation function for the LIGO Hanford corner station at 15Hz.[]{data-label="fig:coh"}](scatter_mean.pdf){width="3.5in"}
In this Letter, we present first results of the cancellation of a tilt signal in the frequency range 10Hz — 20Hz measured by a compact beam-rotation sensor [@HaVe2016], and give a detailed characterization of the seismic field for the purpose of NN cancellation. We first show that the seismic field is approximately homogeneous and dominated by Rayleigh waves, which is important as seismic fields with a mixture of wave types would be very difficult for any NN subtraction [@Har2015]. We then implement an optimal subtraction scheme using the array of seismometers as input to a Wiener filter and the tiltmeter as target channel. The investigation with the tiltmeter as a target channel is important, because ground tilt along the direction of the detector arm is fully coherent with NN from plane Rayleigh waves, and therefore is the best available proxy for testing NN cancellation schemes [@Har2015].
![Histograms of seismic speed measurements using LHO array data at 10Hz, 15Hz, and 20Hz.[]{data-label="fig:speeds"}](hist.pdf){width="3.5in"}
Beginning of October 2016, an array of 30 L-4C vertical-axis seismometers [^1] were deployed at the corner station building at LIGO Hanford. Concurrently, a single-axis tiltmeter was installed at the center of the array [@VeHa2014; @HaVe2016]. The left of Figure \[fig:array\] shows the locations of the seismometers in the vicinity of the vacuum enclosure. The data from the seismometers are conditioned, acquired digitally and saved at a 512Hz sampling rate. The configuration of seismometers was an approximately equidistant placement of a few meters between neighbors in the central part of the array and increased spacing along the edges. For the analysis, we divide the strain time-series data into 50% overlapping 128s segments that are Hann$\mbox{-}$windowed. The first metric presented are percentiles of the PSDs, which show variations in the seismic field over the frequency band of interest. Each sensor in the map of Figure \[fig:array\] is represented by 3 overlaid circles, the lower one representing the 10th percentile at 15Hz, the middle one the 50th, and the upper one the 90th percentile. Maps at other frequencies can be found in the Supplement. These maps allow us to identify local sources, or locations of vibration amplification due to interaction with infrastructure. The plot on the right shows the full spectra of all sensors for the 50th and 90th percentiles. The spectra have significant structure over the 10-20Hz band indicating the presence of several relatively narrow-band local sources.
The second metric presented is the complex coherence, $\gamma(f)$, between the seismometers in the array, calculated as $\gamma(f) = \frac{\langle x(f)\,y^*(f)\rangle}{\sqrt{\langle |x(f)|^2\rangle\langle |y(f)|^2\rangle\phantom{\big]}}}$ where $x(f)$ and $y(f)$ are the values of the Fourier Transform at a particular frequency $f$ for two seismometers. This quantity allows for the characterization of the seismic field and is also an important quantity for the calculation of noise-cancellation filters [@Cel2000; @CoMu2016]. Figure \[fig:coh\] shows a measurement of $\Re(\gamma)$ between all 27 seismometers used for this study at 15Hz. Each coherence value is drawn at a coordinate, which corresponds to the relative position vector between the two sensors. Although there are some instances of inhomogeneities where high coherence points are near to low coherence points, in general the coherence evolves smoothly, and consistently with a Rayleigh-wave field. Homogeneity is a prerequisite for realizing NN cancellation with a relatively small number of seismometers (not more than 10 seismometers per test mass). The Supplement explores the variability in this quantity.
![Expected residuals in the tiltmeter based on Equation (\[eq:R\]) for all possible numbers of seismometers picked from the array such that residuals at 15Hz are minimized.[]{data-label="fig:sub"}](density_tiltmeter.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Accounting for inhomogeneity is currently an open problem, and a much denser spatial sampling of the seismic field might be required to predict its effect on NN cancellation [@CoMu2016].
The third metric presented is a measurement of wave speeds in the frequency range 10Hz – 20Hz shown in Figure \[fig:speeds\], which is useful for further characterization of the field and predictions of the levels of Wiener filter subtraction that could be expected. We used the method of section 3.6.3 of [@Har2015]. The idea is to decompose the seismic field into plane harmonics and collect the phase speeds associated with the maximum-amplitude component. Consistent with measurements at the end stations [@CoMu2016], the average velocities are about 300m/s at 10Hz and 15Hz and 380m/s at 20Hz, which is thought to be due to the concrete slab of the laboratory building, which has greater effect at shorter seismic wavelengths. Outliers in the histogram might be from body waves at higher speeds, or simply be the result of aliasing effects, which can happen when several waves at the same frequency simultaneously propagate through the array. Otherwise, these measurements are consistent with Rayleigh waves, which simplifies the NN modeling [@Har2015]. The width of the distribution can be explained by broadening due to sources being relatively close to the array giving rise to circular wave fronts, due to anisotropy of the ground, and potentially also due to seismic scattering (the latter two are likely minor effects at the LIGO sites since the soil does not vary significantly in horizontal directions over the extent of the array, and the surface is flat).
As discussed above, Wiener filters use correlations between reference data streams and a target data stream to give an estimate of the noise contributions to the target sensor present in the reference data streams as well [@BSH2008]. In the regime where all data streams have stationary noise, they are known to be optimal filters. In this work, we take a tiltmeter as our target sensor, with seismometers as reference data streams.
In the following, we will denote the cross-spectral densities between the $N$ seismometers in the array as $C_{\rm SS}(f)$, which is a $N\times N$ matrix. Similarly, we take the cross-spectral density between array and tiltmeter, which has $N$ terms, as $\vec C_{\rm ST}(f)$. We finally denote the PSD of the target sensor as $C_{\rm TT}(f)$. The Wiener filter is then constructed as $\vec w(f)=\vec C_{\rm ST}^\top(f)\cdot C_{\rm SS}^{-1}(f)$, where $C_{\rm ST}^\top(f)$ is the transpose of $\vec C_{\rm ST}(f)$ and $C_{\rm SS}^{-1}(f)$ is the inverse matrix of $C_{\rm SS}(f)$. The estimate of the target sensor data is then simply $\vec w(f) \cdot {\vec s}(f)$, where ${\vec s}(f)$ are the Fourier transforms at frequency $f$ of segments of data from all seismometers. Note that a similar definition of the Wiener filter can be given in time domain, realized for example as finite impulse-response filter.
{width="3.5in"} {width="3.5in"}
We can use the coherence results to determine the expected residuals. Based on the above quantities, the average relative noise residual $R$ is determined by $$R = 1 - \frac{\vec{C}_{\rm ST}^\top \cdot C_{\rm SS}^{-1} \cdot \vec{C}_{\rm ST}}{C_{\rm TT}}.
\label{eq:R}$$ In Figure \[fig:sub\], we use Equation (\[eq:R\]) to determine the expected residuals for array configurations with optimal selection of a varying number of sensors. To determine the optimal configurations, we simply loop over all configurations to determine the configuration with the smallest residuals for a given number of seismometers picked from the array. Based upon this, the expected residuals rapidly converge after only a few seismometers. We will note that this is a different method than in Coughlin et al. [@CoMu2016] where the sensor locations were allowed to vary arbitrarily and correlations were based on a model fit to the observed correlations. We show representative optimal array configurations in the Supplement. Based upon this, we expect significant suppression of tilt signals. When calculating Wiener filters from 30min of disturbance free data and then applying to the rest of the data, we achieve better than factor 10 reduction of tilt signals at some frequencies (see Supplement).
The Wiener filter can be studied further by calculating its Bode plot shown in Figure \[fig:bode\], which consists of the magnitude and phase of the filter for each witness channel as a function of frequency. The plots show that some seismometers form tiltmeter type configurations. These can be identified by searching for pairs of seismometers whose magnitudes are similar over the entire frequency band, and with a relative phase of about $180^\circ$. Sensors 4, 5, 20, and 27 form two such pairs. Many sensors contribute to the Wiener filter with similar magnitude. Combined with the observation from Figure \[fig:sub\] that around 5 sensors or less are required to achieve most of the noise cancellation, similar magnitudes of sensors in a larger array means that the main impact of additional sensors is to average incoherent noise. We cannot fully explain the low magnitude of sensor 14 over the entire band. As the PSD maps indicate, see Figure \[fig:array\] and supplement, the seismic signal at many frequencies is much stronger at sensor 14 than at other sensors used in Figure \[fig:bode\]. This would explain the relatively low magnitude. However, its signal is weaker closer to 20Hz than in other sensors. This begs the question why the magnitude does not rise towards higher frequencies. It might be that its signal at higher frequencies is actually below its instrumental noise so that the Wiener filter suppresses injection of incoherent noise into the target channel. This hypothesis does not seem to be consistent though with such low magnitude values. It will be very important to study Bode plots of Wiener filters in greater detail to obtain an intuitive understanding of how the filter retrieves information from the witness channels, which could guide optimal placement of sensors even in inhomogeneous seismic fields where numerical methods still fail.
Last, we present measurements of transfer functions between ground tilt and GW data ’h(t)’ shown in Figure \[fig:couplings\]. Newtonian noise is predicted to lie about a factor 100 below other instrumental noise during the second science run, so that long correlation times need to be used to observe gravitational coupling. Our measurements use about 1 month of data with the interferometer locked starting in December 2016. A NN model is plotted for an isotropic, homogeneous field taking into account that seismic waves generally produce NN through both test masses of the corner station, and considering the positions of the two test masses and tiltmeter. The direct measurement of the transfer function from ground tilt to h(t) is shown as blue, solid line. Additional couplings were investigated through the seismic isolation system: displacement of the test-mass suspension-point along the arm (Sus L), and pitch of the suspension table (Sus P), i.e., a rotation around the horizontal axis perpendicular to the arm. The measured transfer function from ground tilt to Sus L can be subsequently passed through a model of the quadruple suspension system (solid, violet line), or through a measured transfer function between Sus L and h(t) (solid, yellow line). The yellow line corresponds in fact to the sum of the two transfer functions through Sus L and P (which does not accurately represent the total coupling through Sus L/P since it ignores correlations between these two channels). Last, the measurement noise is shown, which was calculated by sliding the ground tilt and h(t) time series against each other by about 1000s, and also by an analytic Gaussian model of measurement noise (which both give almost identical curves).
![Ground tilt to GW data couplings.[]{data-label="fig:couplings"}](Transfer_tilt2h_mag_O2_v2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
With the exception of a few frequencies, the observed ground tilt to h(t) coupling (solid, blue) lies well above the measurement noise (dot-dashed, black) up to about 20Hz. It is inconsistent with contributions from suspension point motion, which by itself is inconsistent with a model of mechanical coupling through the suspension stages (hinting towards additional coupling mechanisms). The observed ground tilt to h(t) coupling is consistent with a simple (isotropic, homogeneous) NN model above about 13Hz where deviations between observation and model are small enough to be explained by anisotropies (and potentially inhomogeneities) of the seismic field. A detailed analysis of these effects and more careful studies of potential additional coupling mechanisms are under way.
In summary, we have used dedicated measurements at the LIGO Hanford site to predict NN cancellation levels. We showed how we were able to achieve significant subtraction in line with expectations based on correlation measurements. We used a tiltmeter near one of the test masses at the corner station of the LIGO Hanford detector as a proxy for NN in a gravitational-wave detector. We showed that significant subtraction of the tilt signal is achievable with only a few seismometers. We also found that it is unlikely to be necessary to update the Wiener filters often, since subtraction performance did not change significantly over the course of months. Observations of ground tilt to h(t) coupling suggest that NN detection might be feasible in the near future.
MC was supported by the David and Ellen Lee Postdoctoral Fellowship at the California Institute of Technology. NM acknowledges Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India for providing financial support as Senior Research Fellow. BS was supported by ARC Future Fellowship FT130100329 and DM and BS are supported by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery. Thanks to the Seismic Working Group of the LIGO Scientific Collaboration for the suspension model. LIGO was constructed by the California Institute of Technology and Massachusetts Institute of Technology with funding from the National Science Foundation and operates under cooperative agreement PHY-0757058. The authors thank to the LIGO Scientific Collaboration for access to the data and gratefully acknowledge the support of the United States National Science Foundation (NSF) for the construction and operation of the LIGO Laboratory and Advanced LIGO as well as the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) of the United Kingdom, and the Max-Planck-Society (MPS) for support of the construction of Advanced LIGO. Additional support for Advanced LIGO was provided by the Australian Research Council. This paper has been assigned LIGO document number LIGO-P1800049.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
Power Spectral Densities
========================
{width="3.5in"} {width="3.5in"} {width="3.5in"} {width="3.5in"} {width="3.5in"} {width="3.5in"} {width="3.5in"} {width="3.5in"}
Figure \[fig:arrayall\] shows the locations of the seismometers in the vicinity of the vacuum enclosure, as well as the 10%, 50%, and 90% percentile vertical power spectral density at a variety of frequencies of interest.
Variability in the correlation function {#sec:cohstd}
=======================================
![ Standard deviation in the measured correlation function for the LIGO Hanford corner station at 15Hz.[]{data-label="fig:cohstd"}](scatter_std.pdf){width="3.5in"}
Figure \[fig:cohstd\] shows the standard deviation in the measurement of $\Re(\gamma)$ between all 27 seismometers used for this study at 15Hz. The coherences are calculated at a rate of once per day, and the standard deviation is computed from this distribution. As expected, the standard deviation is smallest near the center of the distribution, where both seismometers are most near to one another. The standard deviation is generally higher as the coherence becomes smaller.
Optimal Array configurations {#sec:optimal}
============================
In figure \[fig:bruteforce\], we show the optimal 6 and 10 sensor arrays (left and right columns) for an seismometer and tiltmeter (top and bottom rows).
{width="3.5in"} {width="3.5in"} {width="3.5in"} {width="3.5in"}
Subtraction with tiltmeter as target sensor
===========================================
Figure \[fig:sub\] shows the spectrum of subtraction residuals of the tiltmeter relative to its average spectrum. The dashed curve is calculated using all seismometers as witness channels of the Wiener filter. The solid curve is calculated by using the one most effective seismometer at each frequency. The residual spectrum with all seismometers as witness channels is consistent with estimates of the tiltmeter instrumental noise (which is not accurately known though).
![Ratio of the square-roots of PSDs of tiltmeter signal before and after Wiener filter subtraction using all available seismometers as witnesses or the single most effective seismometer picked for each frequency.[]{data-label="fig:sub"}](sub_single_vs_multi_tiltmeter.pdf){width="3.5in"}
\[sec:seismometer\]
{width="3.5in"} {width="3.5in"}
Similar to the discussion of the tiltmeter subtraction, on the left of figure \[fig:subseismometer\], we show the subtraction using a frequency domain Wiener filter between 10-20Hz applied to an seismometer at the center of the array. The results are consistent with the expectations demonstrated in the top row of figure \[fig:subseismometer\].
Timescales for Wiener filter subtraction {#sec:wiener}
========================================
{width="3.5in"} {width="3.5in"}
In Figure \[fig:subtimeacc\], we show the subtraction of seismometer and tiltmeter signals on a variety of timescales. Applying a filter calculated at some day to data recorded the same day, or days, weeks, months later, we see that subtraction performance is stable except for a signal around 19Hz in the seismometer case. A simple change in power of the 19Hz seismic source explains this result since subtraction of the 19Hz signal is limited by sensor noise. In general, variation in subtraction performance could also be due to changes of seismic correlations if dominant seismic sources change with time. In the tiltmeter case, no difference is seen.
[^1]: www.sercel.com/products/Pages/seismometers.aspx
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the task of directly modelling a visually intelligent agent. Computer vision typically focuses on solving various subtasks related to visual intelligence. We depart from this standard approach to computer vision; instead we directly model a visually intelligent agent. Our model takes visual information as input and directly predicts the actions of the agent. Toward this end we introduce , a dataset of ego-centric videos from a dog’s perspective as well as her corresponding movements. Using this data we model how the dog *acts* and how the dog *plans* her movements. We show under a variety of metrics that given just visual input we can successfully model this intelligent agent in many situations. Moreover, the representation learned by our model encodes distinct information compared to representations trained on image classification, and our learned representation can generalize to other domains. In particular, we show strong results on the task of walkable surface estimation and scene classification by using this dog modelling task as representation learning. Code is available at <https://github.com/ehsanik/dogTorch>.'
author:
- |
Kiana Ehsani$^1$, Hessam Bagherinezhad$^1$, Joseph Redmon$^1$\
Roozbeh Mottaghi$^2$, Ali Farhadi$^{1,2}$\
$^1$ University of Washington, $^2$ Allen Institute for AI (AI2)
bibliography:
- 'egbib.bib'
title: |
Who Let The Dogs Out?\
Modeling Dog Behavior From Visual Data\
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We extend the picture of $B$-meson decay constants obtained in lattice QCD beyond those of the $B$, $B_s$ and $B_c$ to give the first full lattice QCD results for the $B^*$, $B^*_s$ and $B^*_c$. We use improved NonRelativistic QCD for the valence $b$ quark and the Highly Improved Staggered Quark (HISQ) action for the lighter quarks on gluon field configurations that include the effect of $u/d$, $s$ and $c$ quarks in the sea with $u/d$ quark masses going down to physical values. For the ratio of vector to pseudoscalar decay constants, we find $f_{B^*}/f_B$ = 0.941(26), $f_{B^*_s}/f_{B_s}$ = 0.953(23) (both $2\sigma$ less than 1.0) and $f_{B^*_c}/f_{B_c}$ = 0.988(27). Taking correlated uncertainties into account we see clear indications that the ratio increases as the mass of the lighter quark increases. We compare our results to those using the HISQ formalism for all quarks and find good agreement both on decay constant values when the heaviest quark is a $b$ and on the dependence on the mass of the heaviest quark in the region of the $b$. Finally, we give an overview plot of decay constants for gold-plated mesons, the most complete picture of these hadronic parameters to date.'
author:
- 'B. Colquhoun'
- 'C. T. H. Davies'
- 'R. J. Dowdall'
- 'J. Kettle'
- 'J. Koponen'
- 'G. P. Lepage'
- 'A. T. Lytle'
bibliography:
- 'hl\_bib.bib'
title: '$B$-meson decay constants: a more complete picture from full lattice QCD'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Lattice QCD calculations are now an essential part of $B$ physics phenomenology (see for example [@Davies:2012qf]), providing increasingly precise determinations of decay constants, form factors and mixing parameters needed, along with experiment, in the determination of Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements. As the constraints being provided by lattice QCD become more stringent it is increasingly important to expand the range of hadronic matrix elements being calculated to allow tests both against experiment where possible and/or against expectations from other approaches. Decay constants are particularly useful in this respect because they are single numbers expressing the amplitude for a meson to annihilate to a single particle (for example a $W$ boson or a photon), encapsulating information about its internal structure. They are straightforwardly calculated in lattice QCD from the same hadron correlation functions being used to determine the hadron masses. The only additional complication is that normalisation of the appropriate operator for the meson creation/annihilation is required. In this way we can build up a tested and consistent ‘big picture’ of meson decay constants within which sit the results being used for CKM element determination.
To this end we determine here the decay constants that parameterise the amplitude to annihilate for the vector mesons $B^*$ and $B_s^*$. These mesons are the partners of the $B$ and $B_s$ whose weak decay matrix elements are critical to understanding heavy flavour physics. Decay modes of the $B^*$ and $B_s^*$ are dominated by electromagnetic radiative decays [@pdg] to $B$ and $B_s$, however, and so it is unlikely that processes in which the decay constant is the key hadronic parameter will be measured experimentally. The determination of the vector decay constants is nevertheless useful because the relationship with that of the pseudoscalar decay constant can be understood within the framework of Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) and the decay constants appear in phenomenological analyses of the vector form factor for semileptonic decay processes for the pseudoscalar mesons (see [@Becirevic:2014kaa] for a recent discussion of this).
Since vector and pseudoscalar heavy-light mesons differ only in their internal spin configuration, their decay constants might be expected to have rather similar values. The key question is then: by how much do they differ and which is larger? A recent review [@Lucha:2014hqa] showed tension between the results for the ratio of the $B^*$ to $B$ decay constants from QCD sum rules and from lattice QCD. The lattice QCD results used $u/d$ quarks (only) in the sea and obtained results for mesons containing $b$ quarks from an interpolation between results for quarks close to the $c$ mass and the static (infinite mass) limit [@Becirevic:2014kaa]. This gave a result for the ratio greater than 1 whereas the QCD sum rules approach quoted preferred a value less than 1.
The results we give here build on our state-of-the-art calculation of the $B$ and $B_s$ decay constants [@Dowdall:2013tga] using an improved NonRelativistic QCD (NRQCD) formulation [@Dowdall:2011wh] that allows us to work to high accuracy directly at the $b$ quark mass. We also use lattice QCD gluon field configurations that have the most realistic QCD vacuum to date, include $u/d$, $s$ and $c$ quarks in the sea (using the Highly Improved Staggered Quark formalism [@Follana:2006rc]) with the $u/d$ quark mass taking values down to the physical value. We therefore avoid significant systematic errors from extrapolations in the $u/d$ quark mass. We are able to give results for the ratio of vector to pseudoscalar decay constants for both the $B_s$ and the $B$ and the SU(3)-breaking ratio of these ratios. We find clearly that the vector decay constant is smaller than the pseudoscalar decay constant in both cases.
We also give results for the decay constant of the $B_c$ meson and its vector partner the $B_c^*$. The $B_c$ has been seen experimentally only relatively recently [@pdg] and is interesting because it can be viewed both as a heavy-heavy meson and as a heavy-light meson. Here we compare its ratio of vector to pseudoscalar decay constants to that of the $B$ and $B_s$, and find the ratio is significantly larger, now being very close to 1.
The decay constant of the $B_c$ is quite different from that of the $B$ and $B_s$, being nearly double their size. The $B_c$ decay constant can be used to predict its partial width for leptonic decay that may be observed in the future. We determine this decay constant here using NRQCD $b$ quarks and HISQ $c$ quarks and compare to our previous result [@McNeile:2012qf] that used the HISQ action for both quarks and mapped out the behaviour of a range of decay constants for valence heavy quarks in the region between the $c$ quark mass and the $b$ quark mass. Since the HISQ action is fully relativistic this is a good test of our understanding of systematic errors in lattice QCD, and confirmation of how well improved actions work.
In a further study of this point we go on to look at the dependence of decay constants on the valence heavy quark mass using quark masses lighter than that of the $b$ in the NRQCD action. This enables us to compare both the value of specific decay constants and the dependence on the heavy quark mass with that from using the relativistic HISQ action. We also demonstrate the consistency of our results for the ratio of vector to pseudoscalar decay constants for the $B_s$ meson here to our earlier result for the same ratio for the $D_s$ meson [@Donald:2013pea] using HISQ quarks.
A very consistent picture thus emerges from both a nonrelativistic and a relativistic approach to heavy quarks within lattice QCD. Both approaches are the result of several stages of improvement to reduce discretisation errors and other systematic uncertainties to a low level, important for making a detailed comparison.
We begin by outlining the methods used in our lattice calculation, which follow [@Dowdall:2013tga; @Dowdall:2012ab]. Section \[subsec:BBs\] gives results for the decay constants of the $B_s^*$ and $B^*$ and their comparison, and then section \[subsec:Bc\] gives results for the decay constants of the $B_c$ and the $B_c^*$. Section \[subsec:mQ\] works with quarks lighter than $b$ to demonstrate the heavy quark mass dependence of the decay constants and compare to our earlier results using the HISQ formalism for $b$ quarks. Section \[sec:discussion\] compares our results for vector meson decay constants to those of earlier determinations using other methods, including HQET arguments, and shows how the $B_c$ fits in between results for heavyonium and heavy-light mesons. Section \[sec:conclusions\] gives our conclusions, including the promised ‘big picture’ for the decay constants of gold-plated mesons from lattice QCD, the most complete picture of these hadronic parameters to date.
Lattice calculation {#sec:lattice}
===================
Since the first lattice NRQCD calculations were done for heavy-light mesons [@Davies:1993qp], huge improvements have been made. The current state-of-the-art [@Dowdall:2013tga; @Dowdall:2012ab] uses an improved NRQCD action for the heavy quark coupled to a HISQ light quark on gluon configurations that include an improved gluon action and HISQ sea quarks. Here we extend these calculations to include the decay constants of vector heavy-light mesons.
The gluon field configurations that we use were generated by the MILC collaboration [@Bazavov:2010ru; @Bazavov:2012xda]. These are $n_f = 2+1+1$ configurations that include the effect of light (up/down), strange and charm quarks in the sea with the HISQ action [@Follana:2006rc; @oldfds] and a Symanzik improved gluon action with coefficients correct through $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s a^2,n_f\alpha_s a^2)$ [@Hart:2008sq]. The lattice spacing values that we use range from $a=0.15$ fm to $a=0.09$ fm. The configurations have well-tuned sea strange quark masses and sea light quark masses ($m_u=m_d=m_l$) with ratios to the strange mass from $m_l/m_s=0.2$ down to the value that corresponds to the experimental $\pi$ meson mass of $m_l/m_s=1/27.4$ [@Bazavov:2014wgs].
In [@Dowdall:2011wh] we accurately determined the lattice spacings using the mass difference of the $\Upsilon^{\prime}$ and $\Upsilon$ mesons using the same NRQCD action for the $b$ quark as we use here. The details of each ensemble, including the lattice spacing, sea quark masses and spatial volumes, are given in table \[tab:params\]. All ensembles were fixed to Coulomb gauge.
Set $\beta$ $a_{\Upsilon}$ (fm) $\alpha_V(2/a)$ $am_{l}$ $am_{s}$ $am_c$ $\delta x_{\mathrm{sea}}$ $L/a \times T/a$ $n_{{\rm cfg}}$
----- --------- --------------------- ----------------- ---------- ---------- -------- --------------------------- ------------------ ----------------- --
1 5.80 0.1474(5)(14)(2) 0.346 0.013 0.065 0.838 0.323 16$\times$48 1020
2 5.80 0.1463(3)(14)(2) 0.344 0.0064 0.064 0.828 0.126 24$\times$48 1000
3 5.80 0.1450(3)(14)(2) 0.343 0.00235 0.0647 0.831 0.027 32$\times$48 1000
4 6.00 0.1219(2)(9)(2) 0.311 0.0102 0.0509 0.635 0.259 24$\times$64 1052
5 6.00 0.1195(3)(9)(2) 0.308 0.00507 0.0507 0.628 0.108 32$\times$64 1000
6 6.00 0.1189(2)(9)(2) 0.307 0.00184 0.0507 0.628 -0.004 48$\times$64 1000
7 6.30 0.0884(3)(5)(1) 0.267 0.0074 0.0370 0.440 0.327 32$\times$96 1008
NRQCD valence quarks {#subsec:nrqcd}
--------------------
We use improved NRQCD for the $b$ quark, which takes advantage of the nonrelativistic nature of the $b$ quark within its bound states for very good control of discretisation uncertainties. This allows us to work with relatively low numerical cost on the lattices with the lattice spacing values given above. NRQCD has the advantage that the same action can be used for both bottomonium and $B$-meson calculations so that tuning of the $b$-quark mass and determination of the lattice spacing can be done using bottomonium and there are no new parameters to be tuned at all for $B$-mesons. $b$-quark propagators are calculated in NRQCD by evolving forward in time (using eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian\])) from a starting condition. This is numerically very fast and high statistics can then readily be accumulated for precise results. The action used here builds on the standard NRQCD action [@Lepage:1992tx] accurate through $v^4$ in the heavy quark velocity $v$ (using power-counting terminology for bottomonium) by including one loop radiative corrections to many of the $v^4$ coefficients [@Hammant:2011bt; @Dowdall:2011wh]. We studied the effect of these improvements on the bottomonium spectrum in [@Dowdall:2011wh; @Daldrop:2011aa; @Dowdallhyp] and in $B$, $B_s$ and $B_c$ meson masses in [@Dowdall:2012ab].
The NRQCD Hamiltonian we use is given by [@Lepage:1992tx]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:evolution}
e^{-aH} &=& \left(1-\frac{a\delta H}{2}\right)\left(1-\frac{aH_0}{2n}\right)^n U_t^{\dag} \nonumber \\
&& \times \left(1-\frac{aH_0}{2n}\right)^n\left(1-\frac{a\delta H}{2}\right) \end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
aH_0 &=& - \frac{\Delta^{(2)}}{2 am_b}, \nonumber \\
a\delta H
&=& - c_1 \frac{(\Delta^{(2)})^2}{8( am_b)^3}
+ c_2 \frac{i}{8(am_b)^2}\left(\bf{\nabla}\cdot\tilde{\bf{E}}\right. -
\left.\tilde{\bf{E}}\cdot\bf{\nabla}\right) \nonumber \\
& & - c_3 \frac{1}{8(am_b)^2} \bf{\sigma}\cdot\left(\tilde{\bf{\nabla}}\times\tilde{\bf{E}}\right. -
\left.\tilde{\bf{E}}\times\tilde{\bf{\nabla}}\right) \nonumber \\
& & - c_4 \frac{1}{2 am_b}\,{\bf{\sigma}}\cdot\tilde{\bf{B}}
+ c_5 \frac{\Delta^{(4)}}{24 am_b} \nonumber \\
& & - c_6 \frac{(\Delta^{(2)})^2}{16n(am_b)^2} .
\label{eq:Hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\nabla$ is the symmetric lattice derivative and $\Delta^{(2)}$ and $\Delta^{(4)}$ the lattice discretization of the continuum $\sum_iD_i^2$ and $\sum_iD_i^4$ respectively. $am_b$ is the bare $b$ quark mass. The parameter $n$ has no physical significance, but is included for numerical stability of high momentum modes. We take the value $n=4$ here in all cases. $\bf \tilde{E}$ and $\bf \tilde{B}$ are the chromoelectric and chromomagnetic fields calculated from an improved clover term [@Gray:2005ur]. The $\bf \tilde{B}$ and $\bf \tilde{E}$ are made anti-hermitian but not explicitly traceless, to match the perturbative calculations done using this action.
The coefficients $c_i$ in the action are unity at tree level but radiative corrections cause them to depend on $am_b$ at higher orders in $\alpha_s$. These were calculated for the relevant $b$ quark masses using lattice perturbation theory in [@Dowdall:2011wh; @Hammant:2011bt] and the values used in this paper are given in Table \[tab:wilsonparams\]. Including the one-loop radiative corrections to $c_4$ is particularly important here, since this coefficient controls the hyperfine splitting between the vector and pseudoscalar states. We showed in [@Dowdall:2012ab] that improving $c_4$ leads to accurate results for $b$-light hyperfine splittings in keeping with the results of [@Dowdall:2011wh] for bottomonium. Most of the correlators we use here for determining the vector heavy-light meson decay constants come from the same calculation as that of [@Dowdall:2012ab].
The tuning of the $b$ quark mass on these ensembles was discussed in [@Dowdall:2011wh]. We use the spin-averaged kinetic mass of the $\Upsilon$ and $\eta_b$ and tune this to an experimental value of 9.445(2) GeV. This allows for electromagnetism and $\eta_b$ annihilation effects missing from our calculation [@Gregory:2010gm]. Note that we no longer have to apply a shift for missing charm quarks in the sea [@Gregory:2010gm]. The values used in this calculation are the same as those in [@Dowdall:2012ab; @Dowdall:2013tga] and given in table \[tab:upsparams\] along with other parameters.
Set $c_1$ $c_5$ $c_4$ $c_6$
------------- ------- ------- ------- -------
very coarse 1.36 1.21 1.22 1.36
coarse 1.31 1.16 1.20 1.31
fine 1.21 1.12 1.16 1.21
: The coefficients $c_1$, $c_5$, $c_4$ and $c_6$ used in the NRQCD action (eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian\])) for the values of the $b$ quark mass corresponding to those in \[tab:upsparams\]. $c_2$ and $c_3$ are set to 1.0. []{data-label="tab:wilsonparams"}
Set $am_b$ $\delta x_b$ $u_{0L}$ $a_{\mathrm{sm}}/a$
----- -------- -------------- ---------- ---------------------
1 3.297 0 0.81950 2.0,4.0
2 3.263 0 0.82015 2.0,4.0
3 3.25 0.005 0.81947 2.0,4.0
4 2.66 -0.013 0.8340 2.5,5.0
5 2.62 0 0.8349 2.0,4.0
6 2.62 0 0.8341 2.0,4.0
7 1.91 0.009 0.8525 3.425,6.85
: Parameters used in the NRQCD action. $am_b$ is the bare $b$ quark mass and $u_{0L}$ the Landau link tadpole-improvement factor used in the NRQCD action [@Lepage:1992xa]. $\delta x_b$ gives the fractional mistuning in the $b$ quark mass ($(am_b-am_{b,\mathrm{phys}})/am_{b,\mathrm{phys}}$) obtained from the determination of the spin-averaged kinetic mass of the $\Upsilon$ and $\eta_b$ [@Dowdall:2011wh], when this has a magnitude larger than 0.5%. The column $a_{\mathrm{sm}}$ gives the size parameters of the quark smearing functions (see section \[subsec:2pt\] and [@Dowdall:2012ab]), which take the form $\exp(-r/a_{\mathrm{sm}})$. $a_{\mathrm{sm}}$ is kept approximately constant in physical units [[^1]]{}. []{data-label="tab:upsparams"}
We end this section with a brief discussion of the assessment and removal of discretisation errors in a calculation that uses NRQCD [@Dowdall:2011wh]. A typical procedure to remove finite-$a$ errors in a lattice QCD calculation consists of :
- assume that the error is given by a function with leading term $ca^2$ (for suitably accurate actions)
- perform calculations at multiple values of $a$
- determine the unknown parameter $c$ above by fitting the results as a function of $a$
- subtract the fitted error function to obtain a physical result.
The first step of the procedure changes for NRQCD, because the error function must be more complicated. The coefficient of $a^2$ errors will be in general a function $c(am_b)$. This function is not known but varies slowly with $am_b$ for $am_b > 1$. It can therefore be approximated by a simple polynomial in $am_b$ for the range of values of $am_b$ used here, which are all larger than 1. Note that this polynomial approximation is not valid as $am_b \rightarrow 0$, but the procedure only requires that it be valid over the range used for our results. Our fit to the $a$-dependence of our results, to be discussed further in Section \[sec:results\], then has additional parameters to allow for the $a$-dependence coming from NRQCD (we also have simpler $a$-dependence coming from the gluon and light quark actions). The final physical result then has larger uncertainties because of this but it does allow us to account for NRQCD effects.
HISQ valence quarks {#subsec:hisq}
-------------------
For the $u/d$, $s$ and $c$ valence quarks in our calculation we use the same HISQ action as for the sea quarks. The advantage of using HISQ is that $am_q$ discretisation errors are under sufficient control that it can be used both for light and for $c$ quarks [@Follana:2006rc; @oldfds; @newfds]. The HISQ action is also numerically inexpensive which means we are able to perform a very high statistics calculation to combat the signal to noise ratio problems that arise in simulating B-mesons. For example, we use 16 time sources for both NRQCD and HISQ propagators on each configuration, so we are typically generating 16,000 correlators per ensemble.
The masses used on each ensemble are given in table \[tab:hisqparams\]. Again these are the same as in [@Dowdall:2012ab; @Dowdall:2013tga]. In [@Dowdall:2011wh] accurate strange quark masses were determined for each ensemble, tuned from the mass of the $\eta_s$ meson, a pseudoscalar $s\overline{s}$ which can be prevented from mixing with other states on the lattice so that its mass can be determined very accurately [@Davies:2009tsa]. Using experimental $K$ and $\pi$ meson masses we found $M_{\eta_s}$ = 0.6893(12) GeV (see also [@Dowdall:2013rya]). The values of $am_s^{\mathrm{val}}$ in table \[tab:hisqparams\] correspond to these tuned values. The light valence quarks are taken to have the same masses as in the sea.
Charm quark masses are tuned by matching the mass of the $\eta_c$ to experiment. The experimental value is shifted by 2.6 MeV for missing electromagnetic effects and 2.4 MeV for not allowing it to annihilate to gluons, giving 2.985(3) GeV [@Davies:2009tsa]. The $\epsilon_{\mbox{\tiny Naik}}$ term in the action is not negligible for charm quarks and we use the tree level formula given in [@newfds]; the values appropriate to our masses are given in table \[tab:hisqparams\].
Set $am_l^{\rm val}$ $am_s^{\rm val}$ $am_c^{\rm val}$ $\epsilon_{\mbox{\tiny Naik}}$
----- ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ --------------------------------
1 0.013 0.0641 0.826 -0.345
2 0.0064 0.0636 0.818 -0.340
3 0.00235 0.0628 - -
4 0.01044 0.0522 0.645 -0.235
5 0.00507 0.0505 0.627 -0.222
6 0.00184 0.0507 - -
7 0.0074 0.0364 0.434 -0.117
: The parameters used in the generation of the HISQ propagators. $am_l^{\rm val}$ and $am_s^{\rm val}$ are the valence light and strange quark masses respectively, in lattice units. $am_c^{\rm val}$ is the charm quark mass in lattice units (only a subset of the ensembles was used in this case) and $\epsilon_{\mbox{\tiny Naik}}$ is the corresponding coefficient of the Naik term in the HISQ action for charm. On set 5 $\epsilon_{\mbox{\tiny Naik}}$ is very slightly wrong - it should be -0.224. The impact of this is negligible. \[tab:hisqparams\]
NRQCD-HISQ correlators {#subsec:2pt}
----------------------
The NRQCD $b$ and HISQ $u/d$, $s$ or $c$ light quark propagators are combined into a meson correlation function in a straightforward way. Since staggered quarks have no spin index, staggered quark propagators must first be converted to 4-component ‘naive’ propagators so that they can be combined with quark propagators from other formalism such as NRQCD. To do this, the 4x4 ‘staggering matrix’ $\Omega(x) = \prod_{\mu=0}^4 (\gamma_{\mu})^{x_{\mu}}$ that was used to convert the naive quark action into the staggered quark action has to be applied to the staggered quark propagator at each end to ‘undo’ the transformation [@Wingate:2002fh]. The spin and colour components of the naive propagator and the NRQCD propagator can then be tied up at source and sink with appropriate $\gamma$ matrices (taking appropriate $2\times 2$ blocks since the NRQCD propagator is 2-component) to form a pseudoscalar or vector meson correlator. We sum over the spatial sites on the sink time-slice to project onto zero spatial momentum in all cases.
One complication is that ‘random-wall’ sources (i.e. a set of U(1) random numbers over a timeslice) are used for the light quark propagators to improve statistical accuracy in our light meson calculations (see, for example, [@Dowdall:2013rya]). When these propagators are tied together the result is equivalent to having a delta function source at each point on the time-slice. As well as the convenience, statistical accuracy is also improved by re-using these propagators in our heavy-light meson calculations. The source for the NRQCD propagators must then use the same random numbers on the same source time-slice and in addition must also include a spin trace over the staggering matrix and appropriate gamma matrix for a pseudoscalar or vector meson [@Gregory:2010gm], i.e. there is a separate NRQCD propagator for each meson that will be made. Combining these NRQCD propagators with the light quark propagators is then equivalent to having a delta function source at each point on the timeslice, as for the light meson case.
A further numerical improvement is to make smeared sources for the NRQCD propagators by convoluting a smearing function with the random-wall source as above. Suitably chosen smearing functions can improve the overlap of the correlator with different states in the spectrum, and this is particularly important for fits to extract radially excited energies [@Dowdall:2011wh]. Here we use it to improve the determination of ground-state properties by improving the overlap with the ground-state at early times before the signal/noise ratio has degraded significantly. For each ensemble we then use a local source and 2 smeared sources. The smearing functions were optimised in our heavy-light meson spectrum calculation [@Dowdall:2012ab] and take the form $\exp(-r/a_{sm})$ as a function of radial distance, with two different radial sizes, $a_{sm}$, on each ensemble as given in Table \[tab:upsparams\].
Propagators were calculated, and meson correlators obtained, using 16 time sources on each configuration. The calculation was also repeated with the heavy quark propagating in the opposite time direction. All correlators from the same configuration were binned together to avoid underestimating the statistical errors. When each smearing is used at source and sink this gives a $3\times 3$ matrix of correlation functions on each ensemble. In addition we have a 3-vector of correlation functions from using each smearing at the source and a relativistic current correction operator at the sink, to be discussed below.
Meson energies and amplitudes are extracted from the meson correlation functions using a simultaneous multi-exponential Bayesian fit [@gplbayes] as a function of time separation between source and sink to the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fitform}
C_{\rm meson}(i,j,t_0;t)&=& \sum^{N_{\exp}}_{k=0} b_{i,k}b^*_{j,k}e^{-E_{k}(t-t_0)
}\\
&-& \sum^{N_{\exp}-1}_{k^\prime=0} d_{i,k^\prime}d^*_{j,k^\prime}(-1)^{(t-t_0)
}e
^{-E^\prime_{k^\prime}(t-t_0)}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here $i$, $j$ label the smearing (or current correction operator) included in the correlator and $k$ labels the set of energy levels for states appearing in the correlator. Here we are concentrating on the properties of the ground-state, $k=0$. $k^{\prime}$ labels a set of opposite-parity states that appear with an oscillating behaviour in time as a result of using staggered quarks. Energies for ground-states, radially excited states and oscillating states were extracted from these correlation functions in [@Dowdall:2012ab]. Here we use similar fits to determine ground-state amplitudes and thereby decay constants.
The fits are straightforward and follow the same pattern in all cases. We fit the pseudoscalar and vector correlators simultaneously for each pair i.e. $B$ and $B^*$, $B_s$ and $B^*_s$ and $B_c$ and $B^*_c$. That enables us to extract a correlated ratio of amplitudes that we need for the ratio of decay constants. We take a prior on the ground-state energy determined from effective mass plots, with a width of 300 MeV. The prior on the lowest oscillating state is taken to be 400 MeV higher than the ground-state with a width of 300 MeV. The prior on the energy splittings in both the oscillating and non-oscillating sectors, $E_{n+1}-E_n$, is taken as 600(300) MeV and the priors on the amplitudes as 0.1(2.0). The fits include points from $t_{\mathrm{min}}$ to $t_{\mathrm{max}}$, close to half the temporal extent of the lattice. $t_{\mathrm{min}}$ is taken from $6-8$ for $B$ and $B_s$ fits and $t_{\mathrm{max}}$ is taken as 18 on the very coarse lattices, 28 on coarse and 40 on fine. For $B_c$ we use time ranges $12-24$ on very coarse, $8-21$ on coarse and $10-30$ on fine. In all cases we have good fits that reach stable ground-state parameters quickly. We take results from fits that use $N_{\mathrm{exp}}=4$.
Determining decay constants {#subsec:decay}
---------------------------
Meson decay constants, $f$, are hadronic parameters defined from the matrix element of the local current that annihilates the meson (coupling for example to a $W$ boson). For mesons at rest: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fdef}
\langle 0 | J_{A_0} | H \rangle &=& f_H M_H \nonumber \\
\langle 0 | J_{V_i} | H_j^* \rangle &=& f_{H^*} M_{H^*} \delta_{ij} .\end{aligned}$$ Here $H$ is one of the pseudoscalar mesons, $B_q$ for $q=l,s,c$. These matrix elements depend on the QCD interactions that keep the quark and antiquark bound inside the meson. They can be calculated directly from the amplitudes obtained from fits to the meson correlators, provided that we can accurately represent the continuum QCD currents, $J_{A_0}$ and $J_{V_i}$ on the lattice.
The representation of these currents when combining a lattice NRQCD $b$-quark with a light quark is discussed most recently in [@Dowdall:2013tga; @Monahan:2012dq]. The procedure is similar for the temporal axial and spatial vector currents and so we just give the temporal axial case in detail.
For the temporal axial current whose matrix element gives the pseudoscalar decay constant, we determine matrix elements on the lattice made from light quark fields $\Psi_q$ and NRQCD field $\Psi_Q$ of: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:jpsdef}
J_{A_0}^{(0)} &=& \overline{\Psi}_q \gamma_5 \gamma_0 \Psi_Q \\
J_{A_0}^{(1)} &=& -\frac{1}{2m_b}\overline{\Psi}_q \gamma_5 \gamma_0 \vec{\gamma}\cdot\vec{\nabla} \Psi_Q .\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ $J_{A_0}^{(0)}$ is the leading term in a nonrelativistic expansion of the current operator, and $J_{A_0}^{(1)}$ is the first relativistic correction, appearing with one inverse power of the $b$ quark mass.
$J_{A_0}^{(0)}$ is simply the operator that corresponds to our local sources for the $b$ quark described in Section \[subsec:2pt\]. Thus the matrix element of $J_{A_0}^{(0)}$ between the vacuum and the ground-state meson is obtained directly from the amplitude of this operator from our fit function, i.e. $b_{\mathrm{loc},0}$ from eq. (\[eq:fitform\]). By inserting a complete set of states with standard normalisation into the pseudoscalar meson correlation function we have $$\label{eq:amptophi}
b_{\mathrm{loc},0} = \frac{\langle 0 | J_{A_0}^{(0)} | H \rangle } {\sqrt{2M_H}} .$$ Similarly, by inserting the operator $J_{A_0}^{(1)}$ at the sink for meson correlators made from the three different sources that we use we can determine an amplitude for this operator in the ground-state $$\label{eq:ampj1}
b_{J1,0} = \frac{\langle 0 | J_{A_0}^{(1)} | H \rangle } {\sqrt{2M_H}} .$$
The way in which $J_{A_0}^{(0)}$ and $J_{A_0}^{(1)}$ can be combined into an accurate representation of $J_{A_0}$ from full QCD is described in [@Dowdall:2013tga]. Here, for most of our results, we will use an expression that is slightly less accurate than that in [@Dowdall:2013tga]. We take: $$\label{eq:jcomb}
J_{A_0} = (1+z_{A_0}\alpha_s)(J_{A_0}^{(0)} + J_{A_0}^{(1)}) .$$ Thus, we can combine matrix elements above to obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:phidef}
\Phi_{A_0}^{(0)} &=& \sqrt{2} b_{\mathrm{loc},0} \\
\Phi_{A_0}^{(1)} &=& \sqrt{2} b_{J1,0} \nonumber \\
f_H\sqrt{M_H} &=& (1+z_{A_0}\alpha_s)(\Phi_{A_0}^{(0)} + \Phi_{A_0}^{(1)}) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ up to sources of uncertainty that will be discussed in the appropriate subsections of Section \[sec:results\]. Note that the decay constant appears naturally multiplied by the square root of the meson mass in these expressions.
Analogous expressions are used for the vector current case, using amplitudes from the vector meson correlator fits.
Systematic errors are reduced by working with the ratio of vector to pseudoscalar meson decay constants (multiplied by the ratio of the square root of the masses). Hence we define the quantity $R_q$ for meson $B_q$, determined from: $$\label{eq:frat}
R_q \equiv \frac{f_H^*\sqrt{M_H^*}}{f_H\sqrt{M_H}} = (1 + \delta z \cdot \alpha_s) \frac{(\Phi_{V_i}^{(0)} + \Phi_{V_i}^{(1)})}{(\Phi_{A_0}^{(0)}+\Phi_{A_0}^{(1)})} .$$ For convenience we expand the ratio of renormalisation constants to $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ so that $\delta z$ is $z_{V_i}-z_{A_0}$. $\delta z$ will be tabulated, along with the results, in Section \[sec:results\]. This expression is accurate up to missing $\alpha_s^2$ pieces of the overall renormalisation factor (i.e. in the term $(1+\delta z \cdot \alpha_s)$) and missing additional $\alpha_s$ renormalisation factors for the sub-leading current contributions (that would appear multiplying $\Phi_{A_0}^{(1)}$ for example). These sources of systematic uncertainty will be estimated in Section \[sec:results\] and included in our final error budgets.
We will first calculate $R_s$ as the ‘calibration’ ratio of vector to pseudoscalar decay constants. It is convenient subsequently to calculate ratios of $R_l$ and $R_c$ to $R_s$. Some systematic errors cancel in these ratios of ratios, allowing us to obtain a more accurate picture of how much the ratio of vector to pseudoscalar heavy-light meson decay constants depends on the light quark mass.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
$b$-light correlators {#subsec:BBs}
---------------------
Set $a^{3/2}\Phi_{B_s}^{(0)}$ $a^{3/2}\Phi_{B_s}^{(1)}$ $a^{3/2}\Phi_{B^*_s}^{(0)}$ $a^{3/2}\Phi_{B^*_s}^{(1)}$
----- --------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------- -----------------------------
1 0.3714(8) -0.02939(10) 0.3403(12) 0.00909(4)
2 0.3628(13) -0.02874(13) 0.3321(10) 0.00889(3)
3 0.3606(9) -0.02870(9) 0.3295(4) 0.00887(1)
4 0.2728(5) -0.02343(6) 0.2425(7) 0.00706(3)
5 0.2680(3) -0.02323(4) 0.2369(5) 0.00697(2)
6 0.2657(2) -0.02298(2) 0.2351(2) 0.00689(1)
7 0.1747(2) -0.01713(3) 0.1491(3) 0.00497(1)
: Amplitudes for $J^{(0)}$ and $J^{(1)}$ for temporal axial and vector currents between the vacuum and the $B_s$ and $B^*_s$ mesons respectively, extracted from correlator fits and multiplied by $\sqrt{2}$ in accordance with eq. (\[eq:phidef\]). Results are in lattice units and the errors given are statistical/fit errors only. Results for the $B_s$ were previously given in [@Dowdall:2013tga]. Results here differ slightly because the fits included both vector and pseudoscalar correlators in a simultaneous fit and also incorporated more correlators that included $J^{(1)}$ amplitudes. \[tab:phibs\]
Set $a^{3/2}\Phi_{B_l}^{(0)}$ $a^{3/2}\Phi_{B_l}^{(1)}$ $a^{3/2}\Phi_{B^*_l}^{(0)}$ $a^{3/2}\Phi_{B^*_l}^{(1)}$
----- --------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------- -----------------------------
1 0.3245(20) -0.02612(21) 0.2964(24) 0.00812(9)
2 0.3062(21) -0.02456(25) 0.2752(29) 0.00748(9)
3 0.2962(37) -0.02381(30) 0.2681(31) 0.00719(13)
4 0.2352(21) -0.02033(21) 0.2086(25) 0.00623(12)
5 0.2276(13) -0.01989(15) 0.1997(16) 0.00596(6)
6 0.2190(14) -0.01904(16) 0.1915(20) 0.00558(9)
7 0.1521(4) -0.01500(5) 0.1292(4) 0.00432(2)
: Amplitudes for $J^{(0)}$ and $J^{(1)}$ for temporal axial and vector currents between the vacuum and the $B_l$ and $B_l^*$ mesons respectively, extracted from correlator fits and multiplied by $\sqrt{2}$ in accordance with eq. (\[eq:phidef\]). $l$ denotes a $u$ or $d$ quark, taken here to have the same mass. Results are in lattice units and the errors given are statistical/fit errors only. Results for the $B_l$ were previously given in [@Dowdall:2013tga]. Results here differ slightly for reasons given in the caption to Table \[tab:phibs\]. \[tab:phib\]
$m_ba$ $z_{V_i}$ $z_{A_0}$ $\delta z$ $\delta z^{\mathrm{LO}}$
-------- ----------- ----------- ------------ --------------------------
3.297 -0.078(2) 0.024(2) -0.102(3) 0.026(3)
3.263 -0.077(2) 0.022(2) -0.099(3) 0.030(3)
3.25 -0.077(2) 0.022(1) -0.099(3) 0.030(3)
2.66 -0.073(2) 0.006(2) -0.079(3) 0.076(3)
2.62 -0.072(2) 0.001(2) -0.073(3) 0.083(3)
1.91 -0.044(2) -0.007(2) -0.037(3) 0.168(3)
: Coefficients $z_{A_0}$ and $z_{V_i}$ needed for the one-loop renormalisation factor for the pseudoscalar and vector decay constants respectively for the values of $m_ba$ used on the different ensembles. $z$ is constructed from results given for the appropriate NRQCD bare masses and massless HISQ quarks in [@Monahan:2012dq] as $z = \rho_0-\zeta_{10}$. The uncertainties come from statistical errors in the numerical integration, taken to be uncorrelated. In [@Dowdall:2013tga] $z_{A_0}$ is called $z_0$. Column 4 gives $\delta z$ which is the difference between $z_{V_i}$ and $z_{A_0}$. Column 5 gives the corresponding values of $\delta z$ for the case where only the leading-order NRQCD currents ($J^{(0)}_{A_0}$ and $J^{(0)}_{V_i}$) are used in the calculation. \[tab:zlight\]
Set $R_s^{\mathrm{unren.}}$ $R_l^{\mathrm{unren.}}$ $R_s^{\mathrm{LO}}$ $R_s$
----- ------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------- ------------
1 1.0215(25) 1.0205(59) 0.9243(24) 0.9854(26)
2 1.0206(36) 1.0038(73) 0.9247(34) 0.9858(36)
3 1.0196(26) 1.0106(97) 0.9232(25) 0.9850(27)
4 1.0006(19) 1.0001(90) 0.9098(19) 0.9760(21)
5 0.9965(17) 0.9899(71) 0.9067(18) 0.9741(20)
6 0.9967(8) 0.9854(97) 0.9071(11) 0.9744(12)
7 0.9775(14) 0.9734(23) 0.8916(16) 0.9678(17)
: Results for ratios of amplitudes for vector and pseudoscalar mesons on each ensemble as defined in the text. Column 2 gives the unrenormalised ratio of amplitudes for the $B_s^*/B_s$ including the current corrections, $R_s^{\mathrm{unren.}} = (\Phi^{(0)}_{B^*_s}+\Phi^{(1)}_{B^*_s})/(\Phi^{(0)}_{B_s}+\Phi^{(1)}_{B_s})$ eq. (\[eq:unrenrat\]). Column 3 gives the equivalent quantity for the $B^*_l/B_l$ mesons. Column 4, $R_s^{\mathrm{LO}}$, gives renormalised ratio from eq (\[eq:fratlo\]) but including only the leading-order NRQCD currents, $J^{(0)}$. Finally column 5 gives the renormalised ratio of amplitudes including the current corrections. These numbers are determined from eq. (\[eq:frat\]) and plotted as the points in Figure \[fig:Bsrat\]. $R_s = (f_{B^*_s}\sqrt{M_{B^*_s}})/(f_{B_s}\sqrt{M_{B_s}})$, correct through $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ and $\mathcal{O}(\Lambda/m_b)$. Errors on the values are statistical only, but include correlations between vector and pseudoscalar meson correlation functions. \[tab:compbs\]
Correlators for $B_s$, $B^*_s$, $B_l$ and $B^*_l$ are fitted as described in Section \[sec:lattice\] and results for the ground-state amplitudes of leading, $J^{(0)}$, and sub-leading, $J^{(1)}$, currents are tabulated in Tables \[tab:phibs\] and \[tab:phib\] respectively. In Table \[tab:compbs\] we also tabulate for both $B_s$ and $B_l$ the ratio of the sum of the amplitudes that make up the NRQCD vector and temporal axial currents (without any renormalisation factors) defined as: $$\label{eq:unrenrat}
R_q^{\mathrm{unren.}} \equiv \frac{(\Phi_{V_i}^{(0)} + \Phi_{V_i}^{(1)})}{(\Phi_{A_0}^{(0)}+\Phi_{A_0}^{(1)})} .$$ These ratios are determined directly from the fits, including the correlations between the fitted amplitudes for vector and pseudoscalar mesons, and therefore have smaller statistical errors than determining them naively from the results in Tables \[tab:phibs\] and \[tab:phib\].
The $z$ factors needed to multiply $\alpha_s$ in the one-loop renormalisation for the temporal axial and spatial vector currents are given in Table \[tab:zlight\]. These are calculated for massless HISQ light quarks and the values of $am_b$ in the NRQCD action used on each of the ensembles. The fact that these $z$ coefficients are very small was already noted in [@Dowdall:2013tga]. This means that renormalisation factors to the continuum current are close to 1 [^2].
![Results for $R_s$, the ratio of $B^*_s$ to $B_s$ decay constants (multiplied by the square root of the mass ratio), plotted against the square of the lattice spacing in $\mathrm{fm}^2$. Note the magnified $y$-axis scale. The errors on the data points include statistical/fitting errors. Blue filled squares are results on sets with $m_l/m_s=0.2$, red filled circles sets with $m_l/m_s=0.1$ and green filled triangles sets with physical $m_l$. The grey shaded band gives our physical result including all systematic errors discussed in the text. The black dotted line marks the value 1.0. []{data-label="fig:Bsrat"}](rs.pdf){width="0.9\hsize"}
From Table \[tab:phibs\] and \[tab:phib\] it is immediately clear that the leading order amplitudes, $\Phi^{(0)}$, show a difference between vector and pseudoscalar mesons with the vector result being smaller than the pseudoscalar. This difference is largely down to the ‘hyperfine’ interaction in the NRQCD Hamiltonian (the term with coefficient $c_4$ in eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian\])). The Tables make clear that the impact of this interaction is to lower the ratio of vector to pseudoscalar decay constants. This effect agrees in sign with that seen in an earlier lattice NRQCD analysis of the impact of different relativistic corrections on heavy-light meson decay constants [@sara; @Collins:1999ff]. It also agrees with early estimates using HQET and QCD sum rules [@Ball:1994uh].
From the tables it is also clear that the relativistic current correction matrix element, $\Phi^{(1)}$, has opposite sign for the vector and pseudoscalar cases, being positive for the vector and negative for the pseudoscalar. The impact of these corrections is then to raise the ratio of vector to pseudoscalar decay constants. This sign, and the fact that the pseudoscalar $J^{(1)}$ matrix element is approximately three times that of the vector, agrees with HQET expectations [@Neubert:1992fk; @Ball:1994uh] and earlier lattice NRQCD analyses [@sara; @Collins:1999ff].
Simply dividing the current correction matrix element, $\Phi^{(1)}$, by $\Phi^{(0)}$ gives naively a relative contribution to the amplitude from the relativistic current corrections of size -(8-10)% for the pseudoscalar and +3% for the vector. This does not take into account the fact that the addition of the relativistic current correction $J^{(1)}$ which appears at tree-level changes the overall renormalisation of the lattice NRQCD current at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ because radiative corrections to $J^{(1)}$ can look like $J^{(0)}$ [@Monahan:2012dq]. Therefore to determine more accurately the effect of the relativistic current corrections we have to compare the renormalised result with and without the inclusion of the $J^{(1)}$ current correction.
This is done in Table \[tab:compbs\] in which we compare the two results for the ratio of $f\sqrt{M}$ for $B^*_s$ and $B_s$. The right-hand column, denoted $R_s$, is the full result obtained from eq. (\[eq:frat\]) using the values of $\delta z$ from Table \[tab:zlight\]. The values for $\alpha_s$ used in that expression are taken in $V$ scheme at the scale $2/a$, where $a$ is the lattice spacing on that ensemble, and are given in Table \[tab:params\]. The column denoted $R_s^{\mathrm LO}$ gives results using only the leading-order currents and $$\label{eq:fratlo}
R^{\mathrm{LO}}_s = (1 + \delta z^{\mathrm{LO}} \cdot \alpha_s) \frac{\Phi_{B^*_s}^{(0)} }{\Phi_{B_s}^{(0)}}$$ with $\delta z^{\mathrm{LO}}$ values given in Table \[tab:zlight\] and the same values of $\alpha_s$. Note the difference between $\delta z^{\mathrm{LO}}$ and $\delta z$. Both coefficients are small, but they have opposite sign. This then compensates to some extent for the effect of the current corrections and means that, comparing $R_s$ and $R_s^{\mathrm{LO}}$ in Table \[tab:compbs\] we see now that the total effect of the current correction terms in the ratio amounts to 7-8%, somewhat less than the naive estimate of 12-15%. There is of course an uncertainty on this estimate coming from missing $\alpha_s^2$ terms in the renormalisation. A similar procedure would be needed to estimate accurately the effect of the hyperfine term on the ratio $R_q$. However, because the hyperfine interaction is embedded in the NRQCD Hamiltonian it is automatically included in the perturbative matching calculation for the NRQCD currents and we do not have the $z$ coefficients without the hyperfine term included. Note that the size of the hyperfine coefficient ($c_4$ in eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian\])) is tested through determination of the mass splitting between vector and pseudoscalar mesons in [@Dowdall:2012ab].
$f_{B_s^*}$ {#subsec:bsstar}
-----------
Figure \[fig:Bsrat\] plots the full results for $R_s$, the ratio of $f\sqrt{M}$ for the $B^*_s$ and $B_s$ mesons, obtained from eq. (\[eq:frat\]) and given as column 5 of Table \[tab:compbs\]. Statistical errors in $R_s$ are small, less than 0.5%, so we see that the value for the ratio is clearly less than 1 and the dependence on the lattice spacing is small, but clear and unambiguous. To derive a physical result we need to fit this dependence, as discussed in Section \[subsec:nrqcd\], allowing for other systematic uncertainties from lattice QCD.
The key sources of systematic error that need to be allowed for, by inclusion in our fit function, are:
- [*Matching uncertainties - $\alpha_s^2$*]{}. The missing $\alpha_s^2$ coefficient in the overall renormalisation factor for the ratio of amplitudes of the NRQCD currents is potentially the largest source of uncertainty here. We can allow for this by simply taking a fractional error which is $\alpha_s^2 \approx 0.1$ times a value for this coefficient. However, the value of $\alpha_s^2$ changes with the lattice spacing and the coefficient may also depend on $am_b$, as the known one-loop coefficient $\delta z$ does, see Table \[tab:zlight\]. Thus a better estimate is obtained by incorporating a factor to take account of this missing term into the fit. We write the factor as $(1+c\alpha_s^2)$ and take $c$ to have the form $c_1\times(1+c_2 \delta x_m + c_3 \delta x_m^2)$ where $c_1$ sets the overall allowed size of the coefficient and the $\delta x_m$ terms allow for dependence on $am_b$. $\delta x_m = (am_b-2.7)/1.5$ varies from -0.5 to 0.5 over the range of $am_b$ values we use here [@Dowdall:2011wh].
- [*Matching uncertainties - $\alpha_s\Lambda/m_b$*]{}. We must also allow for missing $\alpha_s$ terms that alter the normalisation of the relativistic current corrections within the NRQCD current and/or include the matrix elements of additional current corrections that only appear first at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s\Lambda/m_b)$. Such corrections were included in our determination of $f_{B_s}$ and $f_B$ in [@Dowdall:2013tga] since they are known for the temporal axial current for massless HISQ quarks [@Monahan:2012dq]. They will be discussed further in Subsection \[subsec:mQ\] but here we must include an uncertainty for the fact that they are missing in our ratio. For this we can include an additional term in the factor described above of the form $d\alpha_s\Lambda/m_b$ where $d$ has an expansion in powers of $\delta x_m$ of the same form as $c$ above. Here we can take $\Lambda/m_b$ to be 0.08, the size of the relativistic current corrections as determined above.
- [*Matching uncertainties - $(\Lambda/m_b)^2$*]{}. Further current corrections at the next order in the relativistic expansion would appear at $(\Lambda/m_b)^2$. Since we have no information about these we do not include them in the fit but take an additional uncertainty of $(0.1)^2$ = 1% (where 0.1 is a suitable power-counting estimate of $\Lambda/m_b$) to account for them.
- [*NRQCD systematics*]{}. The improved NRQCD Hamiltonian that we use (eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian\])) is accurate through $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s\Lambda/m_b)$ in the context of heavy-light power-counting. Thus the hyperfine interaction that contributes to $R_s$ is accurate through this order, which is to a higher order than the matching uncertainties discussed above. Errors from the NRQCD Hamiltonian are then smaller than, and are effectively included in, the matching uncertainties already discussed. Likewise missing terms in the NRQCD Hamiltonian are at even higher order, $\mathcal{O}(1/m_b^3)$ [@Lepage:1992tx].
- [*Discretisation uncertainties*]{}. These can come from the gluon action, the HISQ action and the NRQCD action. However, most discretisation uncertainties will cancel between vector and pseudoscalar mesons since the difference between them is a spin-dependent effect and hence suppressed by $\Lambda/m_b$. This is clear from Figure \[fig:Bsrat\] which shows very little dependence on $a$. In all three actions discretisation errors appear as even powers of $a$. We therefore include a factor $(1+(\Lambda/m_b)\sum_j e_j (\Lambda a)^{2j})$ to allow for these uncertainties in the fit. We take a value 0.2 for $\Lambda/m_b$ here to be conservative. For $e_1$ we allow for dependence on $am_b$ coming from the NRQCD action as discussed in Section \[subsec:nrqcd\] and above for the coefficients $c$ and $d$.
- [*Tuning uncertainties - valence quark masses*]{}. Our valence masses are tuned very accurately (to an uncertainty of 1%) but we allow for effects of mistuning. For the $s$ quark mass these will be negligible since, as we show below, the difference between $R_s$ and $R_l$ is very small. Mistuning of the $b$ quark mass will affect $R_s$ through the hyperfine interaction and the size of the current correction matrix elements, i.e. through a term of the form $(\Lambda/m_b) \delta m_b/m_b$. We therefore allow for a term of this form in the factor that includes discretisation effects above. We determine $\delta m_b$ from the physical values for $m_b$ given on each ensemble in [@Dowdall:2011wh; @Dowdall:2012ab] and these are tabulated in Table \[tab:upsparams\]. The largest value of $\delta m_b/m_b$ is 1.3% on set 4.
- [*Tuning uncertainties - sea quark masses*]{}. Our results include values on ensembles of gluon field configurations at a variety of values of the $u/d$ quark mass in the sea, varying from $0.2m_s$ down to the physical point. The $s$ and $c$ quark masses in the sea are well-tuned. Dependence on the sea quark masses is very small, as is clear from Figure \[fig:Bsrat\]. We therefore include a simple linear dependence on the sea quark masses, as might be expected from leading-order chiral perturbation theory. This dependence takes the form $g \delta m_{\mathrm{sea}}/(10 m_{\mathrm{sea, phys}})$ where the mass-dependent variable is a physical one because we take a mass ratio in which $Z$ factos cancel. We include $u/d$ and $s$ quarks in $m_{\mathrm{sea}}$ and the factor of 10 is a convenient way to introduce the chiral scale of 1 GeV expected from chiral perturbation theory. $\delta m_{\mathrm{sea}} = (2m_l+m_s)-(2m_{l,\mathrm{phys}}+m_{s,\mathrm{phys}})$ and is obtained using values for $m_{s,\mathrm{phys}}$ given in [@Dowdall:2011wh]. We take $m_{l,\mathrm{phys}}/m_{s,\mathrm{phys}}$ = 1/27.4 [@Bazavov:2014wgs]. Values for $\delta x_{\mathrm{sea}} \equiv \delta m_{\mathrm{sea}}/m_{\mathrm{sea, phys}}$ on each ensemble are given in Table \[tab:params\].
- [*Uncertainties in the value of the lattice spacing*]{}. Since we are determining a dimensionless ratio of decay constants, uncertainties in the value of the lattice spacing only enter indirectly through the uncertainty in tuning the quark masses. As discussed above the tuning of $m_b$ affects the size of the relativistic correction terms that affect the vector/pseudoscalar ratio. We have a 1% uncertainty in our lattice spacing values, largely correlated between the ensembles and so we add an additional overall uncertainty of $0.2\times0.01$ = 0.2% to allow for this. The factor of 0.2 is a conservative estimate for the size of relativistic corrections.
Putting the features above together we arrive at a fit form for $R_s$ as a function of $a$ and quark masses as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fitrs}
R_s(a,m) &=& R_{s,\mathrm{phys}}\times F_1(a,m) /F_2(\alpha_s) \\
F_2(\alpha_s) &=& (1 + c\alpha_s^2 + 0.08d\alpha_s) \nonumber \\
F_1(a,m) &=& 1 + 0.2\sum_{j=1}^3 e_j (\Lambda a)^{2j} \nonumber \\
&+& 0.2 f \frac{\delta m_b}{m_{b,\mathrm{phys}}} + g \frac{\delta m_{\mathrm sea}}{10m_{\mathrm{sea,phys}}} \nonumber \\
c &=& c_1\times(1+c_2\delta x_m + c_3 (\delta x_m)^2) \nonumber \\
d &=& d_1\times(1+d_2\delta x_m + d_3 (\delta x_m)^2) \nonumber \\
e_1 &=& e_{11}\times(1+e_{12}\delta x_m + e_{13} (\delta x_m)^2) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ In dividing by $F_2$ we follow the convention that we used at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ in eq. (\[eq:frat\]) of writing the renormalisation as a multiplicative factor. Thus if $F_2$ were instead known, rather than fitted, the raw results would be multiplied by this correction factor along with the factor at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$. We use a Bayesian fitting approach [@gplbayes] to implement the fit function of eq. (\[eq:fitrs\]). Priors on all of the coefficients are taken as 0.0(1.0) except for $c_1$, which is taken as 0.0(0.2). This allows for an $\alpha_s^2$ coefficient in the overall renormalisation factor that is twice as large as the largest seen at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ (see $\delta z$ values in Table \[tab:zlight\]). The prior on the physical value, $R_{s,\mathrm{phys}}$, is taken as 1.0(0.2).
Applying this fit function to our results gives a $\chi^2/{\mathrm{dof}}=0.13$ and a physical result for $R_s$ of 0.957(23), when we include the uncertainty from missing higher order current corrections and the lattice spacing. The error budget from the fit is laid out in Table \[tab:err\]. As expected the uncertainty is dominated by that from current matching, although the fit has constrained this uncertainty to be a bit smaller than the naive expectation. The physical value, along with the total error, is plotted as a grey band on Figure \[fig:Bsrat\]. $R_s$ is the ratio of decay constants multiplied by the square root of the meson masses. Our earlier results [@Dowdall:2012ab] showed that the vector and pseudoscalar meson masses calculated here agree with experiment. We can therefore convert our value of $R_s$ to a ratio for the decay constants using the square root of the experimental ratio of the meson masses of 1.0045(2) [@pdg]. We obtain: $$\label{eq:resrs}
\frac{f_{B^*_s}}{f_{B_s}} = 0.953(23) .$$ This is 2$\sigma$ below 1.
$R_s$ $R_l/R_s$ $R_c/R_s$
------------------------------- ------- ----------- -----------
stats/fitting/scale 0.6 0.8 0.7
current matching 1.9 1.0 0.8
$(\Lambda/m_b)^2$ currents 1.0 0.2 0.5
$a$-dependence 0.9 0.1 0.15
$m_{\mathrm{sea}}$-dependence 0.05 0.2 0.1
$m_b$ tuning 0.4 0.03 0.1
Total 2.4 1.3 1.2
: Full error budget for the various ratios of vector to pseudoscalar decay constants that we calculate here, giving each error as a percentage of the final answer, following the discussion of uncertainties in the text. The effects of finite volume and missing electromagnetism are expected to be negligible. []{data-label="tab:err"}
$f_{B^*}$ {#subsec:bstar}
---------
To analyse the corresponding ratio, $R_l$, for the $B/B^*$ it is convenient to take the ratio to $R_s$. Table \[tab:phib\] gives our results for the $B$ and $B^*$ amplitudes and Table \[tab:compbs\] gives the ratio of the sum of amplitudes for $J^{(0)}$ and $J^{(1)}$ for vector and pseudoscalar. These results include the correlations between the vector and pseudoscalar meson correlators from the simultaneous fit. The results for $B^*_l/B_l$ are very similar, not surprisingly, to those for $B_s$ and $B^*_s$. The statistical errors are significantly larger, however, as is expected when the light quark mass is reduced [@newfds]. The renormalisation factor (eq. (\[eq:frat\])) for $R_l$ is the same as that for $R_s$ (since mass effects for light quarks are negligible in the matching) and so the renormalisation cancels in the ratio $R_l/R_s$. We can therefore simply determine $R_l/R_s$ from the ratio of the first two columns in Table \[tab:compbs\]: $$\label{eq:rlrsdef}
\frac{R_l}{R_s} = \left(\frac{\Phi^{(0)}_{B^*_l}+\Phi^{(1)}_{B^*_l}}{\Phi^{(0)}_{B_l}+\Phi^{(1)}_{B_l}}\right)\left(\frac{\Phi^{(0)}_{B_s}+\Phi^{(1)}_{B_s}}{\Phi^{(0)}_{B^*_s}+\Phi^{(1)}_{B^*_s}}\right) .$$
![Results for $R_l/R_s$, the SU(3)-breaking ratio of the ratio of vector to pseudoscalar decay constants (multiplied by the square root of the mass) plotted against the light quark mass (the average of $u$ and $d$) in units of the physical $s$ quark mass. The filled blue squares gives results on very coarse lattices, red filled circles, on coarse and filled green triangles, on fine. The errors on the data points include statistical/fitting errors. The grey shaded band gives the physical result including all systematic errors discussed in the text. The black dashed line shows the physical value of $m_l/m_{s,phys}$ and the blue dotted line indicates the value 1.0. []{data-label="fig:BdBsrat"}](BlBsrat.pdf){width="0.9\hsize"}
Figure \[fig:BdBsrat\] shows our results for $R_l/R_s$ on each ensemble, plotted against the light quark mass in units of the physical $s$ quark mass taken from [@Dowdall:2011wh]. The results are very close to the value 1.0, but show a small downward trend as the light quark mass falls towards its physical value. There is no significant dependence on the lattice spacing.
To fit the dependence of $R_l/R_s$ and extract a physical result, we use much of the same fit function as that given for $R_s$ in eq. (\[eq:fitrs\]). The two key differences are that the overall renormalisation factor now cancels, so that we can drop the factor $c\alpha_s^2$ from $F_2$, and that we now want to include a fitted dependence on $m_l$. We can also use the known similarity of $B_l$ and $B_s$ to constrain the fit further. For example, we know that decay constants for heavy-light and heavy-strange mesons differ by about 20% [@Dowdall:2013tga; @oldfds]. This is in fact a very strong result, still true even when the light/strange quark is accompanied by a light or strange quark (see, for example, [@Dowdall:2013rya] for $\pi$, $K$ and $\eta_s$ results). The $d\alpha_s$ term in eq. (\[eq:fitrs\]) takes account of missing radiative corrections to the sub-leading currents, $J^{(1)}$. We retain that term here but multiply its coefficient by 0.2 to allow for strange/light differences in the matrix element for $J^{(1)}$. We reduce the coefficient 0.2 (allowed for the size of $\Lambda/m_b$) in front of discretisation errors and $m_b$ tuning terms by a further factor of 0.2 for the same reason. Finally, we include an additional term in the fit to allow for dependence on the light valence mass, since we have results for a variety of $m_l$ values. For this we include a term in $F_1$ of the form $h(m_l/(10m_{s,\mathrm{phys}}))$. The factor of 10 once again is used to convert $m_s$ into the chiral scale of 1 GeV. The prior on $h$ is taken as 0.0(1.0). Since this term is already largely covered by including a term to allow for sea quark mass dependence, it has very little impact.
The fit has a $\chi^2/{\mathrm{dof}}$ of 0.23 and gives a physical result: $$\label{eq:rlrsres}
\frac{R_l}{R_s} = 0.987(13).$$ Since $R_l/R_s$ measures both SU(3)-breaking and spin-breaking effects in heavy-light meson decay constants we expect a result very close to 1.0. Our value is consistent with 1, but enables us to constrain any difference from 1.0 to a few percent. We will return to this in section \[subsec:Bc\] when comparing to results for $B_c$ mesons. A full error budget for $R_l/R_s$ is given in Table \[tab:err\].
Combining our result for $R_l/R_s$ with our earlier result for $R_s$ gives $R_l=0.945(26)$. Combining with the experimental value for the square root of the ratio of the meson masses, 1.0043 [@pdg], we obtain $$\label{eq:resrl}
\frac{f_{B^*_l}}{f_{B_l}} = 0.941(26)$$ which is more than $2\sigma$ below 1.
$f_{B_c}$ and $f_{B_c^*}$ {#subsec:Bc}
-------------------------
Set $a^{3/2}\Phi_{B_c}^{(0)}$ $a^{3/2}\Phi_{B_c}^{(1)}$ $a^{3/2}\Phi_{B^*_c}^{(0)}$ $a^{3/2}\Phi_{B^*_c}^{(1)}$
----- --------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------- -----------------------------
1 0.83048(86) -0.04792(5) 0.8022(11) 0.01541(3)
2 0.82001(45) -0.04779(3) 0.7904(6) 0.01532(2)
4 0.58564(17) -0.04068(2) 0.54496(22) 0.01267(1)
5 0.57350(11) -0.04055(1) 0.53195(14) 0.01260(1)
7 0.36166(9) -0.03158(1) 0.31990(11) 0.00941(1)
: Amplitudes for $J^{(0)}$ and $J^{(1)}$ for temporal axial and vector currents between the vacuum and the $B_c$ and $B_c^*$ mesons respectively, extracted from correlator fits and multiplied by $\sqrt{2}$ in accordance with eq. (\[eq:phidef\]). Results are in lattice units and the errors given are statistical/fit errors only. The ground-state energies determined from the fits agree with those given in [@Dowdall:2012ab] and we do not repeat them here. \[tab:phibc\]
Set $z_{A_0,c}$ $z_1$ $z_2$
----- ------------- ----------- -----------
1 -0.111(5) 0.024(3) -1.108(4)
2 -0.105(5) 0.024(3) -1.083(4)
4 -0.046(5) 0.007(3) -0.698(4)
5 -0.041(5) 0.007(3) -0.690(4)
7 -0.034(5) -0.031(4) -0.325(4)
: Coefficients $z_{A_0,c}$ and $z_1$, $z_2$ used in the matching factors to determine the decay constant for the $B_c$ meson (eq. (\[eq:fimpbc\])). $z_{A_0,c}$ is constructed from results given for the appropriate NRQCD bare masses and massive HISQ quarks with the appropriate values of $m_ca$ in [@Monahan:2012dq] as $z_c = \eta_0-\tau_{10}$. $z_1$ and $z_2$ are results for massless HISQ quarks [@Dowdall:2013tga; @Monahan:2012dq]. The values of $\alpha_s$ used with these $z$ coefficients are given in Table \[tab:params\]. \[tab:zcharm\]
![ Results for the decay constant of the $B_c$ meson (multiplied by the square root of its mass) obtained with NRQCD $b$ quarks and HISQ $c$ quarks for ensembles at different values of the lattice spacing as described in the text. The errors on the points include uncertainties in the value of the lattice spacing and statistical/fitting errors. Blue filled squares give results at sea light quark mass $m_l/m_s=0.2$ and red filled squares at $m_l/m_s=0.1$. The grey shaded band gives the physical result including all systematic errors discussed in the text. For comparison we include as the green burst the physical result obtained from using the HISQ formalism for both $b$ and $c$ quarks [@McNeile:2012qf]. []{data-label="fig:fbc"}](decay-bc.pdf){width="0.9\hsize"}
$B_c$ and $B^*_c$ meson correlation functions are calculated from NRQCD $b$ and HISQ $c$ propagators in exactly the same way as those described for NRQCD $b$ and HISQ $s$ or $l$ propagators in subsection \[subsec:BBs\]. We do not include the full set of ensembles used for the lighter HISQ quark mass calculations since experience has shown very little sea quark mass dependence for heavy meson correlators that do not include valence light quarks [@Gregory:2010gm; @Dowdall:2012ab]. We thus include ensembles at two different values of the sea $u/d$ quark mass for very coarse and coarse sets rather than three. The meson correlation functions are fit simultaneously so that correlations between them can be included in the determination of the ratio of amplitudes needed for the ratio of decay constants.
The results for the matrix elements, $\Phi$, of the leading, $J^{(0)}$, and subleading, $J^{(1)}$, pieces of the temporal axial and spatial vector currents are given in Table \[tab:phibc\]. We first discuss combining the results for the temporal axial current into a value for the decay constant of the pseudoscalar $B_c$ meson. We will use a formula [@Dowdall:2013tga] which is somewhat more accurate than that used in eq. (\[eq:phidef\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fimpbc}
f_{B_c}\sqrt{M_{B_c}} = (1 + z_{A_0,c}\alpha_s)&\times&\left(\Phi_{B_c}^{(0)} + \Phi_{B_c}^{(1)} \right.\\
&+& \left.z_1\alpha_s\Phi_{B_c}^{(1)}+ z_2\alpha_s \Phi_{B_c}^{(2)}\right) .\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ $z_1\alpha_s$ is an additional radiative correction to the sub-leading current $J^{(1)}$. $z_2\alpha_s$ multiplies an additional sub-leading current which has the same matrix element as $J^{(1)}$ and so does not need to be separately calculated. The $z$ coefficients now have to be calculated for massive HISQ quarks with a mass in lattice units corresponding to our values for $am_c$ on the different ensembles. This has been done for $z_{A_0,c}$ and the values are given in Table \[tab:zcharm\]. They differ slightly from those for massless HISQ quarks in Table \[tab:zlight\] but are still very much less than 1. The $z_1$ and $z_2$ coefficients have only been calculated for massless HISQ quarks and these are also given in Table \[tab:zcharm\]. There is then a systematic error in our formula of eq. (\[eq:fimpbc\]) as a result of using the massless $z_1$ and $z_2$ coefficients and we will allow for that in our error budget along with systematic errors from unknown higher order terms in the overall renormalisation factor.
The results obtained from applying eq. (\[eq:fimpbc\]) are plotted in Figure \[fig:fbc\] as a function of lattice spacing. We see, as expected, very little change between ensembles with similar lattice spacings but different sea $u/d$ quark masses. To determine a physical value for the decay constant we fit the results to a functional form that includes allowance for systematic errors in the lattice QCD calculation.
The systematic errors have the same sources as those discussed for $R_s$ in section \[subsec:BBs\] and we will use the same fit form as that given in eq. (\[eq:fitrs\]) and we reproduce that below as eq. (\[eq:fitbc\]) with the modifications appropriate here. As in section \[subsec:BBs\], the major source of uncertainty here comes from missing higher order terms in the matching of the NRQCD-HISQ current to continuum QCD. This is taken account of in eq. (\[eq:fitbc\]), as before, by the term $F_2(\alpha_s)$ which includes an $\alpha_s^2$ term with coefficient $c$ in the overall renormalisation factor and a term with coefficient $d$ that allows for systematic errors in the $\alpha_s$ corrections to the $J^{(1)}$ current contribution included in eq. (\[eq:fimpbc\]) from the fact that $z_1$ and $z_2$ are taken for massless HISQ quarks. Given the values we have for $z_{A_0,c}$ and the dependence on $am_c$ seen in that coefficient, we do not expect coefficients $c$ and $d$ to be large and we take priors on their fit values of 0.0(0.2).
From Fig. \[fig:fbc\] we see significant lattice spacing dependence in the results and we must allow both for regular lattice spacing dependence and that coming from the NRQCD action. This dependence is included in factor $F_1$. The regular lattice spacing coming the HISQ action can have a scale set by $m_c$ in this case and we expect that to dominate. We take $m_c$ to be 1 GeV here. The analysis of discretisation errors for $c$ quarks in the HISQ action [@Follana:2006rc] shows that the dependence comes from terms suppressed by powers of the velocity of the $c$ quark. Since $v_c^2 \approx 0.5$ in a $B_c$ [@Gregory:2009hq] we include a factor of 0.5 in front of the terms allowing for discretisation errors. We must also allow for dependence on the $u/d$ quark mass in the sea, as before, and for mistuning of the $b$ quark mass. For mistuning of the $b$ quark mass we allow a conservative factor of 0.3 based on the variation in decay constants between heavyonium mesons (see Fig. \[fig:vpsrat\]).
Our fit function is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fitbc}
f_{B_c}\sqrt{M_{B_c}}(a,m) &=& \left(f_{B_c}\sqrt{M_{B_c}}\right)_{\mathrm{phys}} \\
&\times& F_1(a,m) /F_2(\alpha_s) ;\nonumber \\
F_2(\alpha_s) &=& (1 + c\alpha_s^2 + 0.08d\alpha_s) \nonumber \\
F_1(a,m) &=& 1 + 0.5\sum_j e_j (m_c a)^{2j} \nonumber \\
&+& 0.3 f \frac{\delta m_b}{m_{b,\mathrm{phys}}} + g \frac{\delta m_{\mathrm sea}}{10m_{\mathrm{sea,phys}}} \nonumber \\
c &=& c_1\times(1+c_2\delta x_m + c_3 (\delta x_m)^2) \nonumber \\
d &=& d_1\times(1+d_2\delta x_m + d_3 (\delta x_m)^2) \nonumber \\
e_1 &=& e_{11}\times(1+e_{12}\delta x_m + e_{13} (\delta x_m)^2) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ We take prior values on all coefficients to be 0.0(1.0) except for the physical value on which we take 1.0(2), $c$ and $d$, on which we take 0.0(2) and $e_1$ on which we take 0.0(3) (since it is $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$). The error on the plotted values in Figure \[fig:fbc\] is dominated by the uncertainty in the value of the lattice spacing (given in Table \[tab:params\]). In doing the fit we allow for half of this error to be correlated between ensembles (since it comes from systematic uncertainties from the NRQCD calculation used to fix the lattice spacing [@Dowdall:2011wh]) and half to be uncorrelated.
The fit gives a $\chi^2/\mathrm{dof}$ of 0.11 and a physical value for $f\sqrt{M}$ for the $B_c$ of 1.087(37) $(\mathrm{GeV})^{3/2}$. The 3.4% uncertainty is split between 1.2% from matching and 3.2% from other sources, dominated by lattice spacing uncertainties and discretisation errors. We have checked that missing out $z_1$ and $z_2$ from eq. (\[eq:fimpbc\]) and allowing a larger prior of 0.0(1.0) on the coefficient $d$ in eq. (\[eq:fitbc\]) gives a physical result with almost the same central value and uncertainty.
Our physical result is plotted as a grey band in Figure \[fig:fbc\]. It agrees very well with our result of 1.070(15) ${\mathrm{GeV}}^{3/2}$ [@McNeile:2012qf] based on using the HISQ action for a heavy quark combined with a HISQ $c$ quark and working at a range of heavy quark masses between $c$ and $b$ on lattices with a range of lattice spacings from 0.15 fm down to 0.045 fm. The HISQ-HISQ result has an uncertainty which is a factor of 2 smaller than the NRQCD-HISQ result we give here. This is because the HISQ-HISQ current is absolutely normalised in the calculation of pseudoscalar decay constants and the calculation is done over a wider range of values of the lattice spacing for better control of discretisation errors. Good agreement between the HISQ-HISQ result and NRQCD-HISQ result was already seen for the $B_s$ in [@McNeile:2011ng; @Dowdall:2013tga] and this further test increases our confidence in our handling of lattice QCD errors. In particular it is an important test of our normalisation of improved NRQCD-HISQ currents that are also in use for semileptonic decay rate calculations underway on these gluon field configurations.
Using the experimental value of the $B_c$ meson mass of 6.276(1) GeV [@Aaij:2013gia] we can convert our value for $f\sqrt{M}$ into a result for the decay constant: $$\label{eq:fbcval}
f_{B_c} = 0.434(15) \mathrm{GeV} .$$ Again this agrees with our earlier result using HISQ quarks of 0.427(6) GeV [@McNeile:2012qf].
Set $z_{V_i,c}$ $\delta z_c$ $\delta z_c - \delta z$ $R_c^{\mathrm{unren.}}$
----- ------------- -------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
1 -0.166(5) -0.055(7) 0.047(8) 1.0447(14)
2 -0.160(5) -0.055(7) 0.044(8) 1.0434(8)
4 -0.073(5) -0.027(7) 0.052(8) 1.02324(27)
5 -0.068(5) -0.027(7) 0.046(8) 1.02175(17)
7 -0.013(5) 0.021(7) 0.058(8) 0.99766(22)
: Column 2 gives the Coefficient $z_{V_i,c}$ needed for the one-loop renormalisation factor for the vector decay constant $B^*_c$. $z_{V_i,c}$ is constructed from results given for the appropriate NRQCD bare masses and massive HISQ quarks with the appropriate values of $m_ca$ in [@Monahan:2012dq] as $z_c = \eta_0-\tau_{10}$. Column 3 gives $\delta z_c$, which is the difference between $z_{V_i,c}$ and $z_{A_0,c}$ from Table \[tab:zcharm\]. Column 4 gives the difference between $\delta z_c$ and the corresponding value $\delta z$ for massless HISQ quarks (from Table \[tab:zlight\]). The values of $\alpha_s$ used with these $z$ coefficients are given in Table \[tab:params\]. Column 5 gives the unrenormalised ratio of vector to pseudoscalar amplitudes (see text) determined from the simultaneous fit to $B^*_c$ and $B_c$ meson correlators. Results from columns 4 and 5 are used in the determination of $R_c/R_s$. \[tab:deltazcharm\]
![ Results for the ratio of $R_c$ to $R_s$ plotted against the square of the lattice spacing. $R_c$ is the ratio of vector to pseudoscalar decay constants ($f\sqrt{M}$) for the $B^*_c$ and $B_c$ and $R_s$ is the corresponding ratio for the $B^*_s/B_s$. Filled blue squares are results on ensembles with $m_l/m_s=0.2$ and filled red circles results on ensembles with $m_l/m_s=0.1$. The errors on the points are statistical errors only (including those from $(\delta z_c - \delta z)$). The grey shaded band gives the physical result including all systematic errors as discussed in the text. The black dashed line marks the value 1.0. []{data-label="fig:bcbsrat"}](decay-bcbsrat.pdf){width="0.9\hsize"}
The vector to pseudoscalar decay constant ratio, $R_c$, is obtained in an analogous way to that for the $B_s$ and $B^*_s$ mesons described in Section \[subsec:BBs\]. The formula we use is that given in eq. \[eq:frat\], in which $z_{A_0}$ and $z_{V_i}$ are the coefficients calculated for temporal axial and spatial vector currents respectively using HISQ quark mass values appropriate to $c$ quarks. Values for $z_{A_0,c}$ are given in Table \[tab:zcharm\] and values for $z_{V_i,c}$ are given in Table \[tab:deltazcharm\]. Table \[tab:deltazcharm\] also gives $\delta z_c$, the difference between the two, which is needed for the decay constant ratio in eq. \[eq:frat\]. Note that we are now neglecting radiative corrections to the current correction $J^{(1)}$ (i.e. the terms with coefficients $z_1$ and $z_2$ in eq. (\[eq:fimpbc\])) since we do not have these terms for the vector current.
Table \[tab:phibc\] gives the results for the amplitudes that we need to construct the decay constants and their ratio. We see that the qualitative features of the results are the same i.e. that the amplitude of the leading order current is smaller for the vector than for the pseudoscalar meson, lowering the vector to pseudoscalar decay constant ratio, whereas the current correction contributions have opposite effect. The impact of the current corrections is a few percent less than in the $B_s$ case but varies more strongly with lattice spacing.
In a similar approach to that used for $R_l$ in Section \[subsec:BBs\] we will study $R_c$ through its ratio with $R_s$. In this case the renormalisation factor does not cancel completely at $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ since $\delta z_c$ is not equal to $\delta z$. Instead we have a renormalisation factor for $R_c/R_s$ which is $(1+[\delta z_c - \delta z]\alpha_s)$, i.e. we can write: $$\label{eq:rcrsdef}
\frac{R_c}{R_s} = (1+[\delta z_c - \delta z]\alpha_s) \left(\frac{\Phi^{(0)}_{B^*_c}+\Phi^{(1)}_{B^*_c}}{\Phi^{(0)}_{B_c}+\Phi^{(1)}_{B_c}}\right)\left(\frac{\Phi^{(0)}_{B_s}+\Phi^{(1)}_{B_s}}{\Phi^{(0)}_{B^*_s}+\Phi^{(1)}_{B^*_s}}\right)$$ Values of $(\delta z_c - \delta z)$ are given in Table \[tab:deltazcharm\]. We see that these are small and independent of the value of $am_b$ within statistical uncertainties. Since the dependence on $am_b$ comes from the NRQCD action it is not surprising to find some cancellation between these two cases. The remaining small renormalisation then reflects the fact that the $c$ quark mass is not zero (i.e. $m_c/m_b \ne 0$). Table \[tab:deltazcharm\] gives in the final column results for the appropriate ratio of sums of amplitudes needed in eq. (\[eq:rcrsdef\]), i.e. $R^{\mathrm{unren.}}_c$. This can be combined with $R^{\mathrm{unren.}}_s$ from Table \[tab:phibs\] and the small renormalisation applied to form $R_c/R_s$.
Figure \[fig:bcbsrat\] gives results for the ratio of $R_c$ to $R_s$ from eq. (\[eq:rcrsdef\]) as a function of lattice spacing. We see that the results are independent of lattice spacing and sea quark mass. Importantly the values obtained are all significantly larger than 1.0, showing that the vector to pseudoscalar decay constant ratio is sensitive to the mass of the light quark combined with the $b$. Half of the difference from 1.0 comes from the raw amplitudes and the other half from the renormalisation factor in eq. (\[eq:rcrsdef\]).
In fitting this ratio as a function of lattice spacing to obtain a physical result we will use the same fit form as that used in subsection \[subsec:BBs\], eq. (\[eq:fitrs\]). The only change in form that we make is to remove $am_b$ dependence from the coefficient of unknown $\alpha_s^2$ renormalisation terms in the factor $F_2$ assuming they follow the same form as discussed above for the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ term. We take the radiative correction terms for the $J^{(1)}$ currents in $F_2$ to have the same form as in eq. (\[eq:fitrs\]) but allow for cancellation between $R_c$ and $R_s$ by giving that term coefficient 0.03 rather than 0.08. For the discretisation errors and $m_b$ tuning error terms in $F_1$ we likewise allow for cancellation between $R_c$ and $R_s$ by giving these terms coefficient 0.1 rather than 0.2.
The fit to our results gives $\chi^2/{\mathrm{dof}}$ of 0.1 and a physical result of $$\label{eq:rcrsres}
\frac{R_c}{R_s} = 1.037(12)$$ where we have allowed a 0.5% uncertainty from missing higher-order relativistic current corrections. This value is $3\sigma$ greater than 1.0 giving a clear indication that $R_q$ increases as the mass of the quark $q$ increases. This is consistent with what was found (with much lower significance) in Section \[subsec:BBs\] for $q = l$ and $s$. Our physical result for $R_c/R_s$ is plotted as the grey band in Figure \[fig:bcbsrat\]. A full error budget for $R_c/R_s$ is given in Table \[tab:err\].
Using our earlier value for $R_s$ of 0.957(23) we obtain $R_c$ = 0.992(27). We convert $R_c$ into a ratio of the decay constants of the $B^*_c$ and $B_c$ mesons by dividing by the square root of the ratio of the masses. For this we use the experimental value for the $B_c$ mass of 6.276(1) GeV [@Aaij:2013gia] and our lattice QCD result for the mass difference between $B^*_c$ and $B_c$ of 54(3) MeV [@Dowdall:2012ab]. This gives a mass ratio for $B^*_c$ to $B_c$ of 1.0086(5). We then obtain $$\label{eq:rcres}
\frac{f_{B^*_c}}{f_{B_c}} = 0.988(27) .$$
Heavy Quark Mass Dependence {#subsec:mQ}
---------------------------
Set $am_h$ $c_1$ $c_5$ $c_4$ $z_1$ $z_2$ $a^{3/2}\Phi_{H_s}^{(0)}$ $a^{3/2}\Phi_{H_s}^{(1)}$ $a^{3/2}\Phi_{H^*_s}^{(0)}$ $a^{3/2}\Phi_{H^*_s}^{(1)}$ $R_s$
----- -------- ------- ------- ------- ----------- ----------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- ------------
1 1.91 1.29 1.18 1.19 -0.031(4) -0.325(4) 0.3401(6) -0.04274(10) 0.2958(14) 0.01273(8) 1.0242(43)
2.66 1.36 1.19 1.21 0.007(3) -0.698(4) 0.3600(8) -0.03430(9) 0.3233(16) 0.01052(7) 0.9969(41)
4 1.91 1.26 1.15 1.18 -0.031(4) -0.325(4) 0.2602(4) -0.02958(6) 0.2237(6) 0.00865(3) 0.9956(21)
3.297 1.31 1.17 1.21 0.024(3) -1.108(4) 0.2802(7) -0.01997(6) 0.2534(8) 0.00611(2) 0.9657(21)
![ Results for the decay constant of the pseudoscalar heavy-strange meson $H_s$ multiplied by the square root of its mass as a function of the heavy quark mass in units of the physical $b$ quark mass. Open red circles are results on set 1 ensembles from improved NRQCD heavy quarks combined with HISQ $s$ quarks (from Tables \[tab:phibs\] and \[tab:lighterb\]). The open blue squares are results from $a=$ 0.044 fm lattices using the HISQ formalism for both $b$ and $s$ [@McNeile:2011ng]. The solid error bars on both sets of points include statistics and the (correlated) uncertainty in the value of the lattice spacing. The dotted error bars on the NRQCD points include in addition an estimate of NRQCD systematic errors [@Dowdall:2013tga]. The black bursts are the final physical values for the $D_s$ and $B_s$ [@newfds; @Dowdall:2013tga]. []{data-label="fig:nrhisqf"}](decay-vs-minv.pdf){width="0.9\hsize"}
![ Results for the ratio of vector to pseudoscalar decay constants for heavy-strange mesons made with a range of heavy quark masses, $m_h$, as a function of the heavy quark mass in units of $m_b$. Filled red circles give results from very coarse set 1, and filled blue triangles from coarse set 4, for NRQCD heavy quarks (Tables \[tab:compbs\] and \[tab:lighterb\]). Dotted error bars include an estimate of NRQCD systematic errors. Black bursts indicate the physical result for $B^*_s/B_s$ mesons from this paper and for $D^*_s/D_s$ mesons using HISQ $c$ and $s$ quarks from [@Donald:2013sra]. []{data-label="fig:hrat"}](decayhrat.pdf){width="0.9\hsize"}
In this subsection we give results for calculations that use NRQCD quarks with masses lighter than that of the $b$ in order to study the heavy-quark mass dependence of decay constants and their ratios and make a link between $b$ and $c$. Using the HISQ action we have previously mapped out the dependence of pseudoscalar decay constants and quark masses [@McNeile:2010ji; @McNeile:2011ng; @McNeile:2012qf; @Chakraborty:2014zma] in this region in some detail, and we will be able to compare to these results.
The HISQ action has the smallest discretisation errors of any quark action in current use, since it removes tree-level $a^2$ errors and has no odd powers of $a$ appearing. It is therefore a very good action for $c$ physics [@Follana:2006rc; @newfds; @Donald:2012ga]. Raising the mass from that of $c$ requires fine lattices to keep masses in lattice units below $ma=1$, where, naively, it might be expected that discretisation errors would become large. It is possible to reach the $b$ on ‘ultrafine’ lattices with a lattice spacing as small as $a=0.045$ fm. This has given accurate results for $m_b$, $f_{B_s}$ and $f_{B_c}$ [@McNeile:2010ji; @McNeile:2011ng; @McNeile:2012qf] because we can use operators that are absolutely normalised.
For NRQCD the issues are complementary ones. In this case we have systematic control of a non-relativistic effective theory. Discretisation errors are much smaller, having a scale set by internal momenta rather than the quark mass. In this case naive arguments suggest that we need $ma > 1$ to control coefficients of relativistic correction operators, for high precision. In fact for $b$ quarks on the ensembles we use here, with lattice spacing values ranging from 0.15 fm down to 0.09 fm, values of $ma$ are well above 1 and there is significant headroom to reduce the mass, particularly on the coarser lattices. Since the ratio of $c$ to $b$ quark mass is 4.5 [@McNeile:2010ji], we cannot reach the $c$ quark mass with $ma>1$ even on the very coarse lattices. However, it is still of interest to vary the mass and compare the mass-dependence using NRQCD heavy quarks to that obtained from a completely different perspective, in terms of systematic errors, using HISQ quarks.
We have already shown that using HISQ $b$ quarks and NRQCD $b$ quarks gives results in agreement for the decay constant of the $B_s$ [@McNeile:2011ng; @Dowdall:2013tga] and the $B_c$ ( [@McNeile:2012qf] and subsection \[subsec:Bc\]). Here we will illustrate how well this agreement continues to lighter masses.
We work on one ensemble each from the very coarse (set 1) and coarse (set 4) lattices. We will focus on results using $s$ HISQ quarks where, as we have seen, dependence on the sea $u/d$ mass is negligible. It is most convenient to use the same values of $am_b$ as those used before on the finer lattices, since then the coefficients of the radiative corrections to terms in the NRQCD Hamiltonian are already known. We simply have to change the value of $\alpha_s$ multiplying them on the coarser lattices. In Table \[tab:lighterb\] we give the coefficients that we use for heavy quark masses $am_h=1.91$ and 2.66 on very coarse set 1 and for $am_h=1.91$ and 3.297 on coarse set 4. On very coarse set 1 the lightest $am_h$ then corresponds to 1.91/3.297= 0.58 times $m_b$. On coarse set 4 the mass 3.297 is higher than $m_b$ (since there $am_b=2.66$, see Table \[tab:upsparams\]), but $am=1.91$ corresponds to 0.72 times $m_b$. The coefficients are calculated by combining the one-loop coefficients at the appropriate $am_b$ values given in [@Dowdall:2011wh; @Hammant:2011bt] with the appropriate $\alpha_s$ value (also given in [@Dowdall:2011wh]) for that lattice spacing. These coefficients are then used in the NRQCD action (eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian\])) along with relevant tadpole-improvement factors given in Table \[tab:upsparams\] for that ensemble.
We again use a local and two smeared sources for the NRQCD propagators, with smearing radii as given in Table \[tab:upsparams\]. We combine the NRQCD propagators with those for the HISQ $s$ quarks on each ensemble. Table \[tab:lighterb\] gives results for the amplitudes for the leading-order and relativistic correction currents for the heavy-strange pseudoscalar meson ($H_s$) and vector meson ($H^*_s$). These are obtained from simultaneous fits to the vector and pseudoscalar meson correlators as described in subsection \[subsec:2pt\].
To determine the pseudoscalar decay constant, $f_{H_s}$, we are able to use a more accurate formula than the one given in eq. (\[eq:phidef\]), because additional current corrections coefficients are available in this case (only). We can use the formula accurate through $\alpha_s\Lambda/m_h$ given in [@Dowdall:2013tga]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fimp}
f_H\sqrt{M_H} = (1 + z_{A_0}\alpha_s)&\times&\left(\Phi_{A_0}^{(0)} + \Phi_{A_0}^{(1)} \right.\\
&+& \left.z_1\alpha_s\Phi_{A_0}^{(1)}+ z_2\alpha_s \Phi_{A_0}^{(2)}\right) .\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ $z_1\alpha_s$ is an additional radiative correction to the sub-leading current $J^{(1)}$. $z_2\alpha_s$ multiplies an additional sub-leading current which has the same matrix element as $J^{(1)}$ and so does not need to be separately calculated. The coefficients $z_1$ and $z_2$ are given for the masses we use in Table \[tab:lighterb\]. The $z_{A_0}$ values are in Table \[tab:zlight\] and $\alpha_s$ values in Table \[tab:params\].
Figure \[fig:nrhisqf\] shows results for $f_{H_s}\sqrt{M_{H_s}}$ as a function of inverse heavy quark mass in units of the physical $b$ quark mass. The results for set 1 are shown as open red circles including the value at the $b$ quark mass ($am_b=3.297$) from Table \[tab:phibs\] as well as the results for lighter heavy quark masses from Table \[tab:lighterb\]. The solid error bar is the dominant error in the raw results coming from the uncertainty in the lattice spacing. The dotted error bar includes an estimate of systematic errors from NRQCD coming from missing $\alpha_s^2$ renormalisation and $(\Lambda/m_h)^2$ current corrections. The latter systematic error grows as $m_h$ falls. The open blue squares give results from ‘ultrafine’ ($a=$0.044fm) $n_f=2+1$ lattices using the HISQ formalism for the heavy quark [@McNeile:2011ng]. These results were part of an analysis of the heavy-strange pseudoscalar meson decay constant that spanned the range from $c$ to $b$.
The plot shows good consistency between the two sets of results, which use very different formalisms on lattices that differ in lattice spacing by over a factor of 3. The black stars mark the final physical result for the $B_s$ [@Dowdall:2013tga] and $D_s$ [@newfds] decay constants obtained by HPQCD after performing a fit including discretisation uncertainties.
Table \[tab:lighterb\] also includes results for the vector to pseudoscalar ratio of decay constants, $R_s = f_{H^*_s}\sqrt{M_{H^*_s}}/f_{H_s}\sqrt{M_{H_s}}$. This is defined from eq. (\[eq:frat\]) up to missing $\alpha_s^2$ and $\alpha_s\Lambda/m_b$ matching uncertainties. These are plotted as a function of the inverse heavy quark mass in units of the $b$ quark mass in Figure \[fig:hrat\], including also results from Table \[tab:compbs\] at the $b$ quark mass. We see, as expected, that the values rise as $m_b/m_h$ grows towards the $c$ quark mass. The dotted error bars include an estimate of the (correlated) systematic error from missing factors in the matching of the NRQCD current to full QCD. These are estimated by rescaling results from our study here for the $B_s$ (subsection \[subsec:BBs\]). The missing terms are: $\alpha_s^2$ terms in the overall renormalisation which are taken to be independent of $m_h$; $\alpha_s\Lambda/m_h$ current corrections which grow linearly with $m_b/m_h$ and $(\Lambda/m_h)^2$ current corrections which grow quadratically.
The black bursts mark the physical result at the $B_s$ obtained in subsection \[subsec:BBs\] and the result at the $D_s$ obtained using HISQ $c$ and $s$ quarks in [@Donald:2013sra]. The mass dependence of our NRQCD results is consistent with a value for $R_s$ that grows from our result at the $B_s$ towards the result we obtained at the $D_s$ with a relativistic formalism. The growth of the NRQCD systematic errors and indeed the fact that the $c$ quark in a $D_s$ is not very nonrelativistic mean that we cannot accurately extrapolate from results here around the $B_s$ to the $D_s$. We can estimate the slope at the $B_s$, however. Our results on the coarse lattices, set 4, give a linear slope with $m_b/m_h$ for the ratio $R_s$ of $0.050(17)$ at a point close to the $b$, where the uncertainty comes from NRQCD systematic errors in the current matching.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
![A comparison of recent results for the ratio of vector to pseudoscalar decay constants for $B^*/B$ (filled circles) and $B^*_s/B_s$ (filled triangles). The top two results (in blue) are from this paper. The filled green triangle is a lattice QCD result using twisted mass quarks [@Becirevic:2014kaa] to interpolate beween $c$ and the infinite mass limit. The lowest two sets of results in purple and orange use QCD sum rules [@Lucha:2014nba; @Gelhausen:2013wia]. The red dashed line marks the value 1.0. []{data-label="fig:ratcomp"}](./ratcomp.pdf){width="0.9\hsize"}
![The ratio of $f\sqrt{M}$ for vector and pseudoscalar mesons with at least one heavy quark, plotted against the inverse of the mass for the pseudoscalar meson. Filled blue squares give the results obtained here for the $B^*_s/B_s$ along with the results from [@Donald:2013sra] for $f_{D^*_s}/f_{D_s}$ multiplied by the square root of the ratio of the meson masses from experiment [@pdg]. Filled green circles give the results for heavy-heavy mesons using experimental values for the vector decay constant obtained from the leptonic width [@pdg] and results from lattice QCD using HISQ quarks for the pseudoscalar [@newfds; @McNeile:2012qf]. The filled red triangle gives the result from this paper for the $B^*_c/B_c$ ratio. []{data-label="fig:vpsrat"}](./vpsrat.pdf){width="0.9\hsize"}
Naively we expect heavy mesons with the same valence quark content but with vector or pseudoscalar quantum numbers to be very similar since spin-dependent (hyperfine) intereactions that distinguish between quark and antiquark having spins parallel or anti-parallel are suppressed by the quark mass. Such arguments in respect of the meson masses are straightforward to make even within the quark model. For NRQCD the dominant source of such effects for the vector to pseudoscalar meson mass difference is the term proportional to $c_4$ in the NRQCD Hamiltonian, eq. (\[eq:Hamiltonian\]) [@Dowdall:2012ab; @Dowdallhyp].
For decay constants the arguments are more subtle which is why lattice QCD calculations are important to pin down the results. Viewed from the perspective of a nonrelativistic effective theory, there are three sources for terms that affect the ratio of vector to pseudoscalar decay constants for heavy mesons: one is the hyperfine term in the Hamiltonian as above, the second is the relativistic current correction terms ($J^{(1)}$ in eq. \[eq:jpsdef\]) and the third is matching of the current operator to full QCD. The first two give an effect that is proportional to $\Lambda/m_h$ whereas the third gives corrections to 1 that are proportional to $\alpha_s$. The different dependence of the three effects and the possibilities of cancellation between them have given rise to a variety of predictions for the ratio of decay constants for vector and pseudoscalar heavy-light mesons over the years and controversy has surrounded the question of whether the ratio is larger or smaller than 1 at the $b$ quark mass. Our results here show that the ratio is less than 1 (to $2\sigma$) for $B^*/B$ and $B^*_s/B_s$ mesons. In this subsection we set this in the context of earlier results.
A baseline that can be used for heavy-light mesons [@Neubert:1992fk] is Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) in which the quark Lagrangian becomes simple, with no spin dependence, in the infinite quark mass limit. The matrix elements of the spatial vector and temporal axial currents between the vacuum and heavy-light mesons become the same in this limit within the effective theory but the renormalisation factors that match the currents to full QCD are not the same. These have been calculated through ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha_s^2)$ in [@Broadhurst:1994se] and through ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha_s^3)$ in [@Bekavac:2009zc] giving, to this leading nonrelativistic order and in terms of the $\overline{MS}$ coupling [@Bekavac:2009zc]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:threeloop}
\left.\frac{f_B^*}{f_B}\right|_{\mathrm{HQET,LO}} = 1 &-& \frac{2\alpha^{(4)}_s(m_b)}{3\pi} \\
&-& (6.370 + 0.189)\left(\frac{\alpha^{(4)}_s(m_b)}{\pi}\right)^2 \nonumber \\
&-& (77.549 + 6.575) \left( \frac{\alpha^{(4)}_s(m_b)}{\pi} \right)^3 \nonumber \\
&+& \mathcal{O}(\alpha_s^4) . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This is evaluated for $u$, $d$, $s$ and $c$ quarks in the sea with the second term in the $\alpha_s^2$ and $\alpha_s^3$ coefficients taking account of the non-zero mass for the $c$ quark. Evaluating the expression in eq. (\[eq:threeloop\]) gives 0.896 [@Bekavac:2009zc], well below 1.0.
Early calculations added sum-rule estimates of $\Lambda/m_h$ hyperfine and current corrections to the one-loop piece of eq. (\[eq:threeloop\]) and obtained a variety of results depending on the relative sign of hyperfine and current correction terms. In [@Ball:1994uh] it was found that the hyperfine and current corrections terms have opposite sign (in agreement with a subsequent lattice NRQCD study [@sara]) and this gave a vector to pseudoscalar decay constant ratio for $b$-light mesons of 1.00(4). The central value in this result would be reduced below 1.0 using the three-loop expression above.
The calculation we give here improves on this approach since it is a fully integrated calculation in lattice QCD, including dynamics for the $b$ quark from the outset. We use an improved NRQCD action for the $b$ quark accurate (for heavy-light calculations) through $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s\Lambda/m_h)$ which has been tested on the heavy-light meson spectrum [@Dowdall:2012ab] and from which we can calculate the matrix elements of current operators nonperturbatively. The nonrelativistic current, combining the leading term and first, $\Lambda/m_b$, relativistic correction is matched to full QCD and the $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_s)$ matching correction is found to be very small.
Our results, as described in Subsection \[subsec:BBs\], show that $f_{B^*_s}/f_{B_s}$ and $f_{B^*}/f_B$ are about 5.0(2.5)% below 1, and the ratio for the $B^*/B$ is 1.3(1.4)% below that of the $B^*_s/B_s$. Our values are compared to results from two recent QCD sum-rule analyses [@Lucha:2014nba; @Gelhausen:2013wia] in Figure \[fig:ratcomp\]. Although there is some tension, those results are consistent with each other and with our numbers here. All the results show the same tendency for the ratio for $B^*/B$ to be slightly smaller than for $B^*_s/B_s$, although the difference is not significant in any of the cases.
We also compare to a recent lattice QCD result [@Becirevic:2014kaa] which used the twisted-mass formalism for both heavy and light quarks on gluon field configurations that included the effect of $u/d$ quarks (only) in the sea. The twisted-mass value is obtained from results calculated for heavy quark masses around the $c$ quark mass and above. An interpolation between those results and the infinite mass limit is performed to reach the $b$, using the first two-loops of the three-loop formula of eq. (\[eq:threeloop\]) to rescale results so that 1.0 (up to higher-order corrections) is obtained in the infinite mass limit. The value quoted for $f_{B^*}/f_B$ is 1.051(17) and this disagrees with our value by more than 3 (combined) standard deviations. It is not clear that results using only $u/d$ quarks in the sea will necessarily agree with those, like ours, that include a full complement of sea quarks. This may be a case where the ‘quenching’ of the $s$ quark produces a visible effect. A more likely source of difference is probably the interpolation in [@Becirevic:2014kaa] between the charm mass and the infinite mass limits. Such an interpolation requires evaluating the formula of eq. (\[eq:threeloop\]) using $\alpha_s$ at a scale much lower than $m_b$ where the relatively large coefficients make that problematic.
It is also interesting to compare results for the ratio of vector to pseudoscalar decay constants between heavy-heavy mesons and heavy-light mesons. The decay constant of vector heavyonium mesons can be determined from their experimental decay rate to leptons: $$\label{eq:leptdecay}
\Gamma(v_h \rightarrow e^+e^-) = \frac{4\pi}{3}\alpha_{\mathrm{QED}}^2e_h^2\frac{f_v^2}{m_v} .$$ The decay constants can also be calculated in lattice QCD [@Becirevic:2012dc; @Donald:2012ga; @Colquhoun:2014ica] and good agreement with experiment is found. Since heavyonium pseudoscalar mesons do not annihilate to a single particle, there is no direct experimental determination of the decay constant. Again, however, the decay constants can be accurately determined in lattice QCD [@newfds; @McNeile:2012qf].
Figure \[fig:vpsrat\] shows the ratio of vector to pseudoscalar decay constants (multiplied by the square root of the ratio of the masses) for $(J/\psi)/\eta_c$, $\Upsilon/\eta_b$, $B^*_s/B_s$ and $D_s^*/D_s$ plotted against the inverse of the corresponding pseudoscalar meson mass. For the $J/\psi$ and $\Upsilon$ decay constants we use the values determined from the experimental annihilation rates [@pdg] and eq. (\[eq:leptdecay\]). These are 0.407(5) GeV and 0.689(5) GeV respectively. From full lattice QCD the $\eta_c$ decay constant is 0.3947(24) GeV [@newfds] and the $\eta_b$ decay constant is 0.667(6) GeV [@McNeile:2012qf]. The $D_s^*/D_s$ decay constant ratio is taken from [@Donald:2013sra]. We see that the behaviour for heavyonium and heavy-light mesons is similar but the slope is larger for heavy-light mesons.
For heavyonium mesons, similar considerations apply to the decay constant ratio as discussed above for heavy-light mesons. A baseline might be considered a simple spin-independent potential model in which the decay constant can be related to the ‘wavefunction-at-the-origin’. However there are significant QCD radiative corrections to match $\psi(0)$ to the decay constant in both the vector (see, for example [@Barbieri:1975jd]) and pseudoscalar [@Braaten:1995ej] cases, and these need to be included. Going beyond this requires the inclusion of spin-dependent terms in the Hamiltonian and relativistic corrections to the leading-order current. These are taken care of in a lattice QCD calculation, either explicitly when using a nonrelativistic formalism such as NRQCD [@Colquhoun:2014ica] or implicitly included when using a relativistic formalism such as HISQ [@McNeile:2012qf].
Here we have calculated the decay constant of both the $B_c$ and the $B^*_c$, using NRQCD $b$ quarks and HISQ $c$ quarks and working through first-order in the QCD matching and relativistic spin-dependent corrections to the NRQCD Hamiltonian and the currents. Our result for the $B_c$ decay constant agrees well with that obtained previously using the relativistic HISQ formalism for both $b$ and $c$ quarks [@McNeile:2012qf], adding confidence to our analysis of systematic errors in both the nonrelativistic and relativistic approach. Here we also calculate the ratio of decay constants for the $B_c^*$ and $B_c$, for the first time from lattice QCD.
$B_c$ and $B^*_c$ decay constants have also been calculated within a potential-model approach, including QCD radiative corrections. See [@Kiselev:2003uk] for a discussion. Results are in reasonable agreement with ours, but with a larger uncertainty because the approach has less control of systematic errors.
We find a value for $f_{B^*_c}/f_{B_c}$ which is larger than that of $f_{B^*_s}/f_{B_s}$, indicating that the internal structure of the $B_c$ is somewhat different from that of a typical heavy-light meson. Figure \[fig:vpsrat\] shows this clearly. When the decay constant ratio is plotted for the $B^*_c/B_c$ it lies very neatly between the heavy-heavy line and the heavy-light line.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
{width="0.8\hsize"}
Decay constants, which parameterise the amplitude for a meson to annihilate to a single particle, are as much a part of a meson’s ‘fingerprint’ as its mass. They are often harder to determine, however, and some cannot be accessed directly through an experimental decay rate. The overall picture of meson decay constants gives information about how the internal structure of mesons changes for different quark configurations as a result of QCD interactions. To obtain this picture in sufficient detail, for example even to put the decay constants into an order, requires calculations in full lattice QCD, since only then can we reliably quantify the systematic errors.
Here we have expanded range of decay constant calculations from full lattice QCD to include vector heavy-light mesons. Our results for the ratio of vector to pseudoscalar decay constants are: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{f_{B^*}}{f_B} &=& 0.941(26) \\
\frac{f_{B^*_s}}{f_{B_s}} &=& 0.953(23) \nonumber \\
\frac{f_{B^*_c}}{f_{B_c}} &=& 0.988(27) \nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ Thus
- The vector decay constant is smaller than the pseudoscalar decay constant for $b$-light mesons, at the $2\sigma$ level for $B^*/B$ and $B^*_s/B_s$. This is in contrast to results for $c$-light mesons where the vector has a larger decay constant than the pseudoscalar.
- The ratio of vector to pseudoscalar decay constants shows an ordering so that $f_{B^*_c}/f_{B_c} > f_{B^*_s}/f_{B_s} > f_{B^*}/f_B$. When correlations between the uncertainties are taken into account using ratios, the first of these relationships has $3\sigma$ significance, the second $1\sigma$ (see eqs. (\[eq:rcrsres\]) and (\[eq:rlrsres\])).
Using our earlier world’s best results for $f_B$ (0.186(4) GeV, isospin-averaged), $f_{B_s}$ (0.224(5) GeV) [@Dowdall:2013tga] and $f_{B_c}$ (0.427(6) GeV) [@McNeile:2012qf] we derive values for the vector decay constants: $$\begin{aligned}
f_{B^*} &=& 0.175(6) \,\mathrm{GeV} \\
f_{B^*_s} &=& 0.213(7)\, \mathrm{GeV} \nonumber \\
f_{B^*_c} &=& 0.422(13)\, \mathrm{GeV} \nonumber.\end{aligned}$$
Finally, in Figure \[fig:decaygold\] we give a ‘spectrum’ plot for the decay constants of 15 gold-plated mesons from lattice QCD, including the new results from this paper. It illustrates the coverage and predictive power of lattice QCD calculations. The decay constants are ordered by value, something that is only possible with sufficiently accurate results. The range of values is much smaller than that for meson masses and the ordering of values is not as obvious because the quark masses do not have the same impact on the decay constants as they do on the meson masses. The plot therefore shows up some interesting features in the ordering, for example that the $K$ and $B^*$ mesons have such similar values and that the $\phi$ meson appears so far up the list. We see that the decay constants for vector-pseudoscalar pairs are close together everywhere, closer than for the pairings in which an $s$ quark is substituted for a light quark in a meson, for example.
Future work will improve the accuracy of lattice QCD results for the vector-onium states such as the $\phi$ (not strictly gold-plated) [@Chakraborty:2014zma] and the $\psi^{\prime}$ [@Galloway:2014tta], both of which can be determined accurately from experiment. The issues there are mainly from lattice QCD statistical errors. For $b$-light meson decay constants the dominant source of uncertainty, as we have seen, is from systematic errors in NRQCD such as current renormalisation factors. Work is underway to reduce these further using techniques based on current-current correlator methods [@Colquhoun:2014ica; @Koponen:2010jy].
Acknowledgements {#sec:acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We are grateful to the MILC collaboration for the use of their gauge configurations, to R. Horgan. C.Monahan and J. Shigemitsu for calculating the pieces needed for the current renormalisation used here, and to B. Chakraborty, A. Grozin, K. Hornbostel, F. Sanfilippo and S. Simula for useful discussions. The results described here were obtained using the Darwin Supercomputer of the University of Cambridge High Performance Computing Service as part of the DiRAC facility jointly funded by STFC, the Large Facilities Capital Fund of BIS and the Universities of Cambridge and Glasgow. This work was funded by STFC, NSF, the Royal Society and the Wolfson Foundation.
[^1]: Note that there was a typographical error in [@Dowdall:2012ab] in the table giving $a_{\mathrm{sm}}$ values for sets 5 and 6 - the correct values are the ones given here.
[^2]: Note that we do not need an initial nonperturbative step to achieve this, as is used by the Fermilab Lattice/MILC Collaboration [@Harada:2001fi]. That step is largely required to remove large but generic renormalisation factors associated with the clover action and has been tested nonperturbatively in [@Chakraborty:2014zma].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Problem: This paper addresses the design of an intelligent software system for the IC (incident commander) of a team in order to coordinate actions of agents– field units or robots –in the domain of emergency/crisis response operations.
Objective: This paper proposes GICoordinator. It is a GIS-based assistant software agent that assists and collaborates with the human planner in strategic planning and macro tasks assignment for centralized multi-agent coordination.
Method: Our approach to design GICoordinator was to: analyze the problem, design a complete data model, design an architecture of GICoordinator, specify required capabilities of human and system in coordination problem solving, specify development tools, and deploy.
Result: The result was an architecture/design of GICoordinator that contains system requirements.
Findings: GICoordinator efficiently integrates geo-informatics with artifice intelligent techniques in order to provide a spatial intelligent coordinator system for an IC to efficiently coordinate and control agents by making macro/strategic decisions. Results define a framework for future works to develop this system.
author:
- 'Reza Nourjou$^{1}$'
- 'Michinori Hatayama$^{1}$'
- 'Stephen F. Smith$^{2}$'
- 'Atabak Sadeghi$^{3}$'
- 'Pedro Szekely$^{4}$ [^1][^2] [^3] [^4]'
title: '**Design of a GIS-based Assistant Software Agent for the Incident Commander to Coordinate Emergency Response Operations** '
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The domain of emergency/crisis response is concerned with reducing number of fatalities in the first few days after disaster (natural or human-made), and USAR (Urban Search and Rescue) has a significant issue in this domain. A disaster response team, which contains an IC and several agents, is faced with the problem of carrying out geographically dispersed tasks under evolving execution circumstances in a manner that achieves a high-level objective in a minimum time. Agents need to efficiently coordinate their actions with each other in order to maximize the objective function. Effective coordination is an essential ingredient for efficient emergency response management but it is difficult to achieve.
It is important for the IC, who has a big picture of the state of the world, to coordinate and control agents. His main role is to make a strategic action plan, allocate tasks to agents, decide on actions of agents, and schedule activities of agents in time and space.
To propose an ideal system, some requirements should be considered as follows. The decision-maker is the IC, therefore coordination is a centralized approach but execution of tasks is distributed among agents. Tasks information that forms the IC‘s global perception has the spatial, macro, dynamic, and temporal characteristic; it means that these data should be used in related algorithms. Planning, task assignment, and scheduling techniques in multi-agent systems are used for problem solving. Methods which are applied should partially constrain agents with macro decisions and permit agents to adapt their activities and make their own tactical (micro) decisions according to real situations. Because of the geographic characteristic of the problem, GIS (geographic information systems) are required to support human decisions by providing a set of proper tools for management, analysis, modeling, and visualization of geographic information and location-based information. A mixed-initiative system can be proper system for the IC.
This requires an ideal intelligent software system to assist the IC and collaborate with him in strategic planning and tasks assignment to agents according to the assessed requirements.
Although there is much literature [@vafaeinezhad2009using; @Nourjou2011Introduction; @maheswaran2011automated] in planning, coordination, task assignment, human-machine collaboration, problem-solving algorithms, and decision making under uncertainty, unfortunately, the discussed requirements have not been thoroughly addressed by the previous works.
Designing an ideal approach is an important phase in system development. As a result, in order to develop an ideal system, this paper aims to design GICoordinator. GICoordinator is a GIS-based assistant software agent that assists and collaborates with the human planner in strategic planning and macro tasks assignment in the mixed-initiative approach. This paper summarizes phases that make up this system.
System Design
=============
This section is dedicated to phases which are important to design the GICoordinator.
Analyze the Problem
-------------------
First step is to completely analyze and describe the problem. Essential dimensions that compose this problem include: the problem domain, the structure of a team, geographic information, macro tasks, requirements, assumptions, the goal function, the strategic action plan, and the macro task schedule [@Nourjou2014Data].
Design the Architecture of GICoordinator
----------------------------------------
The architecture of GICoordinator is designed based on integration of three key components as Fig. 1 shows. Table 1 defines the required functionalities of GICoordinator and human according to the analyzed problem. The following subsections briefly describe some important capabilities.
\[b!\] ![The architecture of GICoordinator[]{data-label="Fig3"}](Fig1 "fig:"){width=".9\linewidth"}
\[1\][>[=\#1]{}X]{}
[.45]{}[ |c[6.4]{}|c[19]{}|]{} **Component** & **Functionalities**\
& 1- Specify high-level strategies for coordination of agents\
& 2- Revise and refine strategies\
& 3- Organize data (geographic, location-based, and non-geographic) of the problem\
& 4- Integrate the software agent with GIS\
& 5- Support information sharing with agents and with other information systems, and support integration of information systems\
& 6- Support human decisions by providing tools for geospatial reasoning, geographic information management and visualization\
& 7- Support the software agent by providing GIS analysis\
& 8- Interact with human\
& 9- Assign agents (field units) to human high-level strategies in strategic planning\
& 10- Assign geospatial-temporal macro tasks to agents in centralized scheduling\
& 11- Adapt and revise the strategic decision\
& 12- Adapt and revise the schedule\
& 13- Search for an optimal plan\
& 14- Allocate resources (refuges) to damage points under human strategies\
& 15- Adjust and refine human strategies\
& 16- Provide an interface to interact with human\
& 17- Percept and observe the environment via the spatial database\
### Provide GIS Analysis
GICoordinator provides geo-technologies and geo-informatics that support human decisions and increase functionality of the software agent. Three significant purposes are of importance: (1) visualization of information via 3D maps or thematic maps e.g. display spatial distribution of tasks, states of macro tasks, action plans, and tasks schedule, (2) geospatial reasoning that includes spatial relationships analysis, network analysis, proximity analysis, etc, and (3) information management that includes retrieval, insert, query, update, and manipulate information of spatial database. It enables the IC to interact with geographic information, and it supports human decisions by providing a better situational awareness.
GICoordinator requires necessary information for computation because it is mainly focus on multi-agent coordination techniques. Different types of information are provided by distributed systems. Therefore GICoordinator requires another capability to gather, integrate, mine, or fuse data from distributed databases. This version of GICoordinator does not include this functionality.
### Strategic Planning
It is an approach in an organizational structure to make a strategic plan that states that how agents can get from the current state of the world through a sequence of actions to a desired goal state. Strategic planning in a disaster response team includes (1) specify a response objective (a high-level strategy) for the team and decompose it into prioritized sub-goals (threads), (2) make a strategic decision by assignment of agents to threads, and (3) evaluate and adapt a strategic decision to new crisis situations [@maheswaran2011automated].
This capability calculates a set of right choices for making a strategic decision either in execution of the human strategy or in adaption of current assignments [@Nourjou2014Intelligent]. These choices are presented for the IC to select the best choice according to his intuition or to delegate the system to search for the optimal one. Moreover, the system autonomously releases right agents from a right thread in a right time during tasks execution in order to revise the strategic decision.
### Centralized Scheduling
This capability is required to dynamically assign spatial-temporal macro tasks to agents under human strategic decisions in centralized scheduling in order to minimize the overall time of tasks execution. Two main results are achieved by running this algorithm: (1) a feasible schedule and (2) an adaption time. A schedule is composed of a number of macro decisions that specify: (1) what task type is going to be done, (2) who (a subset of agents) are assigned to do this assignment, (3) where (a macro geographic object) contains a subset of tasks, (4) when operations start, (5) when operations finish, (6) how many tasks are estimated to be done, and (7) what task types and how many of them are estimated to be revealed in this location after to finish this job [@Nourjou2014Dynamic].
### State-Space Search
This capability calculates an optimal strategic plan, a complete schedule, and a overall minimum time of tasks execution. It evolves assignment of agents to threads from an initial state to a specified goal state. Results state that how and when agents can reach a defined objective. These results support human decisions and assist the IC to evaluate the quality of his strategy, refine it, or define a better strategy.
### Resource Allocation
This capability optimally allocates available refuges to rescued people in medical transportation operations according to human strategic decisions. Results state that which injured persons should be transported to which refuges in order to optimize an objective function.
### Adjustment of Human Strategies
It is difficult for an IC to specify a good strategy and timely revise it during emergency management. An IC may specify a bad or wrong high-level strategy that leads to a very big catastrophe with significantly severe consequences. This capability recommends human for adjustment and refinement of his strategy in real-time.
System should resolve trade-off of resource/role assignments and reflect feed back from actual damaged area. This system requirement should consider them. Machine learning algorithms can provide proper solution. We will devote a paper to this functionality.
Design the Data Model
---------------------
It is important to model, formulate, and present data of the problem completely. The data model presents elements of this problem, properties, relationships, and interaction among these elements with regard to problem data modeling. This data model is important to support development of GICoordinator and implementation of the capabilities designed for this system [@Nourjou2014Data].
The designed data model only formulates the planning & scheduling problem which the IC is faced, although spatially distributed agents can observe, gather, and report many types of information from their local environment to the incident center. Uncertainties are presented by proper attributes of classes of this data model, and they are used by related algorithms.
This data model formulates and present any USAR operations and similar crisis operations. It, also, formulates a team of different agents. The size of a team and the size of disaster scenario are scalable, but it is important to model any required information in the data model.
Development tools
-----------------
There are many tools and approaches that can be used to implement and develop a system. In our methodology, Table 2 shows required tools that were used to develop GICoordinator. It states that how each component should be implemented and developed.
We applied the C\#.Net programming language for developing GICoordinator. Algorithms, the structure of the system, and rules were implemented in the program. All system requirements, which are defined in Table 1, were implemented by the developer using the specified development tools.
There is a key concern in development of GICoordinator. The designed data model was used to develop his system, and there are interdependencies among functions of the system. All functions should be run in an integrated system. Any change in the data model may cause that the system does not work.
\[1\][>[=\#1]{}X]{}
[.445]{}[ | L[9]{} | L[16]{} | ]{} **Component** & **Tools**\
Spatial Database & Microsoft Spatial SQL Server, GeoDatabase, the data model\
GIS & ArcGIS, .NET Programming\
Software Agent & C\#.NET Programming, ArcObjects, the data model\
Deploy
------
GICoordinator is deployed in two ways. First one is to calculate an feasible strategic plan & schedule, which partially specify actions of agents, by the human-system collaboration before execution. Second one is to use this system for automated and autonomous adaption/refinement of macro/strategic decisions to new situations during execution and in real time.
As Fig. 1 shows, the GIS and the software agent have a connection to the spatial database. In oder to run GICoordinator, the spatial database, whose structure is based on the designed data model, has to contain essential information of the initial state of the world. These data can insert or modified by the human via the user-interface that GICoordinator provides for human-system interaction [@Nourjou2014Data].
Results
=======
The result was an architecture/design of GICoordinator that contains system requirements.
CONCLUSION
==========
The design of GICoordinator was discussed in this paper. The key insight is (1) support human decisions with geo-spatial intelligent software system, (2) provide A.I. techniques for strategic planning, macro tasks assignment, scheduling, and automated adaption of these decisions in central multi-agent coordination, (3) involve human in the loop and enable collaboration between human and system for decision making. Future works will be to address the defined capabilities of GICoordinator by several papers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
R.N. is grateful for the financial support of GCOE-HSE of Kyoto University, which enabled him to be a visiting scholar at the Information Sciences Institute of University of Southern California and the Robotics Institute of the Carnegie Mellon University during Dec. 2011 and Nov. 2012.
[99]{}
Vafaeinezhad, Ali Reza, Ali Asghar Alesheikh, Majid Hamrah, Reza Nourjou, and Rouzbeh Shad. “Using GIS to Develop an Efficient Spatio-temporal Task Allocation Algorithm to Human Groups in an Entirely Dynamic Environment Case Study: Earthquake Rescue Teams.” In Computational Science and Its Applications–ICCSA 2009, pp. 66-78. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2009.
Nourjou, Reza, Michinori Hatayama, and Hirokazu Tatano. “Introduction to spatially distributed intelligent assistant agents for coordination of human-agent teams’ actions.” In Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics (SSRR), 2011 IEEE International Symposium on, pp. 251-258. IEEE, 2011.
Maheswaran, Rajiv T., Pedro Szekely, and Romeo Sanchez. “Automated adaptation of strategic guidance in multiagent coordination.” In Agents in Principle, Agents in Practice, pp. 247-262. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011.
Nourjou, Reza, Pedro Szekely, Michinori Hatayama, Mohsen Ghafory-Ashtiany, and Stephen F. Smith. “Data Model of the Strategic Action Planning and Scheduling Problem in a Disaster Response Team.” Journal of Disaster Research, 2014. (accepted)
Nourjou, Reza, Stephen F. Smith, Michinori Hatayama, and Pedro Szekely. “Intelligent Algorithm for Assignment of Agents to Human Strategy in Centralized Multi-agent Coordination.” Journal of Software, 2014. Under review.
Nourjou, Reza, Stephen F. Smith, Michinori Hatayama, Norio Okada, and Pedro Szekely. “Dynamic Assignment of Geospatial-Temporal Macro Tasks to Agents under Human Strategic Decisions for Centralized Scheduling in Multi-agent Systems.” International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing (IJMLC), vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 39-46, 2014.
[^1]: $^{1}$Informatics Graduate School and DPRI, Kyoto University, Japan [{nourjour, hatayama}@imdr.dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp]{}
[^2]: $^{2}$The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, USA [[email protected]]{}
[^3]: $^{3}$Geomatics Engineering Dep., Istanbul Technical University, Turkey [[email protected]]{}
[^4]: $^{4}$Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, USA [[email protected] ]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss a new memory-efficient depth-first algorithm and its implementation that iterates over all elements of a finite locally branched lattice. This algorithm can be applied to face lattices of polyhedra and to various generalizations such as finite polyhedral complexes and subdivisions of manifolds, extended tight spans and closed sets of matroids. Its practical implementation is very fast compared to state-of-the-art implementations of previously considered algorithms. Based on recent work of Bruns, García-Sánchez, O’Neill and Wilburne, we apply this algorithm to prove *Wilf’s conjecture* for all numerical semigroups of multiplicity $19$ by iterating through the faces of the *Kunz cone* and identifying the possible *bad faces* and then checking that these do not yield counterexamples to Wilf’s conjecture.'
address:
- 'Institut f" ur Mathematik, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany'
- 'Fakultät für Mathematik, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Germany'
author:
- Jonathan Kliem
- Christian Stump
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: |
A new face iterator for polyhedra and for\
more general finite locally branched lattices
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
We call a finite lattice $({\mathcal{P}}, \leq)$ [*locally branched*]{} if all intervals of length two contain at least four elements. We show that such lattices are atomic and coatomic and refer to for details.
This paper describes a depth-first algorithm to iterate through the elements in a finite locally branched lattice given its coatoms, see . It moreover describes variants of this algorithm allowing the iteration over slightly more general posets. Most importantly, examples of such locally branched lattices (or its mild generalizations) include face posets of
- polytopes and unbounded polyhedra,
- finite polytopal or polyhedral complexes,
- finite polyhedral subdivisions of manifolds,
- extended tight spans, and
- closed sets of matroids.
One may in addition compute all cover relations as discussed in . The provided theoretical runtime (without variants) is the same as of the algorithm discussed by V. Kaibel and M. E. Pfetsch in [@Kaibel2002], see . In the sligthly generalized situations, the theoretical runtime might be better as for extended tight spans (without chords) with many facets (using the opposite lattice), or might be worse as for extended tight spans with many vertices.
In practice it appears that the chosen data structures and implementation details make the implementation[^2] very fast for the iteration and still fast for cover relations in the graded case compared to state-of-the-art implementations of previously considered algorithms, see . In , we apply the presented algorithm to affirmatively settle *Wilf’s conjecture* for all numerical semigroups of multiplicity $19$ by iterating, up to a certain symmetry of order $18$, through all faces of the *Kunz cone* (which is a certain unbounded polyhedron), identifing the *bad faces* which possibly yield counterexamples to Wilf’s conjecture, and then checking that these do indeed not yield such counterexamples. This is based on recent work of W. Bruns, P. García-Sánchez, C. O’Neill and D. Wilburne [@Bruns] who developed this approach to the conjecture and were able to settle it up to multiplicity $18$.
In , we finally collect detailed runtime comparisions between the implementation of the presented algorithm with the state-of-the-art implementations in [`polymake`]{} and in [`normaliz`]{}.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We thank Michael Joswig and Winfried Bruns for valuable discussions and for providing multiple relevant references. We further thank Jean-Philippe Labbé for pointing us to [@Bruns] and all participants of the trac ticket in [`SageMath`]{}for stimulating discussions.
Formal framework {#sec:framework}
================
Let $({\mathcal{P}}, \leq)$ be a finite poset and denote by $\prec$ its cover relations. We usually write ${\mathcal{P}}$ for $({\mathcal{P}},\leq)$ and write ${{\mathcal{P}}^{\operatorname{op}}}$ for the opposite poset $({{\mathcal{P}}^{\operatorname{op}}},\leq_{\operatorname{op}})$ with $b \leq_{\operatorname{op}} a$ if $a \leq b$. For $a,b \in {\mathcal{P}}$ with $a \leq b$ we denote the interval as $[a,b] = \{p \in {\mathcal{P}}\mid a \leq p \leq b\}$. If ${\mathcal{P}}$ has a lower bound $\hat{0}$, its [*atoms*]{} are the upper covers of the lower bound, $${\operatorname{Atoms}}({\mathcal{P}}) = \{p \in {\mathcal{P}}\mid \hat{0} \prec p\}$$ and, for $p \in {\mathcal{P}}$, we write ${\operatorname{Atoms}}(p) = \{a \in {\operatorname{Atoms}}({\mathcal{P}}) \mid p \geq a\}$ for the atoms below $p$. Analogously, if ${\mathcal{P}}$ has an upper bound $\hat{1}$, its [*coatoms*]{} are the lower covers of the upper bound, ${\operatorname{coAtoms}}({\mathcal{P}}) = \{p \in {\mathcal{P}}\mid p \prec \hat{1}\}$. ${\mathcal{P}}$ is called [*graded*]{} if it admits a rank function $r \colon {\mathcal{P}}\to {\mathbb{Z}}$ with $p \prec q \Rightarrow r(p) + 1 = r(q)$.
${\mathcal{P}}$ is locally branched if for every saturated chain $a \prec b \prec c$ there exists an element $d \neq b$ with $a < d < c$. If this element is unique, then ${\mathcal{P}}$ is said to have the [*diamond property*]{}.
The diamond property is a well-known property of face lattices of polytopes, see [@ZieglerLecturesPolytopes Theorem 2.7(iii)]. The property of being locally branched has also appeared in the literature in contexts different from the present under the name *$2$-thick lattices*, see for example [@MR1935777] and the references therein.
An obvious example of a locally branched lattice is the boolean lattice $B_n$ given by all subsets of $\{1,\dots,n\}$ ordered by containment. We will later see that all locally branched lattices are meet semi-sublattices of $B_n$.
In the following, we assume ${\mathcal{P}}$ to be a finite lattice with meet operation $\wedge$, join operation $\vee$, lower bound $\hat{0}$ and upper bound $\hat{1}$. We say that
- ${\mathcal{P}}$ is [*atomic*]{} if all elements are joins of atoms,
- ${\mathcal{P}}$ is [*coatomic*]{} if all elements are meets of coatoms,
- $p \in {\mathcal{P}}$ is [*join-irreducible*]{} if $p$ has a unique lower cover $q \prec p$,
- $p \in {\mathcal{P}}$ is [*meet-irreducible*]{} if $p$ has a unique upper cover $p \prec q$.
Atoms are join-irreducible and coatoms are meet-irreducible. The following classification of atomic and coatomic lattices is well-known.
\[lem:meet\_irreducible\] We have that
1. ${\mathcal{P}}$ is atomic if and only if the only join-irreducible elements are the atoms,\[item:atomic\_join-irreducible\]
2. ${\mathcal{P}}$ is coatomic if and only if the only meet-irreducible elements are the coatoms.
First observe that for all $p,q \in {\mathcal{P}}$ we have $p \geq q \Rightarrow {\operatorname{Atoms}}(p) \supseteq {\operatorname{Atoms}}(q)$ and $p \geq \bigvee{\operatorname{Atoms}}(p)$. Moreover, ${\mathcal{P}}$ is atomic if and only if $p = \bigvee{\operatorname{Atoms}}(p)$ for all $p \in {\mathcal{P}}$.
Assume that ${\mathcal{P}}$ is atomic and let $q \in {\mathcal{P}}$ join-irreducible and $p \prec q$. Because we have ${\operatorname{Atoms}}(p) \neq {\operatorname{Atoms}}(q)$ it follows that $p = \hat 0$. Next assume that ${\mathcal{P}}$ is not atomic and let $p \in {\mathcal{P}}$ minimal such that $p > \bigvee {\operatorname{Atoms}}(p)$. If $q < p$ then by minimality $q = \bigvee {\operatorname{Atoms}}(q)$. It follows that $q \leq \bigvee {\operatorname{Atoms}}(p)$ and $p$ is join-irreducible. The second equivalence is the first applied to ${{\mathcal{P}}^{\operatorname{op}}}$.
The face lattice of a polytope has the diamond property, it is atomic and coatomic, and every interval is again the face lattice of a polytope. The face lattice of an (unbounded) polyhedron might neither be atomic nor coatomic as witnessed by the face lattice of the positive orthant in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ with five faces.
The reason to introduce locally branched posets is the following relation to atomic and coatomic lattices, which has, to the best of our knowledge, not appeared in the literature.
\[prop:locally\_branched\_atomic\_coatomic\] The following statements are equivalent:
1. ${\mathcal{P}}$ is locally branched, \[item:locally\_branched\]
2. every interval of ${\mathcal{P}}$ is atomic, \[item:atomic\]
3. every interval of ${\mathcal{P}}$ is coatomic. \[item:coatomic\]
${\mathcal{P}}$ is locally branched if and only if ${{\mathcal{P}}^{\operatorname{op}}}$ is locally branched. Also, ${\mathcal{P}}$ is atomic if and only if ${{\mathcal{P}}^{\operatorname{op}}}$ is coatomic. Hence, it suffices to show \[item:locally\_branched\] $\Leftrightarrow$ \[item:atomic\]. Suppose ${\mathcal{P}}$ is not locally branched. Then, there exist $p \prec x \prec q$ such that the interval $[p,q]$ contains exactly those three elements. Clearly, $[p,q]$ is not atomic. Now suppose $[p,q] \subseteq {\mathcal{P}}$ is not atomic and $x$ is join-irreducible with unique lower cover $y$ with $p < y \prec x$. There exists $z \in [p,q]$ with $z \prec y$ and the interval $[z,x]$ contains exactly those three elements.
On the left an example of a non-graded locally branched lattice. On the right an example of an atomic, coatomic lattice, which is not locally branched as the interval between the two larger red elements contains only three elements.
\(b) at (0,3) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (oneface) at (-1,1.5) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ;
(lower1) at (0,1) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (lower2) at (0.5,1) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (lower3) at (1,1) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (upper1) at (0,2) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (upper2) at (0.5,2) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (upper3) at (1,2) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ;
\(a) at (0,0) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (b) – (oneface) – (a); (b) – (upper1); (b) – (upper2); (b) – (upper3); (a) – (lower1); (a) – (lower2); (a) – (lower3); (upper1) – (lower1) – (upper2) – (lower2) – (upper3) – (lower3) – (upper1);
\(b) at (0,4) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (a) at (0,0) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ;
(lower1) at (-1.5,1) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (lower2) at (-0.5,1) \[circle,fill=red,scale=0.6\] ; (lower3) at (0.5,1) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (lower4) at (1.5,1) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (upper1) at (-1.5,3) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (upper2) at (-0.5,3) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (upper3) at (0.5,3) \[circle,fill=red,scale=0.6\] ; (upper4) at (1.5,3) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (middle1) at (-1,2) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (middle2) at (0,2) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (middle3) at (1,2) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (middle4) at (2,2) \[circle,fill=black,scale=0.4\] ; (a) – (lower1) – (middle1) – (upper1) – (b); (a) – (lower2) – (middle2) – (upper2) – (b); (a) – (lower3) – (middle3) – (upper3) – (b); (a) – (lower4) – (middle4) – (upper4) – (b); (lower1) – (middle4) – (upper1); (lower2) – (middle1) – (upper2); (lower3) – (middle2) – (upper3); (lower4.center) – (middle3) – (upper4);
Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a finite locally branched poset with atoms $\{1,\dots,n\}$. As we have seen that ${\mathcal{P}}$ is atomic and thus $p = \bigvee {\operatorname{Atoms}}(p)$ for all $p \in {\mathcal{P}}$. The following proposition underlines the importance of subset checks and of computing intersections to understanding finite locally branched lattices.
\[prop:atom\_representation\_of\_elements\] In a finite locally branched lattice it holds that
1. $p \leq q \Leftrightarrow {\operatorname{Atoms}}(p) \subseteq {\operatorname{Atoms}}(q).$ \[item:subsetcheck\]
2. $p \wedge q = \bigvee \left({\operatorname{Atoms}}(p) \cap {\operatorname{Atoms}}(q)\right).$ \[item:meet\]
<!-- -->
1. If $p \leq q$ then clearly ${\operatorname{Atoms}}(p) \subseteq {\operatorname{Atoms}}(q)$. On the other hand, if ${\operatorname{Atoms}}(p) \subseteq {\operatorname{Atoms}}(q)$, then $p = \bigvee {\operatorname{Atoms}}(p) \leq \bigvee {\operatorname{Atoms}}(q) = q$, as $\bigvee {\operatorname{Atoms}}(q)$ is in particular an upper bound for ${\operatorname{Atoms}}(p)$.
2. By \[item:subsetcheck\] it holds that $\bigvee \left({\operatorname{Atoms}}(p) \cap {\operatorname{Atoms}}(q)\right)$ is a lower bound of $p$ and $q$. Also, ${\operatorname{Atoms}}(p \wedge q) \subseteq {\operatorname{Atoms}}(p), {\operatorname{Atoms}}(q)$ and we obtain $${\operatorname{Atoms}}(p \wedge q) \subseteq {\operatorname{Atoms}}(p) \cap {\operatorname{Atoms}}(q). \qedhere$$
This proposition provides the following meet semi-lattice embedding of any finite locally branched lattice into a boolean lattice.
\[cor:embedding\_to\_boolean\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a finite locally branched lattice with ${\operatorname{Atoms}}({\mathcal{P}}) = \{1, \dots ,n\}$. The map $p \mapsto {\operatorname{Atoms}}(p)$ is a meet semi-sublattice embedding of ${\mathcal{P}}$ into the boolean lattice $B_n$.
The above embedding does not need to be a join semi-sublattice embedding as witnessed by the face lattice of a square in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$.
shows that checking whether the relation $p \leq q$ holds in ${\mathcal{P}}$ is algorithmically a subset check ${\operatorname{Atoms}}(p) \subseteq {\operatorname{Atoms}}(q)$, while computing the meet is given by computing the intersection ${\operatorname{Atoms}}(p) \cap {\operatorname{Atoms}}(q)$.
Justified by , we restrict our attention in this paper to meet semi-sublattices of the boolean lattice.
Variants of this framework and examples {#sec:frameworkvariants}
---------------------------------------
Before presenting in the algorithm to iterate over the elements of a finite locally branched lattice together with variants to avoid any element above certain atoms and to avoid any element below certain coatoms (or other elements of $B_n$), we give the the following main use cases for such an iterator.
\[ex:polytope\] The face lattice of a polytope $P$ has the diamond property and is thus locally branched.
\[ex:polyhedron\] The face lattice of a polyhedron $P$ is isomorphic to the one obtained from quotiening out the affine space $P$ contains. Thus, we can assume that $P$ does not contain an affine line. It is well known (see e.g. [@ZieglerLecturesPolytopes Exercise 2.19]) that we may add an extra facet $\overline{F}$ to obtain a polytope $\overline{P}$. The faces of $P$ are exactly the faces of $\overline{P}$ not contained in $\overline{F}$ (together with the empty face). Thus, the iterator visits all non-empty faces of $P$ by visiting all faces of $\overline{P}$ not contained in $\overline{F}$.
\[ex:manifold\] The face poset of a finite polytopal subdivision of a closed manifold (compact manifold without boundary). Adding an artificial upper bound $\hat{1}$, this is a finite locally branched lattice.
\[ex:tight\_spans\] We consider extended tight spans as defined in [@Hampe2019 Section 3] as follows: Let $P \subset {\mathbb{R}}^d$ be a finite point configuration, and let $\Sigma$ be a polytopal complex with vertices $P$, which covers the convex hull of $P$. We call the maximal cells of $\Sigma$ facets. We can embedd $\Sigma$ into a closed $d$-manifold $M$: In any case, we can add a vertex at infinity and for each face $F$ on the boundary of $\Sigma$ a face $F \cup \{\infty\}$. In many cases, just adding one facet containing all vertices on the boundary will work as well.
Given a collection $\Gamma$ of boundary faces of $\Sigma$. We can iterate over all elements of $\Sigma$, which have empty intersection with $\Gamma$: Iterate over all faces of $M$, which do not contain a vertex of $\Gamma$ and are not contained in a facet in $M \setminus \Sigma$.
\[ex:matroid\] The MacLane–Steinitz exchange property (see e.g. [@Oxley1992 Lemma 1.4.2]) ensures that the closed sets of a matroid form a locally branched finite lattice.
\[ex:unions\_of\_lattices\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}_1,\dots,{\mathcal{P}}_k$ be finite locally branched meet semi-sublattices of $B_n$. Then the iterator may iterate through all elements of their union by first iterating through ${\mathcal{P}}_1$, then through all elements in ${\mathcal{P}}_2$ not contained in ${\mathcal{P}}_1$ and so on.
\[ex:polyhedral\_complex\] Using the iteration as in the previous example allows to iterate through polytopal or polyhedral complexes, or through complexes of tight spans.
The algorithm {#sec:algorithm}
=============
Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a finite locally branched lattice given as a meet semi-sublattice of the boolean lattice $B_n$. This is, ${\operatorname{Atoms}}{{\mathcal{P}}} = \{1,\dots,n\}$ and $p = {\operatorname{Atoms}}(p) \in {\mathcal{P}}$. The following algorithm is a recursively defined depth-first iterator through the elements of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Given $c \in {\mathcal{P}}$ and its lower covers $x_1,\dots,x_k$, the iterator yields $c$ and then computes, one after the other, the lower covers of $x_1,\dots,x_k$, taking into account those to be ignored, and then recursively proceeds. Being an *iterator* means that the algorithm starts with only assigning the input to the respective variables and then waits in its current state. Whenever an output is requested, it starts from its current state and runs to the point **ITERATOR OUTPUT**, outputs the given output, and again waits. Iterators are regularly used in modern programming languages[^3].
(*Algorithm \textbf{FaceIterator} *)
(*\textbf{INPUT}*)
(* $\bullet$ *) coatoms (* \hspace{30pt} -- list of coatoms of~$\P$ not contained in any of *)ignored_sets
(* $\bullet$ *) ignored_sets (* \hspace{2.5pt} -- list of subsets of $\{1,\dots,n\}$*)
(* $\bullet$ *) ignored_atoms (* -- subset of $\{1,\dots,n\}$*)
(*\textbf{PROCEDURE}*)
if coatoms (*\!\! $\neq\ \emptyset$ *): (*\label{line:loop}*)
a := coatoms.(*\textbf{first\_element}*)() (* \label{line:pick_a} *)
if a (*$\cap$*) ignored_atoms (*$=\emptyset$*):(*\label{line:avoid_ignored_atoms}*)
(*\textbf{ITERATOR OUTPUT}*)
(* $\bullet$ *) a (*\label{line:iteratoroutput}*)
new_coatoms = (*$\{$*) a (*$\cap$*) b : b (*$\in$*) coatoms (*$\setminus$*) a (*$\}$*)(*\label{line:new_coatoms1}*)
new_coatoms = (*$\{$*) x (*$\in$*) new_coatoms : x (*$\not\subseteq$*) y (* for all *) y (*$\in$*) ignored_sets (*$\}$*)(*\label{line:new_coatoms2}*)
new_coatoms = new_coatoms.(*\textbf{inclusion\_maximals}*)()(*\label{line:inclusion_maximal}*)(*\label{line:new_coatoms3}*)
(*\textbf{FaceIterator}*)( coatoms (*\hspace{31.5pt}*)= new_coatoms, (*\label{line:visit_below}*)
ignored_sets (*\hspace{5.5pt}*)= ignored_sets.(*\textbf{copy}*)(),
ignored_atoms = ignored_atoms )
next_coatoms = (*$\{$*) x (*$\in$*) coatoms : x (*$\not\subseteq$*) a (*$\cup$*) ignored_atoms (*$\}$*)(*\label{line:remove_some_coatoms}*)
ignored_sets.(*\textbf{append}*)(a (*$\cup$*) ignored_atoms)(*\label{line:append_ignored_sets}*)
(*\textbf{FaceIterator}*)( coatoms (*\hspace{31.5pt}*)= next_coatoms, (*\label{line:visit_next}*)
ignored_sets (*\hspace{5.5pt}*)= ignored_sets,
ignored_atoms = ignored_atoms )
For polyhedra, a slightly more sophisticated version of this algorithm is implemented in [`SageMath`]{}. Before proving the correctness of the algorithm, we provide several detailed examples. If not mentioned otherwise, we do not ignore any atoms and always set [[ignored\_atoms]{}]{} = $\{\}$ in the examples. We also assume the lists to be ordered lexicographically for iteration. One may assume that the algorithm additionally visits the upper bound given by the union of the coatoms, whenever this is suitable.
We apply the algorithm to visit faces of a square.
- **INPUT**: [[coatoms]{}]{} = $[\{1,2\}, \{1,4\}, \{2,3\}, \{3,4\}]$, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[]$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{1,2\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{1,2\}$
- [[new\_coatoms]{}]{} = $[\{1\}, \{2\}]$
- Apply **FaceIterator** to sublattice $[\hat{0},\{1,2\}]$
- **INPUT**: [[coatoms]{}]{} = $[\{1\}, \{2\}]$, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[]$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{1\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{1\}$
- [[new\_coatoms]{}]{} = $[\emptyset]$
- Apply **FaceIterator** to sublattice $[\hat{0},\{1\}]$
- **INPUT**: [[coatoms]{}]{} = $[\emptyset]$, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[]$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\emptyset$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\emptyset$
- ([[new\_coatoms]{}]{} is empty)
- Apply **FaceIterator** to sublattice $[\hat{0},\hat{0}]$ without output
- Add $\emptyset$ to [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} (to the copy in this call of [[FaceIterator]{}]{})
- Reapply **FaceIterator** to sublattice $[\hat{0},\{1\}]$
- **INPUT**: [[coatoms]{}]{} = $[]$, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\emptyset]$
- [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{1\}]$
- Reapply **FaceIterator** to sublattice $[\hat{0}, \{1,2\}]$
- **INPUT**: [[coatoms]{}]{} = $[\{2\}]$, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{1\}]$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{2\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{2\}$
- Apply **FaceIterator** to sublattice $[\hat{0},\{2\}]$
- **INPUT**: [[coatoms]{}]{} = $[]$, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{1\}]$
- [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{1\},\{2\}]$
- Reapply **FaceIterator** to sublattice $[\hat{0},\{1,2\}]$
- **INPUT**: [[coatoms]{}]{} = $[]$, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{1\},\{2\}]$
- [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{1,2\}]$
- Reapply **FaceIterator** to entire lattice
- **INPUT**: [[coatoms]{}]{} = $[\{1,4\}, \{2,3\}, \{3,4\}]$, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{1,2\}]$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{1,4\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{1,4\}$
- Apply **FaceIterator** to sublattice $[\hat{0},\{1,4\}]$
- **INPUT**: [[coatoms]{}]{} = $[\{4\}]$, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{1,2\}]$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{4\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{4\}$
- Apply **FaceIterator** to sublattice $[\hat{0},\{4\}]$ without output
- [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{1,2\}, \{1,4\}]$
- ... further outputs: $\{2,3\}$, $\{3\}$, $\{3,4\}$
\[ex:rp2\]
= \[circle, thick, draw=black, fill=black, scale=0.4\] (0,0) – (4,0) – (2,3.46) – (0,0); (1)\[point, label=below:[$1$]{}\] at (0,0); (2)\[point, label=below:[$2$]{}\] at (2,0); (3)\[point, label=below:[$3$]{}\] at (4,0); (1a)\[point, label=right:[$1$]{}\] at (3,1.73); (2a)\[point, label=above:[$2$]{}\] at (2,3.46); (3a)\[point, label=left:[$3$]{}\] at (1,1.73); (4)\[point, label=below:[$4$]{}\] at (1,0.5); (5)\[point, label=below:[$5$]{}\] at (3,0.5); (6)\[point, label=above left:[$6$]{}\] at (2,2.23);
\(1) – (3) – (2a) – (1) – (4) – (2) – (5) – (3) – (5) – (1a) – (6) – (2a) – (6) – (3a) – (4) – (5) – (6) – (4);
- **INPUT**: [[coatoms]{}]{} = $[\{1,2,4\}, \dots, \{4,5,6\}]$, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[]$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{1,2,4\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{1,2,4\}$, $\{1,2\}$, $\{1\}$, $\emptyset$, $\{2\}$, $\{1,4\}$, $\{4\}$, $\{2,4\}$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{1,2,6\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{1,2,6\}$, $\{1,6\}$, $\{6\}$, $\{2,6\}$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{1,3,4\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{1,3,4\}$, $\{1,3\}$, $\{3\}$, $\{3,4\}$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{1,3,5\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{1,3,5\}$, $\{1,5\}$, $\{5\}$, $\{3,5\}$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{1,5,6\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{1,5,6\}$, $\{5,6\}$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{2,3,5\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{2,3,5\}$, $\{2,3\}$, $\{2,5\}$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{2,3,6\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{2,3,6\}$, $\{3,6\}$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{2,4,5\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{2,4,5\}$, $\{4,5\}$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{3,4,6\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{3,4,6\}$, $\{4,6\}$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{4,5,6\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{4,5,6\}$
= \[circle, thick, draw=black, fill=black, scale=0.4\] (0,0) – (3,0) – (3,2) – (0,2); (3)\[point, label=below:[$3$]{}\] at (0,0); (4)\[point, label=below:[$4$]{}\] at (3,0); (5)\[point, label=above:[$5$]{}\] at (3,2); (6)\[point, label=above:[$6$]{}\] at (0,2); (1)\[point, label=left:[$1$]{}\] at (1,1); (2)\[point, label=right:[$2$]{}\] at (2,1);
\(3) – (4) – (5) – (6) – (3) – (1) – (6) – (1) – (2) – (4) – (2) – (5);
- **INPUT**: [[coatoms]{}]{} = $[\{1,2,3,4\}, \{1,2,5,6\}, \{1,3,6\}, \{2,4,5\}]$, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{3,4,5,6\}]$, [[ignored\_atoms]{}]{} = $\{3,4,5,6\}$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{1,2,3,4\}$, no output of $\{1,2,3,4\}$
- [[new\_coatoms]{}]{} = $\{\{1,2\}, \{1,3\}, \{2,4\}\}$
- **INPUT**: [[coatoms]{}]{} = $[\{1,2\}, \{1,3\}, \{2,4\}]$, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{3,4,5,6\}]$, [[ignored\_atoms]{}]{} = $\{3,4,5,6\}$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{1,2\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{1,2\}$, $\{1\}$, $\{2\}$
- [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{3,4,5,6\}, \{1,2,3,4,5,6\}]$, [[coatoms]{}]{} = $\{\}$
- [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{3,4,5,6\}, \{1,2,3,4,5,6\}]$, [[coatoms]{}]{} = $\{\}$
= \[circle, thick, draw=black, fill=black, scale=0.4\] (0,0) – (2,0) – (2,2) – (0,2) – (0,0); (0,0) – (-2,0) – (-2,2) – (0,2) – (0,0); (0,0) – (2,0) – (2,-2) – (0,-2) – (0,0);
(0)\[point, label=below left:[$O$]{}\] at (0,0); (W)\[label=left:[$W$]{}\] at (-2,0); (E)\[label=right:[$E$]{}\] at (2,0); (N)\[label=above:[$N$]{}\] at (0,2); (S)\[label=below:[$S$]{}\] at (0,-2);
(0,0) – (2,0); (0,0) – (-2,0); (0,0) – (0,2); (0,0) – (0,-2);
*Incorrect application* by applying to all polyhedra in the complex:
- **INPUT**: [[coatoms]{}]{} = $[\{W,N,0\}, \{N,E,0\}, \{S,E,0\}]$, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[]$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{W,N,0\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{W,N,0\}$
- [[new\_coatoms]{}]{} = $[\{N,0\}]$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{N,0\}$
- [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{W,N,0\}]$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{N,E,0\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{N,E,0\}$
- [[new\_coatoms]{}]{} = $[\{E,0\}]$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{E,0\}$
- [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{W,N,0\}, \{N,E,0\}]$
- [[a]{}]{} = $\{S,E,0\}$, **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{S,E,0\}$
- [[new\_coatoms]{}]{} = $[]$
*Correct application* by applying successively to all faces of all polyhedra:
- **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{W,N,0\}$ (output of $\hat{1}$ before applying **FaceIterator**)
- Apply algorithm for $\{W,N,0\}$:
- **INPUT**: [[coatoms]{}]{} = $[\{W,0\}, \{N,0\}]$, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{W,N\}]$
- **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{W,0\}$, $\{0\}$, $\{N,0\}$
- **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{N,E,0\}$
- Apply algorithm for $\{N,E,0\}$:
- **INPUT**: [[coatoms]{}]{} = $[\{E,0\}]$, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{W,N,0\}, \{N,E\}]$
- **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{E,0\}$
- **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{S,E,0\}$
- Apply algorithm for $\{S,E,0\}$:
- **INPUT**: [[coatoms]{}]{} = $[\{S,0\}]$, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} = $[\{W,N,0\}, \{N,E,0\}, \{S,E\}]$
- **ITERATOR OUTPUT**: $\{S,0\}$
Correctness of the algorithm
----------------------------
As assumed, let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a locally branched meet semi-sublattice of the boolean lattice $B_n$. In the following properties and their proofs, we indeed see that if ${\mathcal{P}}$ is any meet semi-sublattice of $B_n$, the algorithm visits exactly once each element $p \in {\mathcal{P}}$ not contained in any of [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} and not containing any of [[ignored\_atoms]{}]{} if the interval $[p, \hat{1}]$ is locally branched.
The algorithm ***FaceIterator*** is well-defined in the following sense: Let $a \in $ [[coatoms]{}]{}. Then
1. The call of ***FaceIterator*** in line \[line:visit\_below\] applies the algorithm to the sublattice $[\hat 0,a]$. \[it:visit\_below\]
2. The call of ***FaceIterator*** in line \[line:visit\_next\] applies the algorithm to ${\mathcal{P}}$ with $a\ \cup $ [[ignored\_atoms]{}]{} appended to [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} and all coatoms contained in $a\ \cup $ [[ignored\_atoms]{}]{} removed. \[it:visit\_next\]
The proof of \[it:visit\_next\] is obvious. To prove \[it:visit\_below\], we have to show that the construction of [[new\_coatoms]{}]{} in lines \[line:new\_coatoms1\]–\[line:new\_coatoms3\] is correct. First, observe that all elements in [[new\_coatoms]{}]{} are strictly below the element $a$. Next, let $x \prec a \prec \hat 1$ in ${\mathcal{P}}$. Since ${\mathcal{P}}$ is locally branched there is an element $b \neq a$ with $ x < b \prec \hat 1$, implying $x = a \cap b$. If $x$ is not contained in any element in [[ignored\_sets]{}]{}, then the same holds for $b$ and thus, $b \in$ [[coatoms]{}]{} and $x \in$ [[new\_coatoms]{}]{}. This implies that [[new\_coatoms]{}]{} are exactly the lower covers of $a$ not contained in an element of [[ignored\_sets]{}]{}, as desired.
\[thm:algorithm\] The algorithm ***FaceIterator*** iterates exactly once over all element in ${\mathcal{P}}$ which are not contained in any subset of [[ignored\_sets]{}]{}, and do not contain any element in [[ignored\_atoms]{}]{}.
We argue by induction on the cardinality of [[coatoms]{}]{}. First note that the cardinalities of [[new\_coatoms]{}]{} and [[next\_coatoms]{}]{} in the two subsequent calls of **FaceIterator** in lines \[line:visit\_below\] and \[line:visit\_next\] are both strictly smaller than the cardinality of [[coatoms]{}]{}. If [[coatoms]{}]{} $=\emptyset$, then all elements of ${\mathcal{P}}\setminus \hat 1$ are contained in elements of [[ignored\_sets]{}]{}, and the algorithm does correctly not output any element. Suppose that [[coatoms]{}]{} $\neq\emptyset$ and let $a$ be its first element assigned in line \[line:pick\_a\]. Let $p \in {\mathcal{P}}$. If $p$ is contained in an element of [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} or contains an element in [[ignored\_atoms]{}]{} then it is not outputed by the algorithm. Otherwise,
- if $p = a$, then the algorithm outputs $p$ correctly in line \[line:iteratoroutput\],
- if $p < a$, then $p$ is outputed in the call of **FaceIterator** in line \[line:visit\_below\] by induction,
- if $p \not\leq a$, then $p \not\leq a\ \cup$ [[ignored\_atoms]{}]{} and $p$ is outputed in the call of **FaceIterator** in line \[line:visit\_next\] by induction.
Variants of the algorithm
-------------------------
We finish this section with a dualization property followed by explicitly stating the result when applying the algorithm for the variants discussed in .
\[cor:algorithm\_opposite\] If [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} is a list of coatoms, then the algorithm can also be applied to ${{\mathcal{P}}^{\operatorname{op}}}$ with the roles of atoms and coatoms interchanged.
We later see in that considering ${{\mathcal{P}}^{\operatorname{op}}}$ instead of ${\mathcal{P}}$ might be faster as the runtime depends on the number of coatoms. For example, in one could apply the algorithm to ${\mathcal{P}}^{{{\operatorname{op}}}}$ to improve runtime as there are $10$ facets but only $6$ vertices.
\[cor:algorithm\_polytopes\] Let $P$ be a polytope. Provided the vertex-facet incidences of ${\mathcal{P}}$, the above algorithm visits exactly once all faces of $P$.
\[cor:algorithm\_polyhedra\] Let $P$ be an unbounded polyhedron and let $\overline{P}$ be a projectively equivalent polytope with marked face. Provided the vertex-facet incidences of $\overline{P}$, the above algorithm visits exactly once all non-empty faces of $P$.
Actually, a non-empty intersection of two faces of $P$ is not contained in the marked facet at infinity. Hence, one could even use the algorithm without providing the marked facet at infinity. This might or might not visit the empty face.
\[cor:algorithm\_manifold\] Let $P$ be a finite polytopal subidivision of a closed manifold. Provided the vertex-facet incidences the above algorithm visits exactly once all faces of $P$.
\[cor:algorithm\_tight\_spans\] Let $\Sigma$ be an extended tight span in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ as described in . Let $V$ be a subset of vertices of $\Sigma$. Provided the facets and the boundary faces in their vertex description, the above algorithm visits exactly once all faces of $\Sigma$ not containing any vertex of $V$.
\[cor:algorithm\_polyhedral\_complex\] Let $P$ be a polyhedral complex. Provided each maximal cell as vertex-facet incidences with possibly marked face at infinity. The algorithm can be applied to visit exactly once each element in $P$.
Data structures, memory usage, and theoretical runtime {#sec:data_structures}
======================================================
The operations used in the algorithm are [[intersetions]{}]{}, [[subset checks]{}]{} and [[unions]{}]{}. It will turn out that the crucial operation for the runtime is the subset check.
For the theoretical runtime we consider representation as (sparse) *sorted-lists-of-atoms*. However, in the implementation we use (dense) *atom-incidence-bit-vectors*. This is theoretically slighly slower, but the crucial operations can all be done using bitwise operations.
Observe that a *sorted-lists-of-atoms* needs as much memory as there are incidences. Consider two sets $A$ and $B$ (of integers) of lengths $a$ and $b$, respectively, and a (possibly unsorted) list $C$ of $m$ sets of total length $\alpha$. Using standard implementations, we assume in the runtime analysis that
- finding (and possibly deleting) a given element $x$ inside $C$ has runtime ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha)$,
- deleting all duplicates in $C$ has runtime ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha \cdot m)$,
- intersection $A \cap B$ and union $A \cup B$ have runtime ${\mathcal{O}}(\max(a,b))$,
- a subset check $A \subseteq B$ has runtime ${\mathcal{O}}(b)$ and
- to check whether $A$ is subset of any element in $C$ has runtime ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha)$.
Let $r+1$ be the number of elements in a longest chain in ${\mathcal{P}}$, let $m = |\text{{{\tt coatoms}}}|$, $n = |\text{{{\tt atoms}}}|$, and let $$\alpha = \sum_{a \in \text{{{\tt coatoms}}}\cup \text{{{\tt ignored\_sets}}}} |a \cup\text{{{\tt ignored\_atoms}}}|.$$ (In the case that [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} and [[ignored\_atoms]{}]{} are both empty, $\alpha$ is the total number of atom-coatom incidences.) Moreover, let $\varphi$ be the number of recursive calls of the algorithm. (In the case that [[ignored\_atoms]{}]{} is empty, $\varphi$ is the cardinality of ${\mathcal{P}}$. Otherwise, it is bounded by this cardinality.)
\[thm:runtime\_algorithm\] The algorithm has memory consumption ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha \cdot r)$ and runtime ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha \cdot m \cdot \varphi)$.
Note first that at each recursive call of **FaceIterator** the number of [[coatoms]{}]{} is bounded by $m$ and the total length of [[coatoms]{}]{}, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} and [[ignored\_atoms]{}]{} is bounded each by $\alpha$. With above assumptions, **FaceIterator** has runtime ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha \cdot m)$ not considering recursive calls.
A single call of **FaceIterator** has memory usage at most $c \cdot \alpha$ for a global constant $c$, not taking into account the recursive calls. The call in line \[line:visit\_next\] does not need extra memory as all old variables can be discarded. The longest chain of the lattice $[0,\text{{{\tt a}}}]$ is at most of length $r-1$. By induction the call of **FaceIterator** in line \[line:visit\_below\] has total memory consumption at most $(r-1) \cdot c \cdot \alpha$. The claimed bounds follow.
Computing all cover relations {#sec:covers}
-----------------------------
Applying the algorithm to a graded locally branched meet semi-sublattice of $B_n$ while keeping track of the recursion depth allows an a posteriori sorting of the output by the level sets of the grading. The recursion depth is the number of iterative calls using line \[line:visit\_below\]. We obtain the same bound for generating all cover relations as V. Kaibel and M. E. Pfetsch [@Kaibel2002]. For this we additionally assume that
- a list of $\varphi$ sets each of length at most $n$ can be sorted in time ${\mathcal{O}}(n \cdot \varphi \cdot \log \varphi)$ and
- a set with $a$ elements can be looked up in a sorted list of $\varphi$ sets in time ${\mathcal{O}}(a \cdot \log \varphi)$.
\[prop:all\_cover\_relations\] Let ${\mathcal{P}}$ be a graded meet sublattice of ${\mathcal{B}}_n$. Assume each level set of ${\mathcal{P}}$ to be given as *sorted-lists-of-atoms*, one can generate all cover relations in time ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha \cdot \min(m,n) \cdot \varphi)$ with quantities as defined above using the above algorithm.
Observe that in the situation of this proposition, [[ignored\_sets]{}]{} and [[ignored\_atoms]{}]{} are both empty and in particular $\alpha$ is the total length of the coatoms.
First, we sort all level-sets. Then, we intersect each element with each coatom, obtaining its lower covers and possibly other elements. We look up each intersection to determine the lower covers.
Sorting the level sets is done in time ${\mathcal{O}}(n \cdot \varphi \cdot \log \varphi)$. All such intersection are obtained in time ${\mathcal{O}}(\varphi \cdot m \cdot n)$. For a fixed element the total length of its intersections with all coatoms is bounded by $\alpha$. Hence, all lookups are done in time ${\mathcal{O}}(\varphi \cdot \alpha \cdot \log \varphi)$.
Finally, we note that $m,n \leq \alpha$ and that $\log \varphi \leq \min(m,n)$.
In the ungraded case, one first sorts all elements in ${\mathcal{P}}$, and then intersects each element $p$ with all coatoms. The inclusion maximal elements among those strictly below $p$ are lower covers of $p$. They can be looked up in the list of sorted elements to obtain an index. Observe that all this is done time ${\mathcal{O}}(\alpha \cdot m \cdot \varphi)$.
Performance of the algorithm implemented in [`SageMath`]{} {#sec:performance}
==========================================================
We present running times for the several computations. These are performed on an Intel$^\text{\tiny{\textregistered}}$ Core i7-7700 CPU @ 3.60GHz x86\_64-processor with 4 cores and 30 GB of RAM. The computations are done either using
- [`polymake`]{} `3.3` [@polymake:2000], or
- [`normaliz`]{} `3.7.2` [@Normaliz], or
- the presented algorithm in [`sage-8.9`]{}, or
- the presented algorithm in [`sage-8.9`]{} with additional parallelization, intrinsics, and subsequent improvements[^4]
The default algorithms in [`SageMath`]{} before version [`sage-8.9`]{} performs much worse than either of these and is not considered here. Given the vertex-facet incidences, we computed
\] table\[x=polymake,y=cover,col sep=comma\] [data.csv]{}; table\[x=polymake,y=new,col sep=comma\] [data.csv]{}; table\[x=polymake,y=newparallel,col sep=comma\] [data.csv]{}; ; ; ; ; ; ;
\] table\[x=normaliz,y=new,col sep=comma\] [data.csv]{}; table\[x=normaliz,y=newparallel,col sep=comma\] [data.csv]{}; ; ; ; ; ; ;
1. \[it:comp1\] cover relations and $f$-vector in [`polymake`]{},
2. \[it:comp6\] $f$-vector in [`normaliz`]{} *with* parallelization,
3. \[it:comp4\] $f$-vector with the presented implementation in [`SageMath`]{},
4. \[it:comp3\] all cover relations with the presented implementation in [`SageMath`]{},
5. \[it:comp5\] $f$-vector with the presented implementation in [`SageMath`]{} *with* parallelization, intrinsics and additional improvements.
We remark that
- the computation of the $f$-vector in \[it:comp1\] also calculates all cover relations,
- [`polymake`]{} also provides a different algorithm to compute the $f$-vector from the $h$-vector for simplicial/simple polytopes (providing this additional information sometimes improves the performance in [`polymake`]{}), and
- [`normaliz`]{} does not provide an algorithm to compute the cover relations.
For every algorithm we record the best-of-five computation on
- the simplex of dimension $n$,
- several instances of the cyclic polyhedron of dimension $10$ and $20$,
- the associahedron of dimension $n$,
- the permutahedron of dimension $n$ embedded in dimension $n+1$,
- a $20$-dimensional counterexample to the Hirsch-conjecture,
- the cross-polytope of dimension $n$,
- the Birkhoff-polytope of dimension $(n-1)^2$,
- joins of such polytopes with their duals,
- Lawrence polytopes of such polytopes,
and refer to for the detailed runtimes.
Application of the algorithm to Wilf’s conjecture {#sec:wilf}
=================================================
W. Bruns, P. García-Sánchez, C. O’Neill and D. Wilburne provided an algorithm that verifies Wilf’s conjecture for a given fixed multiplicity [@Bruns]. We give a brief overview of their approach:
A [*numerical semigroup*]{} is a set $S \subset {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq{0}}$ containing $0$ that is closed under addition and has finite complement.
- Its [*conductor*]{} $c(S)$ is the smallest integer $c$ such that $c + {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0} \subseteq S$.
- Its [*sporadic elements*]{} are the elements $a \in S$ with $a < c(S)$ and let $n(S)$ be the number of sporadic elements.
- The [*embedding dimension*]{} $e(S) = |S \setminus (S+S)|$ is the number of elements that cannot be written as sum of two elements.
- The [*multiplicity*]{} $m(S)$ is the minimal nonzero element in $S$.
For any numerical semigroup $S$, $$c(S) \leq e(S)n(S).$$
For fixed mulitplicity $m$ one can analyse certain polyhedra to verify this conjecture.
Fix an integer $m\geq 3$. The [*relaxed Kunz polyhedron*]{} is the set $P'_m$ of rational points $(x_1,\dots,x_{m-1}) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m-1}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
x_i + x_j \geq x_{i+j} \qquad 1 \leq i \leq j \leq m-1, \quad i +j < m,\\
x_i + x_j + 1\geq x_{i+j} \qquad 1 \leq i \leq j \leq m-1,\quad i +j > m,
\end{aligned}$$ The [*Kunz cone*]{} is the set $C_m$ of points $(x_1,\dots,x_{m-1}) \in {\mathbb{R}}^{m-1}$ satisfying $$x_i + x_j \geq x_{i+j} \qquad 1 \leq i \leq j \leq m-1, \quad i +j \neq m.$$ (All indices in this definition are taken modulo $m$.)
Let $F$ be a face of $P'_m$ or $C_m$. Denote by $e(F) - 1$ and $t(F)$ the number of variables not appearing on the right and left hand sides resp. of any defining equations of $F$.
The Kunz cone is a translation of the relaxed Kunz polyhedron. $e(F)$ and $t(F)$ are invariants of this translation.
Every numerical semigroup $S$ of multiplicty $m$ corresponds to a (all-)positive lattice point in $P'_m$. If the point corresponding to $S$ lies in the interior of some face $F \subseteq P'_m$, then $e(F) = e(S)$ and $t(F) = t(S)$, see [@Bruns Thm. 3.10 & Cor. 3.11]. The following proposition summarizes the approach by which we can check for bad faces:
\[prop:checkbad\] There exists a numerical semigroup $S$ with multiplicity $m$ that violates Wilf’s conjecture if and only if there exists a face $F$ of $P'_m$ with positive integer point $(x_1,\dots, x_{m-1}) \in F^\circ$ and $f \in [1,m-1]$ such that $$mx_i +i \leq mx_f + f \quad \text{for every $i \neq f$}$$ and $$mx_f + f - m + 1 > e(F)\cdot\big(mx_f + f - m - (x_1 + \dots, + x_{m-1}) + 1\big).$$
A face $F$ of $P'_m$ is [*Wilf*]{} if no interior point corresponds to a violation of Wilf’s conjecture. A face $F$ of $C_m$ is [*Wilf*]{}, if the corresponding face in $P'_m$ is Wilf.
\[prop:badfaces\] Let $F$ be a face of $P'_m$ or $C_m$.
- If $e(F) > t(F)$, then $F$ is Wilf.
- If $2e(F) \geq m$, then $F$ is Wilf.
Checking Wilf’s conjecture for fixed multiplicity $m$ can be done as follows:
1. For each face $F$ in $C_m$ check if holds.
2. If does not hold, check with if the translated face in $P'_m$ contains a point corresponding to a counterexample of the Wilf’s conjecture.
We say that a face $F$ of $C_m$ is [*bad*]{} if does not hold. The group of units $({\mathbb{Z}}/m{\mathbb{Z}})^\times$ acts on ${\mathbb{R}}^{m-1}$ by multiplying indices. The advantage of the Kunz cone over the (relaxed) Kunz polyhedron is that it is symmetric with respect to this action. Even more, $e(F)$ and $t(F)$ are invariant under this action. Thus in order to determine the bad faces, it suffices to determine for one representative of its orbit, if it is bad. We say that an orbit is [*bad*]{}, if all its faces are bad.
While [@Bruns] uses a modified algorithm of [`normaliz`]{} to determine all bad orbits, we replace this by the presented algorithm. To use the symmetry of $C_m$, after visiting a facet $F$, we mark all facets in the orbit of $F$ as visited.
We visit of each orbit at least one face. By sorting the facets by orbits and some lexicographic ordering of the facet-indices, we can even guarantee that we will visit the first element of each orbit.
Now, we are in a situation to apply the presented algorithm to Wilf’s conjecture. The concrete implementation is available in [`SageMath`]{}[^5].In the following table we compare the runtimes of computing the bad orbits:
m \# bad orbits [`normaliz`]{} [`SageMath`]{}
---- --------------- ---------------- ----------------
15 180,464 3:33 m 7 s
16 399,380 54:39 m 1:14 m
17 3,186,147 19:35 h 16:55 m
18 17,345,725 27:13 d 16:22 h
19 100,904,233 14:22 d
These are performed on an Intel$^\text{\tiny{\textregistered}}$ Xeon CPU E7-4830 @ 2.20GHz with a total of 1 TB of RAM and 40 cores. We used 40 threads and about 200 GB of RAM. The timings in [@Bruns] used only 32 threads and a slightly slower machine.
While testing all bad faces takes a significant amount of time, recent work by S. Eliahou has simplified this task.
Let $S$ be a numerical semigroup with multiplicity $m$. If $3e(S) \geq m$ then $S$ satisfies Wilf’s conjecture.
Checking the remaining orbits can be done quickly (we used an Intel$^\text{\tiny{\textregistered}}$ Core i7-7700 CPU @ 3.60GHz x86\_64-processor with 4 cores). For each of the orbits with $3e < m$, we have checked whether the corresponding region is empty analogously to the computation in [@Bruns]:
m \# orbits time
---- ----------- --------
15 193 1 s
16 5,669 11 s
17 7,316 31 s
18 17,233 1:54 m
19 285,684 2:22 h
This computation yields the following proposition.
Wilf’s conjecture holds for $m = 19$.
Detailed runtimes {#sec:runtimes}
=================
We give, for each of the five computations, an example of how it is executed for the $2$-simplex.
\[it:comp1\] Compute cover relations and $f$-vector in [`polymake`]{} from vertex-facet-incidences:
polytope> new Polytope(VERTICES_IN_FACETS=>
[[0,1],[0,2],[1,2]])->F_VECTOR;
\[it:comp6\] Compute $f$-vector with [`normaliz`]{}
sage: P = polytopes.simplex(2, backend='normaliz')
sage: P._nmz_result(P._normaliz_cone, 'FVector')
\[it:comp4\] Compute cover relations in [`SageMath`]{}:
sage: C = CombinatorialPolyhedron([[0,1],[0,2],[1,2]])
sage: C._compute_face_lattice_incidences()
\[it:comp3\] & \[it:comp5\] Compute $f$-vector in [`SageMath`]{}
sage: C = CombinatorialPolyhedron([[0,1],[0,2],[1,2]])
sage: C.f_vector()
For displaying the runtimes, we use the following notations:
- $\Delta_d$ for the $d$-dimensional simplex,
- ${\mathcal{C}}_{d,n}$ for the $d$-dimensional cyclic polytope with $n$ vertices,
- ${\mathcal{A}}_d$ for the $d$-dimensional associahedron,
- ${\mathcal{P}}_d$ for the $d$-dimensional permutahedron,
- ${\mathcal{H}}$ for the $20$-dimensional counterexample to the Hirsch conjecture,
- $\square_d$ for the $d$-cube,
- ${\mathcal{B}}_n$ for the $(n-1)^2$-dimensional Birkhoff polytope,
- $P^{{\operatorname{op}}}$ for the polar dual of a polytope $P$,
- $L(P)$ for the Lawrence polytope of $P$.
The runtimes of the five best-of-five computations on the various examples are as given in the following table. “MOF” indicates that the process was killed due to memory overflow, and a dash indicates a runtime of less than a second.
[^1]: J.K. receives funding by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG under Germany´s Excellence Strategy – The Berlin Mathematics Research Center MATH+ (EXC-2046/1, project ID: 390685689). C.S. is supported by the DFG Heisenberg grant STU 563/4-1 “Noncrossing phenomena in Algebra and Geometry”.
[^2]: See <https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/26887>, merged into [`SageMath`]{} version [`sage-8.9`]{}.
[^3]: See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iterator>.
[^4]: The presented algorithm can be parallelized easily by altering the loop call in line \[line:loop\] on page in . The implementation using bitwise operations also allows to use instructions for intrinsics such as *Advanced Vector Extensions*. This results in a runtime improvement of at least a factor $2$. Also, the subset check has been improved since [`sage-8.9`]{}. All these improvements will be made available in [`SageMath`]{}, see <https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/28893> and <https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/27103>.
[^5]: See <https://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/tree/?h=u/gh-kliem/KunzConeWriteBadFaces>.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper we consider the nonlinear Choquard equation $$-\Delta u+V(x)u
=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{G(y,u)}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy\right)g(x,u)\hspace{4.14mm}\mbox{in}\hspace{1.14mm} \mathbb{R}^N,$$ where $0<\mu<N$, $N\geq3$, $g(x,u)$ is of critical growth due to the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality and $G(x,u)=\displaystyle\int^u_0g(x,s)ds$. Firstly, by assuming that the potential $V(x)$ might be sign-changing, we study the existence of Mountain-Pass solution via a concentration-compactness principle for the Choquard equation. Secondly, under the conditions introduced by Benci and Cerami [@BC1], we also study the existence of high energy solution by using a global compactness lemma for the nonlocal Choquard equation.
address:
- 'Fashun Gao, Department of Mathematics, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua 321004, People’s Republic of China'
- 'Edcarlos D. da Silva, IME ¨C Universidade Federal de Goiás, 74001-970, Goiania, GO, Brazil'
- 'Minbo Yang, Department of Mathematics, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua 321004, People’s Republic of China'
- 'Jiazheng Zhou,Universidade de Brasília, Departamento de Matemática, 70910-900, BrasíliaDF, Brazil'
author:
- Fashun Gao
- 'Edcarlos D. da Silva'
- 'Minbo Yang$^*$'
- Jiazheng Zhou
title: Existence of solutions for critical Choquard equations via the concentration compactness method
---
[^1]
Introduction and main results
=============================
The nonlinear Choquard equation $$\label{Nonlocal.S1}
-\Delta u+ V(x)u=\big(|x|^{-\mu}\ast |u|^{q}\big)|u|^{q-2}u,\hspace{4.14mm} \mbox{in}\ \mathbb{R}^N$$ arises in various fields of mathematical physics, such as the description of the quantum theory of a polaron at rest by S. Pekar in 1954 [@Ps] and the modeling of an electron trapped in its own hole in 1976 in the work of P. Choquard, as a certain approximation to Hartree-Fock theory of one-component plasma [@L1] The equation is also known as the Schrödinger-Newton equation [@Pe], since the convolution part might be treated as a coupling with a Newton equation.
Mathematically, Lieb [@L1] proved the existence and uniqueness, up to translations, of the ground state for with $\mu=1$, $q=2$ and $V$ is a positive constant and Lions [@Ls] showed the existence of a sequence of radially symmetric solutions by variational methods. In the last decades, a great deal of mathematical efforts has been devoted to the study of existence, multiplicity and properties of the solutions of the nonlinear Choquard equation . In [@CCS1; @MZ; @MS1], the authors showed the regularity, positivity and radial symmetry of the ground states and derived decay property at infinity as well. Moroz and Van Schaftingen also considered in [@MS3] the existence of ground states under the assumption of Berestycki-Lions type. If the periodic potential $V(x)$ changes sign and $0$ lies in the gap of the spectrum of $-\Delta +V$, then the energy functional associated to the problem is strongly indefinite indeed. For this case, the existence of solution for $p=2$ was considered in [@BJS]. Later Ackermann [@AC] proposed a new approach to prove the existence of infinitely many geometrically distinct weak solutions. If the nonlinear Choquard equation is equipped with deepening potential well of the form $\lambda a(x)+1$ where $a(x)$ is a nonnegative continuous function such that $\Omega =$ int $(a^{-1}(0))$ is a non-empty bounded open set with smooth boundary, in [@ANY] the authors studied the existence and multiplicity of multi-bump shaped solution. The existence and concentration behavior of solutions for the singularly perturbed subcritical Choquard equation(Semiclassical Problems) have been considered in [@AY1; @AY2; @ACTY; @AGSY; @CCS; @MS4; @WW], Wei and Winter [@WW] constructed families of solutions by a Lyapunov-Schmidt type reduction. Cingolani et.al.[@CCS] showed that there exists a family of solutions having multiple concentration regions which are located around the minimum points of the potential. Moroz and Van Schaftingen [@MS4] developed a nonlocal penalization technique and showed the existence of a family of solutions concentrating around the local minimum of $V$. In [@AY1; @AY2], Alves and Yang proved the existence, multiplicity and concentration of solutions for the equation by penalization method and Lusternik-Schnirelmann theory.
To consider the nonlocal elliptic equation involving Riesz type potential, it is necessary to recall the well–known Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality.
\[HLS\] (Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality). (See [@LL].) Let $t,r>1$ and $0<\mu<N$ with $1/t+\mu/N+1/r=2$, $f\in L^{t}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ and $h\in L^{r}(\mathbb{R}^N)$. There exists a sharp constant $C(t,N,\mu,r)$, independent of $f,h$, such that $$\label{HLS1}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\frac{f(x)h(y)}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\leq C(t,N,\mu,r) |f|_{t}|h|_{r},$$ where $|\cdot|_{q}$ for the $L^{q}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$-norm for $q\in[1,\infty]$. If $t=r=2N/(2N-\mu)$, then $$C(t,N,\mu,r)=C(N,\mu)=\pi^{\frac{\mu}{2}}\frac{\Gamma(\frac{N}{2}-\frac{\mu}{2})}{\Gamma(N-\frac{\mu}{2})}\left\{\frac{\Gamma(\frac{N}{2})}{\Gamma(N)}\right\}^{-1+\frac{\mu}{N}}.$$ In this case there is equality in if and only if $f\equiv Ch$ and $$h(x)=A(\gamma^{2}+|x-a|^{2})^{-(2N-\mu)/2}$$ for some $A\in \mathbb{C}$, $0\neq\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$ and $a\in \mathbb{R}^{N}$.
Let $H^{1}({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ be the usual Sobolev spaces with norm $$\|u\|_{H^1}:=\left(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}(|\nabla u|^2+ |u|^2)dx\right)^{1/2},$$ $D^{1,2}({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ be equipped with norm $$\|u\|:=\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}|\nabla u|^{2}dx\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$ and $L^s({\mathbb{R}}^N)$, $1 \leq s \leq \infty$, denotes the Lebesgue space with norms $$\begin{gathered}
| u |_s:=\Big(\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}|u|^sdx\Big)^{1/s}.\end{gathered}$$ By the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality, for every $u\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$, the integral $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\frac{|u(x)|^{q}|u(y)|^{q}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy$$ is well defined if $$\frac{2N-\mu}{N}\leq q\leq\frac{2N-\mu}{N-2}.$$ Due to this fact, it is quite natural to call $\frac{2N-\mu}{N}$ the lower critical exponent and $2_{\mu}^{\ast}=\frac{2N-\mu}{N-2}$ the upper critical exponent. In [@MS2; @DSZ], the authors considered the nonlinear Choquard equation in ${\mathbb{R}}^N$ with lower critical exponent $\frac{2N-\mu}{N}$ and obtained some existence and nonexistence results. In order to study the critical nonlocal equation with upper critical exponent $2_{\mu}^{\ast}$, let $S$ be the best Sobolev constant defined by: $$S|u|^2_{2^*}\leq \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}|\nabla u|^2dx \ \ \ \hbox{for all $u\in
D^{1,2}({\mathbb{R}}^N)$},$$we will use $S_{H,L}$ to denote the best constant defined by $$\label{S1}
S_{H,L}:=\displaystyle\inf\limits_{u\in D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)\backslash\{{0}\}}\ \ \frac{\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla u|^{2}dx}{\left(\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|u(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\right)^{\frac{N-2}{2N-\mu}}}.$$ In [@GY] it was observed that
\[ExFu\] (See [@GY].) The constant $S_{H,L}$ defined in is achieved if and only if $$u=C\left(\frac{b}{b^{2}+|x-a|^{2}}\right)^{\frac{N-2}{2}} ,$$ where $C>0$ is a fixed constant, $a\in \mathbb{R}^{N}$ and $b\in(0,\infty)$ are parameters. What’s more, $$S_{H,L}=\frac{S}{C(N,\mu)^{\frac{N-2}{2N-\mu}}},$$ where $S$ is the best Sobolev constant and $C(N,\mu)$ is given in Proposition \[HLS\].
Denote $\widetilde{U}_{\delta,z}(x):=\frac{[N(N-2)\delta]^{\frac{N-2}{4}}}{(\delta+|x-z|^{2})^{\frac{N-2}{2}}}$, $\delta>0$, $z\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$. We know that $\widetilde{U}_{\delta,z}$ is a minimizer for $S$ [@Wi] and $$\label{REL}
\aligned
U_{\delta,z}(x):=C(N,\mu)^{\frac{2-N}{2(N-\mu+2)}}S^{\frac{(N-\mu)(2-N)}{4(N-\mu+2)}}\widetilde{U}_{\delta,z}(x)
\endaligned$$ is the unique minimizer for $S_{H,L}$ that satisfies $$\label{CCE1}
-\Delta u
=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy\right)|u|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}-2}u\hspace{4.14mm}\mbox{in}\hspace{1.14mm} \mathbb{R}^N$$ and $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla U_{\delta,z}|^{2}dx=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|U_{\delta,z}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}
|U_{\delta,z}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy=S_{H,L}^{\frac{2N-\mu}{N-\mu+2}}.$$ In [@GY; @GYm] the authors considered the Brézis-Nirenberg type problem $$\label{CCE}
-\Delta u
=\left(\int_{\Omega}\frac{|u(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy\right)|u|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}-2}u+\lambda u\hspace{4.14mm}\mbox{in}\hspace{1.14mm} \Omega$$ and established the existence, multiplicity and nonexistence of solutions for the nonlinear Choquard equation in bounded domain. It is observed in [@GSY] that equation can regarded as a limit problem for a critical Choquard equation with deepening potential well, there the existence and asymptotic behavior of the solutions were investigated. In [@AGSY], by investigating the ground states of the critical Choquard equation with constant coefficients, the authors studied the semiclassical limit problem for the singularly perturbed Choquard equation in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ and characterized the concentration behavior by variational methods. The upper critical case with general nonlinearity was studied in [@CZ]. The planar case was considered in [@ACTY], there the authors established the existence of ground state for the limit problem with critical exponential growth which complemented those results for local case, and then they also studied the concentration around the global minimum set. Gao and Yang in [@GY3] investigated the existence result for the strongly indefinite Choquard equation with upper critical exponent in the whole space.
In works [@AGSY; @ACTY; @GY3], the method developed by Brezis and Nirenberg has been successfully adopt to study the Choquard equation with upper critical exponents. There the authors are able to prove the existence results by showing that the minmiax value was below some critical criteria where the $(PS)$ condition still holds. In the present paper we continue to study the Choquard equation with upper critical exponents, but with different types of potential functions. We will see that the arguments in [@AGSY; @ACTY; @GY3] does not apply for these new situations any longer.
On one hand we are going yo study the critical Choquard equation with subcritical perturbation and potential functions might change sign $$\label{CCe1}
\displaystyle-\Delta u+V(x)u
=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}+|u(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy\right)
\Big(|u|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}-2}u+ \frac{p}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u|^{p-2}u\Big)\hspace{4.14mm}\mbox{in}\hspace{1.14mm} {\mathbb{R}}^{N},$$ where $N\geq3$, $0<\mu<N$, $(2N-\mu)/N<p<(2N-\mu)/(N-2)$ and $2_{\mu}^{\ast}=(2N-\mu)/(N-2)$ is the upper critical exponent in the sense of the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality. To obtain the existence result we are going to prove that the lack of compactness was recovered by using the concentration compactness principle. Following [@Z], we will assume that the functions $V(x)$ satisfies the following condition:
$(V)$ There exists $\tau_{0}> 0$ such that the set $\Omega_{\tau_{0}}=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^N:V(x)\leq\tau_{0}\}$ has the finite Lebesgue measure. Moreover, $V\in L_{loc}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)\cap L^{\frac{N}{2}}({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ and there holds $$V_{0}:=|V_{-}(x)|_{L^{N/2}}<S,$$ where $S$ is the best Sobolev constant and $V_{-}=\max\{-V(x),0\}$.
We can draw the following conclusion.
\[EX1\] Suppose that assumption $(V)$ holds, $N\geq3$, $0<\mu<N$ and $(2N-\mu)/N<p<(2N-\mu)/(N-2)$. Then admits a nontrivial solution.
On the other hand, we are interested in the existence of high energy solution for the critical Choquard equation. In the famous paper [@BC1], Benci and Cerami considered the following problem $$\label{local.S1}
-\Delta u+V(x)u=|u|^{2^{\ast}-2}u,\hspace{4.14mm} \mbox{in}\ \mathbb{R}^N,$$ where the potential $V(x)$ satisfies $(V_1)$, $(V_2)$ below and $(V_3')$ $$|V(x)|_{L^{N/2}}<S(2^{\frac{2}{N}}-1).$$ They developed some global compactness lemma and proved that the problem has at least one positive high energy solution. Here we are quite interested if the same result still holds for the nonlocal Choquard equation $$\label{CE2}
\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle-\Delta u+ V(x)u
=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy\right)
|u|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}-2}u\hspace{4.14mm}\mbox{in}\hspace{1.14mm} \mathbb{R}^N,\\
\displaystyle u\in D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N),\hspace{10.6mm}
\end{array}
\right.$$ here $0<\mu<N$, $N\geq3$, $2_{\mu}^{\ast}=(2N-\mu)/(N-2)$ and the potential $V$ satisfies the assumptions
$(V_1)$ $V\in \mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}^N,\mathbb{R})$, $V\geq\nu>0$ in a neighborhood of 0.
$(V_2)$ $\exists p_{1}<\frac{N}{2},p_{2}>\frac{N}{2}$ and for $N=3$, $p_{2}<3$, such that $$V(x)\in L^{p},\ \ \ \forall p\in[p_{1},p_{2}].$$
$(V_3)$ $$|V(x)|_{L^{N/2}}<C(N,\mu)^{\frac{N-2}{2N-\mu}}S_{H,L}(2^{\frac{N+2-\mu}{2N-\mu}}-1),$$ where $S_{H,L}$ is defined in and $C(N,\mu)$ is given in Proposition \[HLS\]. Under these assumptions, we have
\[EXS\] Suppose that assumptions $(V_1)$, $(V_2)$ and $(V_3)$ hold, $0<\mu<\min\{4,N\}$ and $N\geq3$. Then equation has at least one nontrivial solution $u$.
An outline of this paper is as follow: In Section 2, we prove a version of Concentration-Compactness principle for the nonlocal type problem which complements the results in [@Ls1; @BCS; @BTW]. After that we can use the compactness lemma to prove that the $(PS)$ condition still holds below some criteria level and obtain the existence of solutions by Mountain-Pass Theorem. In Section 3, we prove a version of global compactness lemma for the nonlocal Choquard equation and then we show the existence of high energy solution for following the linking arguments in [@BC1].
Mountain-Pass solution
======================
In this section we will study the existence of solutions for equation under assumption $(V)$. To prove the existence of solutions by variational methods, we introduce the Hilbert spaces $$E:=\left\{u\in H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N): \, \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}V_{+}(x)u^2dx<\infty\right\}$$ with inner products $$(u, v):=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\big(\nabla u\nabla v+V_{+}(x)uv\big)dx$$ and the associated norms $$\|u\|^2_V=(u,u).$$ Obviously, $E$ embeds continuously in $H^1({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ (see [@DL]). Moreover,
(\[[@Z], Lemma 2.3\])\[F0\] There exist $C_1,C_2 > 0$ depending only on the structural constants such that $$\label{p0}
C_1\|u\|_{H^{1}}^{2}\leq C_2\|u\|_{V}^{2}\leq\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}(|\nabla u|^{2}+V(x)|u|^{2})dx\leq\|u\|_{V}^{2}, \ u\in E.$$
Denote $$\|u\|_{NL}:=\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\right)^{\frac{1}{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}},$$ the following splitting Lemma was proved in Lemma 2.2 of [@GY].
\[BLN\]Let $N\geq3$ and $0<\mu<N$. If $\{u_{n}\}$ is a bounded sequence in $L^{\frac{2N}{N-2}}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ such that $u_{n}\rightarrow u$ almost everywhere in $\mathbb{R}^N$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$, then the following hold, $$\|u_{n}\|_{NL}^{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}
-\|u_{n}-u\|_{NL}^{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\rightarrow\|u\|_{NL}^{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}$$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
To study the problem variationally, we introduce the energy functional associated to equation by $$J(u)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}(|\nabla u|^{2}+V(x)|u|^{2})dx-\frac{1}{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{(|u(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}+|u(x)|^{p})(|u(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}+|u(y)|^{p})}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy.$$ The Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality implies that $J$ is well defined on $E$ and belongs to $\mathcal{C}^{1}$ with $$\aligned
\langle J'(u),\varphi\rangle=&\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}(\nabla u\nabla\varphi+V(x)u\varphi)dx\\
&-\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{(|u(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}+|u(x)|^{p})(|u(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}-2}u(y)\varphi(y)
+\frac{p}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u(y)|^{p-2}u(y)\varphi(y))}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy.
\endaligned$$ So $u$ is a weak solution of if and only if $u$ is a critical point of the functional $J$.
Concentration-compactness principle
-----------------------------------
To describe the lack of compactness of the injection from $D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ to $L^{2^*}(\mathbb{R}^N)$, P.L. Lions established the well known Concentration-compactness principles [@Ls1; @Ls2; @Ls3; @Ls4]. Here we would like to recall the second concentration-compactness principle [@Ls1] for the convenience of the readers.
\[Concentration-compactness principle\] Let $\{u_{n}\}$ be a bounded sequence in $D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ converging weakly and a.e. to some $u_0\in D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$. $|\nabla u_{n}|^{2}\rightharpoonup \omega$, $|u_{n}|^{2^*}\rightharpoonup \zeta$ weakly in the sense of measures where $\omega$ and $\zeta$ are bounded non-negative measures on $\mathbb{R}^N$. Then we have:\
(1) there exists some at most countable set $I$, a family $\{z_i:i\in I\}$ of distinct points in $\mathbb{R}^N$, and a family $\{\zeta_i:i\in I\}$ of positive numbers such that $$\zeta=|u_0|^{2^*}+\sum_{i\in I}\zeta_i\delta_{z_i},$$ where $\delta_{x}$ is the Dirac-mass of mass 1 concentrated at $x\in\mathbb{R}^N$.\
(2) In addition we have $$\omega\geq|\nabla u_0|^{2}+\sum_{i\in I}\omega_i\delta_{z_i}$$ for some family $\{\omega_i:i\in I\}$, $\omega_i>0$ satisfying $$S\zeta_i^{\frac{2}{2^*}}\leq\omega_i,\ \ \mbox{for all } i\in I.$$ In particular, $\sum_{i\in I}\zeta_i^{\frac{2}{2^*}}<\infty$.
The second concentration-compactness principle, roughly speaking, is only concerned with a possible concentration of a weakly convergent sequence at finite points and it does not provide any information about the loss of mass of a sequence at infinity. The following concentration-compactness principle at infinity was developed by Chabrowski[@C], J. Bianchi, Chabrowski, Szulkin [@BCS], Ben-Naoum, Troestler, Willem [@BTW] which provided some quantitative information about the loss of mass of a sequence at infinity.
\[Concentration-compactness principle2\] Let $\{u_{n}\}\subset D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ be a sequence in Lemma \[Concentration-compactness principle\] and define $$\omega_{\infty}:=\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{|x|\geq R}|\nabla u_{n}|^{2}dx,\ \ \
\zeta_{\infty}:=\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{|x|\geq R}| u_{n}|^{2^{\ast}}dx.$$ Then it follows that $$S\zeta_{\infty}^{\frac{2}{2^{\ast}}}\leq \omega_{\infty},$$ $$\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}|\nabla u_{n}|_{2}^{2}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}d\omega+\omega_{\infty},$$ $$\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}|u_{n}|_{2^{\ast}}^{2^{\ast}}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}d\zeta+\zeta_{\infty}.$$
The concentration-compactness principles [@Ls1; @Ls2; @Ls3; @Ls4] help not only to investigate the behavior of the weakly convergent sequences in Sobolev spaces where the lack of compactness occurs either due to the appearance of a critical Sobolev exponent or due to the unboundedness of a domain and but also to find level sets of a given variational functional for which the Palais-Smale condition holds. It was mentioned in the famous paper by P.L. Lions [@Ls1] that the limit embeddings $$\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\right)^{\frac{1}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}\leq C_0\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla u|^{2}dx$$ also cause the concentration of a weakly convergent sequence at finite points and the results in Lemma \[Concentration-compactness principle\] holds with $|u_n|^{2^{\ast}}$ replaced by $$|u_n|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy.$$ Moreover, a version of concentration-compactness principle corresponding to Lemma \[Concentration-compactness principle\] was established in [@Ls2] to study the minimizing problem associated to the attainability of the best constant in the Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev inequality of the form $$|\frac{1}{|x|^{\mu}}\ast u|_q\leq C_0 |u|_p$$ for some $C_0$ depending on $N, \mu, q, p$ where $0<\mu< N$ and $p, q$ satisfy $$\frac1p+\frac{\mu}{n}=1+\frac1q.$$
In the present paper we are interested in the existence of solutions for the critical Choquard equation due to the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality. Since the lack of compactness also occurs when people considers the critical Choquard equation in unbounded domain, it is quite natural for people to turn to a possible use of the second concentration-compactness principle involving the convolution type nonlinearities. However, to the best knowledge of the authors, there seems no such existing lemmas that describe the possible concentration of a weakly convergent sequence both at finite points and at infinity. And there also seems no application of such a second concentration-compactness principle in studying the critical Choquard equation. Although the main idea is taken from [@Ls1; @Ls2], we would like to give a proof of it for readers’s convenience.
\[CCP1\] Let $\{u_{n}\}$ be a bounded sequence in $D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ converging weakly and a.e. to some $u_{0}$ and $\omega, \omega_{\infty}, \zeta, \zeta_{\infty}$ be the bounded nonnegative measures in Lemma \[Concentration-compactness principle\] and Lemma \[Concentration-compactness principle2\]. Assume that $$\Big(\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy\Big)| u_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\rightharpoonup \nu$$ weakly in the sense of measure where $\nu$ is a bounded positive measure on $\mathbb{R}^N$ and define $$\aligned
\nu_{\infty}&:=\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{|x|\geq R}\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy\Big)| u_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}dx.
\endaligned$$ Then, there exists a countable sequence of points $\{z_{i}\}_{i\in I}\subset \mathbb{R}^N $ and families of positive numbers $\{\nu_i:i\in I\}$ , $\{\zeta_i:i\in I\}$ and $\{\omega_i:i\in I\}$ such that $$\label{cp5}
\nu=\Big(\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_0(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy\Big)| u_0(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}+ \Sigma_{i\in I}\nu_{i}\delta_{z_{i}},\ \ \Sigma_{i\in I}\nu_{i}^{\frac{1}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}<\infty,$$ $$\label{cp51}
\omega\geq|\nabla u_0|^{2}+\sum_{i\in I}\omega_i\delta_{z_i},$$ $$\label{cp52}
\zeta\geq|u_0|^{2^*}+\sum_{i\in I}\zeta_i\delta_{z_i},$$ and $$\label{cp6}
\ S_{H,L}\nu_{i}^{\frac{1}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}\leq\omega_{i},\ \ \nu_{i}^{\frac{N}{2N-\mu}}\leq C(N,\mu)^{\frac{N}{2N-\mu}}\zeta_{i},$$ where $\delta_{x}$ is the Dirac-mass of mass 1 concentrated at $x\in\mathbb{R}^N$.
For the energy at infinity, we have $$\label{cp51}
\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|u_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}
dydx=\nu_{\infty}+\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}d\nu,$$ and $$\label{cp71}
C(N,\mu)^{\frac{-2N}{2N-\mu}}\nu_{\infty}^{\frac{2N}{2N-\mu}}\leq \zeta_{\infty}(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}d\zeta+\zeta_{\infty}),\ \ S_{H,L}^{2}\nu_{\infty}^{\frac{2}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}\leq \omega_{\infty}(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}d\omega+\omega_{\infty}).$$ Moreover, if $u=0$ and $\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}d\omega
=S_{H,L}\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}d\nu\right)^{\frac{1}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}$, then $\nu$ is concentrated at a single point.
Since $\{u_{n}\}$ is a bounded sequence in $D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ converging weakly to $u$, denote by $v_{n}:=u_{n}-u_0$, we have $v_{n}(x)\rightarrow0$ a.e. in $\mathbb{R}^N$ and $v_{n}$ converges weakly to $0$ in $D^{1,2}({\mathbb{R}}^N)$. Applying Lemma \[BLN\], in the sense of measure, we have
$|\nabla v_{n}|^{2}\rightharpoonup\varpi:=\omega-|\nabla u_0|^{2}$,
$\Big(\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|v_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy\Big)| v_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\rightharpoonup\kappa:=\nu-\Big(\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_0(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy\Big)| u_0(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}$
and $|v_{n}|^{2^{\ast}}\rightharpoonup\varsigma:=\zeta-|u_0|^{2^{\ast}}$.
To prove the possible concentration at finite points, we first show that $$\label{cp0}
\Big|\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}(|x|^{-\mu}\ast |\phi v_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}})| \phi v_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}dx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}(|x|^{-\mu}\ast |v_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}})|\phi (x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|\phi v_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}dx\Big|\rightarrow0,$$ where $\phi\in \mathcal{C}_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)$. In fact, we denote $$\Phi_{n}(x):=(|x|^{-\mu}\ast |\phi v_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}})|\phi v_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}-
(|x|^{-\mu}\ast | v_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}})|\phi (x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|\phi v_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}.$$ Since $\phi\in \mathcal{C}_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)$, we have for every $\delta>0$ there exists $M>0$ such that $$\label{cp00}
\int_{|x|\geq M}|\Phi_{n}(x)|dx<\delta \ \ \ (\forall n\geq1).$$ Since the Riesz potential defines a linear operator, from the fact that $v_n(x)\to 0$ a.e. in $\mathbb{R}^N$ we know that $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|v_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy\rightarrow 0$$ a.e. in $\mathbb{R}^N$ and so we have $\Phi_{n}(x)\rightarrow0$ a.e. in $\mathbb{R}^N$. Notice that $$\aligned
\Phi_{n}(x)&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{(|\phi (y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}-|\phi (x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}})|v_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy|\phi v_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\\
:&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
L(x,y)|v_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}dy|\phi v_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}.
\endaligned$$ For almost all $x$, there exists $R>0$ large enough such that $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
L(x,y)|v_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}dy
=\int_{|y|\leq R}
L(x,y)|v_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}dy
-|\phi (x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\int_{|y|\geq R}
\frac{|v_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy.$$ As observed in [@Ls2] that $L(x,y)\in L^{r}(B_{R})$ for each $x$, where $r<\frac{N}{\mu-1}$ if $\mu>1$, $r\leq+\infty$ if $0<\mu\leq1$. By the Young inequality, there exists $s>\frac{2N}{\mu}$ such that $$\Big(\int_{B_{M}}\Big(\int_{B_{R}}
L(x,y)|v_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}dy\Big)^{s}dx\Big)^{\frac{1}{s}}\leq C_{\phi}|L(x,y)|_{r}||v_{n}|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|_{\frac{2N}{2N-\mu}}\leq C_{\phi}'$$ where $M$ is given in . It is easy to see that for $R>0$ large enough $$\Big(\int_{B_{M}}\Big(
|\phi (x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\int_{|y|\geq R}
\frac{|v_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy\Big)^{s}dx\Big)^{\frac{1}{s}}\leq C$$ and so, we have $$\Big(\int_{B_{M}}\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
L(x,y)|v_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}dy\Big)^{s}dx\Big)^{\frac{1}{s}}\leq C_{\phi}''.$$ Then, we can get for $\tau>0$ small enough $$\int_{B_{M}}|\Phi_{n}(x)|^{1+\tau}dx\leq \Big(\int_{B_{M}}\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
L(x,y)|v_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}dy\Big)^{s}dx\Big)^{\frac{1}{s}}
\Big(\int_{B_{M}}|\phi v_{n}|^{2^{\ast}}dx\Big)^{\frac{2N-\mu}{2N}}\leq C_{\phi}''.$$ Combining this and $\Phi_{n}(x)\rightarrow0$ a.e. in $\mathbb{R}^N$, we can get $$\int_{B_{M}}|\Phi_{n}(x)|dx\rightarrow0 \ \ \ (n\rightarrow\infty).$$ By this and , we have $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\Phi_{n}(x)|dx\rightarrow0.$$
For all $\phi\in \mathcal{C}_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)$, by the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality, we have $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|\phi v_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}
dy\Big)|\phi v_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}dx
\leq C(N,\mu)|\phi v_{n}|_{2^{\ast}}^{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}.$$ By , we have $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\phi(x)|^{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|v_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}
dy\Big)| v_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}dx
\leq C(N,\mu)|\phi v_{n}|_{2^{\ast}}^{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}+o(1).$$ Passing to the limit as $n\rightarrow+\infty$ we obtain $$\label{cp9}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\phi(x)|^{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}d\kappa
\leq C(N,\mu)\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\phi|^{2^{\ast}}d\varsigma\Big)^{\frac{2N-\mu}{N}}.$$ Applying Lemma 1.2 in [@Ls1] we know holds.
Taking $\phi=\chi_{\{z_{i}\}}$, $i\in I$, in , we get $$\nu_{i}^{\frac{N}{2N-\mu}}\leq C(N,\mu)^{\frac{N}{2N-\mu}}\zeta_{i}, \ \forall i \in I.$$ By the definition of $S_{H,L}$, we also have $$\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|\phi v_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy\Big)| \phi v_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}dx\right)^{\frac{N-2}{2N-\mu}}
S_{H,L}\leq\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla (\phi v_{n})|^{2}dx.$$ By and $v_{n}\rightarrow0$ in $L_{loc}^{2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$, we have $$\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\phi(x)|^{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|v_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy\Big)| v_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}dx\right)^{\frac{N-2}{2N-\mu}}
S_{H,L}\leq\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\phi^{2}|\nabla v_{n}|^{2}dx+o(1).$$ Passing to the limit as $n\rightarrow+\infty$ we obtain $$\label{cp8}
\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\phi(x)|^{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}d\kappa\right)^{\frac{N-2}{2N-\mu}}
S_{H,L}\leq\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\phi^{2}d\varpi.$$ Applying Lemma 1.2 in [@Ls1] again we know holds. Now by taking $\phi=\chi_{\{z_{i}\}}$, $i\in I$, in , we get $$S_{H,L}\nu_{i}^{\frac{1}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}\leq\omega_{i}, \ \forall i \in I.$$ Thus we proved and .
Next we are going to prove the possible loss of mass at infinity. For $R>1$, let $\psi_{R}\in \mathcal{C}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ be such that $\psi_{R}(x)=1$ for $|x|>R+1$, $\psi_{R}(x)=0$ for $|x|<R$ and $0\leq\psi_{R}(x)\leq1$ on $\mathbb{R}^N$. For every $R>1$, we have $$\aligned
&\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|v_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|v_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}
dydx\\
&=\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|u_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}
dydx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|u_0(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_0(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}
dydx\\
&=\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|u_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\psi_{R}(x)}{|x-y|^{\mu}}
dydx+\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|u_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}(1-\psi_{R}(x))}{|x-y|^{\mu}}
dydx\Big)\\
&\hspace{1cm}-\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|u_0(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_0(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}
dydx\\
&=\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|u_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\psi_{R}(x)}{|x-y|^{\mu}}
dydx+\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}(1-\psi_{R})d\nu\\
&\hspace{1cm}+\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|u_0(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_0(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}(1-\psi_{R}(x))}{|x-y|^{\mu}}
dydx-\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|u_0(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_0(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}
dydx.
\endaligned$$ When $R\rightarrow\infty$, we obtain, by Lebesgue’s theorem, $$\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|u_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}
dydx=\nu_{\infty}+\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}d\nu.$$ By the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality, we have $$\aligned
\nu_{\infty}&=\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}
\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|u_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy\Big)|\psi_{R} u_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}dx\\
&\leq C(N,\mu)\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|u_{n}|^{2^{\ast}}dx
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\psi_{R}u_{n}|^{2^{\ast}}dx\Big)^{\frac{2N-\mu}{2N}}\\
&= C(N,\mu)\Big(\zeta_{\infty}(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}d\zeta+\zeta_{\infty})\Big)^{\frac{2N-\mu}{2N}},
\endaligned$$ which means $$C(N,\mu)^{\frac{-2N}{2N-\mu}}\nu_{\infty}^{\frac{2N}{2N-\mu}}\leq \zeta_{\infty}(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}d\zeta+\zeta_{\infty}).$$ Similarly, by the definition of $S_{H,L}$ and $\nu_{\infty}$, we have $$\aligned
\nu_{\infty}&=\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}
\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|u_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy\Big)| \psi_{R}u_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}dx\\
&\leq C(N,\mu)\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|u_{n}|^{2^{\ast}}dx
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\psi_{R}u_{n}|^{2^{\ast}}dx\Big)^{\frac{2N-\mu}{2N}}\\
&\leq S_{H,L}^{-2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla u_{n}|^{2}dx
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla(\psi_{R}u_{n})|^{2}dx\Big)^{\frac{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}{2}}\\
&= S_{H,L}^{-2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\Big(\omega_{\infty}(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}d\omega+\omega_{\infty})\Big)^{\frac{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}{2}},
\endaligned$$ which means $$S_{H,L}^{2}\nu_{\infty}^{\frac{2}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}\leq \omega_{\infty}(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}d\omega+\omega_{\infty}).$$
Moreover, if $u=0$ then $\kappa=\nu$ and $\varpi=\omega$. Then the Hölder inequality and imply that, for $\phi\in \mathcal{C}_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)$, $$\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\phi(x)|^{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}d\nu\right)^{\frac{N-2}{2N-\mu}}
S_{H,L}\leq\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}d\omega\right)^{\frac{N-\mu+2}{2N-\mu}}
\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\phi^{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}d\omega\right)^{\frac{N-2}{2N-\mu}}.$$ Thus we can deduce that $\nu=S_{H,L}^{-2_{\mu}^{\ast}}
\left(\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}d\omega\right)^{\frac{N-\mu+2}{N-2}}\omega$. It follows from that, for $\phi\in \mathcal{C}_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)$, $$\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\phi(x)|^{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}d\nu\right)^{\frac{N-2}{2N-\mu}}
\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}d\nu\right)^{\frac{N-\mu+2}{2N-\mu}}\leq
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\phi|^{2}d\nu.$$ And so, for each open set $\Omega$, $$\nu(\Omega)^{\frac{N-2}{2N-\mu}}\nu(\mathbb{R}^N)^{\frac{N-\mu+2}{2N-\mu}}
\leq\nu(\Omega).$$ It follows that $\nu$ is concentrated at a single point.
Convergence of $(PS)$ sequences
-------------------------------
Let $\{u_n\}$ be a $(PS)$ sequence of $J$ at level $c$, it is easy to see that $\{u_n\}$ is bounded in $E$. Hence, without loss of generality, we may assume that $\{u_n\}$ converges weakly and a.e. to some $u_0\in E$. Then we are able to recover the lack of compactness by applying the second concentration-compactness principle to the nonlocal Choquard equation. In fact we have the following proposition which was inspired by [@Z].
\[F1\] There exists a positive number $c_0>0$ such that every $(PS)_c$ sequence $\{u_n\}$ of $J$ with $c<c_0$ satisfies $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|(u_{n}-u_{0})(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}
|(u_{n}-u_{0})(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy=0,$$ where $u_0\in E$ is the weak limit of $\{u_n\}$.
Let $\eta\in \mathcal{C}_{0}^{\infty}([0,\infty))$ be a standard cut-off function on $[0, 1]$, that is, $$\eta(t)\equiv1,\ \ t\in[0, 1];\ \ \eta(t)\equiv0,\ \ t>2;\ \
|\eta'(t)|\leq C,\ \ 0\leq\eta(t)\leq1$$ for some $C > 0$. Fix $i\in I$. For $\varepsilon> 0$, put $$\label{CUT1}
\eta_{\varepsilon}=\eta(\frac{x-z_{i}}{\varepsilon}),\ \ B=B_{2\varepsilon}(z_{i}).$$ It follows from the Hölder inequality and the Sobolev inequality that for all $\sigma\in[0,2^{\ast})$, $$\aligned
\int_{B}|u_n|^{\sigma}dx\leq|B|^{1-\frac{\sigma}{2^{\ast}}}
\Big(\int_{B}|u_n|^{2^{\ast}}dx\Big)^{\frac{\sigma}{2^{\ast}}}
\leq C|B|^{1-\frac{\sigma}{2^{\ast}}}
\Big(\int_{B}|\nabla u_n|^{2}dx\Big)^{\frac{\sigma}{2}}
=o(1), \ \hbox{as}\ \ \varepsilon\rightarrow0^{+}.
\endaligned$$ Hence, by the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality, as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^{+}$, there holds $$\label{p91}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}
|u_n(y)|^{p}\eta_{\varepsilon}(y)}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy=o(1),$$ $$\label{p92}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|^{p}
|u_n(y)|^{p}\eta_{\varepsilon}(y)}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy=o(1)$$ and $$\label{p9}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|^{p}
|u_n(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\eta_{\varepsilon}(y)}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy=o(1).$$ Using Proposition \[CCP1\], and passing to the limit by first letting $n\rightarrow\infty$ and then letting $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^{+}$, we have $$\label{p10}
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|
^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_n(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\eta_{\varepsilon}(y)}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy=\nu_{i}.$$
For $R>0$, put $$\label{CUT21}
\eta_{R}=\eta(\frac{2R}{|x|})$$ and denote $$\aligned
V_{\infty}:=\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}
&\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}V|u_{n}|^{2}\eta_{R}dx,\\
F_{\infty}:=\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}
&\Big(\frac{p}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|
^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_n(y)|^{p}\eta_{R}(y)}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\\
&\hspace{4mm}+\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|
^{p}|u_n(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\eta_{R}(y)}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\\
&\hspace{8mm}+\frac{p}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|
^{p}|u_n(y)|^{p}\eta_{R}(y)}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\Big).
\endaligned$$ Multiplying $J'(u_n)$ with the test function $u_n\eta_{R}$, we obtain by the definition of $
\omega_{\infty},
\nu_{\infty}$ that $$\label{p13}
\omega_{\infty}+V_{\infty}=\nu_{\infty}+F_{\infty}.$$
It follows that $$\label{p19}
\aligned
c+o(1)&=J(u_n)-\frac{1}{2}\langle J'(u_n),u_n\rangle\\
&=\frac{p+2_{\mu}^{\ast}-2}{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|
^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_n(y)|^{p}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy
+\frac{p-1}{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|
^{p}|u_n(y)|^{p}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\\
&\hspace{0.5cm}+\frac{N+2-\mu}{4N-2\mu}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|
^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_n(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\\
&\geq\alpha'\Big[\Big(\frac{p}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}+1\Big)\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|
^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_n(y)|^{p}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy
+\frac{p}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|
^{p}|u_n(y)|^{p}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\Big]\\
&\hspace{0.5cm}+\frac{N+2-\mu}{4N-2\mu}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|
^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_n(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\\
&\geq\alpha'F_{\infty}
+\frac{N+2-\mu}{4N-2\mu}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_0(x)|
^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_0(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy
+\frac{N+2-\mu}{4N-2\mu}(\nu_{\infty}+\sum_{i\in I}\nu_{i})+o(1)\\
&\geq\frac{N+2-\mu}{4N-2\mu}\sum_{i\in I}\nu_{i}+\alpha'(\nu_{\infty}+F_{\infty})+o(1)\\
&\geq\frac{N+2-\mu}{4N-2\mu}\sum_{i\in I}\nu_{i}+\alpha'\omega_{\infty}+o(1)
\endaligned$$ for some $0<\alpha'<\frac{p-1}{2p}$, where we have used Lemma \[CCP1\], $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|
^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_n(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy
=\nu_{\infty}+\sum_{i\in I}\nu_{i}+\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_0(x)|
^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_0(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy$$ and the fact $\nu_{\infty}+F_{\infty}=\omega_{\infty}+V_{\infty}\geq\omega_{\infty}$.
Now we want to show that there exists $c_0>0$ such that if $c<c_0$ then the singular part and escaping part of the energy of the $(PS)_c$ sequence $\{u_n\}$ are trivial. First we claim that $$\label{p18}
I=\emptyset.$$
On the contrary, assume that $I\neq\emptyset$, then there holds $$\label{p2}
\nu_{i}\geq S_{H,L}^{\frac{2N-\mu}{N+2-\mu}},\ i\in I.$$ In particular, the set $I$ is finite. In fact, let $\eta_{\varepsilon}$ be the cut-off function defined in . By definition, a direct computation yields $$\|u_n\eta_{\varepsilon}\|_{V}=\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla (u_n\eta_{\varepsilon})|^{2}dx+\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}V_{+}|u_n
\eta_{\varepsilon}|^{2}dx\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\leq C\|u_n\|_{V}=O(1).$$ Apply $J'(u_n)$ to the test function $u_n\eta_{\varepsilon}$ to obtain $$\label{p3}
\aligned
o(1)=\langle J'(u_n),u_n\eta_{\varepsilon}\rangle=&\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla u_n|^{2}\eta_{\varepsilon}dx+\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}u_n\nabla u_n\nabla\eta_{\varepsilon}dx+\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}Vu_n^{2}\eta_{\varepsilon}dx\\
&-\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{(|u_n(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}+|u_n(x)|^{p})(|u_n(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\eta_{\varepsilon}(y)
+\frac{p}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_n(y)|^{p}\eta_{\varepsilon}(y))}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy,
\endaligned$$ since $\{u_n\}$ is a $(PS)$ sequence. By Lemma \[CCP1\], we know $$\label{p5}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla u_n|^{2}\eta_{\varepsilon}dx\rightarrow\omega_{i}'\geq\omega_{i}.$$ By Lemma 3.1 in [@Z], we have as $\varepsilon\rightarrow0^{+}$ $$\label{p7}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}u_n\nabla u_n\nabla\eta_{\varepsilon}dx=o(1)$$ and $$\label{p8}
\Big|\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}Vu_n^{2}\eta_{\varepsilon}dx\Big|=o(1).$$ From - and -, we infer that for each fixed $i\in I$ $$\omega_{i}-\nu_{i}\leq0.$$ Utilizing , we finally arrive at $$S_{H,L}\nu_{i}^{\frac{1}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}-\nu_{i}\leq0.$$ Thus follows. Now leads to a contradiction if $c_0\leq\frac{N+2-\mu}{4N-2\mu}S_{H,L}^{\frac{2N-\mu}{N+2-\mu}}$ and thus the singular part is empty.
Next we prove that $$\label{p18}
\nu_{\infty}=\omega_{\infty}=F_{\infty}=V_{\infty}=0.$$ To prove that the escaping part is trivial, let $$a_{p}:=\frac{2^{\ast}-\frac{2Np}{2N-\mu}}{2^{\ast}-2} \ \ \mbox{and} \ \ b_{p}:=\frac{\frac{2Np}{2N-\mu}-2}{2^{\ast}-2},$$ then $a_{p},b_{p}\in(0,1)$ and $a_{p}+b_{p}=1$. By Lemma 3.2 in [@Z] we know that $$\label{p14}
V_{\infty}=\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}V|u_{n}|^{2}\eta_{R}dx\geq\tau_{0}\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|u_{n}|^{2}\eta_{R}dx.$$ With this fact, applying the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev and Hölder inequalities, we have $$\label{p151}
\aligned
\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}
&\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|
^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_n(y)|^{p}\eta_{R}(y)}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\\
&\leq C(N,\mu)\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}|u_n|_{2^{\ast}}^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}||u_n|^{p} \eta_{R}|_{\frac{2N}{2N-\mu}}\\
&\leq C_1\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|u_{n}|^{2}\eta_{R}dx\Big)^{a_{p}}
\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|u_{n}|^{2^{\ast}}\eta_{R}dx\Big)^{b_{p}}\\
&\leq C_1(\frac{V_{\infty}}{\tau_{0}})^{a_{p}}
\zeta_{\infty}^{b_{p}},
\endaligned$$ $$\label{p152}
\aligned
\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}&\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|
^{p}|u_n(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\eta_{R}(y)}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\\
&\leq C(N,\mu)\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}|u_n|_{\frac{2Np}{2N-\mu}}^{p}
\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|u_{n}|^{2^{\ast}}|\eta_{R}|^{\frac{2N}{2N-\mu}}dx\Big)^{\frac{2N-\mu}{2N}}\\
&\leq C_2
\zeta_{\infty}^{\frac{2N-\mu}{2N}}
\endaligned$$ and $$\label{p153}
\aligned
\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}&\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|
^{p}|u_n(y)|^{p}\eta_{R}(y)}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\\
&\leq C(N,\mu)\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}|u_n|_{\frac{2Np}{2N-\mu}}^{p}||u_n|^{p} \eta_{R}|_{\frac{2N}{2N-\mu}}\\
&\leq C_3\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|u_{n}|^{2}\eta_{R}dx\Big)^{a_{p}}
\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|u_{n}|^{2^{\ast}}\eta_{R}dx\Big)^{b_{p}}\\
&\leq C_3(\frac{V_{\infty}}{\tau_{0}})^{a_{p}}
\zeta_{\infty}^{b_{p}},
\endaligned$$ where $C_1, C_2, C_3$ depend only on the embedding constant and the best constant $S_{H,L}$, since Lemma \[F0\] holds and $$(\frac12-\frac{1}{2p})\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}(|\nabla u_n|^{2}+V(x)|u_n|^{2})dx\leq c<c_0\leq\frac{N+2-\mu}{4N-2\mu}S_{H,L}^{\frac{2N-\mu}{N+2-\mu}}+o_n(1).$$ Now, by the definition of $F_{\infty}$, from to we know $$\label{p16}
F_{\infty}\leq C(\frac{V_{\infty}}{\tau_{0}})^{a_{p}}
\zeta_{\infty}^{b_{p}}+C
\zeta_{\infty}^{\frac{2N-\mu}{2N}}.$$ Similarly, we have $$\label{p166}\aligned
\nu_{\infty}&=\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}
\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|u_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dy\Big)| u_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\eta_{R}dx\\
&\leq C(N,\mu)\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty}\overline{\lim}_{n\rightarrow\infty}
|u_{n}|^{2^{\ast}_\mu}_{2^{\ast}}
\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|u_{n}|^{2^{\ast}}\eta_{R}dx\Big)^{\frac{2N-\mu}{2N}}\\
&= C_4\zeta_{\infty}^{\frac{2N-\mu}{2N}}.
\endaligned$$ Substituting and into we obtain that $$\label{p11}
\omega_{\infty}+V_{\infty}\leq C_5(\frac{V_{\infty}}{\tau_{0}})^{a_{p}}
\zeta_{\infty}^{b_{p}}+C_6
\zeta_{\infty}^{\frac{2N-\mu}{2N}}.$$ Now, if $\zeta_{\infty}=0$ then it is easy to see the conclusion $$\nu_{\infty}=\omega_{\infty}=F_{\infty}=V_{\infty}=0.$$ Otherwise, if $\zeta_{\infty}>0$ then applying the Young inequality to we know that there exists $\Lambda_0>0$ such that $$\zeta_{\infty}\geq \Lambda_0.$$ Thus applying Lemma \[Concentration-compactness principle2\], we know that $$\omega_{\infty}\geq S\Lambda_0^{\frac{2}{2^{\ast}}}.$$ Thus we know this is a contradiction if $$c< \alpha' S\Lambda_0^{\frac{2}{2^{\ast}}}.$$
From the arguments above, let $$c_0=\min\{\frac{N+2-\mu}{4N-2\mu}S_{H,L}^{\frac{2N-\mu}{N+2-\mu}}, \alpha' S\Lambda_0^{\frac{2}{2^{\ast}}}\},$$ if $c<c_0$ then we have $$\label{SINESC}
\nu_{\infty}=\omega_{\infty}=F_{\infty}=V_{\infty}=0, \ I=\emptyset.$$ By using Lemma \[CCP1\] to derive $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|
^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_n(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy
=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_0(x)|
^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_0(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy,$$ which together with Lemma \[BLN\] imply $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|(u_n-u_0)(x)|
^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|(u_n-u_0)(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy=0.$$
Proof of Theorem \[EX1\]
------------------------
We can verify that the functional $J$ satisfies the Mountain-Pass geometry. By Lemma \[F0\] we have $$\aligned
J(u)&=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}(|\nabla u|^{2}+V(x)|u|^{2})dx-\frac{1}{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{(|u(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}+|u(x)|^{p})(|u(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}+|u(y)|^{p})}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\\
&\geq C\|u\|_{V}^{2}-C_{1}\|u\|_{V}^{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}-C_{2}\|u\|_{V}^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}+p}
-C_{3}\|u\|_{V}^{2p}.
\endaligned$$ Since $2<2p<2_{\mu}^{\ast}+p<2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}$, we can choose some $\alpha,\rho>0$ such that $J(u)\geq\alpha$ for $\|u\|_{V}=\rho$. For any $u\in E\backslash\ \{0\}$, we have $$J(tu)\leq\frac{t^{2}}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}(|\nabla u|^{2}+ V(x)u^{2}dx-\frac{t^{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|u(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy<0$$ for $t>0$ large enough. Hence, we can apply the mountain pass theorem without $(PS)$ condition (cf. [@Wi]) to get a bounded $(PS)$ sequence $\{u_{n}\}$ such that $J(u_{n})\rightarrow c^{\star}$ and $ J'(u_{n})\rightarrow0$ in $E^{-1}$ at the minimax level $$c^{\star}=\inf\limits_{\gamma\in\Gamma}\max\limits_{t\in[0,1]}J(\gamma(t))>0,$$ where $$\Gamma:=\{\gamma\in C([0,1],E):\gamma(0)=0,J(\gamma(1))<0\}.$$
We claim that $$\label{Infimum}
\inf\,\left\{\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}|\nabla\varphi|^2dx: \
\varphi\in \mathcal{C}^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^N),\, \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\frac{|\varphi(x)|^{p}|\varphi(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy=1\right\} = 0.$$ In fact, for all fixed $\varphi$ satisfying $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\frac{|\varphi(x)|^{p}|\varphi(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy=1,$$ let us define $$\varphi_t=t^{\frac{2N-\mu}{2p}}\varphi(tx),\ \ t>0,$$ then we have $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\frac{|\varphi_t(x)|^{p}|\varphi_t(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy
=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\frac{|\varphi(x)|^{p}|\varphi(y)|^{p}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy=1$$ and $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}|\nabla\varphi_t|^2dx=t^{\frac{2N-\mu}{p}-N+2} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}|\nabla\varphi|^2dx.$$ Since $\frac{2N-\mu}{p}>N-2$, we know $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}|\nabla\varphi_t|^2dx\to0$$ as $t\to0$, the claim is thus proved. Now, for any $\de>0$ one can choose $\va_\de\in\mathcal{C}^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ such that $$\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\frac{|\va_\de(x)|^{p}|\va_\de(y)|^{p}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy=1$$ and $$|\nabla\va_\de|^2_2<\de.$$ Since $\va_\de\in\mathcal{C}^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^N)$ and $V(x)\in L^{\frac{N}{2}}({\mathbb{R}}^N)$, we have $$\left|\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}V(x)|\va_\de|^{2}dx\right|\leq
\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|V(x)|^{\frac{N}{2}}dx\right)^{\frac{2}{N}}
\left(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\va_\de|^{2^{\ast}}dx\right)^{\frac{N-2}{N}}
\leq CS\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\big|\nabla \va_\de\big|^2dx,$$ where $S$ is the best Sobolev constant. And so, $$J(\va_\de)\leq\frac{1+CS}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\big|\nabla \va_\de\big|^2dx-\frac{1 }{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\frac{|\va_\de(x)|^{p}|\va_\de(y)|^{p}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy.$$ Denote $$\Psi(\va_\de):=\frac{1+CS}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\big|\nabla \va_\de\big|^2dx-\frac{1 }{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\frac{|\va_\de(x)|^{p}|\va_\de(y)|^{p}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy.$$ Then, we know $$\label{ES1}
\aligned
\max_{t\in {\mathbb{R}}^+}\Psi(t\va_\de)
&=\max_{t\in {\mathbb{R}}^+}\left\{t^{2}\frac{1+CS}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\big|\nabla \va_\de\big|^2dx-\frac{t^{2p} }{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}\frac{|\va_\de(x)|^{p}|\va_\de(y)|^{p}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\right\}\\
&=\Big(\frac{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}{p}\Big)^{\frac{1}{p-1}}\Big(1-\frac{1}{p}\Big)
\Big(\frac{1+CS}{2}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^N}|\nabla\va_\de|^2dx\Big)^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\\
&<\Big(\frac{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}{p}\Big)^{\frac{1}{p-1}}\Big(1-\frac{1}{p}\Big)
\Big(\frac{1+CS}{2}\Big)^{\frac{p}{p-1}}\delta^{\frac{p}{p-1}}.
\endaligned$$ Thus, for $c_{0}>0$ be the number given in Proposition \[F1\], there exists $\delta_{0}>0$ such that, for any $0<\delta<\delta_{0}$ $$\max_{t\in {\mathbb{R}}^+}\Psi(t\va_\de)<c_{0}$$ i.e. $$\max_{t\in {\mathbb{R}}^+}J(t\va_\de)<c_{0},$$ and so $$c^{\star}<c_0.$$
Assume that $\{u_{n}\}$ converges weakly and a.e. to some weak solution $u_{0}\in E$ of . In particular, $$\label{weak}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}(|\nabla u_{0}|^{2}+V(x)u_{0}^{2})dx
=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{(|u_{0}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}+|u_{0}(x)|^{p})
(|u_{0}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}
+\frac{p}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_{0}(y)|^{p})}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy.$$ Since $
c^{\star}<c_0
$, by Proposition \[F1\], we have $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|(u_{n}-u_{0})(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}
|(u_{n}-u_{0})(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy=0$$ and $$\nu_{\infty}=\omega_{\infty}=F_{\infty}=V_{\infty}=0, \ I=\emptyset.$$ So, we have $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}V|u_{n}-u_{0}|^{2}dx=0,$$ and $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\Big(\Big(\frac{p}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}+1\Big)\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|
^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_n(y)|^{p}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy
+\frac{p}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_n(x)|
^{p}|u_n(y)|^{p}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\Big)$$ $$=
\Big(\frac{p}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}+1\Big)\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_0(x)|
^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_0(y)|^{p}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy
+\frac{p}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u_0(x)|
^{p}|u_0(y)|^{p}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy.$$ It follows that $$\aligned
0&=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\langle J'(u_n),u_n\rangle\\
&=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}(|\nabla u_n|^{2}+Vu_n^{2})dx
-\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{(|u_n(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}+|u_n(x)|^{p})(|u_n(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}
+\frac{p}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_n(y)|^{p})}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\Big)\\
&=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla u_n|^{2}dx+\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}Vu_0^{2}dx
-\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{(|u_0(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}+|u_0(x)|^{p})(|u_0(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}
+\frac{p}{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u_0(y)|^{p})}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy.
\endaligned$$ Combining this with , we have $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla u_n|^{2}dx=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla u_0|^{2}dx.$$ Thus, $$J(u_0)=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} J(u_n)=c^{\star}\geq\alpha>0$$ which leads to the conclusion $u_0\neq0$. $\hfill{} \Box$
High energy solution
====================
In this section we assume that conditions $(V_1)$, $(V_2)$ and $(V_3)$ hold, $0<\mu<\min\{4,N\}$ and $N\geq3$. We introduce the energy functional associated to equation by $$J_{V}(u)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}(|\nabla u|^{2}+ V(x)|u|^{2})dx-\frac{1}{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy.$$ The Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality implies that $J_{V}$ is well defined on $D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ and belongs to $\mathcal{C}^{1}$. And so $u$ is a weak solution of if and only if $u$ is a critical point of the functional $J_{V}$. To carry out the proof, we need to consider the energy functional associated to equation defined by $$J_{0}(u)=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla u|^{2}dx-\frac{1}{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy.$$
A nonlocal global compactness lemma
-----------------------------------
Let $u\rightarrow u_{r,x_{0}}=r^{\frac{N-2}{2}}u(rx+x_{0})$ be the rescaling, where $r\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$ and $x_{0}\in \mathbb{R}^{N}$. The following proposition is taken from [@DGY] which is inspired by [@Sm; @Wi], we sketch the proof here for readers’ convenience.
\[F4\] Suppose that conditions $(V_1)$, $(V_2)$ and $(V_3)$ hold and $N\geq3$, $0<\mu<\min\{4,N\}$. Assume that $\{u_{n}\}\subset D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ is a $(PS)$ sequence for $J_{V}$. Then there exist a number $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, a solution $u^{0}$ of , solutions $u^{1},... ,u^{k}$ of , sequences of points $x_{n}^{1},...,x_{n}^{k}\in\mathbb{R}^N$ and radii $r_{n}^{1},...,r_{n}^{k}>0$ such that for some subsequence $n\rightarrow\infty$ $$\displaystyle\aligned
&u_{n}^{0}\equiv u_{n}\rightharpoonup u^{0}\ \ \ \mbox{weakly in}\ \ D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N),\\
&u_{n}^{j}\equiv (u_{n}^{j-1}-u^{j-1})_{r_{n}^{j},x_{n}^{j}}\rightharpoonup u^{j}\ \ \ \mbox{weakly in}\ \ D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N),\ \ j=1,...,k.
\endaligned$$ Moreover as $n\rightarrow\infty$ $$\displaystyle\aligned
&\|u_{n}\|^{2}\rightarrow \displaystyle\Sigma_{j=0}^{k}\|u^{j}\|^{2},\\
& J_{V}(u_{n})\rightarrow J_{V}(u^{0})+\displaystyle\Sigma_{j=1}^{k}J_{0}(u^{j}).
\endaligned$$
Since $\{u_{n}\}$ is a $(PS)$ sequence for $J_{V}$, we know easily that it is bounded in $D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$. Hence we may assume that $u_{n}\rightharpoonup u^{0}$ weakly in $D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$ and that $u^{0}$ is a weak solution of . So if we put $$v_{n}^{1}(x)=(u_{n}-u^{0})(x),$$ then $v_{n}^{1}$ is a $(PS)$ sequence for $J_{V}$ satisfying $$v_{n}^{1}\rightharpoonup0\ \ \ \mbox{weakly in}\ \ D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N).$$ Then, together with the Brézis-Lieb Lemma [@BL1] and (2.16) in [@BC1] that $$\label{b26}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}V(x)|v_{n}^{1}|^{2}dx\rightarrow0,$$ we have $$\label{b27}
J_{0}(v_{n}^{1})=J_{V}(v_{n}^{1})+o(1)=J_{V}(u_{n})-J_{V}(u^{0})+o(1),$$ $$\label{b28}
J_{0}'(v_{n}^{1})=J_{V}'(v_{n}^{1})+o(1)=o(1).$$
If $v_{n}^{1}\rightarrow0$ strongly in $D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ we are done. Now suppose that $$v_{n}^{1}\nrightarrow0\ \ \ \mbox{strongly in}\ \ D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$$ and there exists $\gamma\in(0,\infty)$ such that $$\label{b29}
J_{0}(v_{n}^{1})\geq\gamma>0$$ for $n$ large enough.
Claim: there exist sequences $\{r_{n}\}$ and $\{y_{n}\}$ of points in $\mathbb{R}^N$ such that $$\label{b4}
h_{n}=(v_{n}^{1})_{r_{n},y_{n}}\rightharpoonup h\not\equiv0 \ \ \ \mbox{weakly in}\ \ D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$.
In fact, by , we obtain $$J_{0}(v_{n}^{1})=\frac{N-\mu+2}{2(2N-\mu)}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|v_{n}^{1}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|v_{n}^{1}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy+o(1).$$ So, by the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality, and the boundedness of $\{u_{n}\}$, we know that $0<a_{1}<|v_{n}^{1}|_{2^{\ast}}^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}<A_{1}$ for some $a_{1}, A_{1}>0$. Let us define the Levy concentration function: $$Q_{n}(r):=\sup_{z\in\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{B_{r}(z)}|v_{n}^{1}(x)|^{2^{\ast}}dx.$$ Since $Q_{n}(0)=0$ and $Q_{n}(\infty)>a_{1}^{\frac{2N}{2N-\mu}}$, we may assume there exists sequences $\{r_{n}\}$ and $\{y_{n}\}$ of points in $\mathbb{R}^N$ such that $r_{n}>0$ and $$\sup_{z\in\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{B_{r_{n}}(z)}|v_{n}^{1}(x)|^{2^{\ast}}dx
=\int_{B_{r_{n}}(y_{n})}|v_{n}^{1}(x)|^{2^{\ast}}dx=b$$ for some $$0<b<\min\left\{\frac{S^{\frac{2N}{4-\mu}}}
{(2C(N,\mu)A_{1})^{\frac{2N}{4-\mu}}},a_{1}^{\frac{2N}{2N-\mu}}\right\}.$$
Let us define $h_{n}:=(v_{n}^{1})_{r_{n},y_{n}}$. We may assume that $h_{n}\rightharpoonup h$ weakly in $D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ and $h_{n}\rightarrow h$ a.e. on $\mathbb{R}^N$. It is easy to see that $$\sup_{z\in\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{B_{1}(z)}|h_{n}(x)|^{2^{\ast}}dx
=\int_{B_{1}(0)}|h_{n}(x)|^{2^{\ast}}dx=b.$$ By invariance of the $D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ norms under translation and dilation, we get $$\|v_{n}^{1}\|=\|h_{n}\|, \ \ |v_{n}^{1}|_{2^{\ast}}=|h_{n}|_{2^{\ast}}$$ and $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|v_{n}^{1}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|v_{n}^{1}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|h_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}
|h_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy.$$ By direct calculation, we have $$\label{b31}
J_{0}(h_{n})=J_{0}(v_{n}^{1})=J_{V}(u_{n})-J_{V}(u^{0})+o(1)$$ and $$\label{b32}
J_{0}'(h_{n})=J_{0}'(v_{n}^{1})=o(1).$$ If $h=0$ then $h_{n}\rightarrow0$ strongly in $L_{loc}^{2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$. Let $\psi\in \mathcal{C}_{0}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ be such that $Supp \psi\subset B_{1}(y)$ for some $y\in\mathbb{R}^N$. Then, we have $$\aligned
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla(\psi h_{n})|^{2}dx&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\nabla h_{n}\nabla(\psi^{2} h_{n})dx+o(1)\\
&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\frac{|h_{n}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|\psi(y)|^{2}|h_{n}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}
{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy+o(1)\\
&\leq C(N,\mu)
|h_{n}|_{2^{\ast}}^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
(|\psi|^{2}|h_{n}|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}})^{\frac{2N}{2N-\mu}}dx\Big)^{\frac{2N-\mu}{2N}}+o(1)\\
&= C(N,\mu)
|h_{n}|_{2^{\ast}}^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
|\psi h_{n}|^{\frac{4N}{2N-\mu}}
|h_{n}|^{\frac{2N(4-\mu)}{(2N-\mu)(N-2)}}dx\Big)^{\frac{2N-\mu}{2N}}+o(1)\\
&\leq C(N,\mu)|h_{n}|_{2^{\ast}}^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}
|h_{n}|_{L^{2^{\ast}}(B_{1}(y))}^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}-2}
\frac{1}{S}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla(\psi h_{n})|^{2}dx+o(1)\\
&\leq C(N,\mu)b^{\frac{2_{\mu}^{\ast}-2}{2^{\ast}}}
\frac{A_{1}}{S}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla(\psi h_{n})|^{2}dx+o(1)\\
&\leq\frac{1}{2}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}|\nabla(\psi h_{n})|^{2}dx+o(1)
\endaligned$$ thanks to $0<\mu<\min\{4,N\}$. We obtain $\nabla h_{n}\rightarrow0$ strongly in $L_{loc}^{2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ and $h_{n}\rightarrow0$ strongly in $L_{loc}^{2^{\ast}}(\mathbb{R}^N)$, which contradicts with $\displaystyle\int_{B_{1}(0)}|h_{n}(x)|^{2^{\ast}}dx=b>0$. So, $h\neq0$. By and weakly sequentially continuous $J_{0}'$, we know $h$ solves weakly. The sequences $\{h_{n}\}$, $\{r_{n}^{1}\}$, and $\{y_{n}^{1}\}$ are the wanted sequences.
By iteration, we obtain sequences $v_{n}^{j}=u_{n}^{j-1}-u^{j-1}$, $j\geq2$, and the rescaled functions $u_{n}^{j}=(v_{n}^{j})_{r_{n}^{j},y_{n}^{j}}\rightharpoonup u^{j}$ weakly in $ D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$, where each $u^{j}$ solves . By induction we know that $$\label{b5}
\|u_{n}^{j}\|^{2}=
\|u_{n}\|^{2}-\Sigma_{i=0}^{j-1}\|u^{i}\|^{2}+o(1)$$ and $$\label{b6}
J_{0}(u_{n}^{j})
=J_{V}(u_{n})-J_{V}(u^{0})-\Sigma_{i=1}^{j-1}J_{0}(u^{i})+o(1).$$ Furthermore, from the estimate $$0=\langle J_{0}'(u^{j}),u^{j}\rangle=\|u^{j}\|^{2}-\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|u^{j}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}|u^{j}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy
\geq\|u^{j}\|^{2}(1-S_{H,L}^{-2_{\mu}^{\ast}}\|u^{j}\|^{2\cdot2_{\mu}^{\ast}-2}),$$ we see that $\|u^{j}\|^{2}\geq S_{H,L}^{\frac{2N-\mu}{N-\mu+2}}$ and the iteration must terminate at some index $k\geq0$ due to .
Let $$P(u)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}(|\nabla u|^{2}+ V(x)|u|^{2})dx$$ and $$\mathcal{M}=\{u\in D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N):\|u\|_{NL}=1\}.$$
\[NE\] Suppose that conditions $(V_1)$, $(V_2)$ and $(V_3)$ hold. Then the minimization problem $$\label{a3}
\inf\{P(u):u\in\mathcal{M}\}$$ has no solution.
Let denote by $S_{\mathcal{M}}$ the infimum defined by . Obviously $S_{\mathcal{M}}\geq S_{H,L}$. First we shall show that actually the equality holds. Let us consider the sequence $$\varphi_{\frac{1}{n},0}(x)=S_{H,L}^{\frac{2-N}{2(N-\mu+2)}}U_{\frac{1}{n},0}(x)
=S_{H,L}^{\frac{2-N}{4}}C(N,\mu)^{\frac{N(2-N)}{4(2N-\mu)}}
\frac{[N(N-2)\frac{1}{n}]^{\frac{N-2}{4}}}{(\frac{1}{n}+|x|^{2})^{\frac{N-2}{2}}}$$ then $\forall p\in(\frac{N}{N-2},\frac{2N}{N-2})$, $|\varphi_{\frac{1}{n},0}(x)|_{p}\rightarrow0$ (see (2.4), [@BC1]), in fact $$\aligned
|\varphi_{\frac{1}{n},0}(x)|_{p}^{p}&=\left[\frac{N(N-2)}{S_{H,L}}\right]^{\frac{(N-2)p}{4}}
C(N,\mu)^{\frac{N(2-N)p}{4(2N-\mu)}}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\frac{(\frac{1}{n})^{\frac{(N-2)p}{4}}}{(\frac{1}{n}+|x|^{2})^{\frac{(N-2)p}{2}}}dx\\
&=\left[\frac{N(N-2)}{S_{H,L}}\right]^{\frac{(N-2)p}{4}}
C(N,\mu)^{\frac{N(2-N)p}{4(2N-\mu)}}\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^{\frac{N}{2}-\frac{(N-2)p}{4}}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\frac{1}{(1+|x|^{2})^{\frac{(N-2)p}{2}}}dx.
\endaligned$$ Moreover using the definition of $S_{H,L}$ and the fact that $U_{\frac{1}{n},0}$ solves it is easy to verify that $$\varphi_{\frac{1}{n},0}\in\mathcal{M},\ i.e.\ \|\varphi_{\frac{1}{n},0}\|_{NL}=1.$$ Now using the Hölder inequality with $p\in(\frac{N}{2},p_{2})$ we get $$P(\varphi_{\frac{1}{n},0})=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla\varphi_{\frac{1}{n},0}|^{2}dx+
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}V(x)|\varphi_{\frac{1}{n},0}|^{2}dx\leq S_{H,L}+|V(x)|_{p}|\varphi_{\frac{1}{n},0}(x)|_{2p'}^{2}.$$ Since $2p'\in(\frac{N}{N-2},\frac{2N}{N-2})$, we can obtain $S_{\mathcal{M}}=S_{H,L}$.
Now it is easy to prove the nonexistence result arguing by contradiction. Let $u\in\mathcal{M}$ be a function such that $$P(u)=S_{H,L}.$$ If $\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}V(x)|u|^{2}dx>0$, then we have $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u|^{2}dx<\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u|^{2}dx+
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}V(x)|u|^{2}dx=S_{H,L}$$ contradicting the definition of $S_{H,L}$. If $\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}V(x)|u|^{2}dx=0$, then $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla u|^{2}dx=S_{H,L}$$ and $S_{H,L}^{\frac{N-2}{2(N-\mu+2)}}u$ is a solution of . Recall that any solution of must be of the form $$U_{\delta,z}(x)=C(N,\mu)^{\frac{2-N}{2(N-\mu+2)}}S^{\frac{(N-\mu)(2-N)}{4(N-\mu+2)}}
\frac{[N(N-2)\delta]^{\frac{N-2}{4}}}{(\delta+|x-z|^{2})^{\frac{N-2}{2}}}, \ \delta>0, \ z\in\mathbb{R}^{N},$$ then we know $$u=C(N,\mu)^{\frac{2-N}{2(2N-\mu)}}S^{\frac{2-N}{4}}
\frac{[N(N-2)\delta^{1}]^{\frac{N-2}{4}}}{(\delta^{1}+|x-z^{1}|^{2})^{\frac{N-2}{2}}}$$ for some $\delta^{1}>0$ and $z^{1}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$. Since $V(x)\geq0$ on $\mathbb{R}^{N}$ and $V(x) > 0$ in a positive measure set, we have $$\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}V(x)|u|^{2}dx>0,$$ which contradicts with $\displaystyle\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}V(x)|u|^{2}dx=0$.
So in conclusion, we know that $S_{\mathcal{M}}$ is not attained.
\[PS3\] The functional $P|_{\mathcal{M}}$ satisfies the $(PS)_{c}$-condition for $c\in(S_{H,L},2^{\frac{N+2-\mu}{2N-\mu}}S_{H,L})$.
Let $\{u_{n}\}\subset D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$ be a $(PS)_{c}$-sequence for $P|_{\mathcal{M}}$ with $c\in(S_{H,L},2^{\frac{N+2-\mu}{2N-\mu}}S_{H,L})$. Then, $\{w_{n}\}$ is a $(PS)_{c}$-sequence for $J_{V}$ with $$\frac{N+2-\mu}{4N-2\mu} S_{H,L}^{\frac{2N-\mu}{N+2-\mu}}<c<
\frac{N+2-\mu}{2N-\mu}S_{H,L}^{\frac{2N-\mu}{N+2-\mu}},$$ where $w_{n}=P(u_{n})^{\frac{N-2}{2(N+2-\mu)}}u_{n}$. We know from Lemma \[F4\] that there exist a number $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, a solution $w^{0}$ of and solutions $w^{1},... ,w^{k}$ of , such that for some subsequence $n\rightarrow\infty$ $$\aligned
&\|w_{n}\|^{2}\rightarrow \Sigma_{j=0}^{k}\|w^{j}\|^{2},\\
&J_{V}(w_{n})\rightarrow J_{V}(w^{0})+\Sigma_{j=1}^{k}J_{0}(w^{j}).
\endaligned$$ By Proposition \[NE\], if $w$ is a nontrivial solution of , then $$J_{V}(w)>\frac{N+2-\mu}{2(2N-\mu)} S_{H,L}^{\frac{2N-\mu}{N+2-\mu}}.$$ While for every nontrivial solution $v$ of $$J_{0}(v)\geq\frac{N+2-\mu}{2(2N-\mu)} S_{H,L}^{\frac{2N-\mu}{N+2-\mu}}.$$ Since $$c<
\frac{N+2-\mu}{2N-\mu}S_{H,L}^{\frac{2N-\mu}{N+2-\mu}},$$ we have $k=0$ or $k=1$ with $w^{0}=0$. In conclusion, $\{w_{n}\}$ is relatively compact in $D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)$.
So, the functional $P|_{\mathcal{M}}$ satisfies the $(PS)_{c}$-condition for $c\in(S_{H,L},2^{\frac{N+2-\mu}{2N-\mu}}S_{H,L})$.
Proof of Theorem \[EXS\]
------------------------
We now consider the functions $$\varphi_{\delta,z}(x)=\frac{U_{\delta,z}(x)}{\|U_{\delta,z}(x)\|_{NL}}=
S_{H,L}^{\frac{2-N}{4}}C(N,\mu)^{\frac{N(2-N)}{4(2N-\mu)}}
\frac{[N(N-2)\delta]^{\frac{N-2}{4}}}{(\delta+|x-z|^{2})^{\frac{N-2}{2}}},\ \ \delta>0,\ \ z\in\mathbb{R}^{N}.$$ Note that $\forall \delta>0,z\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$ $$\|\varphi_{\delta,z}\|^{2}=S_{H,L},\ \ \ \|\varphi_{\delta,z}\|_{NL}=1$$ and so $\varphi_{\delta,z}\in\mathcal{M}$. Moreover $|\varphi_{\delta,z}|_{p}$, $ p\in(\frac{N}{N-2},\frac{2N}{N-2})$, for any fixed $p$ depends only on $\delta$ because of the invariance by translation of the $L^{p}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$ norm.
\[Pb2\] Suppose that $V(x)$ satisfies $(V_3)$. Then $$P(\varphi_{\delta,z})<2^{\frac{N+2-\mu}{2N-\mu}}S_{H,L},\ \ \forall\delta>0,\ \ \forall z\in\mathbb{R}^{N}.$$
Using $(V_3)$, the Hölder inequality and the Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality, we get $$\aligned
P(\varphi_{\delta,z})&=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\nabla\varphi_{\delta,z}|^{2}dx+
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}V(x)|\varphi_{\delta,z}|^{2}dx\\
&\leq S_{H,L}+|V(x)|_{\frac{N}{2}}\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}|\varphi_{\delta,z}|^{\frac{2N}{N-2}}dx\Big)^{\frac{N-2}{N}}\\
&= S_{H,L}+|V(x)|_{\frac{N}{2}}\frac{1}{C(N,\mu)^{\frac{N-2}{2N-\mu}}}
\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\int_{\mathbb{R}^N}\frac{|\varphi_{\delta,z}(x)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}
|\varphi_{\delta,z}(y)|^{2_{\mu}^{\ast}}}{|x-y|^{\mu}}dxdy\Big)^{\frac{N-2}{2N-\mu}}\\
&<S_{H,L}+(2^{\frac{N+2-\mu}{2N-\mu}}-1)S_{H,L}=2^{\frac{N+2-\mu}{2N-\mu}}S_{H,L}.
\endaligned$$
Now put $$\phi(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle 0\hspace{4.14mm}\mbox{if}\hspace{1.14mm} |x|<1,\\
\displaystyle 1\hspace{4.14mm}\mbox{if}\hspace{1.14mm} |x|\geq1,
\end{array}
\right.$$ and define $$\alpha:D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^N)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{N+1}$$ $$\alpha(u)=\frac{1}{S_{H,L}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\Big(\frac{x}{|x|},\phi(x)\Big)|\nabla u|^{2}dx=(\beta(u),\gamma(u)),$$ where $$\beta(u)=\frac{1}{S_{H,L}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\frac{x}{|x|}|\nabla u|^{2}dx$$ and $$\gamma(u)=\frac{1}{S_{H,L}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}\phi(x)|\nabla u|^{2}dx.$$
Denote $$\mathcal{A}:=\{u\in\mathcal{M}:\alpha(u)=(0,\frac{1}{2})\},$$ and $$c^{\star}=\inf_{u\in\mathcal{A}}P(u).$$
The following proposition is due to Benci and Cerami [@BC1] with $S$ replaced by $S_{H,L}$.
\[Pb3\]
- $c^{\star}>S_{H,L}$;
- There is a $\delta_{1}:0<\delta_{1}<\frac{1}{2}$ such that $$\aligned
P(\varphi_{\delta_{1},z})&<\frac{S_{H,L}+c^{\star}}{2},\hspace{4.14mm}\forall z\in\mathbb{R}^{N},\\
\gamma(\varphi_{\delta_{1},z})&<\frac{1}{2},\hspace{4.14mm}\forall z:|z|<\frac{1}{2},\\
\left|\beta(\varphi_{\delta_{1},z})-\frac{z}{|z|}\right|&<\frac{1}{4},\hspace{4.14mm}\forall z:|z|\geq\frac{1}{2};
\endaligned$$
- There is a $\delta_{2}:\delta_{2}>\frac{1}{2}$ such that $$\aligned
P(\varphi_{\delta_{2},z})&<\frac{S_{H,L}+c^{\star}}{2},\hspace{4.14mm}\forall z\in\mathbb{R}^{N},\\
\gamma(\varphi_{\delta_{2},z})&>\frac{1}{2},\hspace{4.14mm}\forall z\in\mathbb{R}^{N};
\endaligned$$
- There exists $R\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$ such that $$\aligned
P(\varphi_{\delta,z})&<\frac{S_{H,L}+c^{\star}}{2},\hspace{4.14mm}\forall z:|z|\geq R\ \ \mbox{and}\ \ \delta\in[\delta_{1},\delta_{2}],\\
(\beta(\varphi_{\delta,z})|z)_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}&>0,\hspace{4.14mm}\forall z:|z|\geq R\ \ \mbox{and}\ \ \delta\in[\delta_{1},\delta_{2}].
\endaligned$$
Now let $$Z=\{(z,\delta)\in \mathbb{R}^{N+1}:|z|<R,\delta\in[\delta_{1},\delta_{2}]\},$$ and let $\Phi$ be the operator $$\Phi:[\mathbb{R}^{N}\times(0,+\infty)]\rightarrow D^{1,2}(\mathbb{R}^{N})$$ given by $$\Phi(z,\delta)=\varphi_{\delta,z}(x).$$ Note that $\Phi$ is continuous. Call $\Sigma$ the subset of $\mathcal{M}$ defined by $$\Sigma=\{\Phi(z,\delta):(z,\delta)\in \overline{Z}\}.$$ Consider then the family $$\mathbb{A}:=\{h\in L(\mathcal{M},\mathcal{M}) : h(u)=u,\forall u\in P^{-1}((-\infty,\frac{S_{H,L}+c^{\star}}{2}))\}$$ and define $$\Gamma=\{B\subset\mathcal{M}:B=h(\Sigma),h\subset\mathbb{A}\}.$$
Similar to the proof of Lemma 3.12 [@BC1], we know that
\[Pb10\] If $B\in\Gamma$, then $B\cap\mathcal{A}\neq\emptyset$.
Now we set $$\label{E7}
c=\inf_{B\in\Gamma}\sup_{u\in B}P(u)$$ $$K_{c}=\{u\in \mathcal{M}:P(u)=c\mbox{ and } P'|_{\mathcal{M}}(u)=0\}.$$ Moreover for $d\in\mathbb{R}$, $P^{d}$ will be $$P^{h}=\{u\in \mathcal{M}:P(u)\leq d\}.$$
[**Proof of Theorem \[EXS\].**]{} We shall prove the theorem showing that $K_{c}\neq\emptyset$, i.e., that $c$ defined by is a critical level and there is a critical point $u$ such that $P(u)=c$. By $\Sigma\in \Gamma$ and Lemma \[Pb2\], we know $$c\leq\sup_{u\in \Sigma}P(u)\leq\sup_{z\in\mathbb{R}^{N},\delta\in\mathbb{R}^{+}}
P(\varphi_{\delta,z})<2^{\frac{N+2-\mu}{2N-\mu}}S_{H,L}.$$ Also by Lemma \[Pb10\], $B\cap\mathcal{A}\neq\emptyset$, $\forall B\in\Gamma$, so $$c\geq\inf_{\mathcal{A}}P(u)=c^{\star}>S_{H,L}.$$ Hence $$S_{H,L}<c^{\star}<2^{\frac{N+2-\mu}{2N-\mu}}S_{H,L}.$$ Suppose now $K_{c}=\emptyset$. By Proposition \[PS3\] the Palais-Smale condition holds in $$\{u\in\mathcal{M}:S_{H,L}<P(u)<2^{\frac{N+2-\mu}{2N-\mu}}S_{H,L}\},$$ then using a variant of a well-known deformation Lemma (see [@Wi]) we find a continuous map $$\eta:[0,1]\times\mathcal{M}\rightarrow\mathcal{M}$$ and a positive number $\varepsilon_{0}$ such that $$P^{c+\varepsilon_{0}}\backslash P^{c-\varepsilon_{0}}\subset P^{2^{\frac{N+2-\mu}{2N-\mu}}S_{H,L}}\backslash P^{\frac{S_{H,L}+c^{\star}}{2}},$$ $$\eta(0,u)=u,$$ $$\eta(t,u)=u,\ \ \forall u\in P^{c-\varepsilon_{0}}\cup\{\mathcal{M}\backslash P^{c+\varepsilon_{0}}\},\forall t\in(0,1)$$ and $$\eta(1,P^{c+\varepsilon_{0}/2})\subset P^{c-\varepsilon_{0}/2}.$$ Now let $\widetilde{B}\in\Gamma$ be such that $$c\leq\sup_{\widetilde{B}}P(u)<c+\frac{\varepsilon_{0}}{2}.$$ Then $\eta(1,\widetilde{B})\in\Gamma$ and $$\sup_{u\in\eta(1,\widetilde{B})}P(u)<c-\frac{\varepsilon_{0}}{2}$$ contradicting with the definition of $c$. $\hfill{} \Box$
[99]{}
N. Ackermann, *On a periodic Schrödinger equation with nonlocal superlinear part*, Math. Z., **248** (2004), 423–443.
C.O. Alves, D. Cassani, C. Tarsi & M. Yang, *Existence and concentration of ground state solutions for a critical nonlocal Schrödinger equation in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$*, J. Differential Equations, **261** (2014), 1933–1972.
C.O. Alves, F. Gao, M. Squassina, & M. Yang, *Singularly perturbed critical Choquard equations*, J. Differential Equations, **263** (2017), 3943–3988.
C.O. Alves & M. Yang, *Multiplicity and concentration behavior of solutions for a quasilinear Choquard equation via penalization method*, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A **146** (2016), 23–58.
C.O. Alves & M. Yang, *Existence of semiclassical ground state solutions for a generalized Choquard equation,* J. Differential Equations **257** (2014), 4133–4164.
C.O. Alves, A. B. Nóbrega & M. Yang, *Multi-bump solutions for Choquard equation with deepening potential well*, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, **55** (2016), 28 pp.
V. Benci & G. Cerami, *Existence of positive solutions of the equation $-\Delta u+a(x)u=u^{(N+2)/(N-2)}$ in $\mathbb{R}^N$,* J. Funct. Anal., **88** (1990), 90–117.
A. K. Ben-Naoum, C. Troestler & M. Willem, *Extrema problems with critical Sobolev exponents on unbounded domains,* Nonlinear Anal., **26** (1996), 823–833.
G. Bianchi, J. Chabrowski & A. Szulkin, *On symmetric solutions of an elliptic equation with a nonlinearity involving critical Sobolev exponent,* Nonlinear Anal., **25** (1995), 41–59.
H. Brézis & E. Lieb, *A relation between pointwise convergence of functions and convergence of functionals,* Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., **88** (1983), 486–490.
B. Buffoni, L. Jeanjean & C.A. Stuart, *Existence of a nontrivial solution to a strongly indefinite semilinear equation*, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., **119** (1993), 179–186.
J. Chabrowski, *Concentration-compactness principle at infinity and semilinear elliptic equations involving critical and subcritical Sobolev exponents*, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, **3** (1995), 493–512.
S. Cingolani, M. Clapp & S. Secchi, *Multiple solutions to a magnetic nonlinear Choquard equation*, Z. Angew. Math. Phys., **63** (2012), 233–248.
S. Cingolani, S. Secchi & M. Squassina, *Semi-classical limit for Schrödinger equations with magnetic field and Hartree-type nonlinearities*, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A **140** (2010), 973–1009.
D. Cassani & J. Zhang, *Ground states and semiclassical states of nonlinear Choquard equations involving Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev critical growth*, arXiv:1611.02919
Y. Ding, F. Gao & M. Yang, *Semiclassical states for a class of Choquard type equations with critical growth: critical frequency case*, arXiv:1710.05255
Y. H. Ding & F. H. Lin, *Solutions of perturbed Schrödinger equations with critical nonlinearity*, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, **30** (2007), 231–249.
D. Cassani, J. Van Schaftingen & J. Zhang *Groundstates for Choquard type equations with Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev lower critical exponent*, , arXiv:1709.09448.
F. Gao & M. Yang, *On the Brezis-Nirenberg type critical problem for nonlinear Choquard equation*, Sci China Math, doi: 10.1007/s11425-016-9067-5
F. Gao & M. Yang, *On nonlocal Choquard equations with Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev critical exponents*, J. Math. Anal. Appl., **448** (2017), 1006–1041.
F. Gao & M. Yang, *A strongly indefinite Choquard equation with critical exponent due to Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality,* Commun. Contemp. Math., https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219199717500377
F. Gao, Z. Shen & M. Yang, *On the critical Choquard equation with potential well,* arXiv:1703.01737
E. H. Lieb, *Existence and uniqueness of the minimizing solution of Choquard’s nonlinear equation*, Studies in Appl. Math., **57** (1976/77), 93–105.
E. H. Lieb & M. Loss, “Analysis,” *Gradute Studies in Mathematics*, AMS, Providence, Rhode island, 2001.
P.L. Lions, *The Choquard equation and related questions*, Nonlinear Anal., **4** (1980), 1063–1072.
P.L. Lions, *The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations, The limit case, Part 1*, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana, **1** (1985), 145–201.
P.L. Lions, *The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations, The limit case, Part 2*, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana, **1** (1985), 45–121.
P.L. Lions, *The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations, The locally compact case, Part 1*, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire, **1** (1984), 109–145.
P.L. Lions, *The concentration-compactness principle in the calculus of variations, The locally compact case, Part 2*, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire, **1** (1984), 223–283.
L. Ma & L. Zhao, *Classification of positive solitary solutions of the nonlinear Choquard equation*, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., **195** (2010), 455–467.
V. Moroz & J. Van Schaftingen, *Groundstates of nonlinear Choquard equations: Existence, qualitative properties and decay asymptotics,* J. Funct. Anal., **265** (2013), 153–184.
V. Moroz & J. Van Schaftingen, *Groundstates of nonlinear Choquard equation: Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev critical exponent,* Commun. Contemp. Math, **17** (2015), Article ID 1550005, 12pp.
V. Moroz & J. Van Schaftingen, *Existence of groundstates for a class of nonlinear Choquard equations,* Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., **367** (2015), 6557–6579.
V. Moroz & J. Van Schaftingen, *Semi-classical states for the Choquard equation*, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations **52** (2015), 199–235.
S. Pekar, Untersuchungüber die Elektronentheorie der Kristalle, Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1954.
R. Penrose, *On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction,* Gen. Relativ. Gravitat., **28** (1996), 581–600.
M. Struwe, *A global compactness result for elliptic boundary value problems involving limiting nonlinearities,* Math. Z., **187** (1984), 511–517.
J. C. Wei & M. Winter, *Strongly interacting bumps for the Schrödinger–Newton equations,* J. Math. Phys., **50** (2009), 012905, 22 pp.
M. Willem, Minimax Theorems, Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications, 24. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1996.
H. Zou, *Existence and non-existence for Schrödinger equations involving critical Sobolev exponents,* J. Korean Math. Soc., **47** (2010), 547–572.
[^1]: $^*$Minbo Yang is the corresponding author who is partially supported by NSFC(11571317,11671364).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show how one-parameter homogeneous deformations of rational $T$-varieties induce maps from a subgroup of the Picard group of any fiber of the deformation to the Picard group of the special fiber. If the special fiber is complete, this map preserves Euler characteristic and intersection numbers, and if the deformation is locally trivial, then this map is an isomorphism. We offer a simple description of this map for smooth, complete rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces. These results are then applied to analyze the behaviour of exceptional sequences of lines bundles on rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces under deformation and degeneration. We also show that all rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces of fixed Picard number can be connected by homogeneous deformations.'
address:
- |
Mathematisches Institut\
Freie Universität Berlin\
Arnimallee 3\
14195 Berlin, Germany
- |
Mathematisches Institut\
Freie Universität Berlin\
Arnimallee 3\
14195 Berlin, Germany
author:
- 'Andreas Hochenegger & Nathan Owen Ilten'
bibliography:
- 'e-seq-def.bib'
title: 'Families of Divisors on $T$-Varieties and Exceptional Sequences on $\mathbb{C}^*$-Surfaces'
---
Keywords: Toric varieties, deformation theory, $T$-varieties, exceptional sequences\
MSC: Primary 14D15, 14M25, 18E30.
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Normal rational varieties admitting an effective codimension-one torus action provide a natural generalization of toric varieties. Such varieties, also called rational complexity-one $T$-varieties, can be described combinatorially in terms of polyhedral divisors, see [@MR2426131]. Recently, R. Vollmert and the second author showed how to construct homogeneous deformations of these varieties using Minkowski decompositions in [@ilten09b]. The goal of this paper is to use the homogeneous structure of these deformations to compare Cartier divisors on the fibers. After handling the general case, we pay special attention to rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces, and show how our results can be applied to better understand exceptional sequences.
Consider now a homogeneous one-parameter deformation $\pi:X^{\mathrm{tot}}\to S$ of a rational complexity-one $T$-variety $X_0$. For each $s\in S$ we will construct a natural subgroup $\operatorname{Pic}'(X_s)\subset \operatorname{Pic}(X_s)$. In particular, if $s=0$ or $\pi$ is locally trivial, we will have that $\operatorname{Pic}'(X_s)= \operatorname{Pic}(X_s)$. Our first main result can then be summed up in the following theorem:
For any $s,s'\in S$ with $s\neq 0$, $\pi$ induces a natural injection $\bar{\pi}_{s,s'}:\operatorname{Pic}'(X_{s})\hookrightarrow \operatorname{Pic}'(X_{s'})$. Furthermore, $\bar{\pi}_{s,s'}$ preserves Euler characteristic and intersection numbers if $X_0$ is complete. Finally, if $X_0$ is complete and $\pi$ locally trivial, then $\bar{\pi}_{s,s'}$ is in fact an isomorphism.
We then turn our attention to homogeneous deformations of smooth, complete, rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces. Such deformations can be blown up and down in a natural manner, as we shall see. Furthermore, there is an easy description of many such deformations where all fibers are toric surfaces. An important result is that all rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces of fixed Picard number can be connected by a series of homogeneous deformations and degenerations. In the setting of homogeneous deformations of ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces, we then give an explicit description of the above map $\bar\pi_{s,0}$ of divisors and show that this commutes with blowing up.
Finally, we look at exceptional sequences of line bundles on rational surfaces, in particular, those with ${\mathbb{C}}^*$ action. Important for the study of such exceptional sequences are so-called *toric systems*, defined by L. Hille and M. Perling in [@hillperl08]. A toric system consists of a tuple of line bundles satisfying certain conditions regarding the intersection numbers, see section \[sec:toricsystems\] for an exact definition; in any case, any full exceptional sequence of line bundles gives rise to a toric system. In [@hillperl08] it was shown how for any toric system ${\mathcal{A}}$ on a rational surface $X$, one can construct an associated smooth toric variety $\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}})$. A. Bondal loosely conjectured that the step from $X$ to $\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}})$ has something to do with degeneration. The following theorem offers a concrete result in this direction:
\[mainthm:2\] Let $X$ and $X'$ be two smooth, complete rational $\mathbb{C}^*$-surfaces both with Picard number $\rho>2$ and let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be toric system on $X$. Then there is a sequence $$X=X^0\dashrightarrow X^1\dashrightarrow\cdots\dashrightarrow X^k=X'$$ of homogeneous deformations and degenerations connecting $X$ and $X'$ such that if ${\mathcal{A}}_i$ is the image of ${\mathcal{A}}$ on $X^i$, ${\mathcal{A}}_i$ is a toric system. Furthermore $\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}}_i)=\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}})$ for all $i$.
The downside to the above theorem is that not every toric system comes from an exceptional sequence. In fact, exceptional sequences do not in general degenerate to exceptional sequences. However, for a certain subset of exceptional sequences, we can describe what happens: using the inductive process of augmentation from [@hillperl08], we define *tame* toric systems. Every tame toric system comes from an exceptional sequence, and Hille and Perling conjectured that these are in fact all possible toric systems coming from exceptional sequences. In passing, we show that for any rational surface $X$ of fixed Picard number and any toric surface $Y$ with equal Picard number, there exists a tame toric system ${\mathcal{A}}$ on $X$ with $\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}})=Y$. Given a tame toric system on some ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surface along with a degeneration, we then formulate a condition of *compatibility*, which can be checked recursively. The following theorem makes clear the importance of this condition:
\[mainthm:3\] Let $\pi$ be a homogeneous deformation of rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces with general fiber $X_s$ and let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a toric system on $X_s$. Then ${\mathcal{A}}$ is compatible with $\pi$ if and only if $\bar\pi_{s,0}({\mathcal{A}})$ is a tame toric system.
In the case of Hirzebruch surfaces, we can also describe what happens under deformation or degeneration in terms of so-called *mutations*. We also use the homogeneous geometric deformations to construct noncommutative deformations, that is, parametrizations of derived categories of rational surfaces; several such parametrizations have already been described in [@perling09].
The necessary language of $T$-varieties and polyhedral divisors is presented in section \[sec:tvar\]. Section \[sec:tvardef\] then recalls the notion of a homogeneous deformation. In section \[sec:induceddivfamily\], we develop the machinery necessary to describe the families of divisors corresponding to a homogeneous deformation, whereas in section \[sec:localtrivial\] we prove the surjectivity of the corresponding map of Picard groups. In sections \[sec:multidiv\], \[sec:cstardef\], \[sec:defcon\], and \[sec:surfacedivisors\] we concentrate on rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces, respectively introducing multidivisors to describe these surfaces, analyzing deformations of them via degeneration diagrams, proving that they are homogeneously deformation connected, and explicitly describing the map of Picard groups. We then turn to basics of exceptional sequences and toric systems in section \[sec:toricsystems\], considering augmentations and tame toric systems in section \[sec:augmentation\]. Finally, in section \[sec:exseqdef\] we consider the connection between homogeneous deformations and toric systems, and in section \[sec:noncomdef\] we use this to construct noncommutative deformations.\
\
*Acknowledgements*: We would like to thank David Ploog for a number of helpful comments.
Polyhedral Divisors and $T$-Varieties {#sec:tvar}
=====================================
We recall here the basic construction of $T$-varieties as well as several other facts. Unless otherwise noted, all statements can be found in [@MR2426131]. For a more detailed exposition and numerous examples, the reader may refer to this source.
As usual, let $N$ be a lattice with dual $M$ and let $N_{\mathbb{Q}}$ and $M_{\mathbb{Q}}$ be the associated ${\mathbb{Q}}$ vector spaces. For any polyhedron $\Delta\subset N_{\mathbb{Q}}$, let $\operatorname{tail}(\Delta)$ denote its tailcone, that is, the cone of unbounded directions in $\Delta$. Thus, $\Delta$ can be written as the Minkowski sum of some bounded polyhedron and its tailcone. Now for $u \in \operatorname{tail}(\Delta)^\vee \cap M$, denote by $\operatorname{face}({\Delta},{u})$ the face of $\Delta$ upon which $u$ achieves its minimum. For any polyhedral complex $C$ in $N_{\mathbb{Q}}$, let $|C|$ denote all points of $N_{\mathbb{Q}}$ contained in some element of $C$.
Now let $Y$ be a smooth projective variety over ${\mathbb{C}}$ and let $\delta\subset N_{\mathbb{Q}}$ be a pointed polyhedral cone. A *polyhedral divisor* on $Y$ with tail cone $\delta$ is then defined to be a formal finite sum $${\mathcal{D}}= \sum_P \Delta_P \cdot P,$$ where $P$ runs over all prime divisors on $Y$ and $\Delta_P$ is a polyhedron with tailcone $\delta$. Here, finite means that only finitely many coefficients differ from the tail cone. Note that the empty set is also allowed as a coefficient.
We can evaluate such a polyhedral divisor for every element $u \in \delta^\vee \cap M$ via $${\mathcal{D}}(u):=\sum_P \min_{v \in \Delta_P} \langle v , u \rangle P$$ in order to obtain an ordinary ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $\operatorname{Loc}{\mathcal{D}}$, where $\operatorname{Loc}{\mathcal{D}}:= Y \setminus \left( \bigcup_{\Delta_P = \emptyset} P \right)$. A polyhedral divisor ${\mathcal{D}}$ is called [*proper*]{} if for all $u\in \delta^\vee\cap M$, ${\mathcal{D}}(u)$ is semiample (i.e. a multiple is globally generated) and if for all $u\in \operatorname{relint}\delta^\vee \cap M$, ${\mathcal{D}}(u)$ is big (i.e. a multiple has a section with affine complement). To a proper polyhedral divisor we associate an $M$-graded ${\mathbb{C}}$-algebra and consequently an affine scheme admitting a $T^N=N\otimes {\mathbb{C}}^*$-action: $$X({\mathcal{D}}):= \operatorname{Spec}\bigoplus_{u \in \delta^\vee \cap M} H^0(Y,{\mathcal{D}}(u)).$$ This construction gives a normal variety of dimension $\dim Y+\dim N_{\mathbb{Q}}$ together with a $T^N$-action.
We now wish to glue these affine schemes together. For any two proper polyhedral divisors ${\mathcal{D}}=\sum_P \Delta_P \cdot P$, ${\mathcal{D}}'=\sum_P \Delta'_P \cdot P$ on $Y$ with tail cones $\delta$ and $\delta'$ we define their *intersection* by $${\mathcal{D}}\cap {\mathcal{D}}' := \sum_P (\Delta_P \cap \Delta'_P) \cdot P.$$ Likewise, we say ${\mathcal{D}}' \subset {\mathcal{D}}$ if $\Delta'_P\subset\Delta_P$ for every prime divisor $P \in Y$. If ${\mathcal{D}}' \subset {\mathcal{D}}$ then we have an inclusion $$\bigoplus_{u \in \delta^\vee \cap M} H^0( Y,{\mathcal{D}}'(u))
\supset \bigoplus_{u \in \delta^\vee \cap M} H^0( Y,{\mathcal{D}}(u))$$ which corresponds to a dominant morphism $X({\mathcal{D}}') \rightarrow X({\mathcal{D}})$. If this is an open embedding, we say ${\mathcal{D}}'$ is a *face* of ${\mathcal{D}}$ and write ${\mathcal{D}}' \prec {\mathcal{D}}$.[^1] We now define a [*divisorial fan*]{} to be a finite set $\Xi$ of proper polyhedral divisors such that for ${\mathcal{D}},{\mathcal{D}}' \in \Xi$ we have ${\mathcal{D}}\succ {\mathcal{D}}' \cap {\mathcal{D}}\prec {\mathcal{D}}'$ with ${\mathcal{D}}' \cap {\mathcal{D}}$ also in $\Xi$. We may then glue the affine varieties $X({\mathcal{D}})$ for ${\mathcal{D}}\in \Xi$ via $$X({\mathcal{D}}) \leftarrow X({\mathcal{D}}\cap {\mathcal{D}}') \rightarrow X({\mathcal{D}}').$$ This construction yields a normal scheme $X(\Xi)$ of dimension $\dim Y+\dim N_{\mathbb{Q}}$ with a torus action by $T^N$. Note that all normal varieties with torus action can be constructed in this manner.
For a not-necessarily closed point $y\in Y$ and a polyhedral divisor ${\mathcal{D}}=\sum \Delta_P \cdot P$, set ${\mathcal{D}}_y:=\sum_{y\in P} \Delta_P$. Likewise, for a divisorial fan $\Xi$, the polyhedral complex defined by the ${\mathcal{D}}_y$, ${\mathcal{D}}\in \Xi$ is called a [*slice*]{} of $\Xi$. Note that $X(\Xi)$ is complete if and only if all slices $\Xi_y$ are complete subdivisions of $N_{\mathbb{Q}}$. We further define $\operatorname{tail}(\Sigma)=\{\operatorname{tail}({\mathcal{D}})\ |\ {\mathcal{D}}\in\Xi\}$; this set of cones forms a fan which we call the *tailfan* of $\Xi$.
We will be dealing extensively with invariant divisors on complete $T$-varieties with codimension one torus action; these divisors have been described in [@lars08] in combinatorial terms. Let $Y$ be a smooth projective curve and $\Xi$ a divisorial fan on $Y$; set $\Sigma=\operatorname{tail}(\Xi)$. We then define $\operatorname{SF}(\Xi)$ be the set of all formal sums of the form $$h=\sum_{P\in Y} h_P\otimes P$$ where $h_P:|\Xi_P|\to {\mathbb{Q}}$ are continuous functions such that:
1. $h_P$ is piecewise affine with respect to the subdivision $\Xi_P$;
2. $h_P$ is integral, that is, if $k\cdot v$ is a lattice point for $k\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $v\in N$, then $k\cdot h_P(v)\in{\mathbb{Z}}$;
3. For $v\in |\Sigma|$, $h_P^0:=\lim_{k\to \infty} h_P(k\cdot v+v_P)/k$ is the same for all $P$, where $v_P$ is any point in ${\mathcal{D}}_P$ for some ${\mathcal{D}}\in\Xi$ with $v\in \operatorname{tail}{\mathcal{D}}$. We call $h_P^0$ the linear part of $h$ and denote it by $h^0$;
4. $h_P\neq h^0$ for only finitely many $P$.
Furthermore, let $\operatorname{CaSF}(\Xi)$ consist of all $h\in \operatorname{SF}(\Xi)$ such that for every ${\mathcal{D}}\in\Xi$ with complete locus, any linear extension of $h_{|{\mathcal{D}}}$ evaluated at $0$ is principal on $Y$. Both $\operatorname{SF}(\Xi)$ and $\operatorname{CaSF}(\Xi)$ have a natural group structure. There is a group isomorphism from $\operatorname{CaSF}(\Xi)$ to the group $\operatorname{T-CaDiv}(X(\Xi))$ of $T$-invariant Cartier divisors on $X(\Xi)$; we denote the divisor associated to $h$ by $D_h$. Under this isomorphism, linear functions $h$ with $h(0)$ a principal divisor on $Y$ are taken to principal divisors.
The following example is considered in [@suess08], example 5.1. Consider $X=\overline{\operatorname{Cone}(dP_6)}$, a compactification of the cone over the del Pezzo surface of degree six. $X$ is in fact toric, and by restricting to a subtorus we can view $X$ as a complexity-one $T$-variety with divisorial fan $\Xi$ on $Y=\mathbb{P}^1$ as pictured in figure \[fig:dp6fan\].
$\Xi$ has nontrivial slices in $0$ and $\infty$. The noncompact polyhedra with common tail cone belong to the same polyhedral divisor, whereas the polyhedral divisor with hexagonal coefficient at $0$ has the empty set as coefficient at $\infty$.
Families of Divisors {#sec:family}
====================
Deformations of $T$-Varieties {#sec:tvardef}
-----------------------------
Here we summarize the construction of deformations found in [@ilten09b].[^2] We shall make several simplifying assumptions.
Let $Y=\mathbb{P}^1$ and let $\Xi$ be a divisorial fan on $Y$. We now show how to construct certain one-parameter homogeneous deformations of the rational non-affine $T$-variety $X(\Xi)$. Fix some point $0\in Y$ such that the slice $\Xi_0$ is non-trivial, and let $\mathcal{P}\subset Y$ be the set of all points $P$ with non-trivial slice $\Xi_P$. In particular, we have $0\in\mathcal{P}$.
A *$1$-parameter Minkowski decomposition* of the slice $\Xi_0$ consists of polyhedra ${\mathcal{D}}_0^0,{\mathcal{D}}_0^1$ for every ${\mathcal{D}}\in \Xi$ such that:
1. For ${\mathcal{D}}\in \Xi$, the slice ${\mathcal{D}}_0={\mathcal{D}}_0^0+{\mathcal{D}}_0^1$;\[item:sum\]
2. ${\mathcal{D}}_0^0,{\mathcal{D}}_0^1$ have the same tailcone as ${\mathcal{D}}$;
3. For fixed $j=0,1$, $\{{\mathcal{D}}_0^{j}\}_{{\mathcal{D}}\in \Xi}$ form a polyhedral complex in $N_{\mathbb{Q}}$; \[item:complex\]
4. If ${\mathcal{D}}={\mathcal{D}}'\cap{\mathcal{D}}''$ for ${\mathcal{D}}',D''\in \Xi$, then ${\mathcal{D}}_0^{j}={{\mathcal{D}}_0'}^j\cap{{\mathcal{D}}_0''}^j$ for $j=0,1$.\[item:compatible\]
For fixed $j=0,1$, each vertex $v$ of the polyhedral complex $\Xi_0$ corresponds to exactly one vertex $v_j$ of the polyhedral complex $\{{\mathcal{D}}_0^{j}\}$. We say that the decomposition of $\Xi_0$ is *admissible* if and only if for all vertices $v$ of $\Xi_0$, at most one of the corresponding vertices $v_j$ is not a lattice point.
Let $\{{\mathcal{D}}_0^j\}_{{\mathcal{D}}\in \Xi}$ be an admissible decomposition of $\Xi_0$. Set $S^*=\mathbb{A}^1\setminus \mathcal{P}$ and let $S=S^*\cup\{0\}$. From such data we shall construct a divisorial fan $\Xi^{{\mathrm{tot}}}$ on $Y^{{\mathrm{tot}}}:=Y\times S$. For $P\in \mathcal{P}$ , let $D^{\mathrm{tot}}(P)$ be the prime divisor $P\times S$ on $Y^{\mathrm{tot}}=Y\times S$ and let $D^{\mathrm{tot}}(\Delta)$ be the divisor given by the vanishing of $y-t$, where $y$ is a local parameter for $0$ in $Y$ and $t$ the coordinate on $\mathbb{A}^1$. For ${\mathcal{D}}\in \Xi$ we can define a polyhedral divisor ${\mathcal{D}}^{\mathrm{tot}}$ on $Y^{\mathrm{tot}}$ by $${\mathcal{D}}^{\mathrm{tot}}={\mathcal{D}}_0^0\cdot D^{\mathrm{tot}}(0)+{\mathcal{D}}_0^1\cdot D^{\mathrm{tot}}(\Delta)+\sum_{P\in\mathcal{P}\setminus\{0\}} {{\mathcal{D}}_{\!P}}\cdot D^{\mathrm{tot}}(P).$$ We then set $\Xi^{{\mathrm{tot}}}=\langle\{{\mathcal{D}}^{\mathrm{tot}}\}_{{\mathcal{D}}\in\Xi}\rangle$, that is, $\Xi^{{\mathrm{tot}}}$ is the set of polyhedral divisors induced by the ${\mathcal{D}}^{\mathrm{tot}}$ via intersection.
We also construct a family of divisorial fans $\Xi^{(s)}$ on $Y$. Fix a point $s\in S$. For ${\mathcal{D}}\in \Xi$ we can define a polyhedral divisor ${\mathcal{D}}^{(s)}$ on $Y$ by $${\mathcal{D}}^{(s)}={\mathcal{D}}_0^0\cdot 0+{\mathcal{D}}_0^1\cdot s +\sum_{P\in\mathcal{P}\setminus\{0\}} {{\mathcal{D}}_{\!P}}\cdot P$$ where the coefficients in front of prime divisors appearing multiple times are added via Minkowski sums. In particular, ${\mathcal{D}}^{(0)}={\mathcal{D}}$. Similar to above, we then set $\Xi^{(s)}=\langle\{{\mathcal{D}}^{(s)}\}_{{\mathcal{D}}\in\Xi}\rangle$. Note that both $\Xi^{\mathrm{tot}}$ and $\Xi^{(s)}$ are divisorial fans. Furthermore, $\Xi^{\mathrm{tot}}$ comes with a rational quotient map $\Xi^{\mathrm{tot}}\dashrightarrow Y^{\mathrm{tot}}$, which when composed with the projection onto $S$ can in fact be (uniquely) extended to a regular map $\pi\colon X({\Xi^{\mathrm{tot}}})\to S$. This gives a one-parameter deformation of $X(\Xi)$:
The map $\pi\colon X(\Xi^{\mathrm{tot}})\to S$ gives a flat family with $\pi^{-1}(s)\cong X(\Xi^{(s)})$ for $s\in S$. In particular, $\pi^{-1}(0)=X(\Xi)$.
We will refer to $\pi$ as a one-parameter homogeneous deformation of $X(\Xi)$. The following proposition will be used in the next section:
\[prop:proper\] Suppose that $X(\Xi)$ is a complete variety and let $\pi$ be a one-parameter homogeneous deformation of $X(\Xi)$. Then $\pi$ is proper.
First, note that $X(\Xi)$ being complete implies that the slices $\Xi_y$ are complete subdivisions of $N_{\mathbb{Q}}$ for all $y\in Y$. It easily follows that $\Xi_y^{\mathrm{tot}}$ are complete subdivisions of $N_{\mathbb{Q}}$ for all $y\in Y\times S$.
The map $\pi$ is in fact a torus equivariant morphism corresponding to the triple $(\operatorname{pr},F,0)$, where $\operatorname{pr}:Y\times S\to S$ is the projection and $F:N\to 0$ is the zero map, see [@suess09]. Since $\operatorname{pr}$ is proper and all slices of $\Xi^{\mathrm{tot}}$ cover $N_{\mathbb{Q}}$, the properness of $\pi$ follows from theorem 7.1 of [@suess09].
It was shown in [@ilten09b] that if $X_0=X(\Xi)$ is smooth, complete, and toric, the set of all one-parameter homogeneous deformations of $X_0$ span the space of infinitesimal deformations of $X_0$.
We return to the example from section \[sec:tvar\]. As shown in [@suess08], there is a homogeneous deformation of $X=\overline{\operatorname{Cone}(dP_6)}$ to $\mathbb{P}^1\times\mathbb{P}^1\times\mathbb{P}^1$. The three nontrivial slices of the divisorial fan $\Xi^{\mathrm{tot}}$ for the total space are pictured in figure \[fig:p13fan\].
$\Xi^{\mathrm{tot}}$ has nontrivial slices for the divisors $D^{\mathrm{tot}}(0)$, $D^{\mathrm{tot}}(\Delta)$, and $D^{\mathrm{tot}}(\infty)$. In these slices, the noncompact polyhedra with common tail cone belong to the same polyhedral divisor, whereas the triangular coefficients at $D^{\mathrm{tot}}(0)$, $D^{\mathrm{tot}}(\Delta)$ belong to a common polyhedral divisor having the empty set as coefficient at $D^{\mathrm{tot}}(\infty)$. One easily checks that the general fiber of this deformation is $\mathbb{P}^1\times\mathbb{P}^1\times\mathbb{P}^1$.
Induced Families of Divisors {#sec:induceddivfamily}
----------------------------
Let $\pi:X(\Xi^{\mathrm{tot}})\to S$ be a one-parameter homogeneous deformation of $X(\Xi)$. Denote by $X_s=X(\Xi^{(s)})$ the fiber over $s\in S$, and set $X^{\mathrm{tot}}=X(\Xi^{\mathrm{tot}})$. The basic observation is that certain $T$-invariant divisors on the total space $X^{\mathrm{tot}}$ restrict to $T$-invariant divisors on each fiber $X_s$, thus giving us a family of $T$-invariant divisors. We wish to analyze the situation more closely in this section.
For $s\in S\subset\mathbb{P}^1$, let $\operatorname{CaSF}'(\Xi^{(s)})$ consist of those $h\in\operatorname{CaSF}(\Xi^{(s)})$ such that for all ${\mathcal{D}}^{(s)} \in \Xi^{(s)}$, we can find $u\in M$ and $a_0,a_s\in{\mathbb{Z}}$ such that $(h_{|{\mathcal{D}}^{(s)}})_0(v)=\langle v,u \rangle +a_0$ and $(h_{|{\mathcal{D}}^{(s)}})_s(v)=\langle v,u \rangle +a_s$. Note that $\operatorname{CaSF}'(\Xi^{(s)})=\operatorname{CaSF}(\Xi^{(s)})$ if $\pi$ is locally trivial, which in particular is the case if $X_0$ is smooth. We of course also always have $\operatorname{CaSF}'(\Xi^{(0)})=\operatorname{CaSF}(\Xi^{(0)})$.
Fix now some $s\in S^*$ and choose some support function $h^{(s)}\in \operatorname{CaSF}'(\Xi^{(s)})$; this corresponds to an invariant Cartier divisor $D_{h^{(s)}}$ on $X_s$. For each $s'\in S^*$, define $h^{(s')}\in \operatorname{CaSF}(\Xi^{(s')})$ by $h^{(s')}=h^{(s)}+h_s^{(s)}\otimes(s'-s)$. Likewise, define $h^{(0)}\in \operatorname{CaSF}(\Xi^{(0)})$ by setting $h_P^{(0)}=h_P^{(s)}$ for $P\in Y\setminus \{0,s\}$, taking $h_s^{(0)}$ to be trivial, and for ${\mathcal{D}}\in\Xi$ and any $v\in {\mathcal{D}}_0$, setting $$h_0^{(0)}(v)=h_0^{(s)}(v_0)+h_s^{(s)}(v_s)$$ where $v_0\in {\mathcal{D}}_0^{(s)}$ and $v_s\in {\mathcal{D}}_0^{(s)}$ are such that $v_0+v_s=v$. Note that the requirement $h^{(s)}\in \operatorname{CaSF}'(\Xi^{(s)})$ ensures that $h_0^{(0)}(v)$ does not depend on the choice of such $v_0$ and $v_s$.
We also define an invariant Cartier divisor $D_h^{\mathrm{tot}}$ on $X^{\mathrm{tot}}$. We first will need invariant open coverings of $X_{s}$ and $X^{\mathrm{tot}}$. For $P\in \mathcal{P}\setminus\{0\}$ and ${\mathcal{D}}\in \Xi$ with noncomplete locus, set $$\begin{aligned}
U_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{(s)}&=X\Big({\mathcal{D}}^{(s)}+\emptyset\cdot s+\sum_{\substack{Q\in \mathcal{P}\\Q\neq P}} \emptyset \cdot Q\Big)\\
U_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{{\mathrm{tot}}}&=X\Big({\mathcal{D}}^{{\mathrm{tot}}}+\emptyset\cdot D(\Delta)+\sum_{\substack{Q\in \mathcal{P}\\Q\neq P}} \emptyset \cdot D^{\mathrm{tot}}(Q)\Big)\end{aligned}$$ and likewise set $$\begin{aligned}
U_{{\mathcal{D}},0}^{(s)}&=X\Big({\mathcal{D}}^{(s)}+\sum_{\substack{Q\in \mathcal{P}\\Q\neq 0}} \emptyset \cdot Q\Big)\\
U_{{\mathcal{D}},0}^{{\mathrm{tot}}}&=X\Big({\mathcal{D}}^{{\mathrm{tot}}}+\sum_{\substack{Q\in \mathcal{P}\\Q\neq 0}} \emptyset \cdot D^{\mathrm{tot}}(Q)\Big).\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, for $P\in\mathcal{P}$ and ${\mathcal{D}}\in \Xi$ with complete locus, set $U_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{(s)}=X({\mathcal{D}}^{(s)})$ and $U_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{{\mathrm{tot}}}=X({\mathcal{D}}^{{\mathrm{tot}}})$. One easily checks that $\{U_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{(s)}\}$ and $\{U_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{{\mathrm{tot}}}\}$ define invariant open coverings of respectively $X_s$ and $X^{\mathrm{tot}}$. These open coverings may in fact be finer than necessary for defining the desired Cartier divisor.
For each $P\in\mathcal{P}$ and ${\mathcal{D}}\in \Xi$, let $u({\mathcal{D}},P)\in M$, $f_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{(s)}\in K(Y)$ be such that ${D_{h^{(s)}}}_{|U_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{(s)}}=\operatorname{div}(f_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{(s)}\cdot \chi^{u({\mathcal{D}},P)})$. Such $f_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{(s)},u({\mathcal{D}},P)$ exist since $h^{(s)}\in\operatorname{CaSF}'(\Xi^{(s)})$. Now set $$f_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{\mathrm{tot}}=f_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{(s)}\cdot \left(\frac{y-t}{y-s}\right)^{\nu_s(f_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{(s)})}\in K(Y^{\mathrm{tot}}),$$ where $\nu_s$ is the valuation in the point $s$ and $y$ and $t$ are as in the previous section. This leads to the following proposition:
\[prop:totaldivisor\] With respect to the open covering $X^{\mathrm{tot}}=\bigcup U_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{\mathrm{tot}}$, the functions $f_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{\mathrm{tot}}\cdot \chi^{u({\mathcal{D}},P)}\in K(X^{\mathrm{tot}})$ define an invariant Cartier divisor on $X^{\mathrm{tot}}$ which we denote by $D_h^{\mathrm{tot}}$. Furthermore, the restriction of this divisor to the fiber $X_{s'}$ for any $s'\in S$ is equal to $$(D_h^{\mathrm{tot}})_{s'}=D_{h^{(s')}}.$$
A simple calculation shows that the restriction of the functions $f_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{\mathrm{tot}}\cdot \chi^{u({\mathcal{D}},P)}$ to any fiber $X_{s'}$ give the Cartier divisor corresponding to $h^{(s')}$. We now show that these functions do indeed define a Cartier divisor on $X^{\mathrm{tot}}$.
Consider ${\mathcal{D}},{\mathcal{D}}'\in \Xi$ and $P,P'\in \mathcal{P}$. It is sufficient to show $$\frac{f_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{\mathrm{tot}}}{f_{{\mathcal{D}}',P'}^{\mathrm{tot}}}\cdot \chi^{u({\mathcal{D}},P)-u({\mathcal{D}}',P')}\in H^0\Big(U_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{\mathrm{tot}}\cap U_{{\mathcal{D}}',P'}^{\mathrm{tot}}, {\mathcal{O}}_{X^{\mathrm{tot}}}\Big).$$ Setting $\tilde{u}=u({\mathcal{D}},P)-u({\mathcal{D}}',P')$, this is equivalent to showing $$g:=\frac{f_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{(s)}}{f_{{\mathcal{D}}',P'}^{(s)}}\cdot \left(\frac{y-t}{y-s}\right)^{\nu_s(f_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{(s)}/f_{{\mathcal{D}}',P'}^{(s)})}\in H^0\Big(Y_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{\mathrm{tot}}\cap Y_{{\mathcal{D}}',P'}^{\mathrm{tot}},{\mathcal{D}}^{\mathrm{tot}}\cap{\mathcal{D}}'^{\mathrm{tot}}\big(\tilde{u}\big)\Big),$$ where $Y_{D,P}^{\mathrm{tot}}=Y^{\mathrm{tot}}$ if $\operatorname{Loc}{\mathcal{D}}$ is complete and $Y_{D,P}^{\mathrm{tot}}$ is the image of $U_{D,P}^{{\mathrm{tot}}}$ under the quotient map otherwise. This in turn is the same as showing that $$\label{eqn:divval}
\nu_{D}(g) \geq -({\mathcal{D}}^{\mathrm{tot}}\cap{\mathcal{D}}'^{\mathrm{tot}})_{D}\big(\tilde{u}\big)$$ for all divisors $D$ contained in $Y_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{\mathrm{tot}}\cap Y_{{\mathcal{D}}',P'}^{\mathrm{tot}}$, where $\nu_D$ is the corresponding valuation. One immediately sees that this is automatically fulfilled unless $D$ is of the form $D^{\mathrm{tot}}(Q),Q\in\mathcal{P}$, $D^{\mathrm{tot}}(s)$ or $D^{\mathrm{tot}}(\Delta)$, since both sides of the above inequality will be $0$.
Now for $Q\in \mathcal{P}$, $\nu_{D^{\mathrm{tot}}(Q)}(g)=\nu_Q(f_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{(s)}/f_{{\mathcal{D}}',P'}^{(s)})$. Furthermore, $\nu_{D^{\mathrm{tot}}(s)}(g)=0$ and $\nu_{D^{\mathrm{tot}}(\Delta)}(g)=\nu_s(f_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{(s)}/f_{{\mathcal{D}}',P'}^{(s)})$. On the other hand, we have $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathcal{D}}^{\mathrm{tot}}\cap{\mathcal{D}}'^{\mathrm{tot}})_{D^{\mathrm{tot}}(Q)}\big(\tilde{u}\big)&=({\mathcal{D}}^{(s)}\cap{\mathcal{D}}'^{(s)})_{Q}\big(\tilde{u}\big);\\
({\mathcal{D}}^{\mathrm{tot}}\cap{\mathcal{D}}'^{\mathrm{tot}})_{D^{\mathrm{tot}}(s)}\big(\tilde{u}\big)&=0;\\
({\mathcal{D}}^{\mathrm{tot}}\cap{\mathcal{D}}'^{\mathrm{tot}})_{D^{\mathrm{tot}}(\Delta)}\big(\tilde{u}\big)&=({\mathcal{D}}^{(s)}\cap{\mathcal{D}}'^{(s)})_{s}\big(\tilde{u}\big).\\\end{aligned}$$
Now, since the functions $f_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{(s)}\chi^{u({\mathcal{D}},P)}$ define a Cartier divisor on $X_s$, we have $$\frac{f_{{\mathcal{D}},P}^{(s)}}{f_{{\mathcal{D}}',P'}^{(s)}}\in H^0\Big(Y_{{\mathcal{D}},P}\cap Y_{{\mathcal{D}}',P'},{\mathcal{D}}^{(s)}\cap{\mathcal{D}}'^{(s)}\big({\tilde{u}}\big)\Big)$$ where $Y_{D,P}$ is defined similarly to $Y_{D,P}^{\mathrm{tot}}$. Consequently, $$\nu_{Q}(g) \geq -({\mathcal{D}}^{\mathrm{tot}}\cap{\mathcal{D}}'^{\mathrm{tot}})_{Q}\big(\tilde{u}\big)$$ for $Q\in Y_{D,P}$ and inequality follows for the required divisors.
Let $\operatorname{T-CaDiv}'$ denote the image of $\operatorname{CaSF}'$ in the group $\operatorname{T-CaDiv}$ of invariant Cartier divisors. Likewise, let $\operatorname{Pic}'$ be the image of $\operatorname{CaSF}'$ module linear equivalence. Then for each $s'\in S$, the above construction gives us a map $\pi_{s,s'}:\operatorname{T-CaDiv}'(X_s)\to \operatorname{T-CaDiv}'(X_{s'})$ defined by sending $D_{h^{(s)}}$ to $D_{h^{(s')}}$. For $s'\in S^*$, it is obvious from the construction that $\pi_{s,s'}$ is an isomorphism. For $s'=0$, the matter is slightly more delicate. It is clear from construction that $\pi_{s,0}$ is a group homomorphism sending principal divisors to principal divisors, with kernel contained in the set of principal divisors. Thus, $\pi_{s,s'}$ always descends to an injective map $\bar\pi_{s,s'}:\operatorname{Pic}'(X_s)\hookrightarrow\operatorname{Pic}'(X_s')$. Furthermore, we have the following theorem:
\[thm:surjective\] Suppose that $\Xi_0$ is complete and $\pi$ is locally trivial. Then the map $\pi_{s,0}:\operatorname{T-CaDiv}'(X_s)\to \operatorname{T-CaDiv}'(X_{0})$ is surjective and thus induces an isomorphism $\bar{\pi}_{s,0}:\operatorname{Pic}'(X_s)\to \operatorname{Pic}'(X_{0})$. More generally, $\pi_{s,0}$ is surjective if $\operatorname{rank}\operatorname{Pic}'(X_s)=\operatorname{rank}\operatorname{Pic}'(X_0)$.
We postpone the proof of the theorem until section \[sec:localtrivial\]. We conjecture that $\pi_{s,0}$ is in fact surjective anytime that the support of $\Xi_0$ is convex, with no restrictions on $\pi$. Now if the special fiber $X_0$ is complete, the cohomology groups of coherent sheaves on all the fibers of $\pi$ have finite rank. For invertible sheaves we then have the following theorem:
\[thm:euler\] Let $X_0$ be complete, with $\pi$ any one-parameter homogeneous deformation. Consider some ${\mathcal{L}}\in\operatorname{Pic}'(X_s)$ and any $s\in S^*$. Then we have
1. $h^i\left(\bar{\pi}_{s,s'}({\mathcal{L}})\right)= h^i\left({\mathcal{L}}\right)$ for all $i\geq 0$ and any $s'\in S^*$;
2. $h^i\left(\bar{\pi}_{s,0}({\mathcal{L}})\right)\geq h^i\left({\mathcal{L}}\right)$ for all $i\geq 0$;
3. $\chi\left(\bar{\pi}_{s,s'}({\mathcal{L}})\right)=\chi\left({\mathcal{L}}\right)$ for any $s'\in S$.
Consider $h^{(s)}\in \operatorname{CaSF}'(\Xi^{(s)}$ with $D_{h^{(s)}}\cong {\mathcal{L}}$. Then ${\mathcal{O}}(D_h^{\mathrm{tot}})$ is a line bundle on $X^{\mathrm{tot}}$ and thus flat over $S$, since $\pi$ is flat. One easily checks that for $s'\in S^*$, $h^i({\mathcal{O}}(D_{h^{(s')}}))=h^i({\mathcal{L}})$; this can be seen for example by comparing Čech cohomology. Now since $X_0$ is complete, we have that $\pi$ is proper by proposition \[prop:proper\]. The theorem then follows from the corollary in [@MR0282985] section II.5, since ${\mathcal{O}}(D_{h^{(s')}})={\mathcal{O}}(D_h^{\mathrm{tot}})_{|X_{s'}}$ for all $s'\in S$.
Similarly, if $X_0$ is complete, $\pi_{s,s'}$ preserves intersection numbers:
\[thm:intersectionnumbers\] Let $X_0$ be complete of dimension $n$, with $\pi$ any one-parameter homogeneous deformation. Consider invariant divisors $D^1,\ldots,D^n\in\operatorname{T-CaDiv}'(X_s)$ for some $s\in S^*$. Then for all $s'\in S$, the intersection numbers $$\pi_{s,s'}(D^1).\cdots.\pi_{s,s'}(D^n)$$ agree.
By proposition \[prop:totaldivisor\], we can lift the divisor $D^i$ to a divisor $\tilde D^i$ on $X^{\mathrm{tot}}$. Define $\alpha$ to be the one-cycle class attained by intersecting the divisors $\tilde D^1,\ldots,\tilde D^n$. Then $\alpha_{s'}$, the restriction of $\alpha$ to $X_{s'}$, is the intersection of all $\pi_{s,s'}(D^i)$. Thus, $\deg(\alpha_{s'})$ is the desired intersection number. The theorem then follows from a direct application of proposition 10.2 in [@MR1644323].
Finally, $\pi_{s,s'}$ maps canonical divisors to canonical divisors:
\[thm:canonical\] Let $\pi$ any one-parameter homogeneous deformation. If for some $s\in S^*$, $K\in \operatorname{T-CaDiv}'(X_s)$ is a canonical divisor on $X_s$, then $\pi_{s,s'}(K)$ is a canonical divisor on $X_{s'}$ for all $s'\in S$.
If $K\in \operatorname{T-CaDiv}'(X_s)$, we can assume (after possible modification with an invariant principal divisor) that it is of the form stated in theorem 3.19 of [@lars08]. Coupled with proposition 3.16 of [@lars08], we have that $K=D_{h^{(s)}}$, with $h^{(s)}\in\operatorname{CaSF}'(X_s)$ defined as follows:
1. For $P \in Y\setminus\{0,s\}$ and $v$ a vertex in $\Xi_P^{(s)}$, $h_P^{(s)}(v)=-1+1/\lambda(v)$;
2. For $Q \in \{0,s\}$ and $v$ a vertex in $\Xi_Q^{(s)}$, $h_Q^{(s)}(v)=1/\lambda(v)$;
3. $(h^{(s)})^0$ has slope $1$ along every ray of the tailfan of $\Xi^{(s)}$;
where $\lambda(v)$ is the smallest integer such that $\lambda(v)\cdot v$ is a lattice point. Indeed, this follows immediately by taking $K_Y=-\{0\}-\{s\}$ in theorem 3.19 of [@lars08]. For $s'\neq0$, it immediately follows that $D_{h^{(s')}}$ is canonical. On the other hand, one easily checks then that $h^{(0)}\in\operatorname{CaSF}(X_0)$ is the support function defined by:
1. For $P \in Y\setminus\{0\}$ and $v$ a vertex in $\Xi_P^{(0)}$, $h_P^{(0)}(v)=-1+1/\lambda(v)$;\[item:canone\]
2. For $v$ a vertex in $\Xi_0^{(0)}$, $h_0^{(0)}(v)=1+1/\lambda(v)$;\[item:cantwo\]
3. $(h^{(0)})^0$ has slope $1$ along every ray of the tailfan of $\Xi^{(0)}$.\[item:canthree\]
Indeed, \[item:canone\] and \[item:canthree\] are immediate, and \[item:cantwo\] follows from the fact that any vertex $v\in\Xi_0^{(0)}$ is the sum of vertices of $\Xi_0^{(s)}$ and $\Xi_s^{(s)}$, one of which must be a lattice point. Taking now $K_Y=-2\cdot\{0\}$, we see again from [@lars08] that $D_{h^{(0)}}$ is also canonical.
We return to the example of $X_0=\overline{\operatorname{Cone}(dP_6)}$ from the previous two sections. As previously noted, we have $X_s=\mathbb{P}^1\times\mathbb{P}^1\times\mathbb{P}^1$. We first observe that $\operatorname{T-CaDiv}'(X_s)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}^3\times \operatorname{Div}^0(\mathbb{P}^1)$. Indeed, for $a_1,a_2,a_3\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, let $h^{(s)}[a_1,a_2,a_3]\in \operatorname{CaSF}'(\Xi^{(s)})$ be the support function taking respective values $-a_1,-a_2,-a_3$ on the vertices $(0,0),(0,1),(-1,0)$ of $\Xi_0^{(s)}$, taking respective values $0,a_2-a_1,a_3-a_1$ on the vertices $(0,0),(0,-1),(1,0)$ of $\Xi_s^{(s)}$ and taking value $0$ on all other vertices. Note that this completely determines $h^{(s)}[a_1,a_2,a_3]$. It is then obvious that any element of $\operatorname{CaSF}'(\Xi^{(s)})$ can be written uniquely as $h^{(s)}[a_1,a_2,a_3]+P$ for some $a_1,a_2,a_3\in {\mathbb{Z}}$ and $P\in \operatorname{Div}^0(\mathbb{P}^1)$. This gives the above isomorphism.
On the other hand, we also have that $\operatorname{T-CaDiv}(X_0)=\operatorname{T-CaDiv}'(X_0)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}^3\times \operatorname{Div}^0(\mathbb{P}^1)$. Indeed, for $a_1,a_2,a_3\in{\mathbb{Z}}$, let $h^{(0)}[a_1,a_2,a_3]\in \operatorname{CaSF}'(\Xi^{(s)})$ be the support function taking respective values $-a_1,-a_2,-a_3$ at $(0,0),(0,1),(-1,0)$ of $\Xi_0^{(s)}$ and with value $0$ on the vertex $0$ of all other slices. As before, this completely determines $h^{(0)}[a_1,a_2,a_3]$ and as above, any element of $\operatorname{CaSF}'(\Xi^{(0)})$ can be written uniquely as $h^{(0)}[a_1,a_2,a_3]+P$. Now, if we set $h^{(s)}=h^{(s)}[a_1,a_2,a_3]+P$, then one easily checks that $h^{(0)}=h^{(0)}[a_1,a_2,a_3]+P$. Thus, in this case, the map $\pi_{s,0}$ is injective and thus an isomorphism. Factoring out by linear equivalence, we then have $\operatorname{Pic}(X_0)\cong \operatorname{Pic}'(X_s)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}$.
Now, $-K^{(s)}:=D_{h^{(s)}[2,2,2]}$ is an anticanonical divisor for $X_s$. Then $-K^{(0)}:=D_{h^{(0)}[2,2,2]}=\pi_{s,0}(-K^{(s)})$, and one easily checks that this is in fact an anticanonical divisor for $X_0$. Since both $X_0$ and $X_s$ are toric Fano varieties, the higher cohomology groups of $-K^{(0)}$ and $-K^{(s)}$ vanish, so that in this case we actually have $h^i(-K^{(0)})=h^i(-K^{(s)})$ for all $i\geq 0$, in particular for $i=0$.
If $\Xi_0$ is not complete, we cannot in general expect that $\pi_{s,s'}$ is surjective, even if $\pi$ is locally trivial. Consider for example $X_0$ to be the open subset of $\overline{\operatorname{Cone}(dP_6)}$ attained by leaving out the singular $T$-invariant chart; the corresponding divisorial fan is then as pictured in figure \[fig:dp6fan\] with the omission of the hexagon in the middle. We then consider the deformation $\pi$ of $X_0$ gotten by restricting our previous deformation of $\overline{\operatorname{Cone}(dP_6)}$. Note that $\pi$ is now locally trivial. One easily checks that with respect to this deformation, $\operatorname{T-CaDiv}(X_s)=\operatorname{T-CaDiv}'(X_s)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}^5\times \operatorname{Div}^0(\mathbb{P}^1)$ whereas $\operatorname{T-CaDiv}(X_0)=\operatorname{T-CaDiv}'(X_0)\cong {\mathbb{Z}}^6\times \operatorname{Div}^0(\mathbb{P}^1)$, and that $\pi_{s,0}$ isn’t surjective.
Locally Trivial Deformations {#sec:localtrivial}
----------------------------
In this section, we will be considering locally trivial deformations, with the goal of proving theorem \[thm:surjective\]. Consider some $T$-variety $X_0=X(\Xi)$. As mentioned in section 5 of [@ilten09b], locally trivial deformations correspond to especially simple decompositions of the slice $\Xi_0$. Indeed, for each ${\mathcal{D}}\in \Xi$, we have ${\mathcal{D}}_0={\mathcal{D}}_0^0+{\mathcal{D}}_0^1$ where either
1. ${\mathcal{D}}_0^0={\mathcal{D}}_0-v$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_0^1=\operatorname{tail}{\mathcal{D}}_0 +v$; or\[item:decomp1\]
2. ${\mathcal{D}}_0^0=\operatorname{tail}{\mathcal{D}}_0+v$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_0^1={\mathcal{D}}_0-v$\[item:decomp2\]
for some $v\in N$. This is the local picture; requiring that these decompositions of the polyhedra ${\mathcal{D}}_0$ fit together to a decomposition of $\Xi_0$ adds even further constraints. Indeed, if ${\mathcal{D}}_0$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_0'$ share some compact edge, then one easily checks that if the decomposition of ${\mathcal{D}}_0$ is of type $i$ for $i=1,2$ and some $v\in N$, then the decomposition of ${\mathcal{D}}_0'$ is also of type $i$ with the same $v\in N$. For ${\mathcal{D}}\in \Xi$, define the set $C({\mathcal{D}})\subset \Xi_0$ to be the unique subcomplex of $\Xi_0$ containing ${\mathcal{D}}_0$ such that if some ${\mathcal{D}}_0'\in\Xi$ and ${\mathcal{D}}_0''\in C({\mathcal{D}})$ share some compact edge, then ${\mathcal{D}}_0'\in C({\mathcal{D}})$. Obviously, all elements of $C({\mathcal{D}})$ must have the same type of decomposition. Let $C^j({\mathcal{D}})$ be the polyhedral complex consisting of all ${\mathcal{D}}_0'^j$ with $D_0'\in C({\mathcal{D}})$. If for example ${\mathcal{D}}_0$ decomposes as in \[item:decomp1\], then $C^0({\mathcal{D}})$ is simply a translate of $C({\mathcal{D}})$.
For the remainder of this section we will assume that $\Xi_0$ is complete, that is, that $|\Xi_0|=N_{\mathbb{Q}}$. Note that for ${\mathcal{D}}\in \Xi$, the boundary of the polyhedral complex $C({\mathcal{D}})$ has a rather special shape. Indeed, consider any vertex $v$ on the boundary of $C({\mathcal{D}})$. Then all faces of the boundary of $C({\mathcal{D}})$ containing $v$ must in fact be shifted cones with origin $v$. If $v_1,\ldots,v_k$ are all the vertices on the boundary of $C({\mathcal{D}})$, then $N_{\mathbb{Q}}\setminus |C({\mathcal{D}})|$ has exactly $k$ connected components, each containing exactly one vertex $v_i$ in its closure; for an example see figure \[fig:npartition\], where each connected component has a different shade of gray.
Note that even for nontrivial deformations, the Minkowski decomposition of $\Xi_0$ induces a decomposition of its vertices: for each vertex $v\in \Xi_0$, we have a decomposition $v=v^0+v^1$. Consider any sequence of vertices $\gamma=(v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_m)$, $v_i\in \Xi_0$, such that $v_i,v_{i+1}$ are either the endpoints of an edge in $\Xi_0$ or $v_i=v_{i+1}$; we call $\gamma$ a path from $v_0$ to $v_m$. Such a path $\gamma$ induces paths $\gamma^j$, $j=0,1$ in the polyhedral complexes $\{{\mathcal{D}}_0^j\}_{{\mathcal{D}}\in\Xi}$. Indeed, set $\gamma^j=(v_0^j,v_1^j,\ldots,v_m^j)$. We call a path reduced if no consecutive vertices are equal; note that any path has a unique reduction. A path is called trivial if its reduction consists of a single vertex. A path $\gamma$ from $u$ to $v$ and path $\gamma'$ from $v$ to $w$ can be composed in a natural manner.
\[lemma:pointindependent\] Consider vertices $v\neq w$ of $\Xi_0$ such that $v^j=w^j$ for some $j\in\{0,1\}$. Then there is a path $\gamma$ from $v$ to $w$ such that the induced path $\gamma^j$ is trivial.
For simplicity assume that $j=0$. Consider any path $\gamma'$ from $v$ to $w$. We can shorten $\gamma'$ to a reduced path $\gamma=(v=v_0,\ldots,v_m=w)$ from $v$ to $w$ where we remove any loops, that is, we eliminate all vertices between any vertex appearing multiple times. We will show that $\gamma^0$ is in fact trivial.
For each $0\leq i \leq m-1$, let $C_i=C({\mathcal{D}})$ for some ${\mathcal{D}}$ with $v_{i}$ and $v_{i+1}$ vertices of ${\mathcal{D}}_0$. Note that $C_i$ doesn’t depend on the choice of such ${\mathcal{D}}$ due to the definition of $C({\mathcal{D}})$. Let $(i_k)_k$ be the subsequence of $0,\ldots, m-1$ consisting of all $i_k$ such that $C_{i_k}\neq C_{i_k-1}$. Then one easily checks that all $C_{i_k}$ are distinct. Furthermore, we can uniquely write $\gamma$ as a composition of reduced nontrivial paths $\gamma_{i_k}$, where the vertices of $\gamma_{i_k}$ are vertices in $C_{i_k}$.
Now, suppose that the elements of some $C_{i_k}$ have a decomposition of type \[item:decomp2\] above. Then one easily checks that $\gamma_{i_k}^0$ is automatically trivial. In particular, if the elements of all $C_{i_k}$ have a decomposition of type \[item:decomp2\], then $\gamma^0$ is trivial as desired.
Suppose instead that there is some $k$ with $C_{i_k}$ having a decomposition of type \[item:decomp1\]. We claim that this cannot be. Indeed, let $k$ be the smallest such number. Then $\gamma_{i_k}$ is a nontrivial path from $v_{i_k}$ to $v_{i_{k+1}}$, and $\gamma_{i_k}^0$ is a nontrivial path from $v_{i_k}^0$ to $v_{i_{k+1}}^0=v_{i_k}^0+v_{i_{k+1}}-v_{i_k}$. Now, $v_{i_k}$ and $v_{i_{k+1}}$ are vertices on the boundary of $C_{i_k}$ and thus correspond to different connected components of $N_{\mathbb{Q}}\setminus|C_{i_k}|$, or likewise, to different connected components of $N_{\mathbb{Q}}\setminus|C_{i_k}^0|$. Now, one easily checks that the only possible vertex in $C_{i_l}^0\cap C_{i_k}^0$ for $l>k$ is $v_{i_{k+1}}^0$, if any, since all $C_{i_l}^0$, $l>k$ are contained in the closure of the connected component of $N_{\mathbb{Q}}\setminus|C_{i_k}^0|$ corresponding to $v_{i_{k+1}}^0$. Furthermore, the paths $\gamma_{i_l}^0$ and in particular the vertex $v_m^0=w^0=v^0$ are all in this connected component. But clearly $v^0$ is also in the connected component corresponding to $v_{i_k}^0$, a contradiction. Thus, this case cannot occur, and $\gamma^0$ is the trivial path as desired.
In the above proof, we used that $\Xi_0$ is complete, and that $\pi$ is locally trivial in the description of the $C({\mathcal{D}})$. We believe that the statement will still hold if $|\Xi_0|$ is convex and $\pi$ arbitrary, but have yet to find a proof. If $|\Xi_0|$ isn’t convex, there are easy counterexamples.
Now consider any support function $f\in \operatorname{SF}(\Xi)$. For any reduced path $\gamma=(v_0,v_1,\ldots,v_m)$ in $\Xi_0$ and $j=0,1$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
f_0(\gamma,j)&=\sum_{i=1}^m \frac{|v_{i}^j-v_{i-1}^j|}{|v_{i}-v_{i-1}|}\Big(f_0(v_{i})-f_0(v_{i-1})\Big).\\\end{aligned}$$ Note that in the above equation, the coefficients $\frac{|v_{i}^j-v_{i-1}^j|}{|v_{i}-v_{i-1}|}$ are always either $0$ or $1$.
\[lemma:pathindependent\] Consider vertices $v,w$ of $\Xi_0$ and two reduced paths $\gamma$, $\gamma'$ from $v$ to $w$. For any support function $f\in \operatorname{SF}(\Xi)$, we have that $$f_0(\gamma,j)=f_0(\gamma',j)$$ for $j=0,1$.
If $\gamma$ is the composition of $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$, then one has that $f_0(\gamma,j)=f_0(\gamma_1,j)+f_0(\gamma_2,j)$. Thus, it is sufficient to show that $f_0(\gamma,j)=0$ for any reduced path $\gamma$ with equal start and end points, and no other repeated vertices; we call such a path closed. Now, one easily sees that this is the case if all vertices of a closed path $\gamma$ lie in some $C({\mathcal{D}})$ for ${\mathcal{D}}\in \Xi$. On the other hand, it is not difficult to check that the vertices of any closed path must in fact lie in a complex of the form $C({\mathcal{D}})$.
We now turn to the proof of the surjectivity of $\pi_{s,0}$:
Let $\Xi_0$ be complete and suppose $\pi$ is locally trivial. Consider some element $f\in \operatorname{CaSF}'(\Xi)$. We show how to construct a support function $h^{(s)}\in \operatorname{CaSF}'(\Xi^{(s)})$ with $h^{(0)}=f$, from which the first part of the theorem then follows. Note that to define a continuous piecewise affine function on any polyhedral subdivision, it suffices to know its linear part and its values on the vertices of the subdivision.
Now fix some vertex $b\in \Xi_0^{(0)}$. Consider any vertex $w\in \Xi_0^{(s)}$. For any path $\gamma$ from $b$ to $v$ with $v^0=w$, define $$h_0^{(s)}(w)=f_0(b)+f_0(\gamma,0).$$ This definition depends on neither $v$ nor $\gamma$. Indeed, for fixed $v$, independence of the path $\gamma$ follows from lemma \[lemma:pathindependent\]. On the other hand consider vertices $v\neq v'$ with $v^0=v'^0=w$, and paths $\gamma_{v}$ and $\gamma_{v'}$ from $b$ to $v$ respectively $v'$. Then there is a path $\gamma_{v,v'}$ from $v$ to $v'$ such that $\gamma_{v,v'}^0$ is trivial by lemma \[lemma:pointindependent\]. Then $f_0(\gamma_{v'},0)=f_0(\gamma_{v},0)+f_0(\gamma_{v,v'},0)=f_0(\gamma_{v'},0)$, and so $h_0^{(s)}(w)$ doesn’t depend on the point $v$, either. For a vertex $w\in \Xi_s^{(s)}$ we can similarly define $h_s^{(s)}(w)=f_0(\gamma,1)$ for any path $\gamma$ from $b=v_0$ to $v_m$ with $v_m^0=w$.
Now, we can make $h_0^{(s)}$ and $h_s^{(s)}$ into continuous piecewise affine functions by requiring that both have the same linear part as $f$; one easily checks that this in fact yields uniquely defined continuous piecewise affine functions. Now set $h_{P}^{(s)}=f_P$ for $P\neq 0,s$. Setting $h^{(s)}=\sum_{P\in \mathbb{P}^1} h_P^{(s)}\cdot P$, it immediately follows from the construction that $h^{(s)}\in \operatorname{CaSF}'(\Xi^{(s)})$ and that $h^{(0)}=f$, thus proving the first part of the theorem.
Now assume that $\operatorname{rank}\operatorname{Pic}'(X_s)=\operatorname{rank}\operatorname{Pic}' (X_0)$. Then the map $\operatorname{Pic}'(X_s)\otimes{\mathbb{Q}}\to \operatorname{Pic}'(X_0)\otimes{\mathbb{Q}}$ induced by $\pi_{s,0}$ is an isomorphism. However, one easily checks that $\operatorname{Pic}'(X_0)$ is torsion free, since multiples of a non-constant support function are still non-constant, and $\operatorname{Pic}(\mathbb{P}^1)$ is torsion free. Thus, given any support function $f\in \operatorname{CaSF}'(\Xi^{(0)})$, we can find a not necessarily integral support function $\tilde{h}^{(s)}\in \operatorname{CaSF}_{\mathbb{Q}}'(\Xi^{(s)})$ with $\tilde{h}^{(0)}=f$, where $\operatorname{CaSF}_{\mathbb{Q}}$ is defined as $\operatorname{CaSF}$ without the integral condition. However, it is clear from the construction of $\tilde{h}^{(0)}$ from $\tilde{h}^{(s)}$ that $\tilde{h}^{(s)}$ must have integral slopes. Now consider any lattice point $v \in |\Xi_0|$ with not-necessarily unique decomposition $v=v^0+v^1$, with $v^j$ lattice points in ${\mathcal{D}}_0^j$ for some common ${\mathcal{D}}\in\Xi$. Set $h_0^{(s)}=\tilde{h}_0^{(s)}-h_0^{(s)}(v^0)$, $h_s^{(s)}=\tilde{h}_s^{(s)}+h_0^{(s)}(v^0)$, and $h_P^{(s)}=\tilde{h}_P^{(s)}$ for $P\neq 0,s$. Then one easily checks that $h^{(s)}=\sum h_P^{(s)}\cdot P$ is an element of $\operatorname{CaSF}'(\Xi^{(s)})$ with $h^{(0)}=f$.
Rational $\mathbb{C}^*$-Surfaces {#sec:cstar}
================================
Multidivisors, Weighted Graphs, and Continued Fractions {#sec:multidiv}
-------------------------------------------------------
In general, a $T$-variety is not determined by the slices $\Xi_y$ of its divisorial fan $\Xi$ on $Y$. However, for complete $\mathbb{C}^*$-surfaces only a small bit of additional information is needed; we encode the slices as well as this additional information in a *multidivisor*.
A *multidivisor* ${\mathcal{M}}$ on a smooth projective curve $Y$ a collection of polyhedral proper subdivisions ${\mathcal{M}}_P$ of ${\mathbb{Q}}$ for each $P\in Y$ together with $({\mathcal{M}}_-,{\mathcal{M}}_+)\in \{{{\circ}},{{\bullet}}\}^2$ such that:
1. Only finitely many ${\mathcal{M}}_P$ differ from the subdivision induced by a single vertex at $0$;
2. If ${\mathcal{M}}_-={{\circ}}$, then $$\sum_{P\in Y} \min_{v\in {\mathcal{M}}_P \mathrm{vertex}} v < 0;$$
3. If ${\mathcal{M}}_+={{\circ}}$, then $$\sum_{P\in Y} \max_{v\in {\mathcal{M}}_P \mathrm{vertex}} v > 0.$$
If $\Xi$ is a divisorial fan on $Y$ with $N={\mathbb{Z}}$, we get a multidivisor by setting ${\mathcal{M}}_P=\Xi_P$ and setting $M_-={{\circ}}$ exactly when there is ${\mathcal{D}}\in \Xi$ with $\operatorname{tail}({\mathcal{D}})={\mathbb{Q}}_{\leq 0}$ and $\operatorname{Loc}({\mathcal{D}})=Y$, and likewise setting $M_+={{\circ}}$ when there is ${\mathcal{D}}\in \Xi$ with $\operatorname{tail}({\mathcal{D}})={\mathbb{Q}}_{\geq 0}$ and $\operatorname{Loc}({\mathcal{D}})=Y$. On the other hand, for any multidivisor ${\mathcal{M}}$, we can find a compatible divisorial fan $\Xi$, and the resulting $T$-variety only depends on the multidivisor, see [@suess08]. We thus will speak of $X({\mathcal{M}})$ for ${\mathcal{M}}$ a multidivisor. Note that $X({\mathcal{M}})$ is a toric surface if and only if $Y=\mathbb{P}^1$ and ${\mathcal{M}}$ has at most two non-trivial slices. The process of going from a fan defining a toric surface to a corresponding multidivisor is briefly explained in the proof of theorem \[thm:toricdef\] and can be found in more detail in [@lars08], remark 2.8. There is also an easy criterion for the smoothness of $X({\mathcal{M}})$, see [@suess08].
For any multidivisor ${\mathcal{M}}$, the $T$-invariant prime Weil divisors of $X({\mathcal{M}})$ correspond either to vertices $v\in{\mathcal{M}}_P$, or values ${{\bullet}}$ of ${\mathcal{M}}_-,{\mathcal{M}}_+$, see [@lars08]. We denote these divisors by respectively $D_{v,P}$ or by $D_-$, $D_+$. If $X({\mathcal{M}})$ is smooth, Weil divisors and Cartier divisors are equivalent, so we can use them interchangeably. For any vertex $v\in {\mathcal{M}}_P$, denote by $\lambda(v)$ the denominator of $v$ when written in lowest terms; we call this the *height* of $v$.
A multidivisor ${\mathcal{M}}$ can be presented quite nicely as a picture, by showing all nontrivial slices and noting ${\mathcal{M}}_-$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_+$ on the left and right sides of the picture. For example, consider $\mathbb{P}^2$ as a toric variety, blown up in two of the three toric fixpoints, with further blowups in the four resulting fixpoints of the exceptional divisors. A multidivisor yielding this toric variety is pictured in figure \[fig:exmulti\].
In general, complete ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces can also be described in terms of weighted graphs, see [@MR0460342]. If the surface is in fact a toric variety, then this graph is circular, see [@MR1234037]. Up to isomorphism we can thus represent a smooth, complete toric surface $X$ by some sequence $(b_0,\ldots,b_{l})$, where the $-b_i$ are the self intersection numbers of the torus invariant prime divisors ordered in a suitable manner. In this case, we simply write $X=\operatorname{TV}(b_0,\ldots,b_{l})$. Alternatively, if $\Sigma\subset {\mathbb{Z}}^2\otimes {\mathbb{Q}}$ is some fan such such that $X$ is the associated toric surface, we write $X=\operatorname{TV}(\Sigma)$. We then denote by $\rho_i$ the ray of $\Sigma$ corresponding to $b_i$. By abuse of notation we denote the minimal generator of the ray $\rho_i$ by $\rho_i$ as well. Note then that $b_i\cdot \rho_i=\rho_{i-1}+\rho_{i+1}$ and that the Picard number $\rho(X)$ of $X$ is $l-1$. Furthermore, one has has the equality $\sum b_i=3l-9$.
Let $c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_k\in\mathbb{Z}$. The continued fraction $[c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_k]$ is inductively defined as follows if no division by $0$ occurs: $[c_k]=c_k$, $[c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_k]=c_1-1/[c_2,\ldots,c_k]$. Now consider some $l+1$ tuple $(b_0,\ldots,b_{l})$ defining a smooth toric surface, and suppose that $b_0<0$ and $l>2$. Using induction on $l$, one can easily show that there exists a unique index $\alpha$, $1<\alpha<l$ such that $[b_1,\ldots,b_{\alpha-1}]$ is well defined and equals zero, or equivalently, that $\rho_\alpha=-\rho_0$. If we are in this situation, we define $$\label{eqn:gamma}
\gamma=\sum_{i=1}^{\alpha-1}(3-b_i)-3.$$ We will use the following lemma in the next section:
\[lemma:gamma\] We always have $\gamma \geq 0$. Likewise, $b_0+b_\alpha-\gamma \geq 0$. Finally, for $R\in ({\mathbb{Z}}^2)^*$ such that $\langle \rho_\alpha ,R\rangle =1$, we have $\langle \rho_{\alpha-1},R\rangle-\langle \rho_{1},R\rangle=\gamma$.
All statements can be easily shown by induction on $l$.
Deformations of Rational $\mathbb{C}^*$-Surfaces {#sec:cstardef}
------------------------------------------------
From now on we will concentrate on smooth, complete, rational $\mathbb{C}^*$-surfaces, which we will simply call rational $\mathbb{C}^*$-surfaces. Let $\pi:X^{\mathrm{tot}}\to S$ be a homogeneous one-parameter deformation of the rational $\mathbb{C}^*$-surface $X_0$. For any $s\in S^*$, we say that $X_0$ *deforms* to $X_s$ and write $X_0 {\rightsquigarrow}X_s$. Conversely, we say that $X_s$ *degenerates* to $X_0$. By an abuse of terminology we will call $X_s$ the general fiber. We first describe a nice way of encoding a degeneration from some $X_s$ to $X_0$.
Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be a multidivisor giving a rational $\mathbb{C}^*$-surface and choose some $s\in \mathbb{P}^1$, $s\neq 0$. A *degeneration diagram* for the multidivisor ${\mathcal{M}}$ consists of the pair $({\mathcal{M}},G)$, where $G$ is a connected graph on the vertices of ${\mathcal{M}}_0$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_s$ such that:
1. $G$ is bipartite with respect to the natural partition induced by ${\mathcal{M}}_0$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_s$;
2. $G$ can be realized in the plane with all edges being line segments by embedding ${\mathcal{M}}_0$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_s$ in parallel lines;
3. Every vertex of $G$ with degree strictly larger than one is a lattice point.
To a degeneration diagram $({\mathcal{M}},G)$ we can associate a deformation $\pi$ as follows. Let ${\mathcal{M}}^{(0)}$ be the multidivisor with ${\mathcal{M}}_{\pm}^{(0)}={\mathcal{M}}_\pm$, ${\mathcal{M}}_P^{(0)}={\mathcal{M}}_P$ for $P\in\mathbb{P}^1\setminus\{0,s\}$, ${\mathcal{M}}_s^{(0)}$ trivial, and ${\mathcal{M}}_0^{(0)}$ the subdivision of ${\mathbb{Q}}$ with vertices of the form $v_0+v_s$, with $\overline{v_0v_s}$ an edge of $G$. Let $\Xi^{(0)}$ be a divisorial fan compatible with ${\mathcal{M}}^{(0)}$. Each polyhedron $[v^-,v^+]$ in the subdivision $\Xi_0^{(0)}$ comes with a natural decomposition $[v^-,v^+]=[v_0^-,v_0^+]+[v_s^-,v_s^+]$, where $v_P^j\in {\mathcal{M}}_P$ and $\overline{v_0^jv_s^j}$ is an edge of $G$. This gives an admissible decomposition of $\Xi_0$ and thus a deformation $\pi:X^{\mathrm{tot}}\to S$ of $X({\mathcal{M}}^{(0)})$, with $X_s=X({\mathcal{M}})$. Conversely, any homogeneous one-parameter deformation of a rational $\mathbb{C}^*$-surface with fiber $X_s=X({\mathcal{M}})$ arises from a degeneration diagram of the form $({\mathcal{M}},G)$.
Similar to multidivisors, degeneration diagrams can be presented easily in picture form. Indeed, for a degeneration diagram $({\mathcal{M}},G)$, we draw the multidivisor ${\mathcal{M}}$ as described in the previous section and then draw line segments between vertices of ${\mathcal{M}}_0$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_s$ connected by an edge of $G$. For example, figure \[fig:exdegdi\] presents a degeneration diagram for the multidivisor ${\mathcal{M}}$ of figure \[fig:exmulti\] with $s=\infty$. The resulting slice ${\mathcal{M}}_0^{(0)}$ can then be seen quite easily as the induced subdivision on the dashed line in between ${\mathcal{M}}_0$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_s$ scaled by a factor of two.
To distinguish between Weil divisors on $X_0$ and $X_s$, we write them with a superscript, i.e. $D_{v,P}^{(0)}$ and $D_{v,P}^{(s)}$, etc. We shall now see how such deformations are compatible with blowing up and blowing down. We will need the following lemma:
Let $({\mathcal{M}},G)$ be a degeneration diagram. For any edge $\overline{v_0v_s}$ of $G$, $v_0\in{\mathcal{M}}_0,v_s\in M_s$, with $(D_{v_0+v_s,0}^{(0)})^2=-1$, one of the vertices $v_0,v_s$ must have degree one. If both vertices have degree one, the deformation corresponding to $({\mathcal{M}},G)$ is trivial.
If $v_0+v_s$ lies to the left or to the right of all other vertices of ${\mathcal{M}}_0^{(0)}$, then the edge $\overline{v_0v_s}$ lies to the left or right of all other edges of $G$ as well; it is then clear that either $v_0$ or $v_s$ must have degree one. If on the other hand $v_0+v_s$ has left and right neighboring vertices $v',v''\in{\mathcal{M}}_0^{(0)}$, then $\lambda(v_0+v_s)=\lambda(v')+\lambda(v'')>1$. If neither $v_0$ nor $v_s$ has degree one, they must both be lattice points, in which case $\lambda(v_0+v_s)=1$, a contradiction.
The second claim follows easily from the observation that if both vertices have degree one, $G$ can only have one edge.
Using this lemma, it is clear how to *blow down* any deformation. Indeed, let $\pi$ correspond to the degeneration diagram $({\mathcal{M}},G)$, and let $\phi:X_0\to X_0'$ be the contraction of an invariant minus one curve.
Suppose first of all that this curve is of the form $D_{v,P}^{(0)}$ for $P\neq 0$ or of the form ${\mathcal{D}}_\pm$. Then we get a new multidivisor ${\mathcal{M}}'$ by respectively removing the vertex $v$ from the subdivision ${\mathcal{M}}_P$ or by setting ${\mathcal{M}}_-'$ or ${\mathcal{M}}_+'$ equal to ${{\circ}}$. Setting $G'=G$, we then have that $({\mathcal{M}}',G)$ is a degeneration diagram with $X({{\mathcal{M}}'}^{(0)})=X_0'$ and with $X_s'=X({\mathcal{M}}')$ a blowdown of $X_s$.
On the other hand, suppose that $\phi$ blows down a curve of the form $D_{v,0}^{(0)}$. Then $v$ corresponds to an edge $\overline{v_0v_s}$ of $G$ and by the above lemma, either $v_0$ or $v_s$ must have degree one; assume without loss of generality that this is $v_0$. We then get a new multidivisor ${\mathcal{M}}'$ by removing the vertex $v_0$ from the subdivision ${\mathcal{M}}_0$. Furthermore, we have a graph $G'$ on ${\mathcal{M}}'$ attained from $G$ by removing the edge $\overline{v_0v_s}$. Due to the fact that $v_0$ had degree one in $G$, one easily checks that $({\mathcal{M}}',G')$ is a degeneration diagram.
As in the other case, we have $X({{\mathcal{M}}'}^{(0)})=X_0'$ and $X_s'=X({\mathcal{M}}')$ a blowdown of $X_s$. In this manner we define the *blowdown of $({\mathcal{M}},G)$ by $\phi$* to be $({\mathcal{M}}',G')$. We call the deformation corresponding to $({\mathcal{M}}',G')$ the blowdown of $\pi$ by $\phi$.
It is also possible to lift a deformation $\pi:X\to S$ by an invariant *blowup* $\phi$ of either the special fiber $X_0$ or the fiber $X_s$. Indeed, let $({\mathcal{M}},G)$ be the corresponding degeneration diagram.
The first possible type of blowup of $X_0$ or $X_s$ is by blowing up in an elliptic fixpoint of the ${\mathbb{C}}^*$ action, that is, by replacing a ${{\circ}}$ value of ${\mathcal{M}}_{\pm}^{(0)}$ or ${\mathcal{M}}_\pm$ by ${{\bullet}}$. If we define ${\mathcal{M}}'$ to be equal to ${\mathcal{M}}$ with the relevant modification of ${\mathcal{M}}_-$ or ${\mathcal{M}}_+$ and set $G'=G$, we get a degeneration diagram $({\mathcal{M}}',G')$ with either $X({\mathcal{M}}'^{(0)})$ or $X({\mathcal{M}}')$ the desired blowup of $X_0$ or respectively $X_s$.
Suppose instead that the blowup of $X_0$ or $X_s$ corresponds to inserting a vertex $v$ in the subdivision ${\mathcal{M}}_P^{(0)}={\mathcal{M}}_P$ for $P\neq 0,s$. Then if we define ${\mathcal{M}}'$ to come from ${\mathcal{M}}$ by adding the vertex $v$ to ${\mathcal{M}}_P$ and setting $G=G'$, we get a degeneration diagram $({\mathcal{M}}',G')$ with the same property as in the previous case.
Suppose now that a blowup of $X_0$ corresponds to inserting a vertex $v$ in the subdivision ${\mathcal{M}}_0^{(0)}$. This corresponds to the insertion of a vertex $\tilde{v}$ in either ${\mathcal{M}}_0$ or ${\mathcal{M}}_s$, which in turn corresponds to a blowup of $X_s$.[^3] So assume that we have a blowup of $X_s$ of this form. Then we can define a multidivisor ${\mathcal{M}}'$ from ${\mathcal{M}}$ similar to the previous cases. Likewise, we can define a graph $G'$ on the vertices of ${\mathcal{M}}_0',{\mathcal{M}}_s'$ by adding an edge between $\tilde{v}$ and the unique vertex connected to both all neighboring vertices of $\tilde{v}$.
This defines a degeneration diagram $({\mathcal{M}}',G')$ with the same property as above. In such cases, we call $({\mathcal{M}}',G')$ a *blowup of $({\mathcal{M}},G)$ by $\phi$*. We can sum up the preceding constructions in the following proposition:
\[prop:blowupblowdown\] Let $({\mathcal{M}},G)$ be a degeneration diagram with corresponding special fiber $X_0$ and general fiber $X_s$.
1. If $\phi:X_0\to X_0'$ is a blowdown of an invariant curve, there is a unique degeneration diagram $({\mathcal{M}}',G')$ called the blowdown of $({\mathcal{M}},G)$ by $\phi$ such that $X({\mathcal{M}}'^{(0)})=X_0'$ and $X({\mathcal{M}}')$ is an invariant blowdown of $X_s$.
2. if $\phi:X_0'\to X_0$ is an invariant blowup, there is a degeneration diagram $({\mathcal{M}}',G')$ called a blowup of $({\mathcal{M}},G)$ by $\phi$ such that $X({\mathcal{M}}'^{(0)})=X_0'$ and $X({\mathcal{M}}')$ is an invariant blowup of $X_s$.
3. \[prop:blowupblowdown3\] if $\phi:X_s'\to X_s$ is an invariant blowup, there is a unique degeneration diagram $({\mathcal{M}}',G')$ called the blowup of $({\mathcal{M}},G)$ by $\phi$ such that $X({\mathcal{M}}')=X_s'$ and $X({\mathcal{M}}'^{(0)})$ is an invariant blowup of $X_0$.
In section \[sec:surfacedivisors\] we will see that these constructions commute with the corresponding maps of divisors. To end this section, we shortly turn our attention to homogeneous deformations where all fibers are toric. The following theorem tells us how a number of these can be described nicely in terms of self-intersection numbers:
\[thm:toricdef\] Consider a smooth complete toric surface $X_0=\operatorname{TV}(b_0,\ldots,b_l)$ such that $b_0<0$ and $l>2$. Then there exists a homogeneous deformation of $X_0$ with toric general fiber $$X_s=\operatorname{TV}(b_0+\gamma+2r,b_{\alpha-1},\ldots,b_{1},b_\alpha -\gamma-2r, b_{\alpha+1},\ldots,b_l),$$ where $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ are as defined in the previous section and $0\leq r\leq-b_0$.
Let $X_0=\operatorname{TV}(\Sigma)$ for some fan $\Sigma\subset {\mathbb{Z}}^2\otimes {\mathbb{Q}}$ with rays $\rho_i$ corresponding to the numbers $b_i$, see for example figure \[fig:prooffans\](a). Consider the unique $R\in({\mathbb{Z}}^2)^*$ such that $\langle \rho_0,R\rangle=-1$ and $\langle \rho_1, R\rangle = r$. We transform the fan $\Sigma$ into a multidivisor ${\mathcal{M}}^{(0)}$ by taking ${\mathcal{M}}_0^{(0)}$ to be the subdivision induced by $\Sigma$ on the line $[R=1]$, with $\rho_\alpha$ set as the origin, and by setting ${\mathcal{M}}_-^{(0)},{\mathcal{M}}_+^{(0)}$ to be ${{\bullet}}$ if and only if $r=0$ or $r=-b_0$, respectively. Note that the condition on $0\leq r \leq -b_0$ is exactly such that $\Sigma$ subdivides the line $[R=-1]$ only with the ray $\rho_0$. Thus, we have $X_0=X({\mathcal{M}}^{(0)})$; for further details see [@lars08], remark 2.8.
We now construct a degeneration diagram $({\mathcal{M}},G)$ giving special fiber $X_0$. Indeed, let the vertices of ${\mathcal{M}}_0$ consist of those vertices $v\in{\mathcal{M}}_0^{(0)}$ with $v\geq 0$. Likewise, let the vertices of ${\mathcal{M}}_s$ consist of those vertices $v\in{\mathcal{M}}_0^{(0)}$ with $v\leq 0$. Furthermore, set ${\mathcal{M}}_-={\mathcal{M}}_-^{(0)}$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_+={\mathcal{M}}_+^{(0)}$. We then define $G$ to be the graph having edges $\overline{v_0v_s}$ with $v_0\in{\mathcal{M}}_0,v_s\in{\mathcal{M}}_s$ and either $v_0=0$ or $v_s=0$. One easily confirms that $({\mathcal{M}},G)$ is indeed a degeneration diagram with ${\mathcal{M}}_0^{(0)}$ being the multidivisor for the corresponding special fiber.
Now, we see that the general fiber $X_s=X({\mathcal{M}})$ is toric, since ${\mathcal{M}}$ only has two nontrivial slices. In fact, by embedding ${\mathcal{M}}_0$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_s$ in height one and minus one respectively, we recover a fan $\Sigma'$ with $X_s=X({\mathcal{M}})=X(\Sigma')$, see for example figure \[fig:prooffans\](b). $\Sigma'$ then has rays $\rho_0',\ldots,\rho_l'$ ordered cyclically with $\rho_i'=\rho_i$ for $\alpha\leq i \leq l$ or $i=0$ and $\rho_i'$ a vertical reflection for $0<i<\alpha$. Let $-b_i'$ be the self-intersection number of the divisor corresponding to the $\rho_i'$; then $X_s$ is represented by the chain $(b_0',\ldots,b_l')$. Now, it is immediate from this description that $b_i'=b_{\alpha-i}$ for $1\leq i < \alpha$ and that $b_i'=b_i$ for $\alpha<i\leq l$. Furthermore, $$\label{eqn:balpha}
b_\alpha'=\langle \rho_{\alpha-1}',R\rangle+\langle \rho_{\alpha+1}',R\rangle=-\langle \rho_{1},R\rangle+\langle \rho_{\alpha+1},R\rangle.$$ We also have $\langle \rho_{\alpha-1},R\rangle=r+\gamma$ by lemma \[lemma:gamma\]. We can then rewrite equation as $$b_\alpha'=-r+b_\alpha-\langle \rho_{\alpha-1},R\rangle=b_\alpha-\gamma-2r.$$ Since the sum of all the intersection numbers must remain constant, we also have $b_0'=b_0+\gamma+2r$, completing the proof.
Deformation Connectedness {#sec:defcon}
-------------------------
Let $X$ and $X'$ be two rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces.
We say that $X$ and $X'$ are *homogeneously deformation connected* if there is a finite sequence $X=X^0,X^1,\ldots,X^k=X'$ with $X^i{\rightsquigarrow}X^{i-1}$ or $X^{i-1}{\rightsquigarrow}X^{i}$ for all $1\leq i \leq k$.
It is well-known that a Hirzebruch surface of even parity cannot be deformed to a Hirzebruch surface of odd parity and vice versa. An obstruction to such a deformation can be found by comparing the Chow rings. If we instead consider rational surfaces of fixed Picard number $\rho>2$, it is an easy exercise to see that all the Chow rings are isomorphic. Thus, the obstruction to deformation we had for the case $\rho=2$ no longer exists. In fact, for rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces it is sufficient to consider homogeneous deformations:
\[thm:defcon\] Consider the set of all rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces with Picard number $\rho$ for any integer $\rho > 2$. All elements of this set are homogeneously deformation connected.
The proof of this theorem will constitute the remainder of this section. We first prove the following lemma:
\[lemma:degentotoric\] Any rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surface $X$ is connected through a sequence of homogeneous degenerations to a toric surface.
Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be a multidivisor with $X=X({\mathcal{M}})$. Suppose that ${\mathcal{M}}$ has more than three non-trivial slices. Then there are non-trivial slices ${\mathcal{M}}_P,{\mathcal{M}}_Q$ with $P\neq Q$ such that the left-most vertex $v_P$ of ${\mathcal{M}}_P$ and the right-most vertex $v_Q$ of ${\mathcal{M}}_Q$ are lattice points; this follows from the smoothness criterion of [@suess08]. Setting $0=P,s=Q$ and considering the graph $G$ on the vertices of ${\mathcal{M}}_P,{\mathcal{M}}_Q$ with edges of the form $\overline{v_0v_Q}$ and $\overline{v_sv_P}$ for $v_0\in{\mathcal{M}}_P$, $v_s\in{\mathcal{M}}_Q$ gives a degeneration diagram $({\mathcal{M}},G)$. The corresponding special fiber has one less non-trivial slice than $X$.
We can apply the above procedure inductively, and can thus assume that ${\mathcal{M}}$ has at most three non-trivial slices. If ${\mathcal{M}}$ has less than three non-trivial slices, then $X({\mathcal{M}})$ is toric, and we are done. If as above there are non-trivial slices ${\mathcal{M}}_P,{\mathcal{M}}_Q$ with $P\neq Q$ such that the left-most vertex $v_P$ of ${\mathcal{M}}_P$ and the right-most vertex $v_Q$ of ${\mathcal{M}}_Q$ are lattice points, then we can once again proceed as above and degenerate to something with only two non-trivial slices. We thus must only consider the remaining case, which is that where ${\mathcal{M}}$ has three non-trivial slices ${\mathcal{M}}_0,{\mathcal{M}}_1,{\mathcal{M}}_\infty$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_0,{\mathcal{M}}_\infty$ have no extremal lattice vertices and both extremal vertices of ${\mathcal{M}}_1$ are lattice points. We show that this is actually impossible.
In this case, we can actually assume that the left-most vertex of ${\mathcal{M}}_1$ is $0$, and that the right-most vertex is $n$. Let $u_0^l/v_0^l$, $u_\infty^l/v_\infty^l$ be the left-most vertices of ${\mathcal{M}}_0$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_\infty$ written in lowest terms and let $u_0^r/v_0^r$, $u_\infty^r/v_\infty^r$ similarly be the right-most vertices. Due to smoothness we have $$\begin{aligned}
-u_0^lv_\infty^l-u_\infty^lv_0^l&=1;\label{eqn:smooth1}\\
u_0^rv_\infty^r+u_\infty^rv_0^r+v_0^rv_\infty^r\cdot n &= 1.\label{eqn:smooth2}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we of course have $$\label{eqn:smooth3}
u_P^lv_P^r\leq u_P^rv_P^l$$ for $P=0,\infty$. Solving equations and for $v_0^l$ and $v_0^r$, substituting for these expressions in for $P=0$, and rearranging terms gives us $$v_0^rv_\infty^r+v_0^lv_\infty^l+u_\infty^lv_\infty^rv_0^rv_0^l\geq u_\infty^rv_\infty^lv_0^lv_0^r+v_0^lv_\infty^lv_0^rv_\infty^r n.$$ Combining this with for $P=\infty$ then gives us $$v_0^rv_\infty^r+v_0^lv_\infty^l\geq v_0^lv_\infty^lv_0^rv_\infty^r n.$$ This however is a contradiction, since $n\geq 1$ and $v_0^l,v_\infty^l,v_0^r,v_\infty^r\geq 2$. Thus, this case never arises and we can always degenerate to a toric surface.
In general, one can always construct a rational surface by iteratively blowing up a Hirzebruch surface in a number of points. This can be done equivariantly for rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces. For multidivisors ${\mathcal{M}}$ with ${\mathcal{M}}_-={\mathcal{M}}_+={{\bullet}}$, this is stated in [@MR0460342]. However, we know of no proof of the general case and thus provide one here as an easy corollary of the above lemma:
\[cor:equiblowup\] Any rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surface $X$ with Picard number larger than two can be constructed from a Hirzebruch surface by a series of equivariant blowups.
Suppose that $X=X_s$ isn’t a Hirzebruch surface. By lemma \[lemma:degentotoric\], we know that $X$ degenerates to some toric variety $X_0$. But there is an invariant minus one curve on $X_0$ which can be blown down, since $X_0$ is toric, see [@MR1234037]. Blowing down the deformations from $X_0$ to $X_s$ as in proposition \[prop:blowupblowdown\] gives us a new general fiber $X_s'$ which is an invariant blowdown of $X_s$. The proof then follows by induction on the Picard number.
We will collect several more lemmata we shall need:
\[lemma:nbdefcon\] Consider a smooth fan $\Sigma$ with rays $\rho_0,\ldots,\rho_l$. Let $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ be the smooth fans attained by inserting a ray between $\rho_0$ and $\rho_1$ respectively $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$. Then $\operatorname{TV}(\Sigma_1)$ is homogeneously deformation connected to $\operatorname{TV}(\Sigma_2)$.
As in the proof of theorem \[thm:toricdef\], we can transform $\Sigma$ into a multidivisor ${\mathcal{M}}$. For $P_1\neq P_2\in \mathbb{P}^1$, let ${\mathcal{M}}_{P_1}$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_{P_2}$ to be the subdivisions induced by $\Sigma$ on the affine lines $[R=1]$ and $[R=-1]$, where $R\in ({\mathbb{Z}}^2)^*$ is such that $\langle \rho_1, R \rangle =0$ and $\langle \rho_0,R\rangle < 0$. We then set ${\mathcal{M}}_+={{\bullet}}$, and set ${\mathcal{M}}_-={{\bullet}}$ only if there is $\alpha\neq 1$ such that $\langle \rho_\alpha, R \rangle =0$. Then $X({\mathcal{M}})=X(\Sigma)$.
Now, for some $s\in \mathbb{P}^1\setminus\{P_1,P_2\}$, let $\tilde{{\mathcal{M}}}$ be the multidivisor with $\tilde{{\mathcal{M}}}_{P}={\mathcal{M}}_P$ for $P\neq s$, and $\tilde{{\mathcal{M}}}_s$ the subdivision of ${\mathbb{Q}}$ with vertices $0$ and $1$. For $i=1,2$, let $G_i$ be the graph on the vertices of $\tilde{{\mathcal{M}}}_s$ and $\tilde{{\mathcal{M}}}_{P_i}$ with edges $\overline{v_s w}$ for either vertices $v_s=0\in\tilde{{\mathcal{M}}}_s$ and $w\in \tilde{{\mathcal{M}}}_{P_i}$ or vertices $v_s=1\in\tilde{{\mathcal{M}}}_s$ and $w$ the right-most vertex in ${{\mathcal{M}}}_{P_i}$. Setting $P_i=0$, one easily checks that $(\tilde{{\mathcal{M}}},G_i)$ is a degeneration diagram with general fiber $X(\tilde{{\mathcal{M}}})$ and special fiber $\operatorname{TV}(\Sigma_i)$. Thus, we have homogeneous deformations from both $\operatorname{TV}(\Sigma_1)$ and $\operatorname{TV}(\Sigma_2)$ to some common rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surface, making them deformation connected.
The two deformations constructed in the above proof can be naturally glued together to give a flat family $X^{\mathrm{tot}}$ over $\mathbb{P}^1$ with fibers $X_0=\operatorname{TV}(\Sigma_1)$ and $X_\infty=\operatorname{TV}(\Sigma_2)$. In this family, the fiber over any point $s\in\mathbb{P}^1$ is simply the blowup of $\operatorname{TV}(\Sigma)$ in $s$, where we have identified the base space $\mathbb{P}^1$ with the divisor corresponding to the ray $\rho_1$.
\[lemma:dckn\] The set $\left\{\operatorname{TV}(b_0,0,b_\alpha,1,1)\ |\ b_0+b_\alpha=3\right\}$ is homogeneously deformation connected.
Consider $b_0,b_\alpha$ and $b_0',b_\alpha'$ such that $b_0+b_\alpha=b_0'+b_\alpha'=3$. Due to symmetry we can assume that $b_0,b_0'$ have the same parity. Let $b_0''=-\max\{ |b_0|,|b_0'|\}$. Then $\operatorname{TV}(b_0'',0,n-b_0'',1,1)$ deforms to both $\operatorname{TV}(b_0,0,b_\alpha,1,1)$ and to $\operatorname{TV}(b_0',0,b_\alpha',1,1)$ by theorem \[thm:toricdef\], so the desired set is homogeneously deformation connected.
We now turn to the proof of the theorem:
We will prove the theorem by induction on $\rho$. Suppose that $\rho=3$. From lemma \[lemma:degentotoric\] we have that any rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surface can be degenerated to a toric surface. Furthermore, one easily checks that every toric surface with Picard number $3$ is of the form $\operatorname{TV}(b_0,0,b_\alpha,1,1)$. Thus, for $\rho=3$ the statement then follows from lemma \[lemma:dckn\].
Assume that the theorem holds for Picard number $\rho$, and consider any two rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces $X^1,X^2$ with Picard number $\rho+1$. By again applying lemma \[lemma:degentotoric\], we can assume without loss of generality that $X^1$ and $X^2$ are toric. Let $\tilde{X}^i$ be an invariant blowdown of $X^i$. Then $\tilde{X}^1$ and $\tilde{X}^2$ are homogeneously deformation connected by the induction hypothesis, and this series of deformations and degenerations can be blown up to connect $\hat{X}^1$ and $\hat{X}^2$, where $\hat{X}^i$ is an invariant blowup of $\tilde{X}^i$. Thus, we must only show that $\hat{X}^i$ and $X^i$ are homogeneously deformation connected, that is, any two invariant blowups in a point of a common toric surface are homogeneously deformation connected. But this follows from repeated application of lemma \[lemma:nbdefcon\], proving the theorem.
Families of Divisors on $\mathbb{C}^*$-Surfaces {#sec:surfacedivisors}
-----------------------------------------------
Suppose $\pi$ is a one-parameter deformation of a rational $\mathbb{C}^*$-surface with $X_s=X({\mathcal{M}})$ for some multidivisor ${\mathcal{M}}$. The map $\pi_{s,0}:\operatorname{T-CaDiv}(X_s)\to \operatorname{T-CaDiv}(X_0)$ can be described quite nicely in terms of Weil divisors and the corresponding deformation diagram $({\mathcal{M}},G)$. Indeed, the following proposition offers an explicit description:
\[prop:surfacedivmap\] For any $P\in S\setminus\{0,s\}$ and $v_P\in{\mathcal{M}}_P$, $v_0\in {\mathcal{M}}_0$, $v_s\in {\mathcal{M}}_s$, the map $\pi_{s,0}$ is defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
D_\pm^{(s)}&\mapsto D_\pm^{(0)}
&D_{v_P,P}^{(s)}&\mapsto D_{v_P,P}^{(0)}\\
D_{v_0,0}^{(s)}&\mapsto \sum_{\overline{v_0 v}\in E(G)} \lambda(v) D_{v_0+v,0}^{(0)}
&D_{v_s,s}^{(s)}&\mapsto \sum_{\overline{v_s v}\in E(G)} \lambda(v) D_{v_0+v,0}^{(0)}
\end{aligned}$$ where $E(G)$ is the set of edges of the graph $G$.
This follows directly from the description of $h^{(0)}$ in section \[sec:induceddivfamily\] and proposition 3.16 of [@lars08].
An important fact is that, in a sense, such a map of Cartier divisors is compatible with blowing up or down. More specifically, let $\pi:X^{\mathrm{tot}}\to S$ be a homogeneous one-parameter deformation of the rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surface $X_0$ and let $\phi_0:X_0\to X_0'$ be an invariant blowdown of a minus one curve with $E^{(0)}$ the corresponding exceptional divisor. Let $\pi'$ be the blowdown of $\pi$ by $\phi$, with $X_s'$ the general fiber of $\pi'$. From the description of the blowdown of a degeneration diagram, one easily confirms that we have an invariant blowdown $\phi_s:X_s\to X_s'$; let $E^{(s)}$ be the corresponding exceptional divisor.
\[prop:blowuppicommutes\] In the above situation, $\pi_{s,0}(E^{(s)})=E^{(0)}$. Furthermore, the following diagram commutes: $$\xymatrix{
\operatorname{T-CaDiv}(X_0) & \operatorname{T-CaDiv}(X_s) \ar[l]_{\pi_{s,0}{}}\\
\operatorname{T-CaDiv}(X_0') \ar[u]^{\phi_0^{*}} & \operatorname{T-CaDiv}(X_s') \ar[u]_{\phi_s^*} \ar[l]^{\pi'_{s,0}}
}$$
The claim regarding the exceptional divisor follows from the description of the blowdown of a degeneration diagram and from proposition \[prop:surfacedivmap\]. Indeed, if $({\mathcal{M}},G)$ is the degeneration diagram corresponding to $\pi$ and $E^{(0)}$ corresponds to some edge $e$ of $G$, then $E^{(s)}$ corresponds to the vertex of $e$ with degree one, which then obviously maps to the desired divisor, since the other vertex of $e$ must have height one. If on the other hand $E^{(0)}$ is some other divisor of $X_0$, the claim is immediate from proposition \[prop:surfacedivmap\].
The commutativity of the diagram follows from the description of $h^{(0)}$ in section \[sec:induceddivfamily\]. Indeed, the pullback of an invariant Cartier divisor $D_h$ on a $T$-variety $X(\Xi')$ to some blowup $X(\Xi)$ corresponds to the same piecewise affine function $h$. Furthermore, one easily sees from the description of $h^{(0)}$ that further refinement in a divisorial fan $\Xi$ does not affect the construction of $h^{(0)}$.
We look at an explicit description of the map $\bar{\pi}_{s,0}$, where $\pi$ is a deformation of a Hirzebruch surface. If $X({\mathcal{M}})={\mathcal{F}}_r$ and ${\mathcal{M}}$ admits a non-trivial degeneration diagram, we can assume that ${\mathcal{M}}_0$ has vertices $-\frac{1}{r+\alpha}$, $0$ and that ${\mathcal{M}}_s$ has vertices $0,\frac{1}{\alpha}$ for some $\alpha>0$. We call this multidivisor ${\mathcal{M}}(r,\alpha)$. Note that with the exception of the case $r=0, \alpha= 1$, there is only one possible graph $G$ making $({\mathcal{M}}(r,\alpha),G)$ into a degeneration diagram. Indeed, this is the bipartite graph where both $0$ vertices have degree two and the other two vertices have degree one. For the case $r=0, \alpha=\pm 1$, there is also the possibility of the bipartite graph $\tilde{G}$ where both $0$ vertices have degree one and the other two vertices, in this case lattice points, have degree two. In any case, the degeneration diagram $({\mathcal{M}}(r,\alpha),G)$ (or $({\mathcal{M}}(r,\alpha),\tilde{G})$) has corresponding special fiber ${\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha}$. The difference between $G$ and $\tilde{G}$ corresponds to a flip on the total space of the deformation.
For any Hirzebruch surface ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ with $r>0$, let $P$ be the divisor class of the fiber of the ruling on ${\mathcal{F}}_r$, and let $Q$ be the unique class with $Q^2=r$ and $P.Q=1$. Now considering the isomorphism $X({\mathcal{M}}(r,\alpha))\cong {\mathcal{F}}_r$, $P$ and $Q$ can respectively be represented by $D_{0,s}^{(s)}$ and $D_{{1}/{\alpha},s}^{(s)}$. Consider now the deformation $\pi$ from ${\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha}$ to ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ determined by the deformation diagram $({\mathcal{M}}(r,\alpha),G)$ and assume $r>0$. Then $\bar{\pi}_{s,0}(P)$ can be represented by $D_{{1}/\alpha,0}^{(0)}$ and $\bar{\pi}_{s,0}(Q)$ can be represented by $(r+\alpha)D_{-{1}/({r+\alpha}),0}^{(0)}+D_{0,0}^{(0)}$. One easily checks that $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\pi}_{s,0}(P)&=P\label{eqn:P}\\
\bar{\pi}_{s,0}(Q)&=Q-\alpha P\label{eqn:Q}\end{aligned}$$ where by abuse of notation, the $P,Q$ on the right hand side of the equalities represent classes in $\operatorname{Pic}({\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha})$.
The case of $r=0$ requires slightly more care, since there are two possible rulings on ${\mathcal{F}}_0$. Fix an isomorphism ${\mathcal{F}}_0\cong X({\mathcal{M}}(0,\alpha))$ and consider the ruling of ${\mathcal{F}}_0$ given by the quotient map of the ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-action on $X({\mathcal{M}}(0,\alpha))$; note that this doesn’t depend on $\alpha$. Then $P$ and $Q$ can be represented exactly as above. For $\pi$ corresponding to the degeneration diagram $({\mathcal{M}}(0,\alpha),G)$, we once again have equations and . On the other hand, for $\pi$ corresponding to the degeneration diagram $({\mathcal{M}}(0,1),\tilde{G})$, we have $\bar{\pi}_{s,0}(P)=Q-P$ and $\bar{\pi}_{s,0}(Q)=P$. Thus, if in this case we instead consider the other possible ruling of ${\mathcal{F}}_0$ (and thus swap $P$ and $Q$), we once again have equations and .
Exceptional Sequences {#sec:exseq}
=====================
We shall now turn our attention to exceptional sequences.
Exceptional Sequences and Toric Systems {#sec:toricsystems}
---------------------------------------
In the following all surfaces are smooth and complete. For general features of derived categories in algebraic geometry we refer to [@huybrechts]. By ${\mathcal{D}}^b(X)$ we denote the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on some complex variety $X$.
An object $E$ of ${\mathcal{D}}^b(X)$ is called *exceptional* if it fulfills $$\operatorname{Ext}^i (E,E)=
\begin{cases}
{\mathbb{C}}& \textnormal{if $i=0$}\\
0 & \textnormal{if $i\not=0$}.\\
\end{cases}$$ An *exceptional sequence* ${\mathcal{E}}$ is a finite sequence of exceptional objects $(E_1,\ldots,E_n)$ such that there are no morphisms back, that is, $\operatorname{Ext}^k (E_j,E_i)=0$ for $j>i$ and all $k$. Such a sequence is called *strongly exceptional* if additionally $\operatorname{Ext}^k (E_j,E_i)=0$ for all $i,j$ and all $k>0$. An exceptional sequence is called *full* if $E_1,\ldots,E_n$ generate ${\mathcal{D}}^b(X)$, that is, the smallest full triangulated subcategory of ${\mathcal{D}}^b(X)$ containing all $E_i$’s is already ${\mathcal{D}}^b(X)$.
Our focus lies exclusively on full exceptional sequences of line bundles on rational surfaces. So unless explicitly stated otherwise, all exceptional sequences will be full and consist only of line bundles. We identify isomorphism classes of line bundles with classes of divisors, and will thus use additive notation. Furthermore, if $\phi:\tilde{X}\to X$ is some blowup and $E$ is a line bundle on $X$, we will often use $E$ to denote $\phi^*(E)$ as well, as long as the meaning is clear.
A related concept introduced by Hille and Perling [@hillperl08] are so-called *toric systems*:
A *toric system* on a rational surface $X$ of Picard number $n-2$ is a sequence of line bundles ${\mathcal{A}}=(A_1,\ldots,A_n)$ such that
1. $A_i.A_{i+1}=1$;
2. $A_i.A_j=0$ for $j\notin \{i-1,i,i+1\}$;
3. $\sum_{i=1}^n A_i=-K_X$;
where we consider indices cyclically modulo $n$.
One of the very nice ideas in [@hillperl08] is that from every toric system ${\mathcal{A}}=(A_1,\ldots,A_n)$ on a rational surface $X$ we can construct a toric surface $\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}})$. Indeed, by setting $-b_i=\chi(A_i)-2$, $\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}}):=\operatorname{TV}(b_1,\ldots b_n)$ is a smooth toric surface. On the other hand, starting with some rational surface $X$ with an exceptional sequence ${\mathcal{E}}$, we can construct an associated toric system ${\mathcal{A}}$, by setting $$\label{eqn:ts}
A_i := E_{i+1}-E_i \textnormal{ and } A_n := (E_1-K_X)-E_n.$$ If a toric system ${\mathcal{A}}$ can be constructed in this manner, we call it *exceptional*. If ${\mathcal{A}}$ can be constructed in this manner from a strongly exceptional sequence ${\mathcal{E}}$, we call it *strongly exceptional*. Of course, a toric system ${\mathcal{A}}$ is (strongly) exceptional if and only if $(0,A_1,A_1+A_2,\ldots,\sum A_i)$ forms a (strongly) exceptional sequence; in such cases we call this the exceptional sequence associated to ${\mathcal{A}}$. Similarly, ${\mathcal{A}}$ is (strongly) exceptional if and only if $$H^l(X,\sum_{i=j}^k -A_i)=0 \qquad \big(\textrm{and }H^{l+1}(X,\sum_{i=j}^k A_i)=0\big)$$ for all $l\geq 0$ and $1\leq j \leq k<n$. Any cyclic permutation or reflection of the indices takes an (exceptional) toric system to an (exceptional) toric system and doesn’t change the associated toric variety. Finally, note that if $X$ is a toric surface, the invariant divisors $D_i$ properly ordered form a canonical exceptional toric system ${\mathcal{A}}=(D_1,\ldots,D_n)$. In this case, we have $\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}})=X$.
Augmented Toric Systems {#sec:augmentation}
-----------------------
It follows from proposition \[prop:blowupblowdown\] that any homogeneous deformation of rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces can be attained by repeatedly blowing up a deformation of a Hirzebruch surface. For exceptional sequences, the situation is somewhat similar: In [@hillperl08], a construction called *augmentation* was established, which constructs new toric systems from blowups. We recall this notion, adapting notation slightly.
Let ${\mathcal{A}}=(A_1,\ldots,A_n)$ be a toric system on a rational surface $X$ and $\tilde{X} \rightarrow X$ a blowup in one point with exceptional divisor $R$. Then for every $1 \leq i \leq n$ we can construct a toric system on $\tilde{X}$ $$\operatorname{Aug}_i {\mathcal{A}}= (A_1,\ldots,A_{i-1},A_i-R,R,A_{i+1}-R,A_{i+2},\ldots,A_n)$$ called the *augmentation* of ${\mathcal{A}}$ at the position $i$. For any sequence of blowups, let $\operatorname{Aug}_{i_n,\ldots,i_1}{\mathcal{A}}$ denote the repeated augmentation of a toric system ${\mathcal{A}}$ at the positions $i_1,\ldots,i_n$.[^4]
\[lemma:augex\] The augmentation of any exceptional toric system is an exceptional toric system.
\[lemma:augintnum\] Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a toric system with $\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}})=\operatorname{TV}(b_1,\ldots,b_n)$. Then $$\operatorname{TV}(\operatorname{Aug}_i {\mathcal{A}}) = \operatorname{TV}(b_1,\ldots,b_{i-1},b_i+1,1,b_{i+1}+1,b_{i+2},\ldots,b_n).$$ In other words, augmenting at position $i$ results in a blowup of the associated toric variety $\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}})$ at the same position (i.e. inserting a new ray between the rays labeled with $i$ and $i+1$).
This statement can be shown by straightforward computation, using the formula $\chi(D)=1+\frac{1}{2}(D^2-K.D)$ for the Euler characteristic.
On the Hirzebruch surfaces ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ we will always choose the basis of $\operatorname{Pic}({\mathcal{F}}_r)$ used in the final example of section \[sec:surfacedivisors\], that is, classes $P,Q\in\operatorname{Pic}({\mathcal{F}}_r)$ with $P$ the class of the fiber of ruling on ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ and $Q$ such that $Q^2=r$ and $P\cdot Q=1$ (so $P$ and $Q$ are the generators of the nef cone). Note that for ${\mathcal{F}}_0$, $P$ and $Q$ are interchangeable. Hille and Perling have calculated all possible toric systems on Hirzebruch surfaces:
\[prop:exseqFr\] All toric systems on ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ up to cyclic permutation or reflection of the indices are of the form $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{A}}_{r,i}&=\big(P, iP+Q, P, -(r+i)P+Q\big);\textrm{ and}\\
\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{r,i}&=\big(-\frac{r}{2}P+Q,P+i(-\frac{r}{2}P+Q),-\frac{r}{2}P+Q,P-i(-\frac{r}{2}P+Q)\big)\textrm{ if $r$ is even}.\end{aligned}$$ ${\mathcal{A}}_{r,i}$ is always exceptional, and strongly exceptional if and only if $i\geq 1$. $\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{r,i}$ is exceptional only if $r=0$, or if $r=2$ and $i=0$. Finally, $$\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}}_{r,i})={\mathcal{F}}_{|r+2i|}\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad\operatorname{TV}(\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{r,i})={\mathcal{F}}_{|2i|}.$$
Now let $X$ be any rational surface of Picard number $\rho\geq 2$. We call an exceptional toric system ${\mathcal{A}}_X$ on $X$ *tame* if there is some sequence of blowups $X=X^n\to\cdots\to X^0={\mathcal{F}}_r$ such that ${\mathcal{A}}_X$ can be constructed inductively by augmenting some exceptional toric system on ${\mathcal{F}}_r$. Hille and Perling conjectured that all exceptional toric systems are in fact tame toric systems. One small piece of evidence for this is the following proposition:
\[prop:toricsysgetsall\] Let $Y$ be a toric surface with the same Picard rank $\rho>2$ as a rational surface $X$. Then there is an tame exceptional toric system ${\mathcal{A}}$ on $X$ with $\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}})=Y$.
For $X$ and $Y$ there is a sequence of blowups reducing to Hirzebruch surfaces ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ and ${\mathcal{F}}_s$ respectively, say $X= X^n \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow X^0={\mathcal{F}}_r$ and $Y= Y^n \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow Y^0={\mathcal{F}}_s$.
Assume that $r=s \mod 2$. Let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be the toric system on $X$ attained by repeatedly augmenting ${\mathcal{A}}_{r,(s-r)/2}$ at the same positions where we blow up ${\mathcal{F}}_s$ to get to $Y$. Due to lemma \[lemma:augintnum\] it follows that $\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}})=Y$.
Suppose instead that $r\not=s \mod 2$. Note that the blowdown $Y^1 \rightarrow {\mathcal{F}}_s$ isn’t unique; there is also a blowdown $Y_1 \rightarrow {\mathcal{F}}_{s'}$ for either $s'=s+1$ or $s'=s-1$. Thus, by taking instead the blowdown $Y_1 \rightarrow {\mathcal{F}}_{s'}$ we can in fact assume that $r=s \mod 2$.
Exceptional Sequences and Deformations {#sec:exseqdef}
--------------------------------------
We now consider the behaviour of exceptional sequences under homogeneous deformations. In what follows, all surfaces will be rational and have a ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-action, and we will only consider homogeneous deformations. Consider thus any homogeneous deformation $\pi$ of rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces from $X_0$ to $X_s$. Let ${\mathcal{A}}=(A_1,\ldots,A_n)$ be any $n$-tuple of line bundles on $X_s$. Then we define $\bar{\pi}_{s,0}({\mathcal{A}})$ to be the $n$-tuple $(\bar{\pi}_{s,0}(A_1),\ldots,\bar{\pi}_{s,0}(A_n))$.
Our first observation is that degeneration preserves toric systems:
\[thm:tsdeg\] Let $\pi$ be a deformation of rational ${\mathbb{C}}^\ast$-surfaces from $X_0$ to $X_s$ and let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a toric system on $X_s$. Then $\bar{\pi}_{0,s}({\mathcal{A}})$ is a toric system, and $\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}})=\operatorname{TV}(\bar\pi_{s,0}({\mathcal{A}}))$. Moreover, let $\pi'$ be a blowup of this deformation as in proposition \[prop:blowupblowdown\]. Then $$\operatorname{Aug}_i \bar\pi_{s,0} ({\mathcal{A}}) = \bar\pi'_{s,0}( \operatorname{Aug}_i {\mathcal{A}}).\label{eqn:augdeg}$$ In other words, augmentation commutes with degeneration.
The fact that $\bar{\pi}_{s,0}({\mathcal{A}})$ is a toric system is immediate, since $\bar\pi_{s,0}$ preserves intersection numbers and the canonical class, see respectively theorems \[thm:intersectionnumbers\] and \[thm:canonical\]. Furthermore, the equality $\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}})=\operatorname{TV}(\bar\pi_{s,0}({\mathcal{A}}))$ automatically follows from theorem \[thm:euler\]. Finally, equation follows directly from proposition \[prop:blowuppicommutes\].
On the other hand, we can make a much stronger statement concerning the behavior or toric systems under deformation:
\[thm:tsdef\] Let $\pi$ be a deformation of rational ${\mathbb{C}}^\ast$-surfaces from $X_0$ to $X_s$ and let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a toric system on $X_0$. Then $\bar{\pi}_{s,0}^{-1}({\mathcal{A}})$ is a toric system, and $\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}})=\operatorname{TV}( \bar\pi_{s,0}^{-1}({\mathcal{A}}))$. Furthermore, if ${\mathcal{A}}$ is exceptional/tame/strongly exceptional, then so is $\bar{\pi}_{s,0}^{-1}({\mathcal{A}})$.
The first two statements are shown exactly as in the proof of theorem \[thm:tsdeg\]. From theorem \[thm:euler\] we have that $\bar{\pi}_{s,0}^{-1}$ preserves the vanishing of cohomology, which implies that $\bar{\pi}_{s,0}^{-1}$ preserves (strong) exceptionality. Finally, if ${\mathcal{A}}$ is tame, we can blow down $X_0$ to some $X_0'$ such that ${\mathcal{A}}=\operatorname{Aug}_i {\mathcal{A}}'$ for some tame toric system ${\mathcal{A}}'$ on $X_0'$. We then blown down $\pi$ to $\pi'$ as in proposition \[prop:blowupblowdown\], which induces a blowdown $X_s\to X_s'$. If $({\bar\pi'}_{s,0})^{-1}({\mathcal{A}}')$ is tame, then $\bar{\pi}_{s,0}^{-1}({\mathcal{A}})$ is as well, since by theorem \[thm:tsdeg\] we have that $$\bar{\pi}_{s,0}^{-1}({\mathcal{A}})=\operatorname{Aug}_i({\bar\pi'}_{s,0})^{-1}({\mathcal{A}}')$$ with respect to the blowup $X_s\to X_s'$. The statement then follows by induction on the Picard number of $X_0$.
Combining the above two theorems with theorem \[thm:defcon\] provides us with a proof of our main theorem \[mainthm:2\] from the introduction. We now turn our attention to Hirzebruch surfaces, where we have some more explicit results. The first is the following proposition:
\[prop:hirzebruchdegen\] Consider some homogeneous deformation $\pi$ from ${\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha}$ to ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ for $r>0$. Then for all $i$, $$\bar\pi_{s,0}({\mathcal{A}}_{r,i})={\mathcal{A}}_{r+2\alpha,i-\alpha}$$ and if $r$ is even, $$\bar\pi_{s,0}(\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{r,i})=\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{r+2\alpha,i}.$$ In particular, exceptional toric systems degenerate to exceptional toric systems.
We recorded all possible deformations at the end of section \[sec:surfacedivisors\]. As noted there, we have: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\bar\pi_{s,0}: \operatorname{Pic}({\mathcal{F}}_r) &\rightarrow &\operatorname{Pic}({\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha})\\
P & \mapsto & P\\
Q & \mapsto & Q-\alpha P
\end{array}$$ The proposition then follows from direct calculation.
It might seem odd that in the above theorem, we must rule out the case $X_s={\mathcal{F}}_0$. This is due to the interchangeable roles of $P$ and $Q$ in the basis of $\operatorname{Pic}({\mathcal{F}}_0)$. In this case, either $\bar\pi_{s,0}({\mathcal{A}}_{0,i})={\mathcal{A}}_{2\alpha,i-\alpha}$ as above or $\bar\pi_{s,0}({\mathcal{A}}_{0,i})=\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{2\alpha,i-\alpha}$, and either $\bar\pi_{s,0}(\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{0,i})=\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{2\alpha,i}$ as above or $\bar\pi_{s,0}(\tilde{\mathcal{A}}_{0,i})={\mathcal{A}}_{2\alpha,i-\alpha}$.
We can further explain the above situation on Hirzebruch surfaces in terms of so-called *mutations*. We first recall their definition from [@rudakov]:
Let $(E,F)$ be a (not necessarily full) exceptional sequence of two arbitrary objects in ${\mathcal{D}}^b(X)$. The *left mutation* $L_F E$ of $F$ by $E$ is an object of ${\mathcal{D}}^b(X)$ that fits into the triangle $$L_E F \rightarrow \bigoplus_l \operatorname{Hom}(E,F[l]) \otimes E[-l] \overset{can}{\rightarrow} F \rightarrow L_E F[1].$$ Similarly, we define the *right mutation* $R_F E$ of $F$ by $E$ as the object that fits into the triangle $$E \overset{can^\ast}{\rightarrow} \bigoplus_l \operatorname{Hom}(E,F[l])^\ast[l] \otimes F \rightarrow R_F E \rightarrow E[1].$$ For an exceptional sequence ${\mathcal{E}}=(E_1,\ldots,E_n)$ of arbitrary objects we define the left mutation of ${\mathcal{E}}$ at position $i$ as $$L_i {\mathcal{E}}=(E_1,\ldots,E_{i-1},L_{E_i} E_{i+1}, E_i, E_{i+2},\ldots,E_n),$$ and analogously the right mutation of ${\mathcal{E}}$ at position $i$ is $$R_i {\mathcal{E}}=(E_1,\ldots,E_{i-1},E_{i+1}, R_{E_{i+1}} E_i, E_{i+2},\ldots,E_n).$$
In [@rudakov] it is shown that the left and right mutations of an exceptional sequence are again exceptional, and that the right and left mutation are inverses of each other.
On Hirzebruch surfaces, it is possible to mutate an exceptional sequence of line bundles such that the mutation still consists of line bundles. According to the proposition \[prop:exseqFr\] the exceptional sequences on ${\mathcal{F}}_r$, $r>0$ correspond to toric systems of the form ${\mathcal{A}}_{r,i}$ up to cyclic permutation or reflection of indices. Now let ${\mathcal{E}}$ be an exceptional sequence with toric system ${\mathcal{A}}_{r,i}$. Consider a mutation of ${\mathcal{E}}$ at the first position. To calculate this, we must look at $$\bigoplus_l \operatorname{Hom}({\mathcal{O}},{\mathcal{O}}(P)[l]) \otimes {\mathcal{O}}[-l] \overset{can}{\rightarrow}{\mathcal{O}}(P).$$ Since $$\hom({\mathcal{O}},{\mathcal{O}}(P)[l])=h^l(X,{\mathcal{O}}(P))=
\begin{cases}
2 & l=0\\
0 & l\not=0
\end{cases}$$ and the map $can$ is surjective, $L_{\mathcal{O}}{\mathcal{O}}(P)$ is just the ordinary kernel of this map. In fact, $L_{\mathcal{O}}{\mathcal{O}}(P)={\mathcal{O}}(-P)$, so $$L_1 {\mathcal{E}}= (-P, 0, (i+1)P+Q, (i+2)P+Q).$$ Thus, on the level of toric systems, the left mutation of the toric system at the first position is $$L_1 {\mathcal{A}}_{r,i} = {\mathcal{A}}_{r,i+1}.$$ Since the first element of the mutated toric system is again $P$, we can iterate this process. Hence, we denote by $L_1^\alpha {\mathcal{A}}$ the result of left mutating ${\mathcal{A}}$ $\alpha$-times. Note that we can extent this notion also to $\alpha \in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Combining this with the previous proposition gives us for any deformation $\pi$ from ${\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha}$ to ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ $$\bar\pi_{s,0}(L_1^\alpha {\mathcal{A}}_{r,i})={\mathcal{A}}_{r+2\alpha,i}.$$ In particular, the $\alpha$-fold left mutation of the canonical toric system on ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ degenerates to the canonical toric system on ${\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha}$. Likewise, changing to the viewpoint of deformation, we have $$\bar\pi_{s,0}^{-1}(L_1^{-\alpha} {\mathcal{A}}_{r+2\alpha,i})={\mathcal{A}}_{r,i}.$$ Although we originally ruled out the case that $r=0$, note that this isn’t really necessary. We just need to choose the basis of $P,Q\in\operatorname{Pic}({\mathcal{F}}_0)$ such that $\bar\pi_{s,0}(P)=P$.
We can extend the above discussion on Hirzebruch surfaces to general rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces as follows:
Consider a homogeneous deformation or degeneration of rational ${\mathbb{C}}^\ast$-surfaces from $X$ to a toric surface $Y$, which blows down to a deformation respectively degeneration from ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ to ${\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha}$ for $\alpha\in {\mathbb{Z}}$. Consider the augmentation with respect to this blowdown ${\mathcal{A}}_Y=\operatorname{Aug}_{i_n,\ldots,i_1} {\mathcal{A}}_{r+2\alpha,0}$ such that ${\mathcal{A}}_Y$ is the canonical toric system on $Y$.[^5] Then the toric system $${\mathcal{A}}= \operatorname{Aug}_{i_n,\ldots,i_1} L_1^\alpha {\mathcal{A}}_{r,0}$$ on $X$ deforms respectively degenerates to ${\mathcal{A}}_Y$.
Combine the case for Hirzebruch surfaces discussed above with equation from theorem \[thm:tsdeg\].
Although we would like to claim that homogeneous degenerations preserve exceptional and strongly exceptional toric systems, this is simply not the case. First, consider the exceptional toric system ${\mathcal{A}}_{0,i}$ on ${\mathcal{F}}_0$. As noted above, this can be degenerated to $\tilde {\mathcal{A}}_{2\alpha, i-\alpha}$, which is not exceptional if $\alpha>1$. Thus, exceptional toric systems are not preserved under degeneration. Similarly, consider the strongly exceptional toric system ${\mathcal{A}}_{r,i}$ on ${\mathcal{F}}_r$, where $i\geq 1$. As we saw above, this can be degenerated to ${\mathcal{A}}_{r+2\alpha,i-\alpha}$ on ${\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha}$, which is no longer strongly exceptional if $i<\alpha+1$.
However, the situation isn’t hopeless—for any degeneration, we can identify a subset of exceptional toric systems which degenerate to exceptional toric systems:
Let $\pi$ be a homogeneous deformation of $C^*$-surfaces $X_0{\rightsquigarrow}X_s$, and let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a tame toric system on $X_s$. We say that ${\mathcal{A}}$ is *compatible* with $\pi$ if:
1. $X_s$ is a Hirzebruch surface and $\bar\pi_{s,0}({\mathcal{A}})$ is exceptional; or
2. There is a blowdown of $\pi$ to $\pi'$ inducing a blowdown $X_s\to X_s'$ such that ${\mathcal{A}}$ is an augmentation of a toric system ${\mathcal{A}}'$ on $X_s'$ compatible with $\pi'$.
Proposition \[prop:hirzebruchdegen\] and the following remark thus give us an explicit description of the toric systems compatible with any deformation of Hirzebruch surfaces. The second condition above then can be applied inductively to determine all toric systems compatible with a given deformation. The importance of compatibility is made clear by the following theorem and corollary:
Let $\pi$ be a homogeneous deformation of rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces $X_0{\rightsquigarrow}X_s$ and ${\mathcal{A}}$ a tame toric system on $X_s$. Then ${\mathcal{A}}$ is compatible with $\pi$ if and only if $\bar\pi_{s,0}({\mathcal{A}})$ is a tame toric system.
We first prove that if ${\mathcal{A}}$ is compatible with $\pi$, then $\bar\pi_{s,0}({\mathcal{A}})$ is tame; this is done by induction on the Picard number $\rho$ of $X_0$. The case $\rho=2$ follows directly from the definition of compatibility. On the other hand, the induction step follows from equation and lemma \[lemma:augex\].
Now suppose that ${\mathcal{A}}$ isn’t compatible with $\pi$, but ${\mathcal{A}}_{X_0}:=\bar\pi_{s,0}({\mathcal{A}})$ is tame. Then there is a blowdown $X_0\to X_0'$ and a tame toric system ${\mathcal{A}}_{X_0'}$ on $X_0'$ such that ${\mathcal{A}}_{X_0}$ is an augmentation of ${\mathcal{A}}_{X_0'}$ with respect to this blowup. The blowdown $X_0\to X_0'$ induces a unique blowdown of $\pi$ to some $\pi'$ with special fiber $X_0'$ and some general fiber $X_s'$. If we set ${\mathcal{A}}':=(\bar\pi'_{s,0})^{-1}({\mathcal{A}}_{X_0'})$, then by equation we can conclude that ${\mathcal{A}}$ is an augmentation of ${\mathcal{A}}'$, and that if ${\mathcal{A}}'$ is compatible with $\pi'$, then ${\mathcal{A}}$ must be compatible with $\pi$. Applying induction, we arrive at a contradiction, and can thus conclude that ${\mathcal{A}}_{X_0}$ must not have been tame.
Assume that all exceptional toric systems are tame. In the above setting, ${\mathcal{A}}$ is compatible with $\pi$ if and only if $\bar\pi_{s,0}({\mathcal{A}})$ is exceptional.
This is immediate from the above theorem.
It is not difficult to find tame toric systems which are not compatible with certain deformations. Indeed, consider any toric surface $X_s$ with multiple invariant minus one curves, and let ${\mathcal{A}}$ be a tame toric system on $X_s$ such that $\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}})$ only has a single invariant minus one curve. Then we claim there is a degeneration of $X_s$ with which ${\mathcal{A}}$ is not compatible. Indeed, since $\operatorname{TV}({\mathcal{A}})$ only has a single invariant minus one curve, there exists a unique blowdown $X_s\to {X}_{s}'$ such that ${\mathcal{A}}$ is the augmentation of a tame toric system on ${X}_s'$; let $C$ be the corresponding minus one curve. Now let $\pi$ be any degeneration of $X_s$ to some $X_0$ such that the vertex $v$ corresponding to $C$ has at least degree $2$ in the corresponding degeneration diagram. Then ${\mathcal{A}}$ is not compatible with $\pi$, since $\pi$ cannot be blown down to have general fiber $X_s'$.
Noncommutative Deformations {#sec:noncomdef}
---------------------------
If ${\mathcal{E}}=(E_1,\ldots,E_n)$ is a full strongly exceptional sequence (not necessarily of line bundles) on a variety $X$, then the corresponding *tilting sheaf* is defined to be $${\mathcal{T}}=\bigoplus E_i.$$ There is then an equivalence of categories between ${\mathcal{D}}^b(X)$ and ${\mathcal{D}}^b(\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{T}})\operatorname{-mod})$, see [@MR992977]. The algebra $\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{T}})$ can be described as a finite path algebra with relations, see [@perling09] for examples. Note that if ${\mathcal{E}}$ is a full strongly exceptional sequence of line bundles on a rational surface $X$, then we have $$\operatorname{End}({\mathcal{T}})=\bigoplus_{j\leq k<n} H^0\Big(X,\sum_{i=j}^k A_i\Big)$$ where ${\mathcal{A}}$ is the toric system corresponding to ${\mathcal{E}}$.
Let $\Gamma$ be a family of algebras parametrized over a base variety $S$ such that for every $s\in S$, the corresponding algebra $\Gamma_s$ has the form $\operatorname{End}(\operatorname{\mathcal{T}})$ for some tilting sheaf $\operatorname{\mathcal{T}}$ on some variety. We loosely call the family $\Gamma$ a *noncommutative deformation* as it offers a way of “deforming” varieties via derived categories. Several concrete examples are presented in section $7$ of [@perling09]. Now suppose that $\pi:X^{\mathrm{tot}}\to S$ is a homogeneous deformation of a rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surface $X_0$ and ${\mathcal{E}}$ is a full strongly exceptional sequence of lines bundles on $X_0$. This data naturally gives rise to a noncommutative deformation. Indeed, for $s\in S$, set $$\Gamma_s=\operatorname{End}\left(\bigoplus \bar\pi_{s,0}^{-1}(E_i)\right)=\bigoplus_{j\leq k<n} H^0\Big(X_s,\sum_{i=j}^k \bar\pi_{s,0}^{-1}(A_i)\Big)$$ where ${\mathcal{A}}$ is the corresponding toric system and by $\bar\pi_{0,0}$ we simply mean the identity.
We wish to describe such families explicitly in the case of Hirzebruch surfaces by defining a family of quivers. Fix some $r\geq 0$ and $i>0$, and $0<\alpha< i$. We then have the deformation $\pi$ from ${\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha}$ to ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ given by the degeneration diagram $({\mathcal{M}}(r,\alpha),G)$ from the example at the end of section \[sec:surfacedivisors\]. Furthermore, the toric system ${\mathcal{A}}={\mathcal{A}}_{r+2\alpha,i-\alpha}$ corresponds to a strongly exceptional sequence on ${\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha}$, and for $s\in S^*$, $\bar\pi_{s,0}^{-1}({\mathcal{A}})={\mathcal{A}}_{r,i}$. To calculate $\Gamma_s$ for $s \in S$, we thus need to know the cohomology groups $H^0({\mathcal{F}}_r,iP+Q)$, $H^0({\mathcal{F}}_r,P)$, $H^0({\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha},(i-\alpha)P+Q)$, and $H^0({\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha},P)$. These can be calculated using standard toric methods. We will represent $P$ and $Q$ as divisors on ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ and ${\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha}$ as we have in section \[sec:surfacedivisors\]. That is, on ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ we represent $P$ and $Q$ by respectively $D_{0,s}^{(s)}$ and $D_{1/\alpha,s}^{(s)}$, and on ${\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha}$ we represent $P$ and $Q$ by respectively $D_{1/\alpha,s}^{(0)}$ and $(r+\alpha)D_{-1/(r+\alpha),s}^{(0)}+D_{0,0}^{(0)}+\alpha D_{1/\alpha,0}^{(0)}$. In figure \[fig:gs\], we present polytopes where each lattice point corresponds to a monomial element of the basis of the relevant cohomology group. Note that for $s\neq 0$, instead of having monomials in the usual variables $x$ and $y$ we have monomials in the variables $x$ and $\frac{y}{y-s}$.
We first concern ourselves with the global sections of $iP+Q$ and $(i-\alpha)P+Q$ on ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ and ${\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha}$, respectively. For $s\in S$, let $b_{j}^{(s)}=x^j$ and let $d_{j}^{(s)}=x^j \frac{y}{y-s} $. Note that for $s\neq 0$, we have that $b_{-i}^{(s)},\ldots,b_0^{(s)},d_{-i+\alpha}^{(s)},\ldots,d_{r+\alpha}^{(s)}$ is a basis for $H^0({\mathcal{F}}_r,iP+Q)$. However, for $s=0$ we run into difficulties, since $b_j^{(0)}=d_j^{(0)}$. Now set $$c_{j}^{(s)}=\frac{1}{s}(d_j^{(s)}-b_j^{(s)}).$$ Note then that $c_{j}^{(0)}=y^{-1}$. It follows that $$b_{-i}^{(s)},\ldots,b_{0}^{(s)},c_{-i+\alpha}^{(s)},\ldots,c_0^{(s)},d_1^{(s)},\ldots,d_{r+\alpha}^{(s)}$$ is a basis of $H^0({\mathcal{F}}_r,iP+Q)$ for $s\neq 0$ and of $H^0({\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha},(i-\alpha)P+Q)$ for $s=0$. Furthermore, this basis is compatible with $\pi$ insofar as $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{s,s'}(\operatorname{div}(b_j^{(s)}))=\operatorname{div}(b_j^{(s')})\\
\pi_{s,s'}(\operatorname{div}(c_j^{(s)}))=\operatorname{div}(c_j^{(s')})\\
\pi_{s,s'}(\operatorname{div}(d_j^{(s)}))=\operatorname{div}(d_j^{(s')})\end{aligned}$$ for $s\in S^*$ and $s'\in S$. On the other hand, the monomials $x^{-1}$ and $x$ form a basis of both $H^0({\mathcal{F}}_r,P)$ and $H^0({\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha},P)$, which is compatible with $\pi$ in the same sense.
Figure \[fig:quiverex\] illustrates a family of quivers. We claim that the corresponding family of path algebras is in fact the desired noncommutative deformation. Indeed, fix some $s\in S$. The paths $b_j$, $c_j$, and $d_j$ correspond to the global sections $b_j^{(s)}$, $c_j^{(s)}$, $e_j^{(s)}$ of $iP+Q$ or $(i-\alpha)P+Q$, whereas $a_1,a_2,d_1,d_2$ correspond to the global sections $x^{-1},x,x^{-1},x$ of $P$. One easily checks that for fixed $s$, the relations in figure \[fig:quiverex\] are precisely the relations needed to represent $\Gamma_s$. Note that in particular, for $s\neq 0$ we can write $c_j$ in terms of $b_j$ and $d_j$, and for $s=0$ we have the relation $b_j=d_j$.
In section 7 of [@perling09], there is a similar parameterization of path algebras corresponding to Hirzebruch surfaces, which has the advantage that it can contain arbitrarily many Hirzebruch surfaces. However, our construction has the nice attribute that it directly corresponds to a real deformation. The construction we presented here can in fact be easily generalized to construct a noncommutative deformation coming from an arbitrary homogeneous deformation of rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surfaces and a strongly exception sequence ${\mathcal{E}}$ on the special fiber.
Let $\pi$ be an arbitrary homogeneous deformation of some rational ${\mathbb{C}}^*$-surface $X_0$, and consider some exceptional sequence ${\mathcal{E}}$ on $X_0$, which isn’t strongly exceptional. In this case, ${\mathcal{E}}$ no longer defines a tilting sheaf. However, exactly as in the strongly exceptional case, we can still define a family of path algebras $\Gamma$ by $$\Gamma_s=\bigoplus_{j\leq k<n} H^0\Big(X_s,\sum_{i=j}^k \bar\pi_{s,0}^{-1}(A_i)\Big)$$ where as before, ${\mathcal{A}}$ is the toric system corresponding to ${\mathcal{E}}$. Now it is however in general not possible to reconstruct a fiber $X_s$ of the deformation from the corresponding algebra $\Gamma_s$. For example, take the same deformation of ${\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha}$ to ${\mathcal{F}}_r$ that we used above, but consider now the toric system ${\mathcal{A}}={\mathcal{A}}_{r+2\alpha,i-\alpha}$ for $i<-2$. Then one easily checks that the corresponding family of algebras $\Gamma$ can be represented by the constant family of path algebras pictured in figure \[fig:quiverex2\]. This constant family no longer differentiates between the fibers ${\mathcal{F}}_{r+2\alpha}$ and ${\mathcal{F}}_{r}$.
[[email protected]]{}
[[email protected]]{}
[^1]: This condition can be made more explicit, see definition 5.1 of [@MR2426131].
[^2]: At least for toric varieties, an alternate construction of deformations by using homogeneous coordinates can be found in [@mavlyutov09a].
[^3]: Note that the placement of the vertex in either ${\mathcal{M}}_0$ or ${\mathcal{M}}_s$ is uniquely determined if $v$ isn’t an extremal vertex of ${\mathcal{M}}_0^{(0)}$.
[^4]: Here we are only looking at what Hille and Perling call standard augmentations
[^5]: If either $r=0$ or $r+2\alpha=0$, we must choose the basis $P,Q$ of $\operatorname{Pic}({\mathcal{F}}_0)$ as above.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
---
[**** ]{}\
Johanna Senk^1\*^, Karolína Korvasová^1,2^, Jannis Schuecker^1^, Espen Hagen^1,3^, Tom Tetzlaff^1^, Markus Diesmann^1,4,5^, Moritz Helias^1,5^\
**1** Institute of Neuroscience and Medicine (INM-6) and Institute for Advanced Simulation (IAS-6) and JARA Institute Brain Structure-Function Relationships (INM-10), Jülich Research Centre, Jülich, Germany\
**2** Faculty 1, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany\
**3** Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway\
**4** Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany\
**5** Department of Physics, Faculty 1, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany\
\* [email protected]
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
========
Spatiotemporal patterns such as traveling waves are frequently observed in recordings of neural activity. The mechanisms underlying the generation of such patterns are largely unknown. Previous studies have investigated the existence and uniqueness of different types of waves or bumps of activity using neural-field models, phenomenological coarse-grained descriptions of neural-network dynamics. But it remains unclear how these insights can be transferred to more biologically realistic networks of spiking neurons, where individual neurons fire irregularly. Here, we employ mean-field theory to reduce a microscopic model of leaky integrate-and-fire (LIF) neurons with distance-dependent connectivity to an effective neural-field model. In contrast to existing phenomenological descriptions, the dynamics in this neural-field model depends on the mean and the variance in the synaptic input, both determining the amplitude and the temporal structure of the resulting effective coupling kernel. For the neural-field model we employ liner stability analysis to derive conditions for the existence of spatial and temporal oscillations and . We first prove that wave trains cannot occur in a single homogeneous population of neurons, irrespective of the form of distance dependence of the connection probability. Compatible with the architecture of cortical neural networks, wave trains emerge in two-population networks of excitatory and inhibitory neurons as a combination of delay-induced temporal oscillations and spatial oscillations due to distance-dependent connectivity profiles. Finally, we demonstrate quantitative agreement between predictions of the analytically tractable neural-field model and numerical simulations of both networks of nonlinear rate-based units and networks of LIF neurons.
Introduction\[sec:Introduction\]
================================
Experimental recordings of neural activity frequently reveal spatiotemporal patterns such as traveling waves propagating across the cortical surface [@Rubino-2006_1549; @Nauhaus09_70; @Muller12_222; @Sato12_218; @Muller14_4675; @Townsend15_4657; @Zanos15_615; @Denker18_1] or within other brain regions such as the thalamus [@Kim95_1301; @Muller12_222] or the hippocampus [@Lubenov09_534]. These large-scale dynamical phenomena are detected in local-field potentials (LFP) [@Riehle13_48] and in the spiking activity [@Takahashi15] recorded with multi-electrode arrays, by voltage-sensitive dye imaging [@Ferezou06_617], or by two-photon imaging monitoring the intracellular calcium concentration [@Garaschuk00_452]. They have been reported in in-vitro and in in-vivo experiments, in both anesthetized and awake states, and during spontaneous as well as stimulus-evoked activity [@Muller12_222].
Previous modeling studies have shown that networks of spiking neurons with distance-dependent connectivity, extending in one- or two-dimensional space, can exhibit a variety of such spatiotemporal patterns [@Mehring03_395; @Yger2011_229; @Voges12; @Keane15_1591]. For illustration, consider the example in . Depending on the choice of transmission delays, the spatial reach of connections and the strength of inhibition, a network of leaky integrate-and-fire (LIF) model neurons generates asynchronous-irregular activity (A), spatial patterns that are persistent in time (B), spatially uniform temporal oscillations (C), or propagating waves (D). Distance-dependent connectivity is a prominent feature of biological networks. In the neocortex, local connections are established within a radius of about $\unit[500]{\mu m}$ around a neuron’s cell body [@Voges10_277], and the probability of two neurons being connected decays with distance [@Hellwig00_111; @Perin11; @Schnepel15_3818].
![**Spatiotemporal patterns in a spiking neural network model.** Spiking activity of recurrently connected populations of excitatory ($\mathrm{E}$, blue) and inhibitory ($\mathrm{I}$, red) leaky integrate-and-fire neurons. Each dot represents the spike-emission time of a particular neuron. Neurons are positioned on a ring with a perimeter of $\unit[1]{mm}$. Each neuron receives a fixed number of incoming connections from its excitatory (inhibitory) neighbors uniformly and randomly drawn within a distance of $R_{\mathrm{E}}$ ($R_{\mathrm{I}}$). The spike-transmission delay $d$, the widths $R_{\mathrm{E}}$ and $R_{\mathrm{I}}$ of the spatial connectivity profiles, and the relative inhibitory synaptic weight $g$ **** are varied. **A** Asynchronous-irregular activity ($d=\unit[1]{ms}$, $R_{\mathrm{E}}=R_{\mathrm{I}}=\unit[0.4]{mm}$, $g=6$). **B **Oscillations in space ($d=\unit[3]{ms}$, $R_{\mathrm{E}}=\unit[0.1]{mm}$, $R_{\mathrm{I}}=\unit[0.15]{mm}$, $g=5$). **C** Oscillations in time ($d=\unit[6]{ms}$, $R_{\mathrm{E}}=R_{\mathrm{I}}=\unit[0.4]{mm}$, $g=7$). **D** Propagating waves ($d=\unit[3]{ms}$, $R_{\mathrm{E}}=\unit[0.2]{mm}$, $R_{\mathrm{I}}=\unit[0.07]{mm}$, $g=5$). For remaining parameters, see . \[fig:rasters\_spatiotemporal\_patterns\]](figures/Fig1){width="85.00000%"}
So far, the formation of spatiotemporal patterns in neural networks has mainly been studied by means of phenomenological neural-field models describing network dynamics at a macroscopic spatial scale [@Wilson1972; @Wilson1973; @Amari77]. Such models can describe patterns in recorded brain activity that are related to movement [@Erlhagen97] or occur in response to a visual stimulus [@Bressloff15_e1004545]. Neural-field models are formulated with continuous nonlinear integro-differential equations for a spatially and temporally resolved activity variable and usually possess an effective distance-dependent connectivity kernel. These models provide insights into the existence and uniqueness of diverse patterns which are stationary or nonstationary in space and time, such as waves, wave fronts, bumps, pulses, and periodic patterns (reviewed in [@Ermentrout98b; @Coombes05; @Wyller07_79; @Coombes10_731; @Bressloff12; @Bressloff14_8; @Coombes14]). There are two main techniques for analyzing spatiotemporal patterns in neural-field models [@Bressloff12]: First, in the constructive approach introduced by Amari [@Amari77], bump or wave solutions are explicitly constructed by relating the spatial and temporal coordinates of a nonlinear system (reviewed in [@Ermentrout98b Section 7] and [@Bressloff12 Sections 3-4]). Second, the emergence of periodic patterns is studied with bifurcation theory as in the seminal works of Ermentrout and Cowan [@Ermentrout79b; @Ermentrout79a; @Ermentrout80; @Ermentrout80_323]. In this latter framework, linear stability analysis is often employed to detect pattern-forming instabilities and to derive conditions for the onset of pattern formation (see for example [@Bressloff96_4644; @Hutt03_351] or the reviews [@Ermentrout98b Section 8] and [@Bressloff12 Section 5]). There are four general classes of states that can linearly bifurcate from a homogeneous steady state: a new uniform stationary state, temporal oscillations (spatially uniform and periodic in time, also known as global ‘bulk oscillations’ [@Bressloff08_41916]), spatial oscillations (spatially periodic and stationary in time), and , see [@Ermentrout98b Section 8] and [@Roxin05; @Atay06_670; @Venkov07_1]. The analysis of these states is often called ‘(linear) Turing instability analysis’ [@Coombes05; @Coombes07_51901; @Venkov07_1] referring to the work of Turing on patterns in reaction-diffusion systems [@Turing_52]. The respective instabilities leading to these states are termed: a firing rate instability, Hopf instability [@Kuramoto84_3], Turing instability, and Turing-Hopf [@Roxin05] or ‘wave’ [@Hutt03_351] instability. The instabilities generating temporally periodic patterns (Hopf and Turing-Hopf instabilities) are known as ‘dynamic’ [@Venkov07_1] or ‘nonstationary’ [@Hutt05_30] instabilities, in contrast to ‘static’ [@Venkov07_1] or ‘stationary’ [@Hutt05_30] instabilities generating temporally stationary patterns.
The emergence of pattern-forming instabilities has been investigated with respect to system parameters such as the spatial reach of excitation and inhibition in an effective connectivity profile [@Ermentrout98b]; specifically without transmission delays [@Wyller07_75; @Folias12_895], or with constant [@Roxin05; @Roxin06], distance-dependent [@Jirsa00_8462; @Hutt03_351; @Atay05_644; @Atay06_670; @Coombes07_51901; @Bressloff08_41916; @Hutt08_541; @Bojak10_e1000653; @Hutt10_55701] or both types [@Veltz11_749; @Veltz13_1566] of delays.
Neural-field models treat neural tissue as a continuous excitable medium and describe neural activity in terms of a space and time dependent real-valued quantity. Throughout the current work the spatial coordinate refers to physical space, although in general it could also be interpreted as feature space. At the microscopic scale, in contrast, neural networks are composed of discrete units (neurons) – which interact via occasional short stereotypical pulses (spikes) rather than continuous quantities like firing rates. In the neocortex, spiking activity is typically highly irregular and sparse [@Softky93; @Brunel99], with weak pairwise correlations [@Ecker10]. To date, a rigorous link between this microscopic level and the macroscopic description by neural-field models is lacking [@Coombes10_731; @Bressloff14_8; @Hutt15_141; @Montbrio15]. While randomly connected spiking networks have been extensively analyzed using mean-field approaches [@Amit-1997_373; @Brunel99; @Brunel00_183; @Lindner05_061919; @Delarue2015], the theoretical understanding of spatially structured spiking networks is still deficient. But in general it remains unclear how to qualitatively transfer insights on the formation of spatiotemporal patterns from neural fields to networks of spiking neurons. Moreover, it is unknown how the multitude of neuron, synapse and connectivity parameters of spiking neural networks relates to the effective parameters in neural-field models. A quantitative link between the two levels of description is, for example, required for adjusting parameters in a network of spiking neurons such that it generates a specific type of spatiotemporal pattern, and to enable model validation by comparison with experimental data.
Different efforts have already been undertaken to match spiking and time-continuous rate models with spatial structure. Certain assumptions and approximations allow the application of techniques for analyzing spatiotemporal patterns developed for neural-field models. The above mentioned constructive approach [@Amari77], for example, can be applied to networks of spiking neurons under the assumption that every neuron spikes at most once, thus ignoring the sustained spike generation and after-spike dynamics of biological neurons [@Golomb01_4179; @Cremers02_1651; @Osan02]. A related simplification substitutes a spike train by an ansatz for a wave front. This leads to a mean-field description of single-spike activity often applied to a spike-response model [@Fohlmeister95_905; @Kistler98_273; @Kistler00_8834; @Bressloff00_169]. Traveling-wave solutions have also been proposed for a network of coupled oscillators and a corresponding continuum model [@Crook97_161]. In the framework of bifurcation theory, Roxin et al. [@Roxin05; @Roxin06] demonstrate a qualitative agreement between a neural-field model and a numerically simulated network of Hodgkin-Huxley-type neurons in terms of emerging spatiotemporal patterns. However, the authors do not observe stable traveling waves in the spiking network, even though the neural-field model predicts their occurrence. In the limit of slow synaptic interactions, spiking dynamics can be reduced to a mean-firing-rate model for studying bifurcations [@Ermentrout94_679; @Bressloff98_2384; @Bressloff00_820]. An example is the lighthouse model [@Haken00_187; @Haken00_96], defined as a hybrid between a phase oscillator and a firing-rate model, that reduces to a pure rate model for slow synapses [@Chow06_552]. Laing and Chow [@Laing01] demonstrate a bump solution in a spiking network and discuss a corresponding rate model. Recently, the group around Doiron and Rosenbaum explored in a sequence of studies spatially structured networks of LIF neurons without transmission delays in the continuum limit with respect to the spatial widths of connectivity. The authors focus on the existence of the balanced state [@Rosenbaum14], the structure of correlations in the spiking activity [@Rosenbaum16_107], and bifurcations in the linearized dynamics in relation to network computations [@Pyle17_18103]. Kriener et al. [@Kriener14] employ static mean-field theory and extend the linearization of a network of LIF neurons with constant delays as described by Brunel [@Brunel00_183], to spatially structured networks. The work derives conditions for the appearance of spontaneous symmetry breaking that leads to stationary periodic bump solutions (spatial oscillations), and distinguish between the mean-driven and the fluctuation driven regime.
Despite these previous works on spatially structured network models of spiking neurons and attempts to link them with neural-field models, there still exists no systematic way of mapping parameters between these models. Furthermore, none of these studies focuses on uncovering the underlying mechanism of wave trains in spiking networks. In the present work we establish the so far missing, quantitative link between a sparsely connected network of spiking LIF neurons with spatial structure and a typical neural-field model. An explicit parameter mapping between the two levels of description allows us to study the origin of spatiotemporal patterns analytically in the neural-field model using linear stability analysis, and to reproduce the predicted patterns in spiking activity. We employ mean-field theory to derive the neural-field model as an effective rate model depending on the dynamical working point of the network that is characterized by both the mean and the variance of the synaptic input. The rate model accounts for biological constraints such as a static weight that is either positive (excitatory) or negative (inhibitory) and a spatial profile that can be interpreted as a distance-dependent connection probability. Given these constraints, we show that wave trains cannot occur in a single homogeneous population irrespective of the shape of distance-dependent connection probability. For two-population networks of excitatory and inhibitory neurons, in contrast, wave trains emerge for specific types of spatial profiles and for sufficiently large delays, as shown in D.
The remainder of the study is structured as follows: In we derive the conditions for the existence of wave trains for a typical neural-field model by linear stability analysis, present an effective model corresponding to the microscopic description of spiking neurons, compare the two models, and show simulation results for validation. In we put our results in the context of previous literature. Finally, contains details on our approach. An account of the presented work has previously been published in abstract form in [@Senk17_cns_P94].
Results\[sec:Results\]
======================
![**Mapping microscopic single-neuron dynamics to spatially averaged population dynamics. (1)** Conditions for wave trains in a neural-field model. **(2)** Network simulation of discrete nonlinear rate neurons. **(3)** Mean-field approximation of the spiking model and spatial averaging lead to an effective linearized continuous system. **(4)** Parameter mapping between spiking and neural-field model. **(5)** Network simulation of spiking neurons and validation of analytical results.\[fig:overview\]](figures/Fig2){width="55.00000%"}
We aim to establish a mapping between two different levels of description for spatially structured neural systems to which we refer as ‘neural-field model’ and ‘spiking model’ based on the initial model assumptions. While the neural-field model describes neural activity as a quantity that is continuous in space and time, the spiking model assumes a network of recurrently connected spiking model neurons in discrete space. Our methodological approach for mapping between these two models, as well as the structure of this section, are illustrated in . (1) We start in Sections \[sub:Linear-stability-analysis\]-\[sub:Application-to-a-concrete-network\] with linear stability analysis of a typical neural-field model that is a well-known and analytically tractable rate equation. This approach builds on existing literature (cf. [@Ermentrout98b Section 8] and [@Bressloff12 Section 5]) and introduces the concepts of our study with modest mathematical efforts. We analyze the neural-field model for one and two populations and derive conditions for the occurrence of wave trains based on spatial connectivity profiles and transmission delays. (2) In we continue with simulations of a discrete version of the neural-field model, a network of nonlinear rate-based units, and show that the results from our linear analysis indeed accurately predict transitions between network states (homogeneously steady, spatial oscillations, temporal oscillations, waves). (3) Then, in we linearize the population dynamics of networks of discrete spiking leaky integrate-and-fire (LIF) neurons using mean-field theory and derive expressions similar to the neural-field model. (4) Thus, both the linearized neural-field and spiking models can be treated in a conceptually similar manner, with the exception of an effective coupling kernel which is mathematically more involved for the spiking model. In we perform a parameter mapping between the biophysically motivated parameters of the spiking model and the effective parameters of a neural-field model. (5) Finally, in we demonstrate that the insights obtained in the analysis of the neural-field model apply to networks of simulated LIF neurons: The bifurcations indeed appear at the theoretically predicted parameter values.
In summary, the mapping of a microscopic spiking network model to a continuum neural-field model (bottom up) allows us to transfer analytically derived insights from the neural-field model directly to the spiking model (top down).
Linear stability analysis of a neural-field model\[sub:Linear-stability-analysis\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![**Effective profile yields conditions for wave trains.** **A** Boxcar-shaped spatial profile $p$ of width $R=\unit[1]{mm}$ for a single population. **B** Effective profile $c$ (blue curve) denotes Fourier transform of spatial profile $\widehat{p}$ times positive weight $w_{\mathrm{E}}=1$. Gray crosses indicate maximum $\mathrm{c_{\mathrm{max}}}$ and minimum $c_{\mathrm{min}}$. Same spatial profile but with negative weight ($w_{\mathrm{I}}=-w_{\mathrm{E}}$) yields mirrored curve (red, dashed line). **C **Spatial profiles of different widths for two populations $\mathrm{E}$ ($R_{\mathrm{E}}=\unit[1]{mm}$, blue) and $\mathrm{I}$ ($R_{\mathrm{I}}=\unit[0.5]{mm}$, red). **D** Effective profile: $c\left(k\right)=w_{\mathrm{E}}\widehat{p}_{\mathrm{E}}\left(k\right)+w_{\mathrm{I}}\widehat{p}_{\mathrm{I}}\left(k\right)$. **E** Transition curve $c_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{crit}}(\tau/d^{\mathrm{crit}})$ given by for Hopf bifurcation indicating onset of delay-induced oscillations (appearing in purple region) with time constant $\tau$ and delay $d$. **F** Transition curves for relative width $\rho=R_{\mathrm{I}}/R_{\mathrm{E}}$ and relative weight $\eta=-w_{\mathrm{I}}/w_{\mathrm{E}}$. Colored regions indicate which extremum, the minimum $c_{\mathrm{min}}$ or the maximum $c_{\mathrm{max}}$, has larger absolute value and if the dominant one occurs at $k=0$ or at $k>0$. Purple (1): $c_{\mathrm{min}}$ appears at $k_{\mathrm{min}}>0$. Light blue (2): $c_{\mathrm{min}}$ appears at $k_{\mathrm{min}}=0$. Dark gray (3): $c_{\mathrm{max}}$ appears at $k_{\mathrm{max}}=0$. Green (4) $c_{\mathrm{max}}$ appears at $k_{\mathrm{max}}>0$. \[fig:conditions\_pTW\]](figures/Fig3){width="85.00000%"}
We first consider a neural-field model with a single population defined as a continuous excitable medium with a translation-invariant interaction kernel and delayed interaction in one spatial dimension. The dynamics follows an integro-differential equation
$$\tau\,\frac{\partial u}{\mathrm{\partial}t}\left(x,t\right)+u\left(x,t\right)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}m\left(x-y\right)\,\psi\left(u\left(y,t-d\right)\right)\,\mathrm{d}y.\label{eq:intdiff}$$
The variable $u$ describes the activity of the neural population at position $x$ at time $t$. Here $\tau>0$ denotes a time constant and $d>0$ a transmission delay. The function $\psi$ describes the nonlinear transformation of the output activity $u$ if considered as input to the neural field. The function $m$ specifies the translation-invariant connectivity depending only on the displacement $r=x-y$ where $x$ and $y$ denote neuron positions. Earlier studies show that specific choices for connectivities $P$ and nonlinear transformations $\psi$ result in spatiotemporal patterns such as waves or bumps [@Ermentrout98b; @Coombes05; @Wyller07_79; @Coombes10_731; @Bressloff12; @Bressloff14_8; @Coombes14].
Here, we assume that the connectivity $m$ is isotropic and define $m\left(r\right)\coloneqq w\,p\left(r\right)$. The scalar weight $w$ can either be positive (excitatory) or negative (inhibitory). The spatial profile $p(r)$ is a symmetric probability density function with the properties $p\left(r\right)=p\left(-r\right)$, $p(r)>0$ for $r\in\left(-\infty,\infty\right)$ and $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}p\left(r\right)\,\mathrm{d}r=1$. A shows, as an example, a boxcar-shaped spatial profile with width $R$, defined by $p\left(r\right)=\frac{1}{2R}\Theta\left(R-\left|r\right|\right)$ where $\Theta$ denotes the Heaviside function.
Throughout this study we investigate bifurcations of the system between a state of spatially and temporally homogeneous activity $u(x,t)=u_{0}$ to states where the activity shows structure in the temporal domain, in the spatial domain, or both. For this purpose we use Turing instability analysis [@Bressloff96_4644; @Hutt03_351; @Coombes05]. Initially we assume that the model parameters are chosen such that the homogeneous solution is locally asymptotically stable, implying that small perturbations away from $u_{0}$ will relax back to this baseline. We ask the question: In which regions of the parameter space ($R$, $d$, $w$, $\psi$) is the stability of the homogeneous solution lost? To this end we linearize around the steady state and denote deviations $\delta u(t)=u(t)-u_{0}$. Without loss of generality we assume the slope $\psi^{\prime}(u_{0})$ of the gain function to be unity; a non-zero slope can be absorbed into a redefinition of $w$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\delta u\left(x,t\right) & =\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}kx}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t},\label{eq:Fourier_mode}\end{aligned}$$
where the wave number $k\in\mathbb{R}$ is real and the temporal eigenvalue $\lambda\in\mathbb{C}$ is complex. Solutions constructed from these eigenmodes can oscillate in time and space, and exponentially grow or decay in time. The characteristic equation (see in )
$$\left(1+\tau\lambda\right)\,\mathrm{e}^{\lambda d}=c\left(k\right),\label{eq:char_eq}$$
comprises the effective profile $c\left(k\right)\coloneqq\widehat{m}\left(k\right)\coloneqq w\widehat{p}\left(k\right)$. The Fourier transform of the spatial profile is denoted by $\widehat{p}\left(k\right)$ which, by its definition as a probability density, is maximal at $k=0$ with $\widehat{p}\left(0\right)=1$ (see Eqs \[eq:abs\_p\_hat1\] and \[eq:abs\_p\_hat2\] in ). The effective profile for the boxcar-shaped spatial profile is shown in B, for excitatory and inhibitory weights with absolute magnitudes of unity.
We next extend the system to two populations, an excitatory one denoted by $\mathrm{E}$, and an inhibitory one by $\mathrm{I}$. Time constants $\tau$ and delays $d$ are assumed to be equal for both populations, but $u$ becomes a vector, $u=\left(u_{\mathrm{E}},u_{\mathrm{I}}\right)^{T}$, and the connectivity $m\left(r\right)$ a matrix
$$M\left(r\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
w_{\mathrm{EE}}\,p_{\mathrm{EE}}\left(r\right) & w_{\mathrm{EI}}\,p_{\mathrm{EI}}\left(r\right)\\
w_{\mathrm{IE}}\,p_{\mathrm{IE}}\left(r\right) & w_{\mathrm{II}}\,p_{\mathrm{II}}\left(r\right)
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:connectivity_rate}$$
The linearized system again possesses the same symmetries as the counterpart for a single population so that the eigenmodes for the deviation from the stationary state are of the form $\delta u\left(x,t\right)=ve^{\mathrm{i}kx}\mathrm{e^{\lambda t}}$ with $v$ denoting a constant vector. Hence, we arrive at an auxiliary eigenvalue problem (see in ) with the two eigenvalues
$$c_{1,2}\left(k\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(w_{\mathrm{EE}}\,\widehat{p}_{\mathrm{EE}}\left(k\right)+w_{\mathrm{II}}\,\widehat{p}{}_{\mathrm{II}}\left(k\right)\pm\sqrt{D}\right),\label{eq:eigenvalues_P_hat}$$
where
$$D=\left(w_{\mathrm{EE}}\,\widehat{p}_{\mathrm{EE}}\left(k\right)-w_{\mathrm{II}}\,\widehat{p}_{\mathrm{II}}\left(k\right)\right)^{2}+4w_{\mathrm{EI}}\,\widehat{p}_{\mathrm{EI}}\left(k\right)\,w_{\mathrm{IE}}\,\widehat{p}_{\mathrm{IE}}\left(k\right).$$
These two eigenvalues play the same role as the effective profile $c$ in the one-population case above. As a consequence, the same characteristic equation holds for both the one- and the two-population system,
In the following example we restrict the weights and the spatial profiles to be uniquely determined by the source population alone, denoted by $w_{\mathrm{\alpha E}}=:w_{\mathrm{E}}$, $w_{\mathrm{\alpha I}}=:w_{\mathrm{I}}$ for $\alpha\in\{\mathrm{E},\mathrm{I}\}$. An illustration of the two spatial profiles of different widths $R_{\mathrm{E}}$ and $R_{\mathrm{I}}$ is shown in C.
The characteristic equation can be solved for the eigenvalues $\lambda$ by using the Lambert W function defined as $z=W\left(z\right)\mathrm{e}^{W\left(z\right)}$ for $z\in\mathbb{C}$ [@Corless96_329]. The Lambert W function has infinitely many branches, indexed by $b$, and the branch with the largest real part is denoted the principle branch ($b=0$), see Eqs \[eq:largest\_real\_part\_1\]-\[eq:largest\_real\_part\_2\] in for a proof. The characteristic equation determines the temporal eigenvalues (see in and compare with [@Veltz13_1566])
$$\lambda_{b}(k)=-\frac{1}{\tau}+\frac{1}{d}\,W_{b}\left(c\left(k\right)\frac{d}{\tau}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{d}{\tau}}\right).\label{eq:eigenvalues_rate_LW}$$
Conditions for spatial and temporal oscillations, and wave trains\[sub:Conditions-for-traveling\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The homogeneous (steady) state of our system is locally asymptotically stable if the real parts of all eigenvalues $\lambda_{b}$ are negative $$\operatorname{Re}\left[W_{b}\left(c\left(k\right)\frac{d}{\tau}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{d}{\tau}}\right)\right]<\frac{d}{\tau},{\normalcolor }\label{eq:stability_condition}$$ for all branches $b$ of the Lambert W function. The system loses stability when the real part of the eigenvalue $\lambda_{0}$ on the principle branch becomes positive at a certain $k=k^{*}$. Such instabilities may occur either for a positive or a negative argument of the Lambert W function.
We denote the maximum of $c$ as $c_{\mathrm{max}}$ and the minimum as $\mathrm{c_{\mathrm{min}}}$ occurring at $k_{\mathrm{max}}$ and $k\mathrm{_{min}}$, respectively, as indicated in B and D. If the instability appears at a wave number $k^{\ast}=0$, the population activity is collectively destabilized. This transition corresponds in networks of binary neurons and of spiking neurons to the transition between the asynchronous irregular (AI) state and the synchronous regular (SR) state, where the system ceases to be stabilized by negative feedback and leaves the balanced state [@Vreeswijk96; @Brunel00_183]. If this transition appears at a wave number $k^{*}>0$, it follows from that the activity shows spatial oscillations that grow exponentially in time.
For a negative argument of $W$ of less than $-1/e$, the eigenvalues come in complex conjugate pairs. The real part of $\lambda_{0}$ becomes positive if the condition $$\operatorname{Re}\left[W_{0}\left(c_{\mathrm{min}}\frac{d}{\tau}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{d}{\tau}}\right)\right]=\frac{d}{\tau}$$ is fulfilled with a negative $c_{\mathrm{min}}<-1$. Because the eigenvalues have non-zero imaginary parts, this transition corresponds to a Hopf bifurcation and the onset of temporal oscillations. The condition for this bifurcation has been derived earlier [@Helias13_023002 Eq 10]
$$\frac{d^{\mathrm{crit}}}{\tau}=\frac{\pi-\arctan\left(\sqrt{c_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{crit^{2}}}-1}\right)}{\sqrt{c_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{crit}^{2}}-1}}.\label{eq:P_crit}$$
Here, $d^{\mathrm{crit}}$ denotes the critical delay and $c_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{crit}}$ a critical minimum of the effective profile for points on the transition curve. The system is stable for $c_{\mathrm{min}}>-1$ for all delays. For larger absolute values of $c_{\mathrm{min}}$, the bifurcation point is given by the critical value of the ratio between the time constant and the delay, shown in E. If the transition occurs at $k^{\ast}=0$, temporal oscillations emerge in which all neurons of the population oscillate in phase (‘bulk oscillations’ [@Bressloff08_41916]). In spiking networks this Hopf bifurcation corresponds to the transition from the AI regime to the state termed ‘synchronous irregular fast (SI fast)’ [@Brunel99]. If the transition appears for $k^{*}>0$, spatial and temporal oscillations occur simultaneously. This phenomenon is known as ‘wave trains’, see [@Ermentrout98b Section 8] and [@Roxin05; @Atay06_670; @Venkov07_1]. For the case that the system becomes unstable due to $c_{\mathrm{max}}$ reaching unity, the transition curve in E also provides a lower bound $c_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{crit}}(\tau/d^{\mathrm{crit}})$ above which temporal oscillations do not occur prior to the transition due to $c_{\mathrm{max}}$.
homogeneous spatial oscillations temporal oscillations wave trains
------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------
[ ]{} $<1$ $1$ $<1$ $<1$
[ ]{} $>c_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{crit}}$ $>c_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{crit}}$ $c_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{crit}}$ $c_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{crit}}$
[ ]{} $<d^{\mathrm{crit}}$ $<d^{\mathrm{crit}}$ $d^{\mathrm{crit}}$ $d^{\mathrm{crit}}$
[ ]{} - $>0$ $0$ $>0$
: **Conditions for the onset of spatial and temporal oscillations, and wave trains.** Gray cells in each column indicate the conditions required for the instability causing the bifurcation. White cells denote the conditions for the respective other bifurcation not to occur. Last row indicates whether the bifurcation happens for zero or nonzero wave number $k^{*}$. Here $d^{\mathrm{crit}}$ and $c_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{crit}}$, as defined in and shown in E, denote the critical delay and the minimum of the effective profile on the transition curve for a Hopf bifurcation. \[tab:conditions\]
In summary, the system is stable if $c_{\mathrm{max}}<1$ and $c_{\mathrm{min}}>c_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{crit}}(\tau/d^{\mathrm{crit}})$. For transitions occurring at either $c_{\mathrm{max}}=1$ or $c_{\mathrm{min}}=c_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{crit}}(\tau/d^{\mathrm{crit}})$ we distinguish between solutions with $k^{*}=0$ or $k^{*}>0$. In we provide an overview of the conditions for bifurcations leading to spatial, temporal, or spatiotemporal oscillatory states. These conditions imply that a one-population neural-field model does not permit wave trains, which follows from the fact that the absolute value of $\widehat{p}$ is strictly maximal at $k=0$ (see Eqs \[eq:abs\_p\_hat1\]–\[eq:abs\_p\_hat2\] in ). For a purely excitatory population ($w>0$) the critical minimum $c_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{crit}}(\tau/d^{\mathrm{crit}})$ therefore cannot be reached while keeping the maximum $c_{\mathrm{max}}$ stable as $c_{\mathrm{max}}>\left|c_{\mathrm{min}}\right|$. For a purely inhibitory population ($w<0$), the condition $k_{\mathrm{min}}>0$ is not fulfilled because $c_{\mathrm{min}}$ occurs at $k=0$ as $\widehat{p}$ has its global maximum at the origin.
For a neural-field model accounting for both excitation and inhibition, however, we can select shapes and parameters of the spatial profiles, weights and the delay that fulfill the conditions for the onset of wave trains as demonstrated by example in the next section.
Application to a network with excitatory and inhibitory populations\[sub:Application-to-a-concrete-network\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the conditions derived in the previous section, the minimal network in conformity with Dale’s principle in which wave trains can occur consists of one excitatory ($\mathrm{E}$) and one inhibitory ($\mathrm{I}$) population. As in the example in , we assume that the connection weights and widths of boxcar-shaped spatial profiles only depend on the source population. The effective profile in this case is
$$c\left(k\right)=w_{\mathrm{E}}\,\frac{\sin\left(R_{\mathrm{E}}k\right)}{R_{\mathrm{E}}k}+w_{\mathrm{I}}\,\frac{\sin\left(R_{\mathrm{I}}k\right)}{R_{\mathrm{I}}k},\label{eq:P_hat_EI}$$
and positive and negative peaks of the profile are responsible for bifurcations to spatial or temporal oscillations or wave solutions, respectively. The previous section derives that in particular the position and height of the minima and maxima of the effective profile are decisive. To assess parameter ranges in which the peaks of the effective profile change qualitatively, we introduce the relative width $\rho\coloneqq R_{\mathrm{I}}/R_{\mathrm{E}}>0$ and the relative weight $\eta\coloneqq-w_{\mathrm{I}}/w_{\mathrm{E}}>0$, divide $c\left(k\right)$ by $w_{\mathrm{E}}$ and introduce the rescaled wave number $\kappa=R_{\mathrm{E}}k$ to arrive at the dimensionless reduced profile
$$\tilde{c}\left(\kappa\right)=\frac{\sin\left(\kappa\right)}{\kappa}-\eta\frac{\sin\left(\rho\kappa\right)}{\rho\kappa},\label{eq:reduced_effective_profile}$$
which simplifies the following analysis.
Our aim is to divide the parameter space $\left(\rho,\eta\right)$ into regions that have qualitatively similar shapes of the effective profile. The section describes the derivation of transition curves and F illustrates the resulting parameter space. Above the first transition curve $\eta_{t1}\left(\rho\right)$ (dashed curve, see in ), the absolute value of $\widetilde{c}_{\mathrm{min}}$ is larger than $\widetilde{c}_{\mathrm{max}}$ (regions 1 and 2), and vice versa below this curve (regions 3 and 4). The second transition curve $\eta_{t2}\left(\rho\right)$ (solid curve, see in ) indicates whether the extremum with the largest absolute value occurs at $k=0$ (regions 2 and 3) or at $k>0$ (regions 1 and 4). The diagram provides the necessary conditions and corresponding parameter combinations required for both spatial and spatiotemporal patterns, purely based on the relative weights and the relative widths which determine the effective profile. The analysis shows that wave trains require wider excitation than inhibition, $\rho<1$, because only this relation simultaneously realizes a minimum at a non-zero wave number $k^{\ast}$ and a maximum with a peak below unity (see ).
A neural-field model exhibiting wave trains can therefore be constructed at will by first selecting a point within region 1 of F where $\rho<1$ and $\eta$ ensures that $\left|\widetilde{c}_{\mathrm{min}}\right|>\widetilde{c}_{\mathrm{max}}$. Next, $c$ is fixed by scaling $\widetilde{c}$ with the absolute weight $w_{\mathrm{E}}$ such that $c_{\mathrm{max}}<1$ for a stable bump solution and $c_{\mathrm{min}}<-1$ for a Hopf bifurcation. Finally a delay $d>d^{\mathrm{crit}}$ specifies a point below the bifurcation curve shown in E, given by the sufficient condition for the Hopf bifurcation in . Likewise, solutions for purely temporal oscillations appear in region 2, where $c_{\mathrm{min}}<-1$ is attained at a vanishing wave number $k$ and a delay $d>d^{\mathrm{crit}}$; in addition $c_{\mathrm{max}}<1$ ensures absence of the other bifurcation into spatial oscillations. For purely spatial oscillations, however, the comparison of the absolute values of $\widetilde{c}_{\mathrm{min}}$ and $\widetilde{c}_{\mathrm{max}}$ is not sufficient; it is hence not sufficient to rely on the dashed curve separating regions 2 and 4 in F. A loss of stability due to $c_{\mathrm{max}}>1$ can emerge not only in region 4 but also in region 2, because even if $\left|c_{\mathrm{min}}\right|>c_{\mathrm{max}}$, stability of $c_{\mathrm{min}}$ can be ensured by a sufficiently short delay $d<d^{\mathrm{crit}}$, as shown in .
Network simulation with nonlinear rate neurons\[sub:Network-simulation-with-nonlinear-rate\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, we test the derived conditions for the onset of oscillations, summarized in , for a nonlinear, discrete system in the continuum limit. We here consider a network of $N_{\mathrm{E}}=4,000$ excitatory ($\mathrm{E}$) and $N_{\mathrm{I}}=1,000$ inhibitory ($\mathrm{I}$) rate neurons described by a discrete version of the neural-field equation (see for details). The model neurons within each population are positioned on a ring of perimeter $L=\unit[1]{mm}$ as described in . This rate-neuron network constitutes an intermediate step towards a network of spiking neurons. Each neuron has a fixed in-degree $K_{X}$ (fixed number of incoming connections) per source population $X\in\mathrm{\{E,I}\}$ with connections selected randomly within a distance $R_{X}$. A normalization of weights with the in-degree, $w'_{X}=w_{X}/K_{X}$, allows us to interpret $p$ as a connection probability. The time constant $\tau$ and the delay $d$ are the same as in the neural-field model. As nonlinear gain function in we choose $\psi\left(u\right)=\tanh\left(u\right)$.
The neuron activity of four rate-network simulations with different parameter combinations are shown in A-D. The location of the specific parameter combinations is illustrated in E-G with corresponding markers in the phase diagrams that visualize the stability conditions shown in derived with the neural-field model. Wave trains are possible if parameters are in the purple regions of the diagrams.
The system simulated in A is stable according to the corresponding conditions. The square marker in the lower panels shows that $c_{\mathrm{max}}<1$ (panel E), and although $c_{\mathrm{min}}<-1$, the delay is small such that the system is far away from the bifurcation (panel F). Indeed, the activity appears to not exhibit any spatial or temporal structure.
![**Predictions from linear stability analysis lead to spatiotemporal patterns in simulated network of nonlinear rate neurons.** Different parameter combinations, selected according to stability conditions in , cause pattern formation in rate-neuron network with $\mathrm{tanh}$ gain function. **A–D** Color-coded activity per neuron over time. **E–G** Phase diagrams showing conditions and parameter choices indicated by corresponding markers. Purple regions indicate the possibility for wave trains. **** **A** Stable activity (square marker). **B** Spatial oscillations (diamond marker). **C** Temporal oscillations (circular marker). **D** Wave trains (star marker). Parameters: $d$, $R_{\mathrm{E}}$ and $R_{\mathrm{I}}$ as in A–D, $w_{\mathrm{E}}=2.73$ in all panels. **A** $w_{\mathrm{I}}=-4.10$. **B** $w_{\mathrm{I}}=-3.42$. **C** $w_{\mathrm{I}}=-4.79$. **D** $w_{\mathrm{I}}=-3.42$. \[fig:rate\_simulation\] ](figures/Fig4){width="85.00000%"}
B illustrates a case where $c_{\mathrm{max}}>1$ causes an instability (diamond marker in panel E). The Hopf bifurcation is remote in the parameter space (panel F) and panel G ensures $k_{\mathrm{max}}>0$. A simulation of the corresponding rate-model network again confirms the predictions and exhibits stationary spatial oscillations (or periodic bumps).
C demonstrates temporal oscillations at the parameter combination indicated by the circular marker. We here choose $c_{\mathrm{max}}<1$ and $c_{\mathrm{min}}<-1$ (panel E). The latter condition leads to an entire range of delays that are beyond the bifurcation in panel F; we choose a delay slightly larger than the critical delay, lying to the left of the bifurcation curve. Inferred from panel G, $k_{\mathrm{min}}=0$ and, as expected from the analytical prediction, the oscillations observed in simulations of the rate-neuron network are purely temporal.
Finally, D depicts wave trains (denoted by star marker), as predicted by the analytically tractable neural-field model. The instability results from $c_{\mathrm{min}}<c_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{crit}}$ (panel F) and occurs at $k_{\mathrm{min}}>0$ (panel G) while $c_{\mathrm{max}}$ remains stable (panel E).
Linearization of spiking network model\[sub:Linearization-of-spiking\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To assess the validity of the predictions obtained from the analytical model for biologically more realistic spiking-neuron networks, we next linearize the dynamics of spiking leaky integrate-and-fire (LIF) neurons and derive a linear system similar to the neural-field model above. The sub-threshold dynamics of a single LIF neuron $i$ with exponentially decaying synaptic currents is described by a set of differential equations for the time evolution of the membrane potential $V_{i}$ and its synaptic current $I_{i}$ as
$$\begin{split}\tau_{\mathrm{m}}\frac{\partial V_{i}}{\mathrm{\partial}t} & =-V_{i}+I_{i}\left(t\right),\\
\tau_{\mathrm{s}}\frac{\partial I}{\mathrm{\partial}t} & =-I_{i}+\tau_{\mathrm{m}}\sum_{j}J_{ij}s_{j}\left(t-d\right),
\end{split}
\label{eq:subthreshold_LIF}$$
where we follow the convention of [@FourcaudTrocme05_311] (see in for the relation to physical units). This definition, with both quantities $V_{i}$ and $I_{i}$ having the same unit, conserves the total integrated charge per impulse flowing into the membrane independent of the choice of the synaptic time constant $\tau_{\mathrm{s}}$. The membrane time constant, defined as $\tau_{\mathrm{m}}=R_{\mathrm{m}}C_{\mathrm{m}}$ with membrane resistance $R_{\mathrm{m}}$ and membrane capacitance $C_{\mathrm{m}}$, couples current to the capacitance. We here assume $\tau_{\mathrm{s}}$ to be much smaller than $\tau_{\mathrm{m}}$. The term $s_{j}\left(t\right)=\sum_{k}\delta\left(t-t_{k}^{j}\right)$ denotes a spike train of neuron $j$ which is connected to neuron $i$ with a constant connection strength $J_{ij}$ and transmission delay $d$. Whenever $V_{i}$ reaches the threshold $V_{\theta}$, a spike is emitted and the membrane potential is reset to the resting potential $V_{\mathrm{r}}$ and voltage-clamped for the refractory period $\tau_{\mathrm{ref}}$.
Such a mean-field approach has been employed previously to study networks of spiking neurons without spatial structure [@Amit-1997_373; @Brunel99; @Brunel00_183; @Lindner05_061919]., where $\nu_{j}=\nu$ are identical for all $j$, given by the population-averaged firing rate.
.
In the following section we will ignore the kernel $h_{\sigma^{2}}$, because its contribution is usually small [@Schuecker15_transferfunction]. provides a linearized system for the spiking model that is continuous in space and time and enables a direct comparison with the neural-field model in the following section.
Comparison of neural-field and spiking models\[sub:Comparison-of-models\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The linearization of the LIF model presented in the preceding section is the analogue to taking the derivative $\psi^{\prime}$ of the gain function in the linear stability analysis of the neural-field model in . Therefore the results for the neural field model carry over to the spiking case. To expose the similarities between the linearized systems of the spiking model and the neural-field model, we may bring the equations for the deviation from baseline activity $$\begin{aligned}
\delta o(x,t) & =\begin{cases}
\delta u(x,t) & \text{neural field}\\
\delta\nu(x,t) & \text{spiking}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ to the form of the convolution equation
$$\begin{split}\delta o(x,t) & =\left[h\ast\delta i\right](x,t)\\
\delta i\left(x,t\right) & =\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}p\left(x-y\right)\,\delta o\left(y,t-d\right)\,\mathrm{d}y,
\end{split}
\label{eq:lin_eq_s_r}$$
where the only difference is the convolution kernel relating the deviation from the input $\delta i$ to those of the output $\delta o$ defined as $$\begin{aligned}
h(t) & :=\begin{cases}
h^{\mathrm{nf}}(t):=\Theta(t)\,\frac{w}{\tau}\,\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{t}{\tau}} & \text{neural field}\\
h^{\mathrm{s}}(t):=\tau_{\mathrm{m}}JK\,h_{\mu}(t) & \text{spiking.}
\end{cases}\label{eq:response_functions_rate_spiking}\end{aligned}$$
The kernel on the first line is the fundamental solution (Green’s function) of the linear differential operator appearing on the left hand side of , including the coupling weight $w$. As a consequence, the characteristic equations for both models result from the Fourier-Laplace ansatz $\delta o\left(x,t\right)=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}kx}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t}$ which relates the eigenvalues $\lambda$ to the wave number $k$ as
$$H\left(\lambda\right)\cdot\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda d}\cdot\widehat{p}\left(k\right)=1.\label{eq:char_eq_s_r}$$
As a result we obtain the transfer function for the neural-field model $$\begin{aligned}
H^{\mathrm{nf}}\left(\lambda\right) & =\frac{1}{1+\lambda\tau}w.\label{eq:transfer_rate}\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding expression for the effective spiking transfer function $H^{\mathrm{s}}\left(\lambda\right)$ results from Eqs \[eq:Jannis\]-\[eq:Fourier\_Laplace\] in .
### Parameter mapping\[sub:Parameter-mapping\]
![**Transfer function of spiking neuron model and its approximation. A **Fitting error of the low-pass filter approximation of the transfer function for LIF neurons derived in [@Schuecker15_transferfunction] over $\mu$ and $\sigma$ (given relative to the reset potential). The fitting error $\epsilon=\sqrt{\epsilon_{\tau}^{2}+\epsilon_{H_{0}}^{2}}$ is color-coded. **B** Amplitude of the transfer function and approximation (legend). Dashed line illustrates $H_{0}$ following from the analytically-determined effective coupling strength (see in ). **C** Phase. The white cross in panel A indicates the working point $\left(\mu,\sigma\right)$ selected for the transfer function shown in panels B and C and used in the simulations throughout the study. \[fig:transfer\_function\_fit\]](figures/Fig5){width="85.00000%"}
This simplified transfer function is similar to the the transfer function of the neural-field model, and thereby relates the phenomenological parameters $w$ and $\tau$ of the neural-field model to the biophysically motivated parameters of the spiking model.
The goodness of the fit of this transfer function to the first-order low-pass filter depends on the mean $\mu$ and variance $\sigma$ of the synaptic input, as shown in A. The color-coded error of the fit combines the relative errors from both fitting parameters: $\epsilon=\sqrt{\epsilon_{\tau}^{2}+\epsilon_{H_{0}}^{2}}$. For the majority of working points $\left(\mu,\sigma\right)$ the error is $<1\%$ but the relative errors increase abruptly towards the mean-driven regime. In this regime input fluctuations are small and the mean input predominantly drives the membrane potential towards threshold, so that the model fires regularly and the transfer function exhibits a peak close to the firing frequency [@Lindner01_2934; @Brunel01_2186]. We here fix the working point to the parameters indicated by the white cross (see in ) for all populations, resulting in a common effective time constant $\tau$. Here, we obtain a time constant $\tau=\unit[1.94]{ms}$ which thus lies in between the synaptic time constant, $\tau_{\mathrm{s}}=\unit[0.5]{ms}$, and the membrane time constant, $\tau_{\mathrm{m}}=\unit[5]{ms}$, of the LIF neuron model. For these parameters, B shows the amplitude and C the phase of the original transfer function $H_{\mu}\left(\lambda\right)$ in black and the fitted transfer function $H_{\mathrm{LP}}\left(\lambda\right)$ in purple. The dashed gray line denotes $H_{0}$ obtained by computing the effective coupling strength from linear response theory, $H_{0}^{\mathrm{ecs}}$, as a reference (see in ).
### Linear interpolation between the transfer functions
Evaluating the characteristic equation for the neural-field model yields an exact solution for each branch of the Lambert W function, given by . For this model we already established that the principle branch is the most unstable one. An equivalent condition is not known for the general response kernel of the LIF neuron. To asses whether we may transfer the result for the neural-field model to the spiking case, we investigate the correspondence between the two characteristic equations that are both of the form but with different transfer functions. For this purpose, we define an effective transfer function
$$H_{\alpha}\left(\lambda\right)=\alpha H^{\mathrm{s}}\left(\lambda\right)+\left(1-\alpha\right)H^{\mathrm{nf}}\left(\lambda\right),\label{eq:eff_tf_lambda_of_alpha}$$
with the parameter $\alpha$ that linearly interpolates between the effective transfer functions of the spiking and the neural-field model: $H_{\alpha=0}\left(\lambda\right)=H^{\mathrm{nf}}$$\left(\lambda\right)$ and $H_{\alpha=1}\left(\lambda\right)=H^{\mathrm{s}}$$\left(\lambda\right)$. illustrates two different ways for solving the combined characteristic equation
$$H_{\alpha}\left(\lambda\right)\cdot\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda d}\cdot\widehat{p}\left(k\right)=1.\label{eq:comb_char_eq}$$
The first results from computing the derivative $\partial\lambda/\partial\alpha$ (see Eqs \[eq:derivative\_implicit\_fct\]-\[eq:R\_lambda\] in ) from the combined characteristic equation and integrating numerically with the exact solution of the neural-field model at $\alpha=0$ for each branch $b$ as initial condition:
$$\lambda\left(\alpha\right)=\int_{0}^{\alpha}\frac{\mathrm{\partial}\lambda}{\partial\alpha^{'}}\,\mathrm{d}\alpha^{'},\qquad\lambda\left(0\right)=\lambda_{b}\label{eq:lin_interpol_integral}$$
with
$$\frac{\mathrm{\partial}\lambda}{\mathrm{\partial}\alpha}=-\frac{H^{\mathrm{s}}\left(\lambda\right)-H^{\mathrm{nf}}\left(\lambda\right)}{\alpha\frac{\partial H^{\mathrm{s}}\left(\lambda\right)}{\partial\lambda}+\left(1-\alpha\right)\frac{\partial H^{\mathrm{nf}}\left(\lambda\right)}{\partial\lambda}-d\cdot H_{\alpha}\left(\lambda\right)}.\label{eq:d_lambda_d_alpha}$$
![**Linear interpolation between neural-field $\left(\alpha=0\right)$ and spiking $\left(\alpha=1\right)$ model for eigenvalue close to bifurcation.** **A** Real and **B **imaginary part of the eigenvalue $\lambda$ as a function of the linear interpolation parameter $\alpha$ for the characteristic equation in . The solution at $\alpha=0$ for the neural-field model is exact. **C** Real and **D** imaginary part of the eigenvalues (same units but different scaling as in A and B) with analytically exact solution (by Lambert W function, $\alpha=0$) as functions of the wave number $k$. Different branches $b$ are color-coded (legend); **$b=0$** corresponds to the principal branch with the maximum real eigenvalue (gray cross). Circular markers denote the linear interpolation according to the numerical integration of . Dashed line segments for the linear interpolation are obtained by solving the characteristic equation numerically. Both are evaluated at the same values for $\alpha$. Parameters: $d=\unit[1.5]{ms}$, $R_{\mathrm{E}}=\unit[0.2]{mm}$, $R_{\mathrm{I}}=\unit[0.07]{mm}$, $g=5.$ \[fig:linear\_interpolation\] ](figures/Fig6){width="85.00000%"}
The spatial profile only enters the initial condition, and the derivative is independent of the wave number $k$.
As an alternative approach, we directly solve the combined characteristic equation numerically with the known initial condition. A and B indicate that only the principle branch ($b=0$) becomes positive while the other branches remain stable. The branches come in complex conjugate pairs. For the numerical solution of the characteristic equation, we fix the wave number to the value of $k$ that corresponds to the maximum real eigenvalue.
The analysis shows that we may ignore the danger of branch crossing since different branches remain clearly separated in A and B. In addition, the eigenvalue on the principle branch is mostly independent of $\alpha$, even if the system is close to the bifurcation (when the real part of $\lambda_{0}$ is close to zero). Thus for all values of $\alpha$ we expect qualitatively similar bifurcations, including $\alpha=1$. This justification transfers the rigorous results from the bifurcation analysis of the neural-field model in and , and corresponding effective parameters, to the spiking model.
Validation by simulation of spiking neural network\[sub:Validation-in-simulation\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The illustrates spatiotemporal patterns emerging in a spiking network simulation in and the subsequent sections derive a theory describing the mechanisms underlying such patterns. Finally, the parameter mapping between the spiking and the neural-field model explains the origin of the spike patterns by transferring the conditions found for the abstract neural-field model in and to the spiking case. This section validates that the correspondence between network parameters in the two models is not incidental but covers the full phase diagram.
In the following, we simulate a network with the same neural populations and spatial connectivity used in the nonlinear rate-network in , but replace the rate-model neurons by spiking neurons, and map the parameters as described in . The network model characterizes all neurons by the same working point (see in ), which means that the connectivity matrix for the excitatory-inhibitory network has equal rows; entries in depend on the presynaptic population alone. Therefore the relative in-degree $\gamma=K_{\mathrm{I}}/K_{\mathrm{E}}$ and the relative synaptic strength $g=-J_{\mathrm{I}}/J_{\mathrm{E}}$ parametrize the spiking-network connectivity matrix as
$$M\left(r\right)=\tau_{m}J_{\mathrm{E}}K_{\mathrm{E}}\,\left(\begin{array}{cc}
p_{\mathrm{E}}\left(r\right) & -\gamma g\,p_{\mathrm{I}}\left(r\right)\\
p_{\mathrm{E}}\left(r\right) & -\gamma g\,p_{\mathrm{I}}\left(r\right)
\end{array}\right).\label{eq:connectivity_spiking_EI}$$
The rightmost panels of A–C show the same simulation results as B–D; likewise the panels of have parameters that correspond to those of the rate-neuron network in . The different patterns in B–D emerge by gradually shifting a single network parameter that switches the system from a stable state (white filled markers in D and E), across intermediate states (gray-scale filled markers) to the final states where stability is lost and the patterns have formed (black filled markers). Arrows visualize the sequences in the phase diagrams D and E and the markers reappear in the upper left corners of the corresponding raster plots in A–C.
The sequence of panels in A illustrates a gradual transition from a stable (AI) state to spatial oscillations attained by increasing the amplitudes of excitatory postsynaptic current (PSC) amplitudes $J_{\mathrm{E}}^{'}$ in the network. With $J^{'}$ we denote the weight as a jump in current while $J$ denotes a jump in voltage in the physical sense, and the relationship is: $J^{'}=C_{\mathrm{m}}J/\tau_{s}$ (see in ). The parameter variation thus homogeneously scales the effective profile $c$ but preserves the shape of the reduced profile $\widetilde{c}$ (fixed position of diamond marker in panel F). Simultaneously an increasing rate of the external Poisson input compensates for the reduced PSC amplitudes to maintain the fixed working point $\left(\mu,\sigma\right)$ of the neurons (see in ). Diamond markers in D show that along its path the system crosses the critical value $c_{\mathrm{max}}=1$, while $c_{\mathrm{min}}>c_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{crit}}(\tau/d^{\mathrm{crit}})$ stays in the stable regime, as shown in panel E. However, even for $c_{\mathrm{max}}\lesssim1$ (for $J_{E}^{'}=\unit[60]{pA}$) the network activity already exhibits weak spatial oscillations.
Choosing the synaptic delay $d$ as a bifurcation parameter highlights the onset of temporal oscillations for the case $k=0$ (panel B sequence, circular markers) and spatiotemporal oscillations for the case $k>0$ (sequence in C, star markers). In contrast to the case of purely spatial waves in panel A, the procedure preserves the effective spatial profile (fixed positions in panels D and F) and the system crosses the transition curve in panel E due to increasing delay alone, thus decreasing the ratio $\tau/d$.
C illustrates the gradual transition to wave trains, where $c_{\mathrm{max}}$ remains in the theoretically stable regime at all times, but is close to the critical value of $1$ (see the star marker in panel D). As a result, we observe spatial oscillations with a spatial frequency given by $k_{\mathrm{max}}$ before and even after the Hopf bifurcation. For delays longer than the critical delay, mixed states occur in which different instabilities due to $c_{\mathrm{max}}$ and $c_{\mathrm{min}}$ compete. For delay values well past the bifurcation, this mixed state is lost resulting in a dependency only on $c_{\mathrm{min}}$ and wave trains with a spatial frequency that depends on $k_{\mathrm{min}}$.
![**Transitions from theoretically stable states to spatiotemporal patterns in spiking network simulation. A–C** Spike rasters showing transition to network states in B–D (same markers, same parameter combinations). The changed parameter value is given on top of each raster plot. **A **Increasing recurrent weight $J_{\mathrm{E}}^{'}$ leads to onset of spatial oscillations. **B** Increasing synaptic delay $d$ leads to onset of temporal oscillations at $k=0$. **C** Increasing delay $d$ leads to onset of temporal oscillations at $k>0$, i.e., wave trains. **D–E** Gray shaded markers and white arrows labeled according to respective panel A-C in phase diagrams indicate sequences of parameter combinations and breakdown of stability at $c_{\mathrm{max}}=1$ or at $c_{\mathrm{min}}=c_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{crit}}$. For each sequence in panels A–C, delay $d$, excitatory profile width $R_{\mathrm{E}}$, inhibitory profile width $R_{\mathrm{I}}$, and the relative synaptic strength $g$ correspond to the values given in B–D with corresponding markers. \[fig:transitions\]](figures/Fig7){width="85.00000%"}
Discussion\[sec:Discussion\]
============================
The present study employs mean-field theory [@Brunel99] to rigorously map a spiking network model of leaky integrate-and-fire (LIF) neurons with constant transmission delay to a neural-field model. We use a conceptually similar linearization as Kriener et al. [@Kriener14] combined with an analytical expressions for the transfer function in the presence of colored synaptic noise [@Schuecker15_transferfunction]. The insight that this transfer function in the fluctuation-driven regime resembles the one of a simple first-order low-pass filter facilitates the parameter mapping between the two models. The resulting analytically tractable effective rate model depends on the dynamical working point of the spiking network that is characterized by both the mean and the variance of the synaptic input. By means of bifurcation theory, in particular linear Turing instability analysis [@Coombes05; @Coombes07_51901; @Venkov07_1], we investigate the origin of spatiotemporal patterns such as temporal and spatial oscillations and in particular wave trains emerging in spiking activity. The mechanism underlying these waves encompasses delay-induced fast global oscillations, as described by Brunel and Hakim [@Brunel99], with spatial oscillations due to a distance-dependent effective connectivity profile. We derive analytical conditions for pattern formation that are exclusively based on general characteristics of the effective connectivity profile and the delay. The profile is split into a static weight that is either excitatory or inhibitory for a given neural population, and a spatial modulation that can be interpreted as a distance-dependent connection probability. Given the biological constraint that connection probabilities depend on distance but weights do not, wave trains cannot occur in a single homogeneous population irrespective of the shape of distance-dependent connection probability. Only the effective connectivity profile of two populations (excitatory and inhibitory), permits solutions where a mode with finite non-zero wave number is the most unstable one, a prerequisite for the emergence of nontrivial spatial patterns such as wave trains. We therefore establish a relation between the anatomically measurable connectivity structure and observable patterns in spiking activity. The predictions of the analytically tractable neural-field model are validated by means of simulations of nonlinear rate-unit networks [@Hahne17_34] and of networks composed of LIF-model neurons, both using the same simulation framework [@Nest2140]. In our experience, the ability to switch from a model class with continuous real-valued interaction to a model class with pulse-coupling by changing a few lines in the formal high-level model description increases the efficiency and reliability of the research.
The presented mathematical correspondence between these a priori distinct classes of models for neural activity has several implications. First, as demonstrated by the application in the current work, it facilitates the transfer of results from the well-studied domain of neural-field models to spiking models. The insight thus allows the community to arrive at a coherent view of network phenomena that appear robustly and independently of the chosen model. Second, the quantitative mapping of the spiking model to an effective rate model in particular reduces the parameters of the former to the set of fewer parameters of the latter; single-neuron and network parameters are reduced to just a weight and a time constant. This dimensionality reduction of the parameter space conversely implies that entire manifolds of spiking models are equivalent with respect to their bifurcations. Such a reduction supports systematic data integration: Assume a researcher wants to construct a spiking model that reproduces a certain spatiotemporal pattern. The presented expressions permit the scientist to restrict further investigations to the manifold in parameter space in line with these observations. Variations of parameters within this manifold may lead to phenomena beyond the predictions of the initial bifurcation analysis. Additional constraints, such as firing rates, degree of irregularity, or correlations, can then further reduce the set of admissible parameters.
To keep the focus on the transferability of results from a neural-field to a spiking model, the present study restricts the analysis to a rather simple network model. In many cases, extensions to more realistic settings are straight forward. As an example, we perform our analysis in one-dimensional space. In two dimensions, the wave number becomes a vector and bifurcations to periodic patterns in time and space can be constructed (see [@Ermentrout98b Section 8.4] and [@Coombes05]). Likewise, we restricted ourselves to a constant synaptic delay like Roxin et al. [@Roxin05; @Roxin06] because it enables a separation of a spatial component, the shape of the spatial profile, and a temporal component, the delay. A natural next step is the inclusion of an axonal distance-dependent delay term as for instance in [@Hutt03_351] to study the interplay of both delay contributions [@Veltz13_1566]. For simplification, we use here a boxcar-shaped spatial connectivity profile in the demonstrated application of our approach. For the emergence of spatiotemporal patterns, however, the same conditions on the connectivity structure and the delays hold for more realistic exponentially decaying or Gaussian-shaped profiles [@Hellwig00_111; @Perin11; @Schnepel15_3818]. If the spatial connectivity profiles are monotonically decaying in the Fourier domain (as it is the case for exponential or Gaussian shapes), the Fourier transform of the effective profile of a network composed of an excitatory and an inhibitory population exhibits at most one zero-crossing. Either the minimum or the maximum are attained at a non-zero and finite wave number $k$, but not both. With a cosine-shaped effective profile, only a single wave number dominates by construction [@Roxin05; @Roxin06]. Here, we decided for the boxcar shape because of its oscillating Fourier transform that allows us to study competition between two spatial frequencies corresponding to the two extrema.
Similar to our approach, previous neural-field studies describe the spatial connectivity profile as a symmetric probability density function (see, for example, [@Wyller07_75]). For our aim, to establish a link to networks of discrete neurons, the interpretation as a connection probability and the separation from a weight are a crucial addition. This assumption enables us to distinguish between different neural populations, to analyze the shape of the profile based on parameters for the excitatory and the inhibitory contribution, and to introduce biophysically motivated parameters for the synaptic strength. Starting directly with an effective profile that includes both, excitation and inhibition, such as (inverse) Mexican hat connectivity, is mathematically equivalent and a common approach in the neural-fields literature [@Hutt03_351; @Atay05_644; @Coombes05; @Roxin05]. But it neglects the biological separation of neurons into excitatory and inhibitory populations according to their effect on postsynaptic targets (Dale’s law [@Eccles54_524]) and their different spatial reach of connectivity [@Stepanyants09_3555]. A result of this simplification, these models can produce waves even with a single homogeneous population [@Roxin05; @Atay06_670; @Venkov07_1], while with homogeneous stationary external drive we show that at least two populations are required.
Local excitation and distant inhibition are often used to support stationary patterns such as bumps, while local inhibition and distant excitation are associated with non-stationary patterns such as traveling waves [@Cross93_851; @Ermentrout98b; @Hutt03_351]. For sufficiently long synaptic delays, we also observe wave trains with local inhibition and distant excitation, as often observed in cortex [@Stepanyants09_3555]. However, we show that the reason for this is the specific shape of the effective spatial profile, and not only the spatial reach itself. Our argumentation is therefore in line with Hutt et al. [@Hutt05_30; @Hutt08_541] who demonstrate that wave instabilities can even occur with local excitation and distant inhibition for specific spatial interactions. The spatial connectivity structure and related possible activity states are in addition important factors for computational performance or function of model networks [@Legenstein07_323; @Pyle17_18103].
The parameter mapping between a neural-field and a spiking model in this study relies on the insight that the transfer function of the LIF neuron in the fluctuation-driven regime resembles the one of a simple first-order low-pass filter. Since this approximation not only holds for LIF neurons, but also for other spiking neuron models, our results are transferable. A further candidate model with this property is the exponential integrate-and-fire model [@Fermani15_cns_P206]. Other examples include Nordlie et al. [@Nordlie10] who characterize the firing-rate responses of LIF neurons with strong alpha-shaped synaptic currents and similarly Heiberg et al. [@Heiberg13_359] for a LIF neuron model with conductance based synapses and potassium-mediated afterhyperpolarization currents proposed previously [@Casti08_235].
In the literature, the time constant of neural-field models is often associated with the membrane or the synaptic time constant [@Bressloff00_169; @Bressloff14_8; @Pyle17_18103]. Here, we observe that the time constant of the neural-field model derived from the network of spiking neurons falls in between the two. In line with [@Gerstner00; @Nordlie10], we suggest to reconsider the meaning of the time constant in neural-field models.
A limitation of the approach employed here is that the linear theory is only exact at the onset of waves. Beyond the bifurcation, it is possible that nonlinearities in the spiking model govern the dynamics and lead to different prevailing wave numbers or wave frequencies than predicted. Roxin et al. [@Roxin06] report that the stability of traveling waves depends crucially on the nonlinearity. Nevertheless they do not observe traveling waves in their spiking-network simulations. In the present work, however, we identify biophysically motivated neuron and network parameters that allow wave trains to establish in a spiking network. Still, we had to increase the delay beyond the predicted bifurcation point to obtain a stable wave pattern.
Furthermore, the theory underlying the mapping of the spiking network to the neural-field model is based on the diffusion approximation and therefore only applicable for sufficiently small synaptic weights. Widely distributed synaptic weights, for example, may lead to larger deviations. We here primarily target a wave-generating mechanism for cortical networks. Since in other brain regions involved neuron types, connectivity structures and input characteristics are different, other mechanisms for pattern formation not covered in this work need to be taken into account [@Muller12_222].
The working-point dependence of the neural-field models derived here offers a new interpretation of propagating activity measured in vivo [@Takahashi15; @Denker18_1]. Even if the anatomical connectivity remains unchanged during a period of observation, the stability of the neural system can be temporarily altered due to changes in activity. The transfer function of a LIF neuron depends on the mean and the variance of its input, and we have shown that stability is related to its parametrization. In particular, local changes of activity, for example due to a spatially confined external input, can affect stability and hence influence whether a signal remains rather local or travels across the cortical surface. That means, we would relate the tendency of a neural network to exhibit spatiotemporal patterns not only to its connectivity, but also to its activity state that can change over time.
Appendix\[sec:Methods\]
=======================
Linear stability analysis
-------------------------
### Derivation of the characteristic equation
With the Fourier-Laplace ansatz $u\left(x,t\right)=e^{\mathrm{i}kx}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t}$ for the integro-differential equation in linearized around $u_{0}$ and the choice to set the slope of the gain function to unity, the characteristic equation in results from
$$\begin{split}\tau\lambda\,\mathrm{e}^{ikx}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t} & =-\mathrm{e}^{ikx}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t}+\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}wp\left(x-y\right)\mathrm{e}^{iky}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda\left(t-d\right)}\,\mathrm{d}y\\
\tau\lambda & =-1+w\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda d}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}p\left(x-y\right)\mathrm{e}^{-ik\left(x-y\right)}\,\mathrm{d}y\\
& =-1-w\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda d}\int_{\infty}^{-\infty}p\left(r\right)\mathrm{e}^{-ikr}\,\mathrm{d}r,\qquad r=x-y\\
& =-1+w\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda d}\underbrace{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}p\left(r\right)\mathrm{e}^{-ikr}\,\mathrm{d}r}_{\equiv\widehat{p}\left(k\right)}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:derivation_char_eq}$$
In the last row, we recognize the Fourier transform $\widehat{p}$ of the spatial profile $p$.\
### Effective connectivity profile for two populations
While the connectivity $m$ is a scalar in the one-population model, it is a matrix $M$ in the case of two populations (given in ). The ansatz for deriving the characteristic equation in the latter case reads $\delta u\left(x,t\right)=v\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}kx}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda t}$, with $v$ denoting a vector of constants. This leads to the auxiliary eigenvalue problem
$$c\left(k\right)\,v=\widehat{M}\left(k\right)\,v,\label{eq:aux_eig_prob}$$
where $c$ denotes an eigenvalue and $\widehat{M}$ is an auxiliary matrix containing the Fourier transforms of the entries of $M$:
$$\widehat{M}\left(k\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
w_{\mathrm{EE}}\,\widehat{p}_{\mathrm{EE}}\left(k\right) & w_{\mathrm{EI}}\,\widehat{p}_{\mathrm{EI}}\left(k\right)\\
w_{\mathrm{IE}}\,\widehat{p}_{\mathrm{IE}}\left(k\right) & w_{\mathrm{II}}\,\widehat{p}_{\mathrm{II}}\left(k\right)
\end{array}\right).$$
possesses a nontrivial solution $v$ if and only if $\det\left(\widehat{M}\left(k\right)-c\left(k\right)\mathbbm{1}\right)=0$. explicitly states the two eigenvalues $c_{1,2}$ solving this equation. These eigenvalues constitute the effective profile in the characteristic equation in that hence holds also for the two-population case.
### Largest real part on principle branch of Lambert W function
The function $x\left(W\right)=W\,\mathrm{e}^{W}$ has a minimum at $W=-1$, no real solution for $x<-\mathrm{e}^{-1}$, a single solution for $x>0$, and two solutions for $x\in[-e^{-1},0)$. Typically, the term ‘principal branch’ of the Lambert W function with branch number $b=0$ refers to the real branch defined on the interval $[-e^{-1},\infty)$, where for negative arguments the larger solution is considered. Here we extend the definition to the whole real line by the complex branch with maximal real part and positive imaginary part on $(-\infty,-e^{-1})$.
We demonstrate that the branch of the Lambert W function with the largest real part is the principal branch. Considering only real-valued arguments $x\in\mathbb{R}$, we write $W\left(x\right)=\left|W\left(x\right)\right|\mathrm{e}^{i\varphi}=\alpha+i\beta$ and
$$\begin{aligned}
W\left(x\right)\mathrm{e}^{W\left(x\right)} & =\left|W\left(x\right)\right|\,\mathrm{e}^{\alpha}\,\mathrm{e}^{i\left(\varphi+\beta\right)}=x\in\mathbb{R}\label{eq:largest_real_part_0}\\
\rightarrow\mathrm{e}^{i(\varphi+\beta)} & =\pm1,\label{eq:largest_real_part_1}\end{aligned}$$
where $\varphi\in\left[-\pi,\pi\right]$ is the principal value. We index the branches by $q\in\mathbb{Z}$ according to the number of half-cycles of the exponential in : $\varphi+\beta=q\cdot\pi$. The branch number is equal to $b=\left\lfloor \frac{q}{2}\right\rfloor $ with $\left\lfloor \cdot\right\rfloor $ denoting the floor function. The principle branch is therefore given by the index $q=0$ for $x\ge0$ and by $q=1$ for $x<0.$
Taking the absolute square of yields the real equation
$$x^{2}\,\mathrm{e}^{-2\alpha}=\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}.\label{eq:largest_real_part_2}$$
Without loss of generality we may assume $\beta\geq0$; this is certainly true for the real solutions with $\beta=0$ and it also holds for one of the complex solutions for any complex pair. Complex solutions come in conjugate pairs due to the symmetry $(\varphi,\beta)\to(-\varphi,-\beta)$ exhibited by and . Since each member of a pair has by definition the same real part, it is sufficient to consider only the member with positive imaginary part $\beta>0$.
To prove that the real part $\alpha$ of $W$ is maximal for $b=0$, we show that $\alpha$ is a decreasing function of $\beta$ along the solutions of . Investigating the intersections of the left-hand side and the right-hand side of as a function of $\alpha$ illustrates how increasing the imaginary part $\beta$ affects the real part $\alpha$. The left-hand side is a decaying function of $\alpha$ with an intercept of $x^{2}$. The right-hand-side is a parabola with an offset of $\beta^{2}$.
For $x\in(-\infty,-e^{-1})\cup\left[0,\infty\right)$, an intersection occurs either at a positive real part $\alpha\geq0$ if $x^{2}\geq\beta^{2}$, or at a negative real part $\alpha<0$ if $x^{2}<\beta^{2}$. Increasing $\beta$ moves the parabola upwards and therefore the intersection to the left, meaning that $\alpha$ decreases with increasing $\beta$.
For $x\in[-e^{-1},0)$, we distinguish the cases $\beta=0$ and $\beta>0$ which both have only solutions with $\alpha<0$. First, the two real solutions ($q=\pm1$) existing in this interval correspond to two simultaneously occurring intersections; in addition a third intersection is created by the squaring but it is not an actual solution of . The intersection at the larger real part per definition corresponds to the principal branch with index $q=1$. Second, the complex solutions are indexed by odd numbers $q$ with $\left|q\right|>1$. Taking into account the interval where $\varphi$ is defined, the imaginary part is bounded from below such that $\beta\geq2\pi$ for non-principal branches. Analogous to the previously discussed interval of $x$, there exists only one intersection between the exponential function and the parabola for large values of $\beta$ (in particular: $x^{2}<\beta^{2}$) that moves towards smaller values of $\alpha$ with increasing $\beta$.
So in summary we have shown that for real $x$, the principal branch harbors the solutions with maximal real part $\alpha$.
### Characteristic equation with Lambert W function
The characteristic equation in can be rewritten in terms of the Lambert W function to using the transformation:
$$\begin{split}\left(1+\tau\lambda\right)\mathrm{e}^{\lambda d} & =c\left(k\right)\,|\cdot\frac{d}{\tau}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{d}{\tau}}\\
\left(d\lambda+\frac{d}{\tau}\right)\mathrm{e}^{d\lambda+\frac{d}{\tau}} & =c\left(k\right)\frac{d}{\tau}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{d}{\tau}}\\
d\lambda+\frac{d}{\tau} & =W\left(c\left(k\right)\frac{d}{\tau}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{d}{\tau}}\right).
\end{split}
\label{eq:char_eq_to_LW}$$
The last step collects terms using the definition of the Lambert W function, $z=W\left(z\right)\mathrm{e}^{W\left(z\right)}$with $z\in\mathbb{C}$.
Properties of the spatial profile
---------------------------------
We assume that the spatial profile $p$ is a symmetric probability density function, which implies that its Fourier transform $\widehat{p}$, also called the characteristic function, is real valued and even. Further, we can prove that $\widehat{p}\in(-1,1]$ and that $\widehat{p}$ attains $1$ only at the origin in two steps:
- $|\widehat{p}(k)|\leq1\;\text{ for all }k\in\mathbb{R}$:
$$\begin{split}|\widehat{p}(k)| & =\left|\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}p(r)\mathrm{e}^{-ikr}\,\mathrm{d}r\right|\leq\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left|p(r)\mathrm{e}^{-ikr}\right|\,\mathrm{d}r\\
& =\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}p(r)\,\mathrm{d}r=1\quad\text{ for all }k\in\mathbb{R},
\end{split}
\label{eq:abs_p_hat1}$$
- $|\widehat{p}(k)|<1\;\text{ for all }k\neq0$:
$$\begin{split}\left|\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}p(r)\mathrm{e}^{-ikr}\mathrm{d}r\right| & \leq\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}p(r)\left|\cos\left(kr\right)\right|\mathrm{\,d}r\\
& <\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}p(r)\mathrm{\,d}r=1\quad\text{ for all }k\neq0,
\end{split}
\label{eq:abs_p_hat2}$$
Transition curves for reduced profile
-------------------------------------
![**Graphical analysis for extrema of reduced profile for derivation of transition curves.** **A** The condition for the extremum amounts to the addition of two vectors in the complex plane whose sum is purely imaginary. The vectors have lengths $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ and angles $\phi_{1}$ and $\phi_{2}$, defined in . **B **Diagram of F with indicated parameter combinations $\left(\rho,\eta\right)$ as used in panels C and D. **C–D** Reduced profile $\widetilde{c}$ (top) and $\phi_{1}$ and $\phi_{1}^{\pm}$ from vs. $\kappa$ (bottom) for two different combinations of $\left(\rho,\eta\right)$ with line colors corresponding to regions in panel B. **C** $\left|\widetilde{c}_{\mathrm{min}}\right|>\widetilde{c}_{\mathrm{max}}$ in purple and vice versa in dark gray. **D** $\widetilde{c}_{\mathrm{min}}$ at $\kappa=0$ in light blue and at $\kappa>0$ in purple.\[fig:graphical\_approach\_transition\_lines\]](figures/Fig8){width="85.00000%"}
We here use a graphical approach to derive the transition curves shown first in F. A necessary condition for an extreme value of the reduced profile $\widetilde{c}\left(\kappa\right)$ from located at $\kappa^{\ast}$ is: $\begin{array}{rcl}
\frac{\partial}{\partial\kappa}\widetilde{c}\left(\kappa\right)|_{\kappa^{\ast}} & = & 0.\end{array}$ With the derivative
$$\frac{\partial}{\partial\kappa}\widetilde{c}\left(\kappa\right)=\frac{\cos\left(\kappa\right)}{\kappa}-\frac{\sin\left(\kappa\right)}{\kappa^{2}}-\eta\frac{\cos\left(\rho\kappa\right)}{\kappa}+\eta\frac{\sin\left(\rho\kappa\right)}{\rho\kappa^{2}},\label{eq:deriv_B_full}$$
this condition can be rewritten as
$$\begin{split}0 & =\operatorname{Re}\left[\left(\kappa+i\right)\mathrm{e}^{i\kappa}-\frac{\eta}{r}\left(\rho\kappa+i\right)\mathrm{e}^{i\rho\kappa}\right]\\
& =\operatorname{Re}\left[a_{1}\mathrm{e}^{i\phi_{1}}+a_{2}\mathrm{\mathrm{e}}^{i\phi_{2}}\right]\\
& =a_{1}\cos\left(\phi_{1}\right)+a_{2}\cos\left(\phi_{2}\right),
\end{split}
\label{eq:deriv_B}$$
where $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ are the absolute values of the complex numbers and $\phi_{1}$ and $\phi_{2}$ their phases, given by
$$\begin{split}a_{1}\left(\kappa\right) & =\sqrt{1+\kappa^{2}}\\
\phi_{1}\left(\kappa\right) & =\kappa+\frac{\pi}{2}-\arctan\left(\kappa\right)\\
a_{2}\left(\kappa;\rho,\gamma\right) & =\frac{\eta}{\rho}\sqrt{1+\rho^{2}\kappa^{2}}\\
\phi_{2}\left(\kappa;\rho\right) & =\rho\kappa+\frac{3\pi}{2}-\arctan\left(\rho\kappa\right).
\end{split}
\label{eq:abs_phase}$$
The vanishing right-hand-side of implies that the term in the square brackets is purely imaginary. An example solution for the case $a_{1}<a_{2}$ is illustrated in A in the complex plane. Note that $a_{1}$ and $\phi_{1}$ are independent of the parameters $\rho$ and $\eta$ in this representation. In our graphical analysis, is interpreted as the sum of two vectors in the complex plane. As shown in A, we determine $\phi_{1}$ as the angle at which the tip of the second vector ends on the imaginary axis, which follows from elementary trigonometry as $$\phi_{1}^{\pm}=\pi\pm\arccos\left(\frac{a_{2}}{a_{1}}\cos\left(\phi_{2}\right)\right).\label{eq:phi1_pm}$$ The locations of extrema are then given by the intersections of $\phi_{1}^{\pm}$ with the second row of . Here $\phi_{2}$ is determined from the last equation in .
B reproduces F. The white bars connect points given by parameter combinations $\left(\rho,\eta\right)$ on both sides of the transition curves, and the parameters are specified in panels C and D. The first transition curve $\eta_{t1}\left(\rho\right)$ (dashed line in B) is determined by $\widetilde{c}_{\mathrm{max}}\left(\kappa_{\mathrm{max}}\right)=\left|\widetilde{c}_{\mathrm{min}}\left(\kappa_{\mathrm{min}}\right)\right|$, that means it is determined by parameters $\left(\rho,\eta\right)$ for which the absolute values of the positive and negative extremum of the profile are equal. The top panel of C compares two reduced profiles obtained for a fixed value for $\rho$ and two values for $\eta$. The line colors correspond to the colored regions in the diagram in B for the respective parameter combination $\left|\widetilde{c}_{\mathrm{min}}\right|>\widetilde{c}_{\mathrm{max}}$ for the purple profile and vice versa for the dark gray profile. The point with the maximum absolute value of each profile is indicated with a cross. Exactly at the transition either $\kappa_{\mathrm{max}}$ or $\kappa_{\mathrm{min}}$ is zero (for example $\kappa_{0}=0$) and the other one is non-zero (for example $\kappa_{1}>0$). This condition, with , yields the absolute value for both extrema at the transition, where they must be equal, thus $\left|\widetilde{c}\left(\kappa_{0}\right)\right|=\left|\widetilde{c}\left(\kappa_{1}\right)\right|=\left|1-\eta\right|$. Any point on the transition curve is a unique triplet of parameters$\left(\rho,\eta,\kappa_{1}\right)$, and with the condition $\frac{\partial}{\partial\kappa}\widetilde{c}\left(\kappa\right)|_{\kappa_{1}}=0$ we obtain two equations that need to be fulfilled at each point for $\kappa=\kappa_{1}$:
$$\begin{split}1-\eta & =\frac{\sin\left(\kappa\right)}{\kappa}-\eta\frac{\sin\left(\rho\kappa\right)}{\rho\kappa}\\
1-\eta & =\cos\left(\kappa\right)-\eta\cos\left(\rho\kappa\right).
\end{split}
\label{eq:cond_eq_trans1}$$
The lower equation is obtained by identifying $\widetilde{c}\left(\kappa\right)$ in its derivative in . We solve both equations with respect to $\eta$ and equate them to get
$$\frac{1}{\kappa}\sin\left(\kappa\right)\left[1+\cos\left(\rho\kappa\right)\right]-\frac{1}{\rho\kappa}\sin\left(\rho\kappa\right)\left[1+\cos\left(\kappa\right)\right]+\cos\left(\rho\kappa\right)-\cos\left(\kappa\right)=0.\label{eq:roots_kappa_rho}$$
For a given value of $\rho$, we compute the roots of the left-hand-side expression, which defines $\kappa(\rho)$. The bottom panel of C shows $\phi_{1}$ from as a black line and $\phi_{1}^{\pm}$ from for the parameters of the two effective profiles (same color coding as in the top panel). The intersections corresponding to the relevant extrema are highlighted by crosses. This visual analysis allows us to identify the interval for $\kappa$ in which zero-crossings of the left-hand side of as a function of $\kappa$ can correspond to the extrema, that is $\kappa\in\left(0,\,4.49341\right)$ where the lower limit corresponds to $\phi_{1}=\frac{\pi}{2}$ and the upper limit to $\phi_{1}=\frac{3\pi}{2}$. The zero-crossing at the smallest non-zero $\kappa$ indicates the extremum at $\kappa_{1}$. Finally, the transition curve is given by
$$\eta_{t1}\left(\rho\right)=\frac{1+\cos\left(\kappa\left(\rho\right)\right)}{1+\cos\left(\rho\kappa\left(\rho\right)\right)},\label{eq:transition_line1}$$
where $\kappa(\rho)$ is given by the roots of .
The second transition curve $\eta_{t2}\left(\rho\right)$ (solid line in B) indicates whether the extremum with the largest absolute value occurs at $\kappa=0$ or at $\kappa>0$. D shows in the top panel two reduced profiles for a fixed value of $\eta$, but two values for $\rho$ such that the $\widetilde{c}_{\mathrm{min}}$ occurs once at $\kappa_{\mathrm{min}}=0$ (light blue as in B) and once at $\kappa_{\mathrm{min}}>0$ (purple as in B), indicated by cross markers.
Graphical analysis using the bottom panel of D indicates that this transition happens when $\phi_{1}^{-}$ at $\kappa\gtrsim0$ switches from lying slightly above (light blue line) to below (purple line) the parameter-independent function $\phi_{1}$ (black line). We observe that decreasing $\rho$ moves the intersection point and with it the location of the extremum up the black line, starting from $\kappa=0$ to larger values for $\kappa$.
Close to the transition, the intersection point comes arbitrarily close to $\kappa=0$, which permits local analysis by a Taylor expansion of $\phi_{1}$ for small $\kappa$:
$$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{1}\left(\kappa\right) & \approx\frac{\pi}{2}+\frac{\kappa^{3}}{3}+\mathcal{O}\left(\kappa^{5}\right)\\
\phi_{1}^{-}\left(\kappa;\rho,\eta\right) & \approx\frac{\pi}{2}+\frac{\eta\rho\kappa^{3}}{3}+\mathcal{O}\left(\left(\rho\kappa\right)^{5}\right).\end{aligned}$$
A comparison of the coefficients of the third-order polynomials then gives the transition curve
$$\eta_{t2}\left(\rho\right)=\frac{1}{\rho^{2}},\label{eq:transition_line2}$$
because this coefficient decides for small $\kappa$ whether $\phi_{1}$ (black line) or $\phi_{1}^{-}$ as a function of the parameters $\left(\rho,\eta\right)$ has a larger slope and lies on top.
Linearization of the spiking model\[subsec:Linearization-of-the\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
### Fast synaptic noise
The stationary firing rate of a LIF neuron model subject to fast synaptic noise has been derived in [@Brunel01_2186; @Fourcaud02]. The linear response of the model to time-dependent stimuli has been derived in [@Schuecker15_transferfunction Eq 29], by application of a general reduction technique to a white noise system with displaced boundary conditions.
### Stationary firing rate {#stationary-firing-rate .unnumbered}
The stationary firing rate $\nu_{0}$ in the limit of short synaptic time constants ($\tau_{\mathrm{s}}\ll\tau_{\mathrm{m}}$) is given by [@Fourcaud02; @Helias13_023002 Eq A.1]:
$$\begin{split}\nu_{0}^{-1} & =\tau_{\mathrm{r}}+\tau_{\mathrm{m}}\sqrt{\pi}\left(F\left(y_{\theta}\right)-F\left(y_{\mathrm{r}}\right)\right)\\
f\left(y\right) & =\mathrm{e}^{y^{2}}\left(1+\mathrm{erf}\left(y\right)\right),\qquad F\left(y\right)=\int^{y}f\left(y\right)dy\\
\mathrm{\mbox{with}\quad}y_{\left\{ \theta,r\right\} } & =\frac{V_{\left\{ \theta,r\right\} }-\mu}{\sigma}+\frac{\beta}{2}\sqrt{\frac{\tau_{\mathrm{s}}}{\tau_{\mathrm{m}}}},\qquad\beta=\sqrt{2}\left|\zeta\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\right|,
\end{split}
\label{eq:siegert}$$
where $\zeta$ denotes the Riemann’s zeta function [@Abramowitz74].
### Transfer function\[sub:Transfer-function\] {#transfer-functionsubtransfer-function .unnumbered}
The linear response of the firing rate is described by the transfer function, here denoted by $H_{\mu}$, that relates the modulation of the firing rate $\delta\nu(\omega)$ to the modulation of the mean $\delta\mu(\omega)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\nu(\omega) & =H_{G}(\omega)\,\delta\mu(\omega)+o(\delta\mu^{2}).\end{aligned}$$ It is computed based on the first term of [@Schuecker15_transferfunction Eq 29]
$$H_{G}\left(\omega\right)=\frac{\nu_{0}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sigma}}{1+i\omega\tau_{\mathrm{m}}}\frac{\Phi_{\omega}^{\prime}|_{x\theta}^{x_{\mathrm{r}}}}{\Phi_{\omega}|_{x\theta}^{x_{\mathrm{r}}}},\label{eq:Jannis}$$
for the oscillation frequency $\omega$ and We need to multiply the transfer function with the transfer function of a first-order low-pass filter due to the exponential time course of our synaptic currents:
$$H_{\mu}\left(\omega\right)=H_{G}\left(\omega\right)\,{\normalcolor }\frac{1}{1+i\omega\tau_{\mathrm{s}}}.$$
We then obtain $h_{\mu}$ by an inverse Fourier transform and a Laplace transform because $\lambda$ is a complex frequency and $\omega$ is real in the present context:
$$\begin{split}h_{\mu}\left(t\right) & =\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left[H_{\mu}\right]\left(t\right)\\
H_{\mu}\left(\lambda\right) & =\mathcal{L}\left[h_{\mu}\right]\left(\lambda\right).
\end{split}
\label{eq:Fourier_Laplace}$$
The latter relations imply a replacement $i\omega\to\lambda$ in .
Model comparison
----------------
### Effective coupling strength
For the numerical evaluation of the transfer function, we show $H_{0}^{\mathrm{ecs}}=w^{\mathrm{ecs}}/\left(\tau_{\mathrm{m}}JK\right)$ as the dashed line in B, obtained by calculating analytically the effective coupling strength $w^{\mathrm{ecs}}$ from linear-response theory. The effective coupling strength for a connection from neuron $j$ with rate $\nu_{j}$ to neuron $i$ with rate $\nu_{i}$ is defined as [@Helias13_023002 Eqs. A.2 and A.3 (correcting a typo in this previous work)]:
$$\begin{split}w_{ij}^{\mathrm{ecs}} & =\frac{\partial\nu_{i}}{\partial\nu_{j}}\\
& =\widetilde{\alpha}J_{ij}+\widetilde{\beta}J_{ij}^{2}\\
\text{with}\quad\widetilde{\alpha} & =\sqrt{\pi}\left(\tau_{\mathrm{m}}\nu_{i}\right)^{2}\frac{1}{\sigma_{i}}\left(f\left(y_{\theta}\right)-f\left(y_{\mathrm{r}}\right)\right)\\
\text{and}\quad\widetilde{\beta} & =\sqrt{\pi}\left(\tau_{\mathrm{m}}\nu_{i}\right)^{2}\frac{1}{2\sigma_{i}^{2}}\,\left(f\left(y_{\theta}\right)\,y_{\theta}-f\left(y_{\mathrm{r}}\right)\,y_{\mathrm{r}}\right),
\end{split}
{\normalcolor }\label{eq:effective_coupling_strength}$$
where $f$ and $y_{\left\{ \theta,r\right\} }$ are defined as in . The dashed line in B is given by the term $\propto\widetilde{\alpha}$ alone since we also ignore the small contribution of the variance to the transfer function ($H_{\sigma^{2}}$) of the LIF neuron [@Schuecker15_transferfunction] .
### Linear interpolation
To compute the derivative $d\lambda/d\alpha$ given in , we use a method for computing the derivative of an implicit function: If $R\left(\alpha,\lambda\right)=0$, it follows that the derivative
$$\frac{\partial\lambda}{\partial\alpha}=-\frac{\partial R/\partial\alpha}{\partial R/\partial\lambda}=:-\frac{R_{\alpha}}{R_{\lambda}}.\label{eq:derivative_implicit_fct}$$
With the characteristic equation for the effective transfer function , we get
$$R\left(\alpha,\lambda\right)=H_{\alpha}\left(\lambda\right)\cdot\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda d}\cdot\widehat{p}\left(k\right)-1=0.$$
The partial derivatives of $R$ with respect to $\alpha$ and $\lambda$ are
$$\begin{split}R_{\alpha} & =\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda d}\cdot\widehat{p}\left(k\right)\cdot\frac{\partial H_{\alpha}\left(\lambda\right)}{\partial\alpha}\\
& =\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda d}\cdot\widehat{p}\left(k\right)\cdot\left[H^{\mathrm{s}}\left(\lambda\right)-H^{\mathrm{nf}}\left(\lambda\right)\right],
\end{split}$$ and
$$\begin{split}R_{\lambda} & =\widehat{p}\left(k\right)\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda}\left[H_{\alpha}\left(\lambda\right)\cdot\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda d}\right]\\
& =\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda d}\cdot\widehat{p}\left(k\right)\cdot\left[\frac{\partial H_{\alpha}\left(\lambda\right)}{\partial\lambda}-d\cdot H_{\alpha}\left(\lambda\right)\right]\\
& =\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda d}\cdot\widehat{p}\left(k\right)\cdot\left[\alpha\frac{\partial H^{\mathrm{s}}\left(\lambda\right)}{\partial\lambda}+\left(1-\alpha\right)\frac{\partial H^{\mathrm{nf}}\left(\lambda\right)}{\partial\lambda}-d\cdot H_{\alpha}\left(\lambda\right)\right]\\
& =\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda d}\cdot\widehat{p}\left(k\right)\cdot\left[\alpha H_{\lambda}^{\mathrm{s}}\left(\lambda\right)+\left(1-\alpha\right)\cdot H_{\lambda}^{\mathrm{nf}}\left(\lambda\right)-d\cdot H_{\alpha}\left(\lambda\right)\right].
\end{split}
\label{eq:R_lambda}$$
Fixing the working point
------------------------
Physical units
--------------
The sub-threshold dynamics of the LIF neuron in are, without loss of generality, given in scaled units. In this formulation, $V$, $J$ and $I$ are all quantities with unit Volt. For the parameter-wise comparison with numerical network simulation (for example using NEST [@Nest2180]), it is useful to consider a description where $I^{'}$ and $J^{'}$ represent electric currents in units of Ampere:
$$\begin{split}\tau_{\mathrm{m}}\frac{\mathrm{\partial}V_{i}^{'}}{\mathrm{\partial}t} & =-\left(V_{i}^{'}-E_{\mathrm{L}}\right)+R_{\mathrm{m}}I{}_{i}^{'}\left(t\right)\\
\tau_{\mathrm{s}}\frac{\mathrm{\partial}I_{i}^{'}}{\mathrm{\partial}t} & =-I_{i}^{'}+\tau_{\mathrm{s}}\sum_{j}J{}_{ij}^{'}s_{j}\left(t-d\right).
\end{split}
\label{eq:lif_dynamics_phy}$$
Here, we also introduce a resistive leak reversal potential $E_{\mathrm{L}}$, and shift threshold and reset potentials $V'_{\theta}=V_{\theta}+E_{\mathrm{L}}$ and $V'_{r}=V_{r}+E_{\mathrm{L}}$, respectively. The membrane time constant $\tau_{\mathrm{m}}=R_{\mathrm{m}}C_{\mathrm{m}}$ relates the membrane resistance $R_{\mathrm{m}}$ and capacitance $C_{\mathrm{m}}$. In units of Ampere, the total current input $I^{'}=I/R_{\mathrm{m}}$ and the synaptic weight amplitude $J^{'}=C_{\mathrm{m}}J/\tau_{\mathrm{s}}$.
Network structure and parameters
--------------------------------
[|@p[3cm]{}@|@p[9.5cm]{}|]{} [\
]{} **Populations** & Excitatory ($\mathrm{E}$), inhibitory ($\mathrm{I}$)[\
]{} **Topology** & Ring network: Neurons positioned equally spaced on one-dimensional domain of length $L$; periodic boundary conditions[\
]{} **Connectivity** & Random convergent connections with fixed in-degree, distance-dependent boxcar-shaped spatial profiles realized with cut-off masks[\
]{} [\
]{} **Neuron model** & Leaky integrate-and-fire (LIF), fixed threshold, absolute refractory time[\
]{} **Synapse model** & Static weights and delays, exponentially shaped postsynaptic currents[\
]{} **Input** & Independent fixed-rate Poisson spike trains to all neurons (excitatory and inhibitory Poisson sources)[\
]{} **Measurement** & Spike activity[\
]{} [\
]{} **Neuron model** & Rate neuron with $\mathrm{tanh}$ gain function[\
]{} **Synapse model** & Delayed rate connection[\
]{} **Input** & -[\
]{} **Measurement** & Activity[\
]{}
We simulate recurrently connected neural networks of one excitatory and one inhibitory populations each using the neural simulation software NEST [@Gewaltig_07_11204], using either spiking- or rate-neuron models. The support for rate neurons in NEST was added as described in [@Hahne17_34]. Figs \[tab:model\_summary\] and \[tab:model\_description\] provide the complete neuron and network model descriptions and summarizes all parameters as used for the network state showing wave trains (marked by black star in D, D and C). Other simulation parameters used to obtain other network states shown throughout this paper are indicated with a $\varoast$ marker in , and the changed parameters are given in the corresponding figures. The same marker always denotes the same parameter combination across figure panels. The tables distinguish between network properties and parameters valid for both spiking and rate neuron models and those specific to only one neuron model. Irrespective of the choice of neuron model (rate vs. spiking), the neuron parameters are shared between both neuron populations.
The number of excitatory neurons $N_{\mathrm{E}}$ in our network is four times larger than the number of inhibitory neurons $N_{\mathrm{I}}$ [@Braitenberg01]. Potentially presynaptic neurons within this distance are picked at random and connections are established until the fixed in-degree is reached. Multiple connections between the same pair of neurons termed multapses are allowed, but self-connections (autapses) are prohibited.
The leaky integrate-and-fire model with exponential postsynaptic currents is implemented in NEST under the name `iaf_psc_exp`. The neuron parameters are the same as in the microcircuit model of [@Potjans14_785] with the difference that our membrane time constant $\tau_{\mathrm{m}}$ is half of theirs and that we here omit the refractory period $\tau_{\mathrm{ref}}$, although our results generalize to a non-zero $\tau_{\mathrm{ref}}$. An excitatory and an inhibitory Poisson generator provide external input to all neurons. Their rates $\nu_{\left\{ \mathrm{E,I}\right\} ,\mathrm{ext}}$ are determined according to for fixing the working point $\left(\mu,\sigma\right)$.
The dynamics of rate-based units in NEST is specified as stochastic differential equations using the Itô convention [@Hahne17_34], except that we here set the stochasticity (the variance of the input) to zero. We use the neuron model `tanh_ipn`, that employs a hyperbolic tangent as a gain function.
Simulations run for a simulation time $T_{\mathrm{sim}}$ with a temporal resolution of $dt$. During rate simulations, the instantaneous rate is recorded once at each time step $dt$. Our raster plots from simulations of the spiking model and the image plots from simulation of the rate model show the network activity from all simulated neurons after a start-up transient $T_{\mathrm{trans}}.$
Software and implementation
---------------------------
Spiking- and rate-neuron network simulations were implemented in NEST v2.18.0 [@Nest2180], and Python v3.6.9. Post-processing and plotting relied on Python with NumPy v1.16.4, SciPy v1.2.1, and Matplotlib v3.0.2.
[|@p[3cm]{}@|@p[9.5cm]{}|]{} [\
]{} **Distance-dependentconnectivity** & Neural units $j\in X$ at location $x_{j}$ and $i\in Y$ at $x_{i}$ in pre- and postsynaptic populations $X$ and $Y$, respectively.Displacement between units $i$ and $j$:
- $r_{ij}=x_{i}-x_{j}$
Boxcar-shaped spatial profile with width $R$ and Heaviside function $\Theta$:
- $p\left(r_{ij}\right)=\frac{1}{2R}\Theta\left(R-\left|r_{ij}\right|\right)$
[\
]{} [\
]{} **Subthresholddynamics** & If $t>t^{*}+\tau_{\mathrm{ref}}$
- $\frac{\mathrm{\partial}V}{\partial t}=-\frac{V-E_{\mathrm{L}}}{\tau_{\mathrm{m}}}+\frac{I_{\mathrm{syn}}\left(t\right)}{C_{\mathrm{m}}}$
- $I_{\mathrm{syn}}\left(t\right)=\sum_{j}J_{j}I_{\mathrm{PSC}}\left(t-t_{j}^{*}-d\right)$
- with connection strength $J_{j}$, presynaptic spike time $t_{j}^{*}$ and conduction delay $d$
- $I_{\mathrm{PSC}}\left(t\right)=\mathrm{e}^{-t/\tau_{\mathrm{s}}}\Theta\left(t\right)$ with Heaviside function $\Theta$
else
- $V\left(t\right)=V_{r}$
[\
]{} **Spiking** & If $V\left(t-\right)<V_{\theta}\wedge V\left(t+\right)\geq V_{\theta}$
1. set $t^{*}=t$
2. emit spike with timestamp $t^{*}$
3. reset $V\left(t\right)=V_{\mathrm{r}}$
[\
]{} [\
]{} **Differentialequation** & [\
]{}
[|@p[2cm]{}@|@p[3cm]{}|@p[7.5cm]{}|]{} [\
]{} **Symbol** & **Value** & **Description**[\
]{} $T_{\mathrm{sim}}$ & $\unit[350]{ms}$ & Simulation duration[\
]{} $T_{\mathrm{trans}}$ & $\unit[150]{ms}$ & Start-up transient[\
]{} $dt$ & $\unit[0.1]{ms}$ & Temporal resolution[\
]{}
[|@p[2cm]{}@|@p[3cm]{}|@p[7.5cm]{}|]{} [\
]{} **Symbol** & **Value** & **Description**[\
]{} $N_{\mathrm{E}}$ & $4,000$ & Population size of excitatory neurons[\
]{} $N_{\mathrm{I}}$ & $1,000$ & Population size of inhibitory neurons[\
]{} $L$ & $\unit[1]{mm}$ & Domain length[\
]{} [\
]{} $\mu^{*}$ & $\unit[10]{mV}$ & Mean input relative to resting potential[\
]{} $\sigma^{*}$ & $\unit[10]{mV}$ & Variance of input relative to resting potential[\
]{} $\nu_{\mathrm{E,ext}}$ & $\unit[96,463]{Hz}$ & $\varoast$ Excitatory external rate (by fixing working point)[\
]{} $\nu_{\mathrm{I,ext}}$ & $\unit[15,958]{Hz}$ & $\varoast$ Inhibitory external rate (by fixing working point)[\
]{}
[|@p[2cm]{}@|@p[3cm]{}|@p[7.5cm]{}|]{} [\
]{} **Symbol** & **Value** & **Description**[\
]{} $R_{\mathrm{E}}$ & $\unit[0.2]{mm}$ & $\varoast$ Profile width of excitatory neurons[\
]{} $R_{\mathrm{I}}$ & $\unit[0.07]{mm}$ & $\varoast$ Profile width of inhibitory neurons[\
]{} $d$ & $\unit[3]{ms}$ & $\varoast$ Delay[\
]{} [\
]{} $K_{\mathrm{E}}$ & $400$ & In-degree from excitatory neurons[\
]{} $\gamma$ & $0.25$ & Relative in-degree, $\gamma=K_{\mathrm{I}}/K_{\mathrm{E}}$[\
]{} $J_{\mathrm{E}}^{'}$ & $\unit[87.8]{pA}$ & $\varoast$ Reference synaptic strength[\
]{} $g$ & $5$ & $\varoast$ Relative synaptic strength, $g=-J_{\mathrm{I}}/J_{\mathrm{E}}$[\
]{} [\
]{} $w_{\mathrm{E}}$ & $2.73$ & $\varoast$ Excitatory weight (by parameter mapping)[\
]{} $w_{\mathrm{I}}$ & $-3.42$ & $\varoast$ Inhibitory weight (by parameter mapping)[\
]{}
[|@p[2cm]{}@|@p[3cm]{}|@p[7.5cm]{}|]{} [\
]{} **Symbol** & **Value** & **Description**[\
]{} [\
]{} $C_{\mathrm{m}}$ & $\unit[250]{pF}$ & Membrane capacitance[\
]{} $\tau_{\mathrm{m}}$ & $\unit[5]{ms}$ & Membrane time constant[\
]{} $E_{\mathrm{L}}$ & $\unit[-65]{mV}$ & Resting potential[\
]{} $V_{\theta}$ & $\unit[-50]{mV}$ & Firing threshold[\
]{} $V_{\mathrm{r}}$ & $\unit[-65]{mV}$ & Reset potential[\
]{} $\tau_{\mathrm{ref}}$ & $\unit[0]{ms}$ & Absolute refractory period[\
]{} $\tau_{\mathrm{\mathrm{s}}}$ & $\unit[0.5]{ms}$ & Postsynaptic current time constant[\
]{} [\
]{} $\tau$ & $\unit[1.94]{ms}$ & Time constant (by parameter mapping)[\
]{}
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors would like to thank the whole INM-6 for fruitful discussions; in particular Michael Denker and Sonja Grün for sharing their experience on wave-like activity in experimentally recorded brain activity, and David Dahmen, Hannah Bos and other colleagues from the NEST community (<http://www.nest-simulator.org>).
Funding {#funding .unnumbered}
=======
This project has received funding from the Helmholtz association: portfolio Supercomputing and Modeling for the Human Brain (SMHB), young investigator group VH-NG-1028; the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 720270 (HBP SGA1), the German Research Foundation (DFG; grant DI 1721/3-1 [\[]{}KFO219-TP9[\]]{}), the ERS grant Facing the multi-scale problem in neuroscience of the RWTH Aachen University, and the Research Council of Norway (NFR) through COBRA (grant No 250128). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
[100]{}
Rubino D, Robbins KA, Hatsopoulos NG. Propagating waves mediate information transfer in the motor cortex. 2006;9(12):1549–1557. doi:.
Nauhaus I, Busse L, Carandini M, Ringach DL. Stimulus contrast modulates functional connectivity in visual cortex. 2009;12:70–76. doi:.
Muller L, Destexhe A. Propagating waves in thalamus, cortex and the thalamocortical system: Experiments and models. 2012;106(5-6):222–238. doi:.
Sato TK, Nauhaus I, Carandini M. Traveling Waves in Visual Cortex. 2012;75(2):218–229. doi:.
Muller L, Reynaud A, Chavane F, Destexhe A. The stimulus-evoked population response in visual cortex of awake monkey is a propagating wave. Nature Communications. 2014;5. doi:.
Townsend RG, Solomon SS, Chen SC, Pietersen ANJ, Martin PR, Solomon SG, et al. Emergence of Complex Wave Patterns in Primate Cerebral Cortex. 2015;35(11):4657–4662. doi:.
Zanos TP, Mineault PJ, Nasiotis KT, Guitton D, Pack CC. A Sensorimotor Role for Traveling Waves in Primate Visual Cortex. 2015;85(3):615–627. doi:.
Denker M, Zehl L, Kilavik BE, Diesmann M, Brochier T, Riehle A, et al. beta amplitude is linked to mesoscopic spatio-temporal phase patterns. Scientific Reports. 2018;8(1):1–21. doi:.
Kim U, Bal T, McCormick DA. Spindle waves are propagating synchronized oscillations in the ferret [LGNd]{} in vitro. 1995;74(3):1301–1323. doi:.
Lubenov EV, Siapas AG. Hippocampal theta oscillations are travelling waves. 2009;459(7246):534–539. doi:.
Riehle A, Wirtssohn S, Grün S, Brochier T. Mapping the spatio-temporal structure of motor cortical LFP and spiking activities during reach-to-grasp movements. Frontiers in Neural Circuits. 2013;7:48. doi:.
Takahashi K, Kim S, Coleman TP, Brown KA, Suminski AJ, Best MD, et al. Large-scale spatiotemporal spike patterning consistent with wave propagation in motor cortex. Nature Communications. 2015;6(7169). doi:.
Ferezou I, Bolea S, Petersen CCH. Visualizing the Cortical Representation of Whisker Touch: Voltage-Sensitive Dye Imaging in Freely Moving Mice. 2006;50(4):617–629. doi:.
Garaschuk O, Linn J, Eilers J, Konnerth A. Large-scale oscillatory calcium waves in the immature cortex. 2000;3(5):452–459. doi:.
Mehring C, Hehl U, Kubo M, Diesmann M, Aertsen A. Activity dynamics and propagation of synchronous spiking in locally connected random networks. 2003;88(5):395–408. doi:.
Yger P, [El Boustani]{} S, Destexhe A, Frégnac Y. Topologically invariant macroscopic statistics in balanced networks of conductance-based integrate-and-fire neurons. 2011;31:229–245. doi:.
Voges N, Perrinet L. Complex dynamics in recurrent cortical networks based on spatially realistic connectivities. 2012;6:41. doi:.
Keane A, Gong P. Propagating Waves Can Explain Irregular Neural Dynamics. 2015;35(4):1591–1605. doi:.
Voges N, Schüz A, Aertsen A, Rotter S. A modeler’s view on the spatial structure of intrinsic horizontal connectivity in the neocortex. 2010;92(3):277–292. doi:.
Hellwig B. A quantitative analysis of the local connectivity between pyramidal neurons in layers 2/3 of the rat visual cortex. 2000;2(82):111–121. doi:.
Perin R, Berger TK, Markram H. A synaptic organizing principle for cortical neuronal groups. 2011;108(13):5419–5424. doi:.
Schnepel P, Kumar A, Zohar M, Aertsen A, Boucsein C. Physiology and Impact of Horizontal Connections in Rat Neocortex. 2015;25(10):3818–3835. doi:.
Wilson HR, Cowan JD. Excitatory and Inhibitory Interactions in Localized Populations of Model Neurons. Biophysical Journal. 1972;12(1):1 – 24. doi:.
Wilson HR, Cowan JD. A mathematical theory of the functional dynamics of cortical and thalamic nervous tissue. Kybernetik. 1973;13(2):55–80. doi:.
Amari SI. Dynamics of Pattern Formation in Lateral-Inhibition Type Neural Fields. 1977;27(2):77–87. doi:.
Erlhagen W. Lokalisierte, station[ä]{}re Verteilung in neuronalen Feldern: Modellierung experimenteller Befunde zur Planung und Kontrolle zielgerichteter Bewegungen. Thun, Frankfurt/Main: Verlag Harri Deutsch; 1997.
Bressloff PC, Carroll SR. Laminar Neural Field Model of Laterally Propagating Waves of Orientation Selectivity. 2015;11(10):e1004545. doi:.
Ermentrout B. Neural networks as spatio-temporal pattern-forming systems. Reports on Progress in Physics. 1998;61(4):353–430. doi:.
Coombes S. Waves, bumps, and patterns in neural field theories. 2005;93:91–108. doi:.
Wyller J, Blomquist P, Einevoll GT. On the origin and properties of two-population neural field models - a tutorial introduction. Biophysical Reviews and Letters. 2007;02(01):79–98. doi:.
Coombes S. Large-scale neural dynamics: Simple and complex. . 2010;52(3):731–739. doi:.
Bressloff PC. Spatiotemporal dynamics of continuum neural fields. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical. 2012;45(3):033001. doi:.
Bressloff PC. Waves in Neural Media. Springer New York; 2014. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8866-8>.
Coombes S, bei Graben P, Potthast R, Wright J. Neural Fields. Theory and Applications. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; 2014.
Ermentrout GB, Cowan JD. Temporal oscillations in neuronal nets. 1979;7(3):265–280. doi:.
Ermentrout GB, Cowan JD. A mathematical theory of visual hallucination patterns. 1979;34(3):137–150. doi:.
Ermentrout BG, Cowan JD. Large Scale Spatially Organized Activity in Neural Nets. 1980;38(1):1–21. doi:.
Ermentrout GB, Cowan JD. Secondary Bifurcation in Neuronal Nets. Journal on Applied Mathematics. 1980;39(2):323–340. doi:.
Bressloff PC. New Mechanism for Neural Pattern Formation. 1996;76(24):4644–4647. doi:.
Hutt A, Bestehorn M, Wennekers T. Pattern formation in intracortical neuronal fields. Network: Computation in Neural Systems. 2003;14(2):351–368. doi:.
Bressloff PC, Kilpatrick ZP. Nonlocal Ginzburg-Landau equation for cortical pattern formation. 2008;78(4). doi:.
Roxin A, Brunel N, Hansel D. The role of delays in shaping spatio-temporal dynamics of neuronal activity in large networks. 2005;94(23):238103. doi:.
Atay FM, Hutt A. Neural Fields with Distributed Transmission Speeds and Long-Range Feedback Delays. Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems. 2006;5(4):670–698. doi:.
Venkov NA, Coombes S, Matthews PC. Dynamic instabilities in scalar neural field equations with space-dependent delays. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena. 2007;232(1):1–15. doi:.
Coombes S, Venkov NA, Shiau L, Bojak I, Liley DTJ, Laing CR. Modeling electrocortical activity through improved local approximations of integral neural field equations. 2007;76(5). doi:.
Turing AM. The Chemical Basis of Morphogenesis. Phil Transact Royal Soc. 1952;237:37–72. doi:.
Kuramoto Y. Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 1984. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69689-3>.
Hutt A, Atay FM. Analysis of nonlocal neural fields for both general and gamma-distributed connectivities. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena. 2005;203(1-2):30–54. doi:.
Wyller J, Blomquist P, Einevoll GT. Turing instability and pattern formation in a two-population neuronal network model. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena. 2007;225(1):75–93. doi:.
Folias SE, Ermentrout GB. Bifurcations of Stationary Solutions in an Interacting Pair of E-I Neural Fields. Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems. 2012;11(3):895–938. doi:.
Roxin A, Brunel N, Hansel D. . Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement. 2006;161:68–85. doi:.
Jirsa VK, Kelso JAS. Spatiotemporal pattern formation in neural systems with heterogeneous connection topologies. 2000;62(6):8462–8465. doi:.
Atay FM, Hutt A. Stability and bifurcations in neural fields with finite propagation speed and general connectivity. Journal on Applied Mathematics. 2005;65(2):664–666. doi:.
Hutt A. Local excitation-lateral inhibition interaction yields oscillatory instabilities in nonlocally interacting systems involving finite propagation delay. 2008;372(5):541–546. doi:.
Bojak I, Liley DTJ. Axonal Velocity Distributions in Neural Field Equations. 2010;6(1):e1000653. doi:.
Hutt A, Rougier N. Activity spread and breathers induced by finite transmission speeds in two-dimensional neural fields. 2010;82(5). doi:.
Veltz R. An analytical method for computing Hopf bifurcation curves in neural field networks with space-dependent delays. Comptes Rendus Mathematique. 2011;349(13-14):749–752. doi:.
Veltz R. Interplay Between Synaptic Delays and Propagation Delays in Neural Field Equations. Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems. 2013;12(3):1566–1612. doi:.
Faye G, Faugeras O. Some theoretical and numerical results for delayed neural field equations. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena. 2010;239(9):561–578. doi:.
Veltz R, Faugeras O. Stability of the stationary solutions of neural field equations with propagation delays. The Journal of Mathematical Neuroscience. 2011;1(1):1. doi:.
Dijkstra K, Gils S, Janssens S, Kuznetsov Y, Visser S. Pitchfork–Hopf bifurcations in 1D neural field models with transmission delays. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena. 2015;297. doi:.
Visser S, Nicks R, Faugeras O, Coombes S. Standing and travelling waves in a spherical brain model: The Nunez model revisited. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena. 2017;349:27 – 45. doi:.
Softky WR, Koch C. The Highly Irregular Firing of Cortical Cells Is Inconsistent with Temporal Integration of Random [EPSP]{}s. 1993;13(1):334–350. doi:.
Brunel N, Hakim V. Fast Global Oscillations in Networks of Integrate-and-Fire Neurons with Low Firing Rates. 1999;11(7):1621–1671. doi:.
Ecker AS, Berens P, Keliris GA, Bethge M, Logothetis NK. Decorrelated Neuronal Firing in Cortical Microcircuits. 2010;327(5965):584–587. doi:.
Hutt A, Hashemi M, beim Graben P. How to Render Neural Fields More Realistic. In: Validating Neuro-Computational Models of Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders. Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 141–159. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20037-8_6>.
Montbrió E, Pazó D, Roxin A. Macroscopic Description for Networks of Spiking Neurons. Phys Rev X. 2015;5:021028. doi:.
Amit DJ, Brunel N. Dynamics of a recurrent network of spiking neurons before and following learning. 1997;8(4):373–404. doi:.
Brunel N. Dynamics of sparsely connected networks of excitatory and inhibitory spiking neurons. 2000;8(3):183–208. doi:.
Lindner B, Doiron B, Longtin A. Theory of oscillatory firing induced by spatially correlated noise and delayed inhibitory feedback. 2005;72(6):061919. doi:.
Delarue F, Inglis J, Rubenthaler S, Tanré E. Global solvability of a networked integrate-and-fire model of McKean–Vlasov type. Ann Appl Probab. 2015;25(4):2096–2133. doi:.
Esnaola-Acebes JM, Roxin A, Avitabile D, Montbrió E. Synchrony-induced modes of oscillation of a neural field model. Phys Rev E. 2017;96:052407. doi:.
Golomb D, Ermentrout GB. Bistability in Pulse Propagation in Networks of Excitatory and Inhibitory Populations. 2001;86(18):4179–4182. doi:.
Cremers D, Herz AVM. Traveling Waves of Excitation in Neural Field Models: Equivalence of Rate Descriptions and Integrate-and-Fire Dynamics. 2002;14(7):1651–1667. doi:.
Osan R, Ermentrout GB. The evolution of synaptically generated waves in one- and two-dimensional domains. 2002;163:217–235. doi:.
Fohlmeister C, Gerstner W, Ritz R, van Hemmen JL. Spontaneous Excitations in the Visual Cortex: Stripes, Spirals, Rings, and Collective Bursts. 1995;7(5):905–914. doi:.
Kistler WM, Seitz R, van Hemmen JL. Modeling collective excitations in cortical tissue. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena. 1998;114(3-4):273–295. doi:.
Kistler WM. Stability properties of solitary waves and periodic wave trains in a two-dimensional network of spiking neurons. 2000;62(6):8834–8837. doi:.
Bressloff PC. Traveling waves and pulses in a one-dimensional network of excitable integrate-and-fire neurons. 2000;40(2):169–198. doi:.
Crook SM, Ermentrout GB, Vanier MC, Bower JM. The Role of Axonal Delay in the Synchronization of Networks of Coupled Cortical Oscillators. 1997;4(2):161–172. doi:.
Ermentrout B. Reduction of Conductance-Based Models with Slow Synapses to Neural Nets. 1994;6(4):679–695. doi:.
Bressloff PC, Coombes S. Spike Train Dynamics Underlying Pattern Formation in Integrate-and-Fire Oscillator Networks. 1998;81(11):2384–2387. doi:.
Bressloff PC, Coombes S. A Dynamical Theory of Spike Train Transitions in Networks of Integrate-and-Fire Oscillators. Journal on Applied Mathematics. 2000;60(3):820–841. doi:.
Haken H. Quasi-discreted dynamics of a neural net: The lighthouse model. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society. 2000;4(3):187–200. doi:.
Haken H. Phase Locking in the Lighthouse Model of a Neural Net with Several Delay Times. Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement. 2000;139:96–111. doi:.
Chow CC, Coombes S. Existence and Wandering of Bumps in a Spiking Neural Network Model. Journal on Applied Dynamical Systems. 2006;5(4):552–574. doi:.
Laing CR, Chow CC. Stationary Bumps in Networks of Spiking Neurons. 2001;13:1473–1494. doi:.
Rosenbaum R, Doiron B. Balanced Networks of Spiking Neurons with Spatially Dependent Recurrent Connections. Physical Review X. 2014;4(2):021039. doi:.
Rosenbaum R, Smith MA, Kohn A, Rubin JE, Doiron B. The spatial structure of correlated neuronal variability. 2017;20(1):107–114. doi:.
Pyle R, Rosenbaum R. Spatiotemporal Dynamics and Reliable Computations in Recurrent Spiking Neural Networks. 2017;118(1). doi:.
Spreizer S, Aertsen A, Kumar A. From space to time: Spatial inhomogeneities lead to the emergence of spatio-temporal activity sequences in spiking neuronal networks. 2018;doi:.
Kriener B, Helias M, Rotter S, Diesmann M, Einevoll GT. How pattern formation in ring networks of excitatory and inhibitory spiking neurons depends on the input current regime. 2014;7(187):187. doi:.
Avitable D, Wedgwood KCA. Macroscopic coherent structures in a stochastic neural network: from interface dynamics to coarse-grained bifurcation analysis. Journal of Mathematical Biology. 2017;75(4):885–928. doi:.
Senk J, Korvasová K, Schuecker J, Hagen E, Tetzlaff T, Diesmann M, et al. Conditions for traveling waves in spiking neural networks obtained from a rigorous mapping to a neural-field model. In: 26th Annual Computational Neuroscience Meeting (CNS\*2017), BMC Neuroscience 2017, 18(Suppl 1):P94; 2017.Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1186/s12868-017-0371-2>.
Corless RM, Gonnet GH, Hare DEG, Jeffrey DJ, Knuth DE. On the Lambert W function. Advances in Computational Mathematics. 1996;5(1):329–359. doi:.
van Vreeswijk C, Sompolinsky H. Chaos in Neuronal Networks with Balanced Excitatory and Inhibitory Activity. 1996;274:1724–1726. doi:.
Helias M, Tetzlaff T, Diesmann M. Echoes in correlated neural systems. 2013;15:023002. doi:.
Fourcaud-Trocmé N, Brunel N. Dynamics of the Instantaneous Firing Rate in Response to Changes in Input Statistics. 2005;18(3):311–321. doi:.
Ricciardi LM, [Di Crescenzo]{} A, Giorno V, Nobile AG. An Outline of Theoretical and Algorithmic Approaches to First Passage Time Problems with Applications to Biological Modeling. 1999;50(2):247–322.
Risken H. The Fokker-Planck Equation. Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg; 1996. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-61544-3_4>.
Tuckwell HC. Introduction to Theoretical Neurobiology. vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1988.
Richardson MJE. Firing-rate response of linear and nonlinear integrate-and-fire neurons to modulated current-based and conductance-based synaptic drive. 2007;76(021919):1–15.
Lindner B, Schimansky-Geier L. Transmission of noise coded versus additive signals through a neuronal ensemble. 2001;86:2934–2937. doi:.
Schuecker J, Diesmann M, Helias M. Modulated escape from a metastable state driven by colored noise. 2015;92:052119. doi:.
Moreno-Bote R, Parga N. Auto- and crosscorrelograms for the spike response of leaky integrate-and-fire neurons with slow synapses. 2006;96:028101.
Moreno-Bote R, Parga N. Response of Integrate-and-Fire Neurons to Noisy Inputs Filtered by Synapses with Arbitrary Timescales: Firing Rate and Correlations. 2010;22(6):1528–1572. doi:.
Brunel N, Chance FS, Fourcaud N, Abbott LF. Effects of Synaptic Noise and Filtering on the Frequency Response of Spiking Neurons. 2001;86(10):2186–2189. doi:.
Hahne J, Dahmen D, Schuecker J, Frommer A, Bolten M, Helias M, et al. Integration of continuous-time dynamics in a spiking neural network simulator. 2017;11:34. doi:.
Peyser A, Sinha A, Vennemo SB, Ippen T, Jordan J, Graber S, et al.. NEST 2.14.0; 2017. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.10.5281/zenodo.882970>.
Eccles JC, P F, Koketsu K. Cholinergic and inhibitory synapses in a pathway from motor-axon collaterals to motoneurones. 1954;126(3):524–562. doi:.
Stepanyants A, Martinez LM, Ferecskó AS, Kisvárday ZF. The fractions of short- and long-range connections in the visual cortex. 2009;106(9):3555–3560. doi:.
Cross MC, Hohenberg PC. Pattern formation outside of equilibrium. Reviews of Modern Physics. 1993;65(3):851–1112. doi:.
Legenstein R, Maass W. Edge of chaos and prediction of computational performance for neural circuit models. 2007;20(3):323–334. doi:.
Girard P, Hupé JM, Bullier J. Feedforward and Feedback Connections Between Areas V1 and V2 of the Monkey Have Similar Rapid Conduction Velocities. 2001;85(3):1328–1331.
Muller L, Chavane F, Reynolds J, Sejnowski TJ. Cortical travelling waves: mechanisms and computational principles. 2018;19(5):255–268. doi:.
Fermani F, Richardson MJE. Coarse-grained description of the spatio-temporal dynamics of network activity from experimentally verified single-neuron models and connectivity. In: 24th Annual Computational Neuroscience Meeting: CNS\*2015, BMC Neuroscience 2015, 16(Suppl 1):P206; 2015.Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-16-s1-p206>.
Nordlie E, Tetzlaff T, Einevoll GT. Rate dynamics of leaky integrate-and-fire neurons with strong synapses. 2010;4:149. doi:.
Heiberg T, Kriener B, Tetzlaff T, Casti A, Einevoll GT, Plesser HE. Firing-rate models capture essential response dynamics of LGN relay cells. 2013;35(3):359–375. doi:.
Casti A, Hayot F, Xiao Y, Kaplan E. A simple model of retina-[LGN]{} transmission. 2008;24(2):235–252. doi:.
Gerstner W. Population dynamics of spiking neurons: fast transients, asynchronous states, and locking. 2000;12(1):43–89. doi:.
Fourcaud N, Brunel N. Dynamics of the firing probability of noisy integrate-and-fire neurons. 2002;14(9):2057–2110. doi:.
Abramowitz M, Stegun IA. Handbook of Mathematical Functions: with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. New York: Dover Publications; 1974. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15378>.
Senk J, Korvasová K, Schuecker J, Hagen E, Tetzlaff T, Diesmann M, et al. Conditions for traveling waves in spiking neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:180106046v1. 2018;.
Jordan J, M[ø]{}rk H, Vennemo SB, Terhorst D, Peyser A, Ippen T, et al.. NEST 2.18.0; 2019. Available from: <http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2605422>.
Nordlie E, Tetzlaff T, Einevoll GT. Firing-rate response properties of spiking neurons: beyond the diffusion limit. 2009;.
Gewaltig MO, Diesmann M. ([NE]{}ural [S]{}imulation [T]{}ool). Scholarpedia. 2007;2(4):1430. doi:.
Braitenberg V. Brain size and number of neurons: an exercise in synthetic neuroanatomy. 2001;10(1):71–77. doi:.
Potjans TC, Diesmann M. The Cell-Type Specific Cortical Microcircuit: Relating Structure and Activity in a Full-Scale Spiking Network Model. 2014;24(3):785–806. doi:.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Natural numbers can be divided in two non-overlapping infinite sets, primes and composites, with composites factorizing into primes. Despite their apparent simplicity, the elucidation of the architecture of natural numbers with primes as building blocks remains elusive. Here, we propose a new approach to decoding the architecture of natural numbers based on complex networks and stochastic processes theory. We introduce a parameter-free non-Markovian dynamical model that naturally generates random primes and their relation with composite numbers with remarkable accuracy. Our model satisfies the prime number theorem as an emerging property and a refined version of Cramér’s conjecture about the statistics of gaps between consecutive primes that seems closer to reality than the original Cramér’s version. Regarding composites, the model helps us to derive the prime factors counting function, giving the probability of distinct prime factors for any integer. Probabilistic models like ours can help to get deeper insights about primes and the complex architecture of natural numbers.'
author:
- 'Guillermo García-Pérez'
- 'M. Ángeles Serrano'
- Marián Boguñá
title: The complex architecture of primes and natural numbers
---
Introduction
============
Prime numbers have fascinated and puzzled philosophers, mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists alike for the last two and a half thousand years. A prime is a natural number that has no divisors other than $1$ and itself; every natural number greater than $1$ that is not a prime is called a composite. Despite the apparent simplicity of these definitions, the hidden structure in the sequence of primes and their relation with the set of natural numbers are not yet completely understood [^1]. There is no practical closed formula that sets apart all of the prime numbers from composites [@Delahaye:2013], and many questions about primes and their distribution amongst the set of natural numbers still remain open. Indeed, most of the knowledge about the sequence of primes stands on unproved theorems and conjectures.
The mystery of primes is not a mere conundrum of pure mathematics. Unexpected connections can be discovered between primes and different topics in physics. For instance, the Riemann zeta function $ \zeta(s) $ –a sum over all integers equivalent to a product over all primes– has been considered as a partition function [@partition1; @partition2; @partition3] such that its sequence of non-trivial zeros –encoding information about the sequence of primes– is similar to the distribution of eigenvalues of random Hermitian matrices used in classically chaotic quantum systems to describe the energy levels in the nuclei of heavy elements [@Forrester:1996]. This idea traces back to the Hilbert-Pólya conjecture [@hilbert], which states that the zeros of the $ \zeta(s) $ function might be the eigenvalues of some Hermitian operator on a Hilbert space. Indeed, the Riemann zeta function plays an integral role not only in quantum mechanics but in different branches of physics, from classical mechanics to statistical physics [@Schumayer:2011]. The interpretation of prime numbers or the Riemann zeta zeros as energy eigenvalues of particles appears also in statistical mechanics, as illustrated for instance by the Riemann gas concept as a toy model for certain aspects of string theory [@Spector:1998]. Recently, interesting connections have also been found between primes and self-organized criticality [@Luque:2008fk], or primes and quantum computation [@shor; @latorre] (see [@watkins] for an extensive bibliographical survey between the connection of number theory and physics). The importance of primes transcend theoretical aspects, and practical applications include public key cryptography algorithms [@rsa] and pseudorandom number generators [@Blum:1986fk].
One of the most promising approaches to solve the enigmas of number theory is the use of probability theory and stochastic processes. Akin to chaotic dynamical systems, prime numbers, albeit purely deterministic, appear to be scattered throughout natural numbers in a non-homogeneous random fashion. Indeed, for $n\gg 1$ the probability that a randomly chosen number in a “small” neighborhood of $n$ is prime is given by [^2] $$P_n \sim \frac{1}{\ln{n}}.
\label{eq:density}$$ This is equivalent to the well-known prime number theorem [@theorem], which states that the prime counting function $ \pi(N) $ –counting the number of primes up to $N$– approaches $N/\ln N$ in the limit of $N \to \infty$, i.e., $$\label{theorem}
\pi(N) \sim \int_2^N \frac{dx}{\ln{x}} \equiv \mbox{Li}(N) \sim \frac{N}{\ln{N}},$$ where $\mbox{Li}(N)$ is the offset logarithmic integral function. Taking advantage of this apparent randomness, Cramér formulated a simple model [@cramer:1935; @cramer:1936] where each integer $n$ is declared as a “prime” with independent probability given by Eq. (\[eq:density\]). The model –that generates sequences of random primes that are, obviously, in agreement with the prime number theorem– allowed him to “prove”, in a probabilistic sense, his famous conjecture about gaps between consecutive primes [@cramer:1936].
Cramér’s probabilistic model plays, still today, a fundamental role when formulating conjectures concerning primes. However, it presents three major drawbacks. 1) It does not “explain” the prime number theorem; instead, it is an input of the model. 2) Random primes in the model are totally uncorrelated whereas there are both short and long range correlations in the sequence of real primes. 3) Finally, it says nothing about the relation between prime and composite numbers. In this paper, we combine a complex network approach with the theory of stochastic processes to introduce a parameter-free non-Markovian dynamical model that naturally generates random primes as well as the relation between primes and composite numbers with remarkable accuracy. Our model is in agreement with Eqs. (\[eq:density\]) and (\[theorem\]) and satisfies a modified version of Cramér’s conjecture about the statistics of gaps between consecutive primes that seems closer to reality than the original Cramér’s version. Regarding composites, the model helps us to derive the prime factors counting function, giving the probability of distinct prime factors for any integer.
Bipartite network of natural numbers
====================================
Primes are the building blocks of natural numbers. The fundamental theorem of arithmetic states that any natural number $ n > 1 $ can be factorized uniquely as $$\label{eq:arithmetics}
n=p_1^{\alpha_1}p_2^{\alpha_2} \cdots p_k^{\alpha_k} \cdots$$ where $ p_i $ is the $ i $-th prime and $ \alpha_i $ are non-negative integers. From a complex network perspective, natural numbers can be thought of as a weighted bipartite network with two types of nodes, primes and composites. A composite $n$ is linked to primes $p_i$ with weights $\alpha_i$ according to the factorization in Eq. (\[eq:arithmetics\]), as shown in Fig. \[primesnet\].
![\[primesnet\] Example of the bipartite network of natural numbers grown up to size 20. Orange circles represent composite numbers and green squares prime numbers. The degree of a prime, $k_p$, is the number of distinct composites to which it is connected to whereas its strength, $s_p$, is the sum of its weighted connections. Similarly, the degree of a composite, $k_c$, is its number of distinct prime factors and its strength, $s_c$, the total number of prime factors.](fig1.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
For a given network size $N$, the probability that a randomly chosen prime inside the network is connected to $k_p$ different composites, that is, the degree distribution $P(k_p)$ for prime numbers, can be exactly determined in terms of the prime counting function as (see Appendix \[appendixA\] for details) $$\label{pkbipartite}
P(k_p)=\frac{\pi\left(\frac{N}{k_p+1}\right)-\pi\left(\frac{N}{k_p+2}\right)}{\pi(N)},$$ with $k_p=0,1,\cdots, \left\lfloor \frac{N}{2} \right\rfloor$, where $\lfloor x \rfloor$ stands for the floor function. Using the prime number theorem Eq. (\[theorem\]), it is easy to see that in the limit $N/k_p \gg 1$ this distribution behaves as $P(k_p)\sim k_p^{-2}$. Quite surprisingly, we obtain a scale-free network with an exponent $-2$, very similar to many real complex networks, like the Internet [@Faloutsos:1999kk], and similar to the degree distribution of the causal graph of the de Sitter space-time [@Krioukov:2012fk]. As we shall show, this is a consequence of an effective preferential attachment rule induced by the growth mechanism.
The result in Eq. (\[pkbipartite\]) allows us to derive a simple but yet interesting identity relating $\pi(n)$ and the number of distinct prime factors of any integer $n$, $\omega(n)$. We name $\omega(n)$ the prime factors counting function. We start from the trivial identity $[N-1-\pi(N)] \langle k_c \rangle=\pi(N) \langle k_p \rangle$, where $k_c$ is the degree of a composite (or its number of distinct prime factors). Plugging Eq. (\[pkbipartite\]) into this identity, we obtain $$\label{omega0}
\sum_{n=2}^{N} \omega(n)=\sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor N/2 \rfloor} \pi \left( \frac{N}{i}\right).$$ Replacing the sum by an integral, we can approximate this expression as $$\sum_{n=2}^{N} \omega(n)\approx N\int_2^{N} \frac{\pi(x)dx}{x^2}\sim N\ln{\ln{N}}+ \mathcal{O}(N).$$ The final asymptotic behavior is directly related to the Hardy-Ramanujan theorem [@hardy-ramanujan], which now becomes a simple consequence of the prime number theorem. Function $\omega(n)$ can be easily computed from Eq. (\[omega0\]) as $$\omega(n)=\sum_{i=1}^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor} \left[ \pi \left( \frac{n}{i}\right) -\pi \left( \frac{n-1}{i}\right)\right].
\label{omega}$$ Notice that if $n$ is a composite number, then $\omega(n)$ is, in our network representation, its degree. Therefore, the degree distribution of composite numbers is given by $P(k_c)=\left(\sum_{n=2}^N \delta_{\omega(n),k_c}-\delta_{k_c,1} \pi(N)\right)/(N-1-\pi(N))$. Besides, Eq. (\[omega\]) naturally leads to a set of arithmetic functions giving the sum of the prime factors of $n$ raised to any exponent (see Appendix \[appendixC\]).
Equations (\[pkbipartite\]) and (\[omega\]) are a remarkable result. Beyond potential applications to find better estimates of function $\omega(n)$, they state that the local properties of the network of natural numbers are fully determined by the prime counting function $\pi(N)$ alone. We then expect that any model producing random versions of the network that is able to reproduce well the prime counting function, $\pi(N)$, will also reproduce well the large scale of the real network topology.
![Comparison of the prime counting function $\pi(N)$, the prime number theorem Eq. (\[theorem\]), and the prime counting function of our random model $\Pi(N)$, averaged over $1000$ realizations. The inset shows the corresponding relative errors. The relative error of the random model is one order of magnitude smaller than the one of Eq. (\[theorem\]).\[fig2\]](fig2.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Modeling the evolution and structure of natural numbers
=======================================================
The order relation implicit in the natural numbers allows us to consider the bipartite network representation of natural numbers as a growing system. In the growing process, natural numbers join the network sequentially and try to connect to already existing primes. Those new numbers that succeed in this process are said to be composites, otherwise, they become prime numbers. In this paper, we show that a very simple connection rule based upon a soft version of Eq. (\[eq:arithmetics\]) generates networks with the same architecture as that of the real network of natural numbers. Taking advantage of the apparent randomness of prime numbers, we develop a stochastic model that generates growing bipartite natural number networks connecting random primes with composites. The growth process only imposes two basic facts trivially implied by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, that is, that the product of the prime factors of a natural number $n$ must be $n$, and that $n$ can have no more than one prime factor larger than $\sqrt{n}$. The model starts by assuming that number $2$ is a prime and adds natural numbers $n \ge 3$ sequentially. It proceeds as follows
1. Each new number $n$ that joins the network tries to connect to already existing random primes $p_i \le \sqrt{n}$ with independent probabilities $1/p_i$ one by one, starting from the smallest prime, until the first connection is stablished.
2. If number $n$ first connects to an existing prime $p$ smaller or equal to $\sqrt{n}$, it keeps trying to connect sequentially to existing primes in the range $[R_{m}, R_{M}]$, with $R_{m}=p$ and $R_{M}=\sqrt{n'}$, and $n'=\frac{n}{p}$. Each time $n$ connects to a new random prime $p'$ the range is redefined with $R_{m,new}=p'$ and $n'_{new}=\frac{n'_{old}}{p'}$. If $p' > R_{M,new}$ or $n$ does not get new connections in the evaluation range, $n$ is connected to the prime closest to $R_{M}^2$ and a new node $n+1$ is added to the system.
3. If number $n$ does not connect to any existing prime smaller or equal to $\sqrt{n}$, it is declared as a prime and a new number $n+1$ is added to the system.
The intuition behind the second step in our model is as follows. In the case of the real primes, a composite number $n$ must have at least a prime factor smaller or equal to $\sqrt{n}$. Let $p$ be the smallest prime factor of $n$. Then, $n/p$ is also an integer number that is either a prime or, else, it can be expressed as a product of prime factors. However, in the latter case the smallest prime factor of $n/p$ cannot be smaller than $p$ because this would contradict the assumption that $p$ is the smallest prime factor of $n$. Then, the smallest prime factor of $n/p$, let it be $p'$, must lie in the closed interval $[p,\sqrt{n/p}]$. The same logic can now be applied to the prime factors of the ratio $n/(pp')$ until $n$ is fully factorized. Our model tries to mimic in a stochastic manner this factorization property of composite numbers, with the difference that, in our case, $n/p$ may not be an integer. Thus, at the end of a stochastic realization of our model, every number $n$ is either declared as a prime or it is a composite such that the product of its prime factors is approximately $n$.
![Average relative error $\epsilon(N)=1-\langle x \rangle$ between a composite number and its factorization in the network as a function of the system size $N$ and the standard deviation of the ratio $x$, $\sigma_x(N)$. \[fig3\]](fig3.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
It is worth noticing the following properties of the model. i) The model has no tunable parameters. ii) It is a generative model, in the sense that the model generates simultaneously the number of primes and how primes and composites are connected. iii) The model is able to generate multiple connections between composite and a prime numbers with no extra mechanism. iv) The model is non-Markovian because the probability of a number being a prime depends on the whole history of the stochastic process. At this respect, it is important to notice that all results in this paper are considered to be averages over all histories of the stochastic process. We also notice that the first step of the algorithm is similar to the random sieve proposed by Hawkins [@hawkins:1957; @hawkins:1974; @Bui:2006; @Lorch:2007]. The main difference being that the random sieve does not provide connections between composite and prime numbers.
The prime counting function
---------------------------
The analytical treatment of the model is quite involved due to its non-Markovian character (see Appendix \[appendixD\]). However, it is possible to work out a relatively simple mean field approximation. For instance, the probability that number $n$ is a prime according to the model, $P_n$, satisfies the following recurrence relation $$P_n=e^{\displaystyle{\sum_{i=2}^{\sqrt{n}}\ln{\left[1-\frac{P_i}{i}\right]}}} \approx e^{-\displaystyle{\int^{\sqrt{n}} \frac{P_x}{x} dx}},\\
\label{recurrence1}$$ where in the last term we have considered $n$ as a continuous variable and approximated $\ln{\left[1-\frac{P_i}{i}\right]}$ by $-\frac{P_i}{i}$. It is easy to see that Eq. (\[recurrence1\]) is equivalent to the following non-linear and non-local differential equation $$\frac{dP_n}{d n}=-\frac{P_n P_{\sqrt{n}}}{2n}.$$ Although the full analytical solution of this equation is difficult to obtain, it is quite easy to check that, asymptotically, $P_n$ behaves as $P_n \sim 1/\ln{n}$ and, thus, our model satisfies the prime number theorem as an emerging property. Figure \[fig2\] shows a comparison between the real $\pi(N)$, the one generated by our model $\Pi(N)$, and Eq. (\[theorem\]). As expected, $\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} \pi(N)/\Pi(N)=1$. However, for finite sizes the relative error of our model with respect to the real $\pi(N)$ is one order of magnitude smaller than the one given by Eq. (\[theorem\]).
![Comparison between the complementary cumulative distribution functions of the real bipartite network of natural numbers of size $N=10^6$ and the network generated by our model averaged over $1000$ realizations. The left column shows the unweighted properties and the right column the weighted ones. The legend explaining line types applies to the four plots. \[fig4\]](fig4.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Network properties
------------------
One of the strengths of our model lays in its ability to reproduce, not only the sequence of primes, but also the connections of each composite number. To check to what extent our model fulfills the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, we measure the relative error between a composite and its factorization according to the model, $\epsilon(N)$, as follows. Let $c_i$ be the $i$th composite in a network of size $N$ and let $\bar{c}_i$ be its factorization, then we define $x_i \equiv \bar{c}_i/c_i $. The relative error is then $\epsilon(N) \equiv 1-\langle x \rangle=1-(N-1-\Pi(N))^{-1} \sum_{i}\bar{c}_i/c_i$, where $\langle \cdot \rangle$ means the population average. In Fig. \[fig3\], we show $\epsilon(N)$ as a function of the system size $N$ averaged over $1000$ network realizations. As it can be seen, this error decreases as a power law of the size of the system $\epsilon(N) \sim N^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha \approx 0.5$. We also show the standard deviation of $x_i$, which also approaches zero in the large system size limit. These two results indicate that the model fulfills the fundamental theorem of arithmetic for relatively small numbers with high accuracy.
The model also does an excellent job at reproducing well the large-scale topology of the real network. The left column in Fig. \[fig4\] shows the complementary cumulative degree distributions of primes and composites as compared to the real ones for the network grown up to $N=10^6$. In both cases the agreement is excellent. The right column in Fig. \[fig4\] shows the strengths distributions for primes and composites, that is, the equivalent to the left column measures when multiple links between primes and composites are considered (see Fig. \[primesnet\]). Again, the agreement between the model and the real network is excellent. This result is particularly interesting as it shows that our model is able to capture statistical properties of the multiplicities of composites’ factorizations, i. e. the $\alpha$s in Eq. (\[eq:arithmetics\]). In particular, it recovers that $P_{c}(s_{p})$ behaves asymptotically as $s_{p}^{-2}$, as expected from the almost linear correlation between strength and degree. Other topological properties are explored in Appendices \[appendixB\] and \[appendixE\]. For instance, it is possible to show that the model satisfies the Erdös-Kac theorem [@erdos-kac], which states that $(\omega(n)-\ln{\ln{n}})/\sqrt{\ln{\ln{n}}}$ is, [*de facto*]{}, a random variable that follows the standard normal distribution.
The Cramér’s conjecture revisited
---------------------------------
Cramér’s conjecture provides an absolute upper bound on the gaps between consecutive primes. Using his model, Cramér was able to prove that [@cramer:1936] $$\limsup_{i\rightarrow \infty }\frac{p_{i+1}-p_i}{\ln^2{p_i}}=1$$ and conjectured that the same relation also holds for real primes. Here, we study the statistics of prime gaps in our model and refine Cramér’s conjecture for real primes. We start by noticing that in our model, all numbers between two perfect squares have the same probability of being primes and, more importantly, they are conditionally independent given their common history. Therefore, as a first approximation, we consider that every number in the interval $[m^2,(m+1)^2)$; $m=2,3,\cdots$ has an independent probability $P_n=1/\ln{n}$ of being a prime, where $n=m^2$. Under this assumption, the probability that a given gap $G$ within the interval is smaller than $g$ is $\mbox{Prob}\{ G< g\}=1-(1-P_n)^{g-1}$ [^3]. If we assume that there are $N_{G}=2 \sqrt{n} P_n$ gaps within the interval, the probability that the largest gap $G_{m}$ within the interval is smaller than $g_m$ is $$\mbox{Prob}\{ G_{m}<g_m\}=[1-(1-P_n)^{g_m-1}]^{N_{G}}.$$ The average largest gap can be evaluated from this expression, yielding $$\langle G_{m} \rangle=\left(\frac{1}{P_n}-\frac{1}{2}\right) H_{N_{G}}+\mathcal{O}(P_n) \sim \frac{1}{2}\ln^2 n,
\label{eq:averagegapmax}$$ where $H_{N_{G}}=\sum_{k=1}^{N_{G}}k^{-1}$ is the harmonic number (interestingly, a similar approach has been recently proposed in [@Wolf:2014fk]). We can now define the normalized largest gap as $\overline{G}_m \equiv G_{m}/\langle G_{m} \rangle$, which distribution function satisfies $$\mbox{Prob}\{ \overline{G}_m<\overline{g}_m\} \sim e^{-N_{G}^{1-\overline{g}_m}}.
\label{eq:gapdistribution}$$ In the limit $n \rightarrow \infty$, $N_G \rightarrow \infty$ and this distribution becomes a step function (although very slowly). Thus, the largest gap stops being a random variable to become a deterministic quantity equal to $\ln^2 n/2$. Notice that this bound is twice as small as the bound given by Cramér’s conjecture, apparently suggesting that it could be false for real primes.
![Gaps between primes. Top. Series of largest gaps between real primes in intervals between perfect squares. Top Inset. The same series normalized by using Eq. (\[eq:averagegapmax\]). In both plots, primes are considered up to $10^{11}$. Bottom. Complementary cumulative distribution function of the normalized largest gaps for real primes and the model in the range $[9\times 10^{10},10^{11}]$. To make evident the slow convergence of the distribution, we also show extrapolations from Eq. (\[eq:gapdistribution\]) for $N=10^{15}$ and $N=10^{25}$. \[fig5\]](fig5.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
To check our prediction, we compute the gaps between real primes up to $10^{11}$. We divide this set in intervals between perfect squares and for each such interval we evaluate the largest gap. The top plot in Fig. \[fig5\] shows the series of largest gaps and the inset shows the normalized largest gaps obtained by using Eq. (\[eq:averagegapmax\]). As it can be seen, after normalization, the series becomes a stationary one but its average is not 1, as we would expect from our model, but $2 c \approx 0.88$, with $c$ a constant below $1/2$. As we see, our model suffers from the same problems affecting Cramér’s model in what respect short range correlations induced by small primes. For instance, the probability of $n$ being a prime if $n-1$ is a prime is zero for real primes whereas our model would predict a non-zero probability; in addition, the probabilistic prediction that the number of primes in a short interval of length $y$ about $x$ is given by $y/\ln x $ was proved false by Maier [@Maier:1985; @Granville:1994]. Some other deviations from real primes on a very large scale have also been reported [@Odlyzko:1985; @Rubinstein:1994]. In the case of Cramér’s model, it is possible to make heuristic corrections allowing one to reach right answers on several properties of real primes, like the number of twin primes below $N$ [@Hardy:1923]. In general, these corrections have only a numerical effect on the studied property since the bear model already predicts the right asymptotic behavior as a function of $N$. The same type of heuristics can be, in principle, applied to our model and we expect them to account for the observed discrepancy. For instance, a simple modification assumes that the probability of $n$ being a prime is zero if the previous number is a prime whereas it is $(\ln{n}-1)^{-1}$ otherwise. This simple modification preserves the prime number theorem and leads to a better estimate of constant $2c \approx 0.92$.
Even more interesting is the analysis of the fluctuations of the normalized largest gaps around their average. A preliminary analysis of their distribution suggests that largest gaps of real primes behave as in the model after a global rescaling. Thus, to have a coherent comparison between the model and real primes, we divide the series shown in the inset of Fig. \[fig5\] by $2 c$ so that its average is equal to 1, like in the model. We then evaluate the complementary cumulative distribution function for all largest gaps in the range $[9\times 10^{10},10^{11}]$ and compare it with the one obtained from numerical simulations of our model, see bottom plot in Fig. \[fig5\]. Interestingly, both distributions are nearly indistinguishable. This implies that fluctuations of largest gaps for real primes are governed asymptotically by the distribution Eq. (\[eq:gapdistribution\]). From this equation, we can evaluate the expected number of gaps up to $N$ that are above a certain fraction $\alpha$ of the average largest gap, with $\alpha \ge 1$, that is, $$\mbox{\# gaps with } \overline{G}_m>\alpha \approx \sum_{n=1}^{\sqrt{N}} \left( \frac{\ln{n}}{n} \right)^{\alpha-1}.$$ This quantity diverges when $1 \le \alpha < 2$ as $\mathcal{O}(N^{1-\alpha/2} \ln^{\alpha-1}N)$ and as $\mathcal{O}(\ln^2 N)$ for $\alpha=2$. Putting all the pieces together, we refine Cramér’s conjecture as follows. For all real prime gaps $G_i \equiv p_{i+1}-p_i$, with $p_i<N$ and $N\rightarrow \infty$, we have $$\hspace{-0.14cm}
\begin{array}{ll}
G_i < \alpha c \ln^2{p_i} & \mbox{ for all but $\mathcal{O}(N^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}} \ln^{\alpha-1}N)$ gaps}\\
G_i< 2c \ln^2{p_i} &\mbox{ for all but $\mathcal{O}(\ln^2 N)$ gaps}
\end{array}
\label{cramer_improved}$$ For any $\alpha>2$, the number of gaps above this threshold is $\mathcal{O}(1)$. Notice however that this asymptotic behavior is only reached for extremely large values of $N$. For not so large values it is better to replace $\ln^2 p_i$ in Eq. (\[cramer\_improved\]) by $2 \left[\ln{p_i}-1/2\right]\left[\ln{\left( 2 \sqrt{p_i}/\ln{p_i}\right)}+\gamma \right]$, with $\gamma$ the Euler-Mascheroni constant, as derived from Eq. (\[eq:averagegapmax\]). We check these predictions for all gaps up to $10^{11}$ in Fig. \[fig6\]. We measure empirically the number of gaps that, up to a given size $N$, satisfy $G_i>2 \alpha c \left[\ln{p_i}-1/2\right]\left[\ln{\left( 2 \sqrt{p_i}/\ln{p_i}\right)}+\gamma \right]$ and compare them with the predictions in Eq. (\[cramer\_improved\]). Aside from statistical errors, our predictions agree well with the empirical measures.
![Number of gaps with $\overline{G}_m>\alpha$ for different values of $\alpha$ as a function of $N$ re-scaled by the factor $\ln^{\alpha-1}N$. According our estimates, this should behave as a power law of the form $N^{1-\alpha/2}$. Dashed lines are power law fits which exponents are shown in the inset plot and compared to the theoretical prediction $1-\alpha/2$. \[fig6\]](fig6.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
Conclusions
===========
Probabilistic approaches to understand usual patterns of primes as well as their extreme statistics brought a new perspective to the study of prime numbers. The big first step by Cramér was significantly developed afterwards bringing this kind of approach to maturity. With our work, we introduce a new dimension that allows us to understand primes and their statistical properties not in isolation but as building blocks of natural numbers. We have introduced a parameter-free non-Markovian stochastic model based on a bipartite complex network representation that naturally generates random primes as well as the relation between primes and composite numbers with remarkable accuracy. Our model satisfies the Erdös-Kac theorem, as well as the prime number theorem and a refined version of Cramér’s conjecture about the statistics of gaps between consecutive primes that seems closer to reality than the original Cramér’s version. Even though we are still unable to fully understand the finer details about primes and the complex architecture of natural numbers, probabilistic models like ours provide valuable tools helping to elaborate conjectures about primes and, perhaps, also to prove results on number theory. Beyond the implications in mathematics, our stochastic model generates the sequence of random primes and some of their statistical correlations as an emergent property, which allows probabilistic computations of number theoretical approaches to open problems in physics involving the Riemann zeta function, which plays an integral role in different branches from quantum mechanics to condensed matter.
We thank Dmitri Krioukov for useful comments and suggestions. We acknowledge support from the James S. McDonnell Foundation 21st Century Science Initiative in Studying Complex Systems Ð Scholar Award; the ICREA Academia prize, funded by the [*Generalitat de Catalunya*]{}; MICINN projects No. FIS2010-21781-C02-02 and BFU2010-21847-C02-02; [*Generalitat de Catalunya*]{} grant No. 2014SGR608; and the Ramón y Cajal program of the Spanish Ministry of Science.
Bipartite network representation of natural numbers {#appendixA}
===================================================
In this section we derive the expressions that characterise the bipartite network representation of natural numbers presented in the paper.
Degree distribution
-------------------
The degree distribution for primes in the network can be derived reasoning as follows: a prime number $p > N/2$ has degree $k_{p}(p)=0$ since its product by any other prime number is greater than $N$ and, hence, it cannot belong to the network (the subscript in $k_{p}$ is used to denote the degree of primes; we use $k_{c}$ to refer to the degree of composites). Identically, if $N/3 < p \leqslant N/2$, $p$ has a multiple which belongs to the network $(2p \leqslant N)$. In general, $$\label{interval}
p \in \left( \frac{N}{n+1}, \frac{N}{n} \right] \Leftrightarrow k_{p}(p) = n - 1,$$ since $mp \leqslant N, ~ m=2,\ldots,n$ but $(n+1)p > N$. This directly leads to the expression for $P(k_{p})$, $$\label{pk_p}
P(k_{p}) = \frac{\# \{ p : p ~ \text{prime} : k_{p}(p)=k_{p} \}}{\# \{ p : p ~ \text{prime} \leqslant N \}} = \frac{\# \{ p : p ~ \text{prime} \in \left( \frac{N}{k_{p}+2}, \frac{N}{k_{p}+1} \right] \}}{\# \{ p : p ~ \text{prime} \leqslant N \}} = \frac{\pi \left( \frac{N}{k_{p}+1} \right) - \pi \left( \frac{N}{k_{p}+2} \right)}{\pi \left( N \right)}.$$ This expression is, interestingly, similar to a probability measure with multifractal properties used in [@wolf:1989]. We can derive an approximation for Eq. using the fact that, according to the prime number theorem, $$\label{pnt}
\lim_{x \to \infty} \frac{\pi(x)}{x/\ln(x)} = 1,$$ We first evaluate the complementary cumulative distribution function $P_c(k_p)=\sum_{k=k_p} P(k_p)$, which reads $$P_c(k_p)=\frac{\pi \left( \frac{N}{k_{p}+1} \right)}{\pi(N)}.$$ Using the prime number theorem, in the limit $N/k_{p} \gg 1$ this function behaves as $$P_c(k_p) \approx \frac{1}{k_p (1-\frac{\ln{k_p}}{\ln{N}})} \sim \frac{1}{k_p},$$ from where it follows that the degree distribution behaves nearly as a power law $$\label{pk_p_powerlaw}
P(k_{p}) \sim k_{p}^{-2}.$$
Another useful relation is $$\label{degree}
k_{p}(p) = \left\lfloor \frac{N}{p} \right\rfloor - 1,$$ which can be proved considering $$p \in \left( \frac{N}{n+1}, \frac{N}{n} \right] \Leftrightarrow \frac{N}{p} \in \left[ n, n+1 \right) \Leftrightarrow \left\lfloor \frac{N}{p} \right\rfloor = n \Leftrightarrow k_{p}(p) = \left\lfloor \frac{N}{p} \right\rfloor - 1.$$
Strength of a prime number
--------------------------
The expression for the strength of a prime number $p$ in the network of size $N$ is $$\label{strength}
s_{p}(p) = \sum \limits_{n=1}^{\left\lfloor \log_{p} N \right\rfloor} \left\lfloor \frac{N}{p^{n}} \right\rfloor - 1.$$ The explanation of this formula is rather straightforward. The prime $p$ inside the bipartite network is connected to $\left\lfloor N/p \right\rfloor - 1$ composites (Eq.). Nevertheless, $\left\lfloor N/p^2 \right\rfloor$ of these composites can be divided by $p$ twice. In general, there are $\left\lfloor N/p^n \right\rfloor$ composites which can be divided by $p$ $n$ times. Since the strength of the prime $p$ is defined as the sum of the weights of all its connections, we can simply sum all these terms as $$s_{p}(p) = k_{p}(p) + \sum \limits_{n=2}^{\infty} \left\lfloor \frac{N}{p^{n}} \right\rfloor = \sum \limits_{n=1}^{\infty} \left\lfloor \frac{N}{p^{n}} \right\rfloor - 1.$$ An upper limit for the sum can be found by taking into account the fact that, if $p^n > N \Rightarrow N/p^n < 1$ and, hence, such term does not contibute to the sum. Let us then find the values of $n$ which need to be considered, $$\left\lfloor \frac{N}{p^n} \right\rfloor > 0 \Leftrightarrow \frac{N}{p^n} \geqslant 1 \Leftrightarrow p^n \leqslant N \Leftrightarrow n \leqslant \log_{p} N.$$ This allows us to write the upper limit in Eq., since the last term to be added is the one for $n=\left\lfloor \log_{p} N \right\rfloor$.
Strength distribution
---------------------
A reasonable approximation of the strength as a function of the degree $k_{p}$ is given by $$\label{sk}
s_{p}(k_{p}) \sim \frac{N \left(k_{p}+1 \right)}{N - \left(k_{p}+1 \right)} - 1,$$ which shows that weights do not play an important role in our representation since, for small values of $k_{p}$, Eq. exhibits a linear behaviour ($s_{p}(k_{p}) \sim k_{p}$). This result is a consequence of the fact that only primes less or equal to $\sqrt{N}$ have connections with weight greater than 1, which implies that the fraction of nodes for which this is possible, $1/\sqrt{N}$, tends to zero in the thermodynamic limit. Eq. can be derived by approximating Eq. as $$\label{step1}
s_{p}(p) = \sum \limits_{n=1}^{\left\lfloor \log_{p} N \right\rfloor} \left\lfloor \frac{N}{p^{n}} \right\rfloor - 1 \sim \sum \limits_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{N}{p^n} - 1 = \frac{N}{p-1} - 1.$$ We can finally use Eq. to give an approximate value of $p(k_{p})$, i.e. a prime with degree $k_{p}$, $$\label{inversion}
k_{p}(p) = \left\lfloor \frac{N}{p} \right\rfloor -1 \Rightarrow p \sim \frac{N}{k_{p}+1}.$$ The substitution of Eq. into Eq. yields Eq. .
The cumulative strength distribution can also be derived as follows. From Eq. (\[step1\]), we see that any prime $p$ such that $$p \gtrsim \frac{N}{s_{p}+1}+1$$ must have strength less or equal to $s_{p}$. We can therefore approximate $P_{c}(s_{p}) = \text{Prob} \left\{ S > s_{p} \right\} = 1 - \text{Prob} \left\{ S \leq s_{p} \right\}$, where $S$ stands for the strength of a randomly chosen prime, as $$\begin{aligned}
P_{c}(s_{p}) &\sim 1 - \frac{\pi \left( N \right) - \pi \left( \frac{N}{s_{p}+1}+1 \right)}{\pi \left( N \right)} = \frac{\pi \left( \frac{N}{s_{p}+1}+1 \right)}{\pi \left( N \right)} \sim \frac{\pi \left( \frac{N}{s_{p}+1} \right)}{\pi \left( N \right)} \\
&\sim \frac{N}{\left( s_{p} + 1 \right) \ln \left(\frac{N}{s_{p}+1}\right)} \frac{\ln N}{N} = \frac{1}{1 - \frac{\ln (s_{p}+1)}{\ln N}} \frac{1}{s_{p} + 1} \sim s_{p}^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ so we see that, indeed, $P(s_{p}) \sim s_{p}^{-2}$.
One-mode projection {#appendixB}
===================
Given a bipartite network, we can build a new graph composed exclusively of nodes belonging to one of its classes by performing the so called one-mode projection. Since no pair of these nodes can be initially connected by the definition of bipartite network, linking must be ruled by some other criteria in the new graph. The most usual one is to establish a connection between two nodes with a weight equal to the number of common nodes to which they were both connected in the original network. Hence, whenever two nodes had no common neighbours in the bipartite network, they are left unconnected.
In order to deepen into the study of the statistical properties of prime numbers, we have performed a one-mode projection onto that class in the bipartite network discussed so far following the latter criteria (see Fig. \[omp\]) and, in addition, allowing self-loops to exist in the resulting graph (whenever a perfect power of a prime exists in the bipartite network, we regard that prime as connected to itself, thus forming a self-loop).
As can be seen in Fig. \[omp\], and as the results presented in this section imply, this graph has a structure made of a maximally connected core containing all the primes less or equal to $\sqrt{N}$ that is surrounded by nodes connected to some but not all of the inner nodes. In addition, the inner two prime numbers are, the strongest the connection amongst them. This suggests that this network could exhibit a self-similar behaviour, i.e. it could be statistically invariant under a network renormalization procedure. This interesting property would allow us to predict some of its statistical properties on any scale.
![\[omp\] One-mode projection for $N=289$. Primes greater than $N/2$ do not appear in the picture since they are all unconnected. Self-loops are not depicted either. Primes $\left\{ 2,3,5,7,11,13,17 \right\}$ form a clique, and there are no links between nodes not belonging to it.](fig1App.pdf)
Degree distribution
-------------------
The degree $k$ of a prime number $p$ in the one-mode projection of a bipartite network of size $N$ is given by $$\label{om_degree}
k(p) = \pi \left( \frac{N}{p} \right).$$ This expression is justified as follows: $p$ can be connected to any prime number $p'$ as long as $pp' \leqslant N$. As a consequence, in order to obtain the number of primes $p'$ to which $p$ can be connected, we must count the number of primes $p' \leq N/p$, which is precisely the result in Eq. . Notice that, if $p \leq \sqrt{N}$, $p$ is counted as well; hence, this expression takes self-loops into account.
Using $p_{k}$ to denote the $k$-th prime, the degree distribution $P(k)$ is exactly determined by $$\label{pkonemode}
P(k) = \frac{\pi \left( \frac{N}{p_{k}} \right) - \pi \left( \frac{N}{p_{k+1}} \right)}{\pi \left( N \right)}, \quad p_{0} \equiv 1.$$ This result starts with the observation that if a prime $p$ has degree $k$, it must be connected to the first $k$ prime numbers $p_1,p_2,...,p_{k}$. Hence, $p p_{k} \leqslant N$ but $p p_{k+1} > N$. In order to count how many primes are subject to these conditions, we must count the number of primes in the interval $p \in \left( N/p_{k+1}, N/p_{k} \right]$, which can be written in terms of th prime counting function as $\pi \left( N/p_{k} \right) - \pi \left( N/p_{k+1} \right)$. Dividing that quantity by the amount of primes in the graph $\pi(N)$ yields Eq. . We must take into account that, in the particular case of $k=0$, we are considering the primes $p$ for which $p p_1 > N$ and $p \leqslant N$, i.e. the primes $p \in \left( N/p_{1}, N \right]$. Defining $p_0 \equiv 1$, the latter equation is extended to that case.
In fig. \[omp\_pk\] we compare Eq. with its stochastic homologous.
![\[omp\_pk\] Complementary cumulative degree distribution $P_{c} (k)$ of the one-mode projection graph for both the real and the stochastic model networks.](fig2App.pdf)
Weight of a connection and strength of a prime
----------------------------------------------
The weight of the connection $\omega_{ij}$ between two primes $p_{i}$ and $p_{j}$ is $$\label{weight}
\omega_{ij} = \left\lfloor \frac{N}{p_{i} p_{j}} \right\rfloor.$$ This quantity is defined as the number of composites in the bipartite network to which both primes are connected. Such composites must be divisible by both $p_{i}$ and $p_{j}$, i.e. by $p_{i} p_{j}$. Since there are $\left\lfloor N/p_{i} p_{j} \right\rfloor$ such numbers amongst the first $N$ natural numbers, Eq. effectively gives $\omega_{ij}$.
The strength of a prime number is straightforward to obtain from the latter result. By its definition, the only thing to do is adding the weights of the connections to all the other prime numbers in the network, from $p_{1}$ to $p_{\pi \left( \frac{N}{p} \right)}$ (notice that if $p_{i} > N/p$ the weight of the connection is equal to zero). This leads to $$\label{strengthone}
s(p) = \sum \limits_{i=1}^{\pi \left( \frac{N}{p} \right)} \left\lfloor \frac{N}{p p_{i}} \right\rfloor.$$ Eq. also adds the weight of the self-loop of $p$ if existing (if $p^2 \leq N$).
Clustering coefficient
----------------------
We have found an expression for the clustering coefficient $ C(p) $ of a prime number inside this graph. This quantity is a real number $ C(p) \in \left[ 0, 1 \right] $ representing the fraction of possible links between the neighbours of $ p $ that actually exist. This coefficient affects many processes in networks such as percolation, dynamic processes, etc. and it is closely related to the small-world property as well as to hidden geometries. In our case, if $ p \geq \sqrt{N} $, it can only be connected to primes $ p_{i} \leq \sqrt{N} $. As the product of two numbers below $ \sqrt{N} $ cannot be greater than $ N $, all the primes $ p_{i} \leq \sqrt{N} $ are connected to each other. Consequently, the clustering coefficient is $ C(p) = 1$ for any $p \geq \sqrt{N} $. However, when $ p \leq \sqrt{N} $, the expression for $ C(p) $ is given by $$\label{clustering}
C(p) = \frac{\left[ \pi \left( p \right) -1 \right] \left[ 2 \left(\pi \left( \frac{N}{p} \right) - 1 \right) - \pi \left( p \right) \right] +
2 \left[ \sum \limits_{j=\pi \left( p \right) + 1}^{\pi(\sqrt{N})} \left( \pi \left( \frac{N}{p_{j}} \right) - j \right) +
\pi \left( \sqrt{N} \right) - 1 \right]}
{\pi \left( \frac{N}{p} \right) \left[ \pi \left( \frac{N}{p} \right) -1 \right]}.$$ To derive Eq. we need to count the number of connections between the primes to which $p$ is connected. Let us compute several quantities separately.
- The number of neighbours of the prime $p$ that we need to consider is not $k(p)$ as given by Eq. , but $k \equiv k(p)-1=\pi \left( \frac{N}{p} \right)-1$; since $p \leq \sqrt{N}$, we must correct the fact that Eq. is counting the self-loop of prime $p$. The number of possible links amongst these nodes is, allowing the possibility for self-loops to exist, $$\label{Lmax}
L_{max} = \frac{1}{2} k \left( k + 1 \right) = \frac{1}{2} \pi \left( \frac{N}{p} \right) \left[ \pi \left( \frac{N}{p} \right) -1 \right].$$
- The number of self-loops existing amongst the neighbours of $p$, $L_{sl}$, can be derived easily; a self-loop exists if and only if the corresponding prime is less or equal to $\sqrt{N}$. In addition, $p$ is connected to all such primes, so $$\label{Lsl}
L_{sl} = \pi \left( \sqrt{N} \right) - 1.$$ The minus one term corrects the overcount due to the self-loop of prime $p$. This result allows us to simply count the number of links amongst the neighbours of $p$ regardless of self-loops. This calculation is conveniently separated into two more parts.
- Links concerning primes less than $p$: let $ p_{i} $ denote any prime less than $p$ (so $i=1,\ldots,\pi \left( p \right) - 1$). Then, if for some prime $p'$ it is true that $ p p' \leq N $, it must be true that $p_{i} p' < N$. In other words, all the $ p_{i} $ are connected to all the primes to which $ p $ is connected. Therefore, we need to count the number of different connections that $ \pi \left( p \right) -1 $ elements can form with $ k $ elements (regardless of self loops, as explained above). We can proceed in the following manner: the first of the $ p_{i} $, $ p_1 $, is connected to $ k-1 $ elements. The second prime, $ p_2 $, forms $ k-2 $ new bonds, since the connection to $p_1$ is not counted again. The elements in this succession can be written as $ k - j $, which allows us to write the corresponding series as $$L_{p_{i} < p} = \sum \limits_{j=1}^{\pi \left( p \right) -1} \left( k - j \right)
= \left( \pi \left( p \right) -1 \right) k - \sum \limits_{j=1}^{\pi \left( p \right) -1} j = \left( \pi \left( p \right) -1 \right) k - \frac{\left(\pi \left( p \right) -1\right)\pi \left( p \right)}{2}.$$ Making now use of the expression for $k$ derived previously yields $$\label{Lless}
L_{p_{i} < p} = \frac{1}{2} \left[ \pi \left( p \right) -1 \right] \left[ 2 \left(\pi \left( \frac{N}{p} \right) - 1 \right) - \pi \left( p \right) \right].$$
- Links not concerning primes less than $p$: consider any pair of primes $p_{i}$ and $p_{j}$ such that $p_{j} > p_{i} > p$. Then, if $p_{i} p_{j} \leq N$, the chained inequalities $ p p_{i} < p p_{j} < N $ must hold as well. This means that any link between $p_{i}$ and $p_{j}$ (both greater than $p$), is a link amongst neighbours of $p$; in particular, those that we have not counted yet. An easy way to count such links is to count, for every $p_{i}$, the number of $p_{j}$ such that $p_{i} p_{j} \leq N$. For any given $p_{i}$ we see that the value for $p_{j}$ is bounded by $p_{i} < p_{j} \leq N/p_{i}$, so there are $\pi \left( N/p_{i} \right) - \pi \left( p_{i} \right) = \pi \left( N/p_{i} \right) - i$ links to be counted for prime $p_{i}$. The only thing left to do is adding the terms for all the $p_{i}$. Note, however, that the upper bound for $i$ is given by $ i \leq \pi \left( \sqrt{N} \right)$ (if both $p_{i}$ and $p_{j}$ are greater than $\sqrt{N}$, their product cannot belong to the bipartite network). Finally, we can write $$\label{Lgreater}
L_{p_i > p} = \sum \limits_{j=\pi \left( p \right) + 1}^{\pi(\sqrt{N})} \left( \pi \left( \frac{N}{p_{j}} \right) - j \right).$$
Eq. is obtained directly by adding Eqs. (\[Lsl\]–\[Lgreater\]) and dividing the result by Eq. . $$C(p) = \frac{L_{sl}+L_{p_i < p}+L_{p_i > p}}{L_{max}}.$$
![\[omp\_ck\] Clustering coefficient as a function of the degree $C(k)$.](fig3App.pdf)
We have obtained a numerical relation between the clustering coefficient $C$ and the degree $k$ as well, which is plotted in Fig. \[omp\_ck\] with the corresponding measurement on the stochastic model.
Arithmetic functions {#appendixC}
====================
The perspective of number theory that we have presented in this work provides us with a new approach to some arithmetic functions as well. In this section, we present a few results derived from our network representation of natural numbers concerning several of them. We have been able to derive exact and approximated expressions for the prime factors counting function $\omega(n)$ (indeed, we have informally obtained its normal order in accordance with the Hardy-Ramanujan theorem), the sum of the prime divisors of a number $n$ raised to the $r$-th power (which we denote by $\tau_{r}(n)$) and, indirectly, the sum of divisors of $n$ to the $r$-th power, $\sigma_{r}(n)$.
Prime factors counting function $\omega(n)$
-------------------------------------------
In the bipartite network that we have studied, every link connects a prime and a composite. Therefore, counting all the distinct links in the graph (i.e., with no multiplicities) yields the sum of the distinct prime divisors of all the composites up to $N$, $$\sum \limits_{n ~ \text{composite} ~ \leq N} \omega(n) = \pi \left( N \right) \sum \limits_{k_{p}} k_{p} P(k_{p}).$$ Since $\omega(p)=1$ for any prime, we can extend the latter sum to all $n \in [2,N]$ simply as $$\sum \limits_{n=2}^{N} \omega(n) = \pi \left( N \right) \left[ 1 + \sum \limits_{k_{p}} k_{p} P(k_{p}) \right].$$ Expanding the sum over $k_{p}$ gives $$\pi \left( N \right) \sum \limits_{k_{p}} k_{p} P(k_{p}) = \pi \left( \frac{N}{2} \right) - \pi \left( \frac{N}{3} \right) + 2 \left[ \pi \left( \frac{N}{3} \right) - \pi \left( \frac{N}{4} \right) \right ] + \cdots = \sum \limits_{k \geq 2} \pi \left( \frac{N}{k} \right).$$ We can find an upper limit for the sum in the latter expression considering that $\pi \left( N/k \right) > 0 \Leftrightarrow N/k \geq 2$, so only the terms with $k \leq \left \lfloor N/2 \right \rfloor$ need to be added. We are finally led to the interesting identity $$\label{omega_sum}
\sum \limits_{n=2}^{N} \omega(n) = \sum \limits_{k = 1}^{\left \lfloor N/2 \right \rfloor} \pi \left( \frac{N}{k} \right).$$ The arithmetic function $\omega(n)$ is given in terms of Eq. as the difference between two consecutive sums, i.e. between the sums up to $n$ and $n-1$, $$\label{omega_pi}
\omega(n) = \sum \limits_{k = 1}^{\left \lfloor n/2 \right \rfloor} \left[ \pi \left( \frac{n}{k} \right) - \pi \left( \frac{n-1}{k} \right) \right].$$
Sum of prime factors of $n$ raised to the $r$-th power $\tau_{r}(n)$
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A further analysis of Eq. reveals that $\phi(k;n) \equiv \pi \left( \frac{n}{k} \right) - \pi \left( \frac{n-1}{k} \right)$ gives $$\label{phi}
\phi(k;n) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \text{if}~\frac{n}{k}~\text{is prime} \\
0 & \text{otherwise}\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ This result allows us to write an expression for $\tau_{r}(n)$, which we define as the sum of prime divisors of $n$ raised to the $r$-th power, $$\label{tau}
\tau_{r}(n) = \sum \limits_{k = 1}^{\left \lfloor n/2 \right \rfloor} \left( \frac{n}{k} \right)^{r} \phi(k;n),$$ so $\omega(n) = \tau_{0}(n)$. However, we need to prove Eq. .
First notice that $\phi(k;n)$ is equal to the number of primes in the interval $p \in \left( \frac{n-1}{k}, \frac{n}{k} \right]$. Let us thus count the number of integers in the interval. Suppose that $\frac{n}{k} \notin \mathbb{N}$. Then, $$\label{nk_notinteger}
\frac{n}{k} = \frac{qk + r}{k} > q,$$ with $q = \left \lfloor \frac{n}{k} \right \rfloor \in \mathbb{N}$ and $r \geq 1 \in \mathbb{N}$. In addition, we have $$\label{n-1k_notinteger}
\frac{n-1}{k} = \frac{qk + r - 1}{k} \geq q.$$ Even though $\frac{n-1}{k}$ can be an integer (if $r=1$), it does not belong to the interval $\left( \frac{n-1}{k}, \frac{n}{k} \right]$, so every number in the interval is greater than $q$. We thus conclude that if $\frac{n}{k} \notin \mathbb{N}$ there are no integers (and therefore no primes) in the interval ($\frac{n}{k} \notin \mathbb{N} \Rightarrow \phi(k;n) = 0$).
On the other hand, if $\frac{n}{k} \in \mathbb{N}$, Eq. reads $$\label{nk_integer}
\frac{n}{k} = q,$$ while Eq. becomes $$\label{n-1k_integer}
\frac{n-1}{k} = \frac{\left( q - 1 \right) k + k - 1}{k} \geq q - 1.$$ In this case, we see that every number in the interval $x \in \left( \frac{n-1}{k}, \frac{n}{k} \right]$ lies between $q-1<x<q$ (and, hence, they cannot be integers) except for $x=\frac{n}{k} \in \mathbb{N}$. We can thus conclude that, if $\frac{n}{k}$ is prime, $\pi \left( \frac{n}{k} \right) = \pi \left( \frac{n-1}{k} \right) + 1$ and, therefore, $\phi(k;n) = 1$. Notice, however, that even though $\frac{n}{k} \in \mathbb{N}$, if it is not prime, $\pi \left( \frac{n}{k} \right) = \pi \left( \frac{n-1}{k} \right) \Leftrightarrow \phi(k;n) = 0$.
Approximation of $\tau_{r}(n)$
------------------------------
We can derive an approximation of Eq. exchanging the sum for an integral and making use of the prime number theorem (from Eq. , we see that $\pi \left( x \right) \sim x/\ln x$), $$\label{omega_approx_1}
\begin{aligned}
\omega(n) = \tau_{0} (n) &= \sum \limits_{k = 1}^{\left \lfloor n/2 \right \rfloor} \left[ \pi \left( \frac{n}{k} \right) - \pi \left( \frac{n-1}{k} \right) \right] \sim \int \limits_{1}^{n/2} \left[ \frac{n}{k \ln \frac{n}{k}} - \frac{n-1}{k \ln \frac{n-1}{k}} \right] \text{d}k \\
&\sim \int \limits_{1}^{n/2} \frac{\text{d}k}{k \ln \frac{n}{k}} = \int \limits_{2}^{n} \frac{\text{d}p}{p \ln p} = \ln \ln n - \ln \ln 2.
\end{aligned}$$ The latter expression yields, according to the Hardy-Ramanujan theorem, the normal order of $\omega (n)$.
By the same line of reasoning, we can approximate any of the $\tau_{r}(n)$ for $r>0$, $$\label{tau_approx_1}
\tau_{r}(n) \sim \int \limits_{1}^{n/2} \left( \frac{n}{k} \right)^{r} \frac{\text{d}k}{k \ln \frac{n}{k}} = \int \limits_{2}^{n} \frac{p^{r-1}}{\ln p} \text{d}p = \int \limits_{2^{r}}^{n^{r}} \frac{\text{d}q}{q} = \text{li}(n^{r}) - \text{li}(2^{r}).$$ Eq. yields a very interesting result; in the particular case of $r=1$, we see that $\tau_{1}(n) \sim \text{Li}(n) \sim \pi(n)$, i.e., the sum of the distinct prime factors of $n$ is close to the the number of primes up to $n$.
Sum of divisors of $n$ raised to the $r$-th power $\sigma_{r}(n)$
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The proof of Eq. can be used to find an expression for $\sigma_{r}(n)$, defined as the sum of the divisors of $n$ raised to the $r$-th power. Indeed, using Eqs. (\[nk\_notinteger\],\[n-1k\_notinteger\]) we see that, if $\frac{n}{k} \notin \mathbb{N} \Rightarrow \left \lfloor \frac{n}{k} \right \rfloor = q = \left \lfloor \frac{n-1}{k} \right \rfloor$. On the other hand, if $\frac{n}{k} \in \mathbb{N} \Rightarrow \left \lfloor \frac{n}{k} \right \rfloor = q$ but $ \left \lfloor \frac{n-1}{k} \right \rfloor = q - 1$. If we define $\psi(k;n) \equiv \left \lfloor \frac{n}{k} \right \rfloor - \left \lfloor \frac{n-1}{k} \right \rfloor$ we can write $$\label{psi}
\psi(k;n) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \text{if}~\frac{n}{k} \in \mathbb{N} \\
0 & \text{otherwise}\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ As a consequence, we can easily sum all the divisors of $n$ raised to any power $r$ simply as $$\label{sigma}
\sigma_{r}(n) = \sum \limits_{k=1}^{n} \left( \frac{n}{k} \right)^{r} \psi(k;n) = \sum \limits_{k=1}^{n} k^{r} \psi(k;n).$$ The reason why the two sums in Eq. are equivalent is that, if $\frac{n}{k} \in \mathbb{N}$, both $\frac{n}{k}$ and $k$ divide $n$.
The prime counting function in the stochastic model {#appendixD}
===================================================
In this section we derive an expression for $P_{N}$, the probability that $N$ is prime in a network chosen at random from the set of all networks of size greater or equal to $N$ generated by our model. Since this probability cannot depend on numbers that join the network after $N$, we only need to study these networks up to $N$ in the calculation. We can describe the state of a particular realization up to $N$ using the set of dichotomous random variables $\left( n_{2},\ldots,n_{N} \right)$, where $$n_{k} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \text{if}~k~\text{is prime} \\
0 & \text{otherwise}\\
\end{array}
\right.
\mbox{ with }
k=2,\cdots,N$$ This allows us to write $P_{N}$ as $$P_{N} = \left< n_{N} \right> = \sum \limits_{n_{2}=0}^{1} \cdots \sum \limits_{n_{N}=0}^{1} n_{N} \rho \left( n_{2},\ldots,n_{N} \right),$$ where $\langle \cdot \rangle$ denotes the statistical average and $\rho \left( n_{2},\ldots,n_{N} \right)$ is the joint probability of the particular sequence $\left( n_{2},\ldots,n_{N} \right)$. It is convenient to define its characteristic function $$\label{phat}
\hat{\rho} \left( z_{2},\ldots,z_{N} \right) \equiv \sum \limits_{n_{2}=0}^{1} \cdots \sum \limits_{n_{N}=0}^{1} z_{2}^{n_{2}} \ldots z_{N}^{n_{N}} \rho \left( n_{2},\ldots,n_{N} \right).$$ $P_{N}$ can be derived from this expression as $$\label{derivative}
P_{N} = \left. \frac{\partial \hat{\rho}}{\partial z_{N}} \right|_{z_{2}=z_3=\cdots=z_N=1}.$$ The set of random variables $\left( n_{2},\ldots,n_{N} \right)$ defines a sequence of causal variables, in the sense that $n_i$ only depends on $n_j$ with $j<i$. This implies that $\rho \left( n_{2},\ldots,n_{N} \right)$ satisfies the following Chapman-Kolmogorov equation $$\rho \left( n_{2},\ldots,n_{N} \right)=\rho \left( n_{2},\ldots,n_{N-1} \right) \mbox{Prob}\{ n_{N} | n_{2},\ldots,n_{N-1}\},
\label{chapman-kolmogorov}$$ with $N\ge 3$ and the initial condition $\rho(n_2=1)=1$. The conditional probability that $N$ is prime given the sequence $\left( n_{2},\ldots,n_{N-1} \right)$ is the probability that $N$ does not connect to any of the existing primes below $\sqrt{N}$, that is $$\mbox{Prob}\{ n_{N} =1| n_{2},\ldots,n_{N-1}\}=\prod \limits_{i=2}^{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{i} \right)^{n_{i}},$$ and $\mbox{Prob}\{ n_{N} =0| n_{2},\ldots,n_{N-1}\}=1-\mbox{Prob}\{ n_{N} =1| n_{2},\ldots,n_{N-1}\}$. Plugging this expression in Eq. (\[chapman-kolmogorov\]) and then to Eq. (\[phat\]) leads to the following recurrence relation $$\label{recurrence}
\hat{\rho} \left( z_{2},\ldots,z_{N} \right) = \hat{\rho} \left( z_{2},\ldots,z_{N-1} \right) + \left( z_{N} - 1 \right) \hat{\rho} \left( z_{2} \alpha_{2},\ldots,z_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \alpha_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor},z_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor + 1}, \ldots, z_{N-1} \right),$$ where we have defined the compact notation $\alpha_{i} \equiv 1 - 1/i$. Finally, by making use of Eq. we obtain $$P_{N} = \hat{\rho} \left( \alpha_{2},\ldots,\alpha_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \right).
\label{P_N}$$ From Eq. (\[recurrence\]) it is clear that the random variables $\left( n_{2},\ldots,n_{N-1} \right)$ are not statistically independent. This implies that the exact solution of the problem can only be obtained by solving Eq. (\[recurrence\]) and plugging the solution in Eq. (\[P\_N\]), a task that is, currently, beyond our mathematical skills. Nevertheless, it is possible to derive a very accurate mean field approximation. We start by expanding $\hat{\rho} \left( z_{2},\ldots,z_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \right)$ around $z_{1} =z_2=\cdots=z_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor}= 1$ as $$\label{prob_expand}
P_{N} = 1 + \sum \limits_{i=2}^{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \left.\frac{\partial \hat{\rho}}{\partial z_{i}}\right|_{z_i=1} \beta_{i} + \frac{1}{2!}\sum \limits_{i=2}^{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \sum \limits_{j=2}^{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \left.\frac{\partial^{2} \hat{\rho}}{\partial z_{i} \partial z_{j}}\right|_{z_i=z_j=1} \beta_{i} \beta_{j} + \frac{1}{3!} \sum \limits_{i=2}^{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \sum \limits_{j=2}^{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \sum \limits_{k=2}^{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \left.\frac{\partial^{3} \hat{\rho}}{\partial z_{i} \partial z_{j} \partial z_{k}}\right|_{z_i=z_j=z_k=1} \beta_{i} \beta_{j} \beta_{k} + \cdots$$ where we have used the convenient notation $\beta_{i} \equiv \alpha_{i} - 1=-1/i$. All terms in the latter expansion that involve a derivative of order higher than one with respect to any of the $z_{i}$ are null, since $n_{i} \left( n_{i} - 1 \right) = 0$ ($n_{i}$ is either 0 or 1). Using this fact and the properties of generating functions, we can rewrite Eq. as $$\label{prob_expand2}
P_{N} = 1 + \sum \limits_{i} \left< n_{i} \right> \beta_{i} + \sum \limits_{i < j} \left< n_{i} n_{j} \right> \beta_{i} \beta_{j} + \sum \limits_{i < j < k} \left< n_{i} n_{j} n_{k} \right> \beta_{i} \beta_{j} \beta_{k} + \cdots+
\langle n_2 n_3 \cdots n_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor}\rangle \beta_2 \beta_3 \cdots \beta_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor}.$$ Despite the fact that random variables $n_i$ are not statistically independent, in most of the cases they are conditionally independent. For instance, let us first consider the term $\left< n_{i} n_{j} \right>$ for $i>j$. If $j> \sqrt{i}$ then the only correlation between $n_i$ and $n_j$ is given through their common history, that is, the sequence of primes up to $\sqrt{j}$ and, therefore, they are conditionally independent. In the opposite case, $n_i$ is correlated to $n_j$. However, notice that i) $n_j$ is only one out of $\sqrt{i}$ variables that have a direct influence on $n_i$. ii) The common history between $n_i$ and $n_j$ is even smaller than before and iii) the number of correlated terms for a given $N$ is $\sum_{j=3}^{\sqrt{N}} \sqrt{j} \sim N^{3/4}$ whereas the total number of terms scales as $N^2$. Given these considerations, it is quite reasonable to factorize $\left< n_{i} n_{j} \right> \approx \langle n_i \rangle \langle n_j \rangle=P_i P_j$. A similar analysis can be performed for higher order correlation functions. Under this approximation, Eq. can be written as $$P_{N} \approx 1 + \sum \limits_{i} \left< n_{i} \right> \beta_{i} + \sum \limits_{i < j} \left< n_{i} \right> \left< n_{j} \right> \beta_{i} \beta_{j} + \sum \limits_{i < j < k} \left< n_{i} \right> \left< n_{j} \right> \left< n_{k} \right> \beta_{i} \beta_{j} \beta_{k} + \ldots + \left< n_{2} \right> \cdots \left< n_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \right> \beta_{2} \cdots \beta_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor}.$$ The latter sum can be expressed as $$P_{N} \approx \sum \limits_{m_{2}=0}^{1} \cdots \sum \limits_{m_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor}=0}^{1} \left( \left< n_{i} \right> \beta_{i} \right)^{m_{i}} = \prod \limits_{i=2}^{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \left( 1 + \left< n_{i} \right> \beta_{i} \right) = \prod \limits_{i=2}^{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \left( 1 - \frac{P_{i}}{i} \right).$$ Finally, we can write $$P_{N} \approx e^{\displaystyle{\sum \limits_{i=2}^{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \ln \left( 1 - \frac{P_{i}}{i} \right)}}.$$ In the limit $N\rightarrow \infty$, the sum in the exponent of the exponential function is dominated by the upper limit and, therefore, it can be approximated as $$P_{N} \approx e^{\displaystyle{-\sum \limits_{i=2}^{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \frac{P_{i}}{i} }}.
\label{P_Napprox}$$
The Erdös-Kac theorem in the stochastic model {#appendixE}
=============================================
The Erdös-Kac theorem states that the quantity $(\omega(N)-\ln{\ln{N}})/\sqrt{\ln{\ln{N}}}$ behaves as a random variable that follows a standard normal distribution. This is known as the fundamental theorem of probabilistic number theory. In our model, this quantity is, indeed, a random variable. In this section, we develop an approximation for the probability that number $N$ in our model has $\omega$ distinct prime factors, $P(\omega | N)$. To do so, we first define the set of dichotomous random variables $(m_2,m_3,\cdots,m_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor})$ as follows $$m_{k} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \text{if}~k~\text{is a prime factor of $N$} \\
0 & \text{otherwise}\\
\end{array}
\right.
\mbox{ with }
k=2,\cdots,\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor$$ In terms of these variables, we can write $$P(\omega| N)=\sum \limits_{n_{2}=0}^{1} \cdots \sum \limits_{n_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor}=0}^{1} \rho(n_2,\cdots,n_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor})
\sum \limits_{m_{2}=0}^{1} \cdots \sum \limits_{m_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor}=0}^{1}
\mbox{Prob}\{ m_2,\cdots,m_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} |n_2,\cdots,n_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor}\} \delta_{\omega,1+\sum_i m_i},$$ where $\delta_{\cdot,\cdot}$ is the Kronecker delta function. The conditional probability of variables $m_i$ satisfies $$\mbox{Prob}\{ m_2,\cdots,m_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} |n_2,\cdots,n_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor}\}=
\mbox{Prob}\{ m_2 | n_2\}
\mbox{Prob}\{ m_3 | n_3,m_2\} \mbox{Prob}\{ m_4 | n_4,m_2,m_3\} \cdots,$$ with $$\mbox{Prob}\{ m_j | n_j,m_2,m_3,\cdots,m_{j-1}\}=\delta_{m_j,1} \frac{n_j}{j} \theta\left(\sqrt{\frac{N}{\prod_{i=1}^{j-1} i^{n_i m_i}}} -j\right)+
\delta_{m_j,0} \left[1- \frac{n_j}{j} \theta\left(\sqrt{\frac{N}{\prod_{i=1}^{j-1} i^{n_i m_i}}} -j\right)\right].
\label{P(m)}$$ In the latter expression, $\theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function. Notice that this step function accounts for the fact that $j$ cannot be a prime factor of $N$ if there already exist smaller prime factors such that $j$ is above the square root of the ratio between $N$ and the product of all prime factors smaller than $j$. Dropping this restriction would correspond to evaluate the distribution of a random variable $\hat{\omega}$ that is an upper bound of $\omega$. However, in the limit $N \rightarrow \infty$, since the probability of $j$ being a prime factor decreases as $1/j$, most of the prime factors of $N$ are small numbers for which the argument of the Heaviside function in Eq. (\[P(m)\]) is always positive. We then expect that, in such limit, $\hat{\omega} \rightarrow \omega$ and so we can safely drop the Heaviside function in Eq. (\[P(m)\]). Under this approximation, the generating function of $P(\omega|N)$ can be written as $$\hat{P}(z|N)\equiv \sum_{\omega=1}^{\infty} z^{\omega} P(\omega|N)=z \sum \limits_{n_{2}=0}^{1} \cdots \sum \limits_{n_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor}=0}^{1} \rho(n_2,\cdots,n_{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor})
\prod_{j=2}^{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \left[1+(z-1) \frac{n_j}{j} \right],$$ and using the same mean field approximation that we used in the previous section, we can write $$\hat{P}(z|N)=z \prod_{j=2}^{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \left[1+(z-1) \frac{P_j}{j} \right] \approx z e^{\displaystyle{(z-1)\sum_{j=2}^{\left \lfloor \sqrt{N} \right \rfloor} \frac{P_j}{j}}}.$$ We now use Eq. (\[P\_Napprox\]) to obtain $$\hat{P}(z|N) \approx z e^{-(z-1) \displaystyle{\ln{P_N}}},$$ or, equivalently $$P(\omega|N)= \frac{P_N}{(\omega-1)!} \left[ -\ln{P_N}\right]^{\omega-1}.$$ This is nothing but a Poisson distribution of average $-\ln{P_N}\sim \ln{\ln{N}}$ and standard deviation $\sqrt{ \ln{\ln{N}}}$ which, for large $N$, converges to a Gaussian distribution.
[32]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ** (, ).
, ** (, ).
, ****, ().
, **, (), .
, ****, (), <http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.54.R4493>.
, ** (, ).
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, (), <http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.158702>.
, ****, (), .
, ****, ().
, ** (), <http://empslocal.ex.ac.uk/people/staff/mrwatkin/zeta/physics.htm>.
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, (), , <http://epubs.siam.org/doi/abs/10.1137/0215025>.
, ** (, , ).
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , in ** ().
, , , , , , **** (), <http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep00793>.
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, (), ISSN .
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, (), <http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.89.022922>.
, ****, (), <http://dx.doi.org/10.1307/mmj/1029003189>.
, in ** (, ), pp. .
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
[^1]: Leonhard Euler about the structure of primes: *“Mathematicians have tried in vain to this day to discover some order in the sequence of prime numbers, and we have reason to believe that it is a mystery into which the human mind will never penetrate.”* — Leonhard Euler, 1751
[^2]: *“As a boy I considered the problem of how many primes there are up to a given point. From my computations, I determined that the density of primes around $n$ is about $1/\ln{n}$”* — Carl Friedrich Gauss, 1849
[^3]: We are implicitly assuming that the length of the interval is much larger than the typical gap and, therefore, that the number of gaps within the interval is large.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The purpose of this paper is to present an example of a $\mathcal{C}^1$ (in the Fréchet sense) discrete dynamical system in a infinite-dimensional separable Hilbert space for which the origin is an exponentially asymptotically stable fixed point, but such that its derivative at the origin has spectral radius larger than unity, and this means that the origin is unstable in the sense of Lyapunov for the linearized system. The possible existence or not of an example of this kind has been an open question until now, to our knowledge. The construction is based on a classical example in Operator Theory due to Kakutani.'
author:
- 'Hildebrando M. Rodrigues$^{\dag}$'
- 'J. Solà-Morales$^{\ddag}$'
title: An example on Lyapunov stability and linearization
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3] [^4]
Introduction and description of Kakutani’s example
==================================================
Let $X$ be a real Banach space and $T:X\to X$ a map such that $T(0)=0$ and $T$ is differentiable in the Fréchet sense at $x=0$. If we call $\mathcal{M}=DT(0)$, then we can write $T(x)=\mathcal{M}x+N(x)$ and the nonlinear part $N(x)$ satisfies $\|N(x)\|/\|x\|\to 0$ as $x\to 0$. It is well-known and very easy to prove that if the spectral radius of $\mathcal{M}$ is less than one then the origin is exponentially assimptotically stable, in the sense of Lyapunov, as a fixed point of $\mathcal{M}$ and as a fixed point of $T$. If the spectral radius of $\mathcal{M}$ is larger than one, then the origin is exponentially unstable for the linear system defined by $\mathcal{M}$, but the situation is not so clear concerning the instability for the nonlinear system defined by $T$.
In a recent very interesting paper, entitled [*On Nonlinear Stabilization of Linearly Unstable Maps*]{} [@GTZ], the authors, T. Gallay, B. Texier and K. Zumbrun, underline, even in the Abstract, that their results [*“highlight the fundamental open question whether Fréchet differentiability is sufficient for linear exponential instability to imply nonlinear exponential instability, at possibly slower rate"*]{}. Later on, in the Introduction section, they say that they [*“are not aware of any example of nonlinear stabilization for a linearly unstable Fréchet differentiable dynamical system, nor of any result that would prevent such a phenomenon to occur under minimal and natural assumptions"*]{}. In [@GTZ] the above authors give interesting examples of nonlinear stabilization, but only with Gateaux differentiability.
The goal of the present article is to present such an example, with Fréchet differentiability.
The main instability result for general linear parts still remains to be, to our knowledge, the instability theorem of Dan Henry ([@Henry], Theorem 5.1.5, p. 105), namely
(D. Henry, 1981): [*If $X$ is a Banach space and $T_n$ is a continuous map from a neighbourhood of the origin of $X$ into $X$ with $T_n(0)=0$ $(n=1,2,3,\dots)$ and $\mathcal{M}$ is a continuous linear operator on $X$ with spectral radius greater than one, and $$\label{Henry}
T_n(x)=\mathcal{M}x+O(\|x\|^p) \ \ \ \hbox{ as } x\to 0$$ uniformly in $n\ge 1$, for some constant $p>1$, then the origin is unstable. Specifically, there exists a constant $C>0$ and there exists $x_0$ arbitrarily close to $0$ such that, if $x_n=T_n(x_{n-1})$ for $n\ge 1$, then for some $N$ (depending on $x_0$), the sequence $x_0,x_1,\dots,x_N$ is well defined and $\|x_N\|\ge C$.*]{}
Observe that in this statement the nonlinear part $T_n(x)-\mathcal{M}x$ may depend on $n$ as long as the bound $O(\|x\|^p)$ remains uniform on $n$. Henry’s result, on discrete non-autonomous dynamical systems, is the main ingredient of his Corollary 5.1.6, were it is applied to semilinear evolution equations, mostly semilinear parabolic partial differential equations, that is the principal goal of his book. As it is said in ([@Henry] page 331), his Theorem is inspired in Theorem 2.3 (Ch. 7) of [@DK] (p. 291), where the situation is considered in the context of continuous-time dynamical systems defined by ordinary differential equations in Banach spaces, with a bounded linear part. See also the notes on p. 332 of [@DK] that refer to a previous proof by M.A. Rutman. This $O(\|x\|^p)$ with $p>1$ bound for the nonlinearity is also a key hypothesis in the instability result of J. Shatah and W. Strauss [@SS].
In [@GTZ] an improvement of the previous theorem is also presented, under a new sufficient condition, but only for the case of Hilbert spaces and when the linear part $\mathcal{M}$ is self-adjoint or normal. In that case, condition is slightly weakened to $$\label{weakened}
\|T(x)-\mathcal{M}x\|\le\alpha(\|x\|)\|x\|\ \ \hbox{ as } x\to 0, \text{ with } \int_0^a\dfrac{\alpha(s)}{s}\ ds<\infty, \text{ for some } a>0.$$
We want to say that our work started after attending the stimulating talk [*Remarks on Nonlinear Stabilization*]{} of Prof. T. Gallay, where he explained the results of [@GTZ]. This happened in the conference [*Dynamics of Evolution Equations*]{}, a conference dedicated to the memory of Prof. Jack K. Hale, which took place at the CIRM, in Luminy, in March 2016. We want also to say that we have been interested in linearization in infinite dimensions for a number of years, starting with our work [@Ro-Sola]. See a summary of our work in [@6Ro-Sola]. And the present paper is not the first time we find an example of a phenomenon in this field that cannot happen in finite dimensions, as it was the example we studied in [@3Ro-Sola].
There is a completely different approach to instability results by linearization, perhaps more close to Lyapunov original ideas, that uses the additional hypothesis of the [*spectral gap condition*]{} or the separation of the spectrum of the linear part by a circle around zero of radius one or larger than one (see, [@Iooss], Ch. I, Th. 2, p. 3). This happens automatically, for example, in finite dimensions. Something like our example cannot be expected in a situation like this.
Let us describe the principal features of our example in the following statement, that summarizes our result.
In an infinite-dimensional separable real Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ there exist $\mathcal{C}^1$ maps (in the sense of Fréchet) $T:\mathcal{H}\to\mathcal{H}$ of the form $T(x)=W_\varepsilon x+N(x)$, where $W_\varepsilon$ is a bounded linear operator of the type of a weighted shift, on a given Hilbert basis, and $N(x)$ satisfies that $\|N(x)\|/\|x\|\to 0$ as $x\to 0$ with the property that the spectral radius of $W_\varepsilon$ is larger than one but the fixed point $x=0$ is exponentially asymptotically stable. In fact, these maps will depend on a real sequence $(\varepsilon_m)$ with $\varepsilon_m\searrow 0$, to be described later, and one will have $$\label{finebound}
\left(\dfrac{1}{-\log\|x\|}\right)^{c_2}<\dfrac{\|N(x)\|}{\|x\|}<4\,\left(\dfrac{1}{-\log\|x\|}\right)^{c_1}$$ as $x\to 0$ for some $0<c_1<c_2$ that can be chosen arbitrarily if one chooses accordingly the sequence $(\varepsilon_m)$ .
Observe that if one chooses $c_1>1$ in , then condition holds. This means that is a sufficient condition for the case of self-adjoint or normal linear parts, but not for more general linear operators like our weighted shifts $W_\varepsilon$.
Since there are slight differences in the literature, it is worth to say that we are using the following definition of exponential asymptotic stability of $x=0$ as a fixed point of $T$ (see T. Yoshizawa, [@Yoshizawa], p. 48, Definition 7.6): There exists a $\lambda<1$ such that for any $\varepsilon>0$ there corresponds a $\delta(\varepsilon)>0$ such that $\|x_0\|<\delta(\varepsilon)$ implies $\|T^n(x_0)\|\le\varepsilon\lambda^n$, for all $n\ge 0$.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In the next paragraphs we describe an important construction due to S. Kakutani in the context of Operator Theory, which is the basis of our example. In fact, our example can be seen as a nonlinear version of Kakutani’s. In Section 2 we construct our nonlinear map $T$, we study its regularity and we obtain the bounds and properties that will be needed in the sequel. In Section 3 we prove the stability and the exponential asymptotic stability of its fixed point $x=0$.
Let’s start with the description of Kakutani’s construction. In an infinite-dimensional separable Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ with a Hilbert basis $(e_n)_{n\ge 1}$ a [*weighted shift*]{} is a bounded linear operator $W\in\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H})$ that is defined by $We_n=\alpha_ne_{n+1}$, for a bounded sequence $(\alpha_n)_{n\ge 1}$. It is easy to prove that $\|W\|=\sup_n\{|\alpha_n|\}$ and that $\|W^k\|=\sup_{n}\{|\alpha_n\alpha_{n+1}\cdots\alpha_{n+k-1}|\}$. In matrix form it would be $$W=\begin{pmatrix}
0&0&0&0&\cdots\\
\alpha_1&0&0&0&\cdots\\
0&\alpha_2&0&0&\cdots\\
0&0&\alpha_3&0&\cdots\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots\\
\end{pmatrix}
,\ \
W^2=\begin{pmatrix}
0&0&0&0&\cdots\\
0&0&0&0&\cdots\\
\alpha_1\alpha_2&0&0&0&\cdots\\
0&\alpha_2\alpha_3&0&0&\cdots\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots\\
\end{pmatrix}
,\ \ \cdots$$
The example of Kakutani is a weighted shift operator with positive spectral radius that can be arbitrarily approximated in the operator norm by nilpotent operators, that are operators with spectral radius equal to zero. Following [@Rickart] (p. 282) and [@Halmos] (p. 248), Kakutani’s example starts with a strictly decreasing sequence of positive real numbers $(\varepsilon_m)$ ($m\ge 1)$ converging to $0$, and with another property to be stated later.
In general, every positive integer $n\ge1$ can be written, and in a unique way, as the product of a power of $2$ with an odd integer, that is $n=2^k(2\ell+1)$, with $k,\ell\ge 0$ nonnegative integers. Therefore, we can consider the integer-valued function $k=k(n)$. A second sequence $(\alpha_n)$ ($n\ge 1)$ is defined now by $\alpha_n=\varepsilon_{1+k(n)}$. It is clear that a member $\varepsilon_\mu$ of the $(\varepsilon_m)$ sequence will appear infinitely many times in the sequence $(\alpha_n)$, and precisely in the places $n=2^{(\mu-1)}(2\ell+1)$, for $\ell=0,1,\dots$. Therefore, $\varepsilon_\mu$ will appear periodically in the sequence $(\alpha_n)$, with a period $2^\mu$, and it will appear for the first time at the position $n=2^{(\mu-1)}$.
The sequence $(\alpha_n)$ for $n=1,\dots, 31\dots$, for example, looks like this: $$\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2, \varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_3, \varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2, \varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_4, \varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2, \varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_3, \varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2, \varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_5,
\varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2, \varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_3, \varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2, \varepsilon_1,$$ $$\varepsilon_4, \varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2, \varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_3, \varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2, \varepsilon_1, \dots$$
Let now $\mathcal{H}$ and $(e_n)$ be as above and define the weighted shift $W_\varepsilon$ by $W_\varepsilon e_n=\alpha_ne_{n+1}$ with the sequence $(\alpha_n)$ just defined. It is clear that $\|W_\varepsilon\|=\varepsilon_1$. Define also the weighted shifts $L_m$ by the same formula as $W_\varepsilon$ but with all the $\varepsilon_k$ replaced by $0$ except $k=m$. The sequence of weights for $L_3$, for example, would be $$0, 0, 0, \varepsilon_3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, \varepsilon_3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, \varepsilon_3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, \varepsilon_3, \cdots.$$ It is clear that $\|L_m\|\to 0$ as $m\to\infty$ and that $W_\varepsilon-L_m$ is a weighted shift with weights equal to zero each $2^m$ places, starting at the place $2^{(m-1)}$. Therefore, $W_\varepsilon-L_m$ is nilpotent of index $2^m$. In conclusion, $W_\varepsilon$ can be approximated in the operator norm by a sequence $W_\varepsilon-L_m$ of nilpotent operators. Observe, for later use, that $$\label{later}
\|W_\varepsilon-L_m\|\le\|W_\varepsilon\|, \ \hbox{ for all }\ m,$$ since $W_\varepsilon-L_m$ is also a weighted shift.
Let us see now that for a good choice of the sequence $(\varepsilon_m)$ the spectral radius $\rho(W_\varepsilon)$ of $W_\varepsilon$ turns out to be positive. Observe that $\|W_\varepsilon^n\|=\alpha_1\alpha_2\cdots\alpha_n$ and that for $p\ge 1$ and $n=2^p-1$ $$\|W_\varepsilon^n\|=\|W_\varepsilon^{2^p-1}\|=\varepsilon_{1}^{2^{(p-1)}}\varepsilon_2^{2^{(p-2)}}\cdots\varepsilon_{p-2}^4\varepsilon_{p-1}^2\varepsilon_p^1=\prod_{q=1}^{p}\varepsilon_q^{2^{(p-q)}}.$$ Hence, $$\log \left(\|W_\varepsilon^n\|^{\frac{1}{n}}\right)=\dfrac{1}{2^p-1}\sum_{q=1}^p2^{(p-q)}\log\varepsilon_q=\dfrac{2^p}{2^p-1}\sum_{q=1}^p \dfrac{\log\varepsilon_q}{2^q}.$$
Several choices of the $(\varepsilon_m)$ sequence will make this series to be convergent as $p\to\infty$, and $\rho(W_\varepsilon)>0$. This is Kakutani’s example: an operator $W_\varepsilon$ with positive spectral radius that can be arbitrarily approximated in the operator norm by nilpotent operators, $W_\varepsilon-L_m$ which in particular have spectral radius equal to zero. We are going to use these ideas and this notation to build our nonlinear map.
Construction of the map
=======================
Following the previous notation, let us take now $(\varepsilon_m)$ as $\varepsilon_m=M/K^{m-1}$ with $M>K>1$. Then, $\|W_\varepsilon\|=M>1$ and it is easy to calculate that $\rho(W_\varepsilon)=M/K>1$, since $\sum_{q=1}^\infty (1-q)2^{-q}=-1$. Therefore, the linear dynamical system $x_{n+1}=W_\varepsilon x_n$ in $\mathcal{H}$ has $x=0$ as an unstable fixed point.
To fix ideas, a choice like $M=5$ and $K=3$, for example, would be appropriate for all what is said in the rest of the paper. But we continue with the use of the generic letters $M$ and $K$ with the assumption that $M>K>1$.
We are going to construct now a nonlinear map $N:\mathcal{H}\to\mathcal{H}$ of class $\mathcal{C}^1$ such that $N(x)=o(\|x\|)$ as $x\to 0$ and such that if we define $T:=W_\varepsilon+N$ then $x=0$ is a fixed point of $T$ that is exponentially asymptotically stable. This map will have the form $N(x)=\widetilde{N}(\|x\|)x$ for a $\mathcal{C}^1$ map $(0,\infty)\ni t\mapsto \widetilde{N}(t)\in\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H})$, and $N(0)=0$.
Given two real numbers $a<b$ let $\varphi_1(a,b;t)$ be a real function of $t\in[a,b]$ of class $\mathcal{C}^1$ in $t$ such that $\varphi_1(a,b;a)=\partial_t\varphi_1(a,b;a)=0$, $\varphi_1(a,b;b)=1$, $\partial_t\varphi_1(a,b;b)=0$ and $0\le\varphi_1(a,b;t)\le 1$ for all $t\in[a,b]$. We can suppose also that $0\le\partial_t\varphi_1(a,b;t)\le 2/(b-a)$. Let us define also $\varphi_2=1-\varphi_1$, that reverses the values at the limits $a$ and $b$.
Let us define now, for $t> 0$ and $k\ge 1$ $$\label{Nk}
\widetilde{N}_k(t)=
\begin{cases}
0,\text{ if } t<M^{-2^{(k+3)}}\\
-\varphi_1(M^{-2^{(k+3)}},M^{-2^{(k+2)}};t)L_k, \text{ if } t\in[M^{-2^{(k+3)}},M^{-2^{(k+2)}})\\
- L_k, \text{ if } t\in[M^{-2^{(k+2)}},M^{-2^{ k }})\\
-\varphi_2(M^{-2^{ k }},M^{-2^{(k-1)}};t)L_k, \text{ if } t\in[M^{-2^{ k }},M^{-2^{(k-1)}})\\
0,\text{ if } t\ge M^{-2^{(k-1)}}.
\end{cases}$$ See Fig. \[graph\] for a sketch of the graph of $\widetilde{N}_k(t)$. It is clear that $\widetilde{N}_k:(0,\infty)\to\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H})$ is a $\mathcal{C}^1$ function such that for $M^{-2^{(k+2)}}\le t<M^{-2^{ k }}$ one has that $(W_\varepsilon+\widetilde{N}_k(t))$ is a nilpotent linear operator of index $2^k$. To describe better the situation, we need to introduce a new property, that could be called the [*nilpotency of a set of operators*]{} $\Omega\subset\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H})$.
For $k\ge 1$ we define $\Omega_k\subset\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H})$ as the class of weighted shifts defined by a sequence of weights $(\alpha_n)$ such that $\alpha_n=0$ for $n=2^{(k-1)}(2\ell+1)$ and $\ell=0,1,\dots$ In other words, the class $\Omega_k$ consists of the weighted shifts that have weights $\alpha_n$ equal to zero at least in the place $n=2^{(k-1)}$ and from this place onwards each $2^k$ positions. Observe that these classes are not disjoint and that, according to , for example, if $\|x\|\in[M^{-2^{(k+1)}},M^{-2^{ k }})$ then $$\label{intersection}
\left(W_\varepsilon+\widetilde{N}_{k+1}(\|x\|)+\widetilde{N}_k(\|x\|)+\widetilde{N}_{k-1}(\|x\|)+\widetilde{N}_{k-2}(\|x\|)\right)
\in\Omega_k\cap\Omega_{k-1},$$ for $k\ge 3$.
We remark now the nilpotency of the set of operators $\Omega_k$, in the sense that $$\label{nil}
\hbox{ if }\ \ W_1,W_2,\dots W_{2^k}\in \Omega_k, \ \ \hbox{ then } \ \ W_1\cdot W_2\cdots W_{2^k}=0,$$ as it is easily proved: (we call $(\alpha_i)_j$ the $i$-th weight of $W_j$) for all $i\ge 1$, $\ W_1\cdot W_2\cdots W_{2^k}(e_i)=(\alpha_i)_{2^k}(\alpha_{i+1})_{2^k-1}\cdots(\alpha_{i+2^k-1})_1e_{i+2^k}$, and this last product must contain at least one factor that is zero. This is a generalization of the observation already made above that since $W_\varepsilon-L_m\in \Omega_m$ then $W_\varepsilon-L_m$ is nilpotent of index $2^m$.
plot (,0); at (1.35,-.05) [$t$]{}; ( .23,0.4) – ( .23,-0.4) node\[below,black\][$M^{-2^{(k+3)}}$]{}; ( .38,0.4) – ( .38,-0.4) node\[below,black\][$M^{-2^{(k+2)}}$]{}; ( .59,0.4) – ( .59,-0.4) node\[below,black\][$M^{-2^{(k+1)}}$]{}; ( .82,0.4) – ( .82,-0.4) node\[below,black\][$M^{-2^{k}}$]{}; (1.08,0.4) – (1.08,-0.4) node\[below,black\][$M^{-2^{(k-1)}}$]{}; plot (,.08+0); plot (,[.08 +(5\*((-0.23)/(.15))\^2-10\*(-0.23)\^2\*(-0.38)/(.15\^3)]{}); plot (,.08+5); plot (,[.08+5-(5\*((-0.82)/(.26))\^2-10\*(-0.82)\^2\*(-1.08)/(.26\^3)]{}); plot (,.08+0); at (.595,8.4) [[*$\widetilde{N}_k=-L_k$*]{}]{}; at (0.12,4.2) [[$\widetilde{N}_k=0$]{}]{}; at (1.14,4.2) [[$\widetilde{N}_k=0$]{}]{}; (0.69,7.5) – (0.76,6.5); (0.52,7.5) – (0.45,6.5); (.12,3.2) – (.12,1.2); (1.14,3.2) – (1.14,1.2);
Let us now define the maps $\widetilde{N}(t):=\sum_{k=1}^\infty \widetilde{N}_k(t)$, $N_k(x):=\widetilde{N}_k(\|x\|)x$ and $N(x):=\widetilde{N}(\|x\|)x$, or, in other words $$\label{N}
N(x)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty \widetilde{N}_k(\|x\|)x.$$ Because of and the fact that $0\le\varphi_1,\varphi_2\le 1$ we see that $$\label{bound}
\|T(x)\|=\|W_\varepsilon x+N(x)\|\le M\|x\|$$ for all $x\in\mathcal{H}$, because $W_\varepsilon+\sum_{k=1}^\infty \widetilde{N}_k(\|x\|)$, for fixed $\|x\|$, is a weighted shift operator whose weights never exceed $M$. We also see that for every $x\in\mathcal{H}$, $x\ne 0$, the expression is the sum of a maximum of four nontrivial or active terms $\widetilde{N}_k(\|x\|)x$, that are also consecutive, namely, if $\|x\|\in[M^{-2^{(k+1)}},M^{-2^{ k }})$ then $$N(x)=\widetilde{N}_{k+1}(\|x\|)x+\widetilde{N}_k(\|x\|)x+\widetilde{N}_{k-1}(\|x\|)x+\widetilde{N}_{k-2}(\|x\|)x,$$ for $k\ge 3$, and there exists a small neighbourhood of $x$ where the expression is the sum of a maximum of five active and consecutive terms $\widetilde{N}_k$. This last observation implies that $N$ is of class $\mathcal{C}^1$ at least in $\mathcal{H}\setminus\{0\}$.
To prove that it is also $\mathcal{C}^1$ up to $x=0$ we start by showing that $DN(0)=0$. Let $x\ne 0$ and suppose that $\|x\|\in[M^{-2^{(k+1)}},M^{-2^{ k }})$, with $k\ge 3$. Then, $$\dfrac{\|N(x)\|}{\|x\|}\le \dfrac{\|L_{k+1}x\|+\|L_{k}x\|+\|L_{k-1}x\|+\|L_{k-2}x\|}{\|x\|}$$ $$\le \varepsilon_{k+1}+\varepsilon_{k}+\varepsilon_{k-1}+\varepsilon_{k-2}
<4\,\varepsilon_{k-2}$$ and this tends to $0$ as $x\to 0$, because $k\to\infty$ as $x\to 0$. This proves that $N(x)=o(\|x\|)$ and therefore it is Fréchet differentiable at $x=0$ with $DN(0)=0$.
Let us make more explicit the dependence of $\varepsilon_k$ on $x$ to prove . First of all, let us see that if $R\in[M^{-2^{(k+1)}},M^{-2^{ k }})$, and, as before, $(e_n)$ is the Hilbert basis, then $N(R\,e_{2^{(k-1)}})=-\varepsilon_k R\,e_{2^{(k-1)}+1}$. This is so because for $x=Re_{2^{(k-1)}}$ only the terms $\widetilde{N}_{k+1}, \widetilde{N}_{k}, \widetilde{N}_{k-1}$, and $\widetilde{N}_{k-2}$ are active in , and when applied to $R\,e_{2^{(k-1)}}$ only the one of index $k$ is nonzero. Exactly, it gives $\widetilde{N}_k(R)R\,e_{2^{(k-1)}}=-L_kR\,e_{2^{(k-1)}}=-\alpha_{2^{(k-1)}}R\,e_{2^{(k-1)}+1}=-\varepsilon_k R\,e_{2^{(k-1)}+1}$.
Therefore, the previous inequality can be improved to the following: If $R\in[M^{-2^{(k+1)}},M^{-2^{ k }})$, then $$\label{finebounds}
\varepsilon_{k}\le\sup_{\|x\|=R}\dfrac{\|N(x)\|}{\|x\|}
\le 4\,\varepsilon_{k-2}.$$
We have $\varepsilon_k=M/K^{k-1}$, and therefore $(-\log(\varepsilon_k))/k\to\log K$ as $k\to\infty$. The same calculation gives, $(-\log(\varepsilon_{k-2}))/k\to\log K$ as $k\to\infty$. In addition, $M^{-2^{(k+1)}}\le\|x\|<M^{-2^{ k }}$, and we see that $(\log(-\log\|x\|))/k\to\log 2$. Then, there exist positive numbers $0<c_1<c_2$ such that $c_1(\log(-\log\|x\|))\le -\log(\varepsilon_{k-2})<
-\log(\varepsilon_k)\le c_2(\log(-\log\|x\|))$ and $$\left(\dfrac{1}{-\log\|x\|}\right)^{c_2}<\varepsilon_k<\varepsilon_{k-2}<\left(\dfrac{1}{-\log\|x\|}\right)^{c_1},$$ for $k$ sufficiently large, or $\|x\|$ sufficiently small, and the bound is satisfied.
More precisely, $c_1$ and $c_2$ need only to satisfy $0<c_1<\log K/\log 2<c_2$, and therefore they are somehow arbitrary since we are allowed to change the value of $K$ as long as $1<K<M$. For example, in the case $M=5$ and $K=3$ mentioned above, since $\log 3 >\log 2$ then $c_1$ can be chosen grater than $1$, and holds.
Let us see now that $DN(x)\to 0$ as $x\to 0$. For this we calculate a bound for $DN_k(x)$. In general, the Fréchet derivative of a function of the form $F(x):=\phi(\|x\|)Ax$, for a smooth real function $\phi(t)$ and a bounded linear operator $A$, at $x\ne 0$ is $$[DF(x)](y)=\phi'(\|x\|)\langle\dfrac{x}{\|x\|},y\rangle Ax+\phi(\|x\|)Ay,$$ and therefore $$\|DF(x)\|\le|\phi'(\|x\|)|\,\|A\|\,\|x\|+|\phi(\|x\|)|\,\|A\|.$$
Consequently,
$$\label{NDNk}
\|DN_k(x)\|
\begin{cases}
=0,\text{ if } \|x\|<M^{-2^{(k+3)}}\\
\le\dfrac{2}{M^{-2^{(k+2)}}-M^{-2^{(k+3)}}}\dfrac{M}{K^{k-1}}\|x\|+\dfrac{M}{K^{k-1}}, \text{ if } \|x\|\in[M^{-2^{(k+3)}},M^{-2^{(k+2)}})\\
\le\dfrac{M}{K^{k-1}}, \text{ if } \|x\|\in[M^{-2^{(k+2)}},M^{-2^{ k }})\\
\le\dfrac{2}{M^{-2^{(k-1)}}-M^{-2^{k}}}\dfrac{M}{K^{k-1}}\|x\|+\dfrac{M}{K^{k-1}}, \text{ if } \|x\|\in[M^{-2^{ k }},M^{-2^{(k-1)}})\\
=0,\text{ if } \|x\|\ge M^{-2^{(k-1)}},
\end{cases}$$
also $$\label{N2DNk}
\|DN_k(x)\|
\begin{cases}
=0,\text{ if } \|x\|<M^{-2^{(k+3)}}\\
\le\dfrac{2}{1-M^{-2^{(k+2)}}}\dfrac{M}{K^{k-1}}+\dfrac{M}{K^{k-1}}, \text{ if } \|x\|\in[M^{-2^{(k+3)}},M^{-2^{(k+2)}})\\
\le\dfrac{M}{K^{k-1}}, \text{ if } \|x\|\in[M^{-2^{(k+2)}},M^{-2^{ k }})\\
\le\dfrac{2}{1-M^{-2^{(k-1)}}}\dfrac{M}{K^{k-1}}+\dfrac{M}{K^{k-1}}, \text{ if } \|x\|\in[M^{-2^{ k }},M^{-2^{(k-1)}})\\
=0,\text{ if } \|x\|\ge M^{-2^{(k-1)}},
\end{cases}$$ and finally $$\|DN_k(x)\|\le \dfrac{2}{1-M^{-2^{(k-1)}}}\dfrac{M}{K^{k-1}}+\dfrac{M}{K^{k-1}}$$ if $N_k$ is active in $x$. This implies that $\|DN(x)\|\to 0$ as $x\to 0$, because the four indices $k$ that are active in the expression of $N(x)$ tend to $\infty$ as $x\to 0$. This concludes the proof that $N(x)$ is of class $\mathcal{C}^1(\mathcal{H})$.
The stability properties
========================
Let us proceed now with the proof that $x=0$ as a fixed point of $T=W_\varepsilon+N$ is stable in the sense of Lyapunov. The idea is to take advantage of the fact that a trajectory $x_{n+1}=T(x_n)$ cannot remain in $\|x\|\in[M^{-2^{(k+1)}},M^{-2^k})$ for $2^k$ consecutive indices $n$, because in this range the map $T$ behaves like a nilpotent linear operator of index (at most) $2^{k}$.
Let us come back for one moment to the case $M=5$ and $K=3$ mentioned before. Again to fix ideas, let us suppose that $k=7$, so our initial condition $x_0$ has $\|x_0\|<5^{-2^8}=5^{-256}$. We want to show that for all $n\ge 0$ we will have that $\|x_n\|<5^{-2^7}=5^{-128}$. The idea is that to reach $5^{-128}$, or more, starting below $5^{-256}$, it will take at least $2^7=128$ consecutive steps between $5^{-256}$ and $5^{-128}$, because from $x_n$ to $x_{n+1}$ the norm gets multiplied at most by $5$. And this is impossible, since in between of these bounds, the map $T$ behaves like a nilpotent operator of index at most $128$.
Let us make a precise statement: let us prove that $$\label{stable}
\hbox{if } \|x_0\|<M^{-2^{(k+1)}} \hbox{ with } k\ge 1 \hbox{ then } \|x_n\|< M^{-2^k} \hbox{ for all } n\ge 0.$$ This implies Lyapunov stability.
Let’s argue by contradiction: suppose that for some $n_0$ one has had $\|T^n(x_0)\|< M^{-2^k}$ for all $0\le n<n_0$, but $\|T^{n_0}(x_0)\|\ge M^{-2^k}$. Since $\|T(x)\|\le M\|x\|$ for all $x$, as we said in , we deduce that $M^{-2^{k}}\le\|T^{n_0}(x_0)\|=\|T^{i}T^{(n_0-i)}(x_0)\|\le M^{i}\,\|T^{(n_0-i)}(x_0)\|$ and $$\label{backn}
\|T^{(n_0-i)}(x_0)\|\ge M^{-2^{k}}M^{-i}, \hbox{ for all } i=0,1,\dots n_0.$$ Taking $i=n_0$, implies $\|x_0\|\ge M^{-2^k -n_0}$, and since we know that $\|x_0\|< M^{-2^{(k+1)}}$ we deduce that $M^{-2^{k}-n_0}<M^{-2^{(k+1)}}$ and then $n_0>2^{k}$. This means that we can take $i=1,2,\dots 2^{k}$ in and obtain that $M^{-2^{k}}>\|T^{(n_0-i)}(x_0)\|\ge M^{-2^{(k+1)}}$ for $i=1,2\dots 2^{k}$. Therefore, $N_k(x)=-L_kx$ for $x\in\{T^{(n_0-i)}(x_0)|i=1,2\dots 2^{k}\}$, and this would be a contradiction with , since that would mean that the $2^k$ operators $
(W_\varepsilon+\widetilde{N}(\|T^{(n_0-2^k)}(x_0)\|)),
(W_\varepsilon+\widetilde{N}(\|T^{(n_0-2^k+1)}(x_0)\|)),
\dots
(W_\varepsilon+\widetilde{N}(\|T^{(n_0-1)}(x_0)\|))
$ would all of them belong to the same nilpotent set $\Omega_k$, and its product would be $0$. This contradicts that $\|T^{n_0}(x_0)\|\ge M^{-2^k}$.
Let us say again in words the spirit of the last paragraph: the gap between $M^{-2^{k}}$ and $M^{-2^{(k+1)}}$ is so large, relatively to $M$, that if a trajectory starts below $M^{-2^{(k+1)}}$ and at some point arrives above $M^{-2^{k}}$ it must have spent a long time between these two numbers, and this time is large enough to arrive to the index of nilpotency of $W_\varepsilon-L_k$.
Let us write this last result in a different way. Given $x_0$ with $0<\|x_0\|<M^{-4}$ it will exist a $k\ge 1$ such that $M^{-2^{(k+2)}}\le\|x\|<M^{-2^{(k+1)}}$. According to the previous proof, for all $n\ge 0$ one will have that $\|x_n\|<M^{-2^k}$. Therefore, $$\label{stable2}
\hbox{ if } 0<\|x_0\|<M^{-4},\ \ \hbox{ then } \|T^nx_0\|<\|x_0\|^{1/4}\ \ \hbox{ for all } n\ge 0,$$ which is a more quantitative expression of the Lyapunov stability of $x=0$.
To show that $x=0$ is also exponentially asymptotically stable one uses that the functions $\widetilde{N}_k(t)$ defined in are constantly equal to $(-L_k)$ on two consecutive intervals, namely $[M^{-2^{(k+2)}},M^{-2^{(k+1)}})$ and $[M^{-2^{(k+1)}} ,M^{-2^{k}})$.
Given $x_0$ with $\|x_0\|<M^{-1/4}$, a $k(0)\ge 1$ such that $\|x_0\|\in [M^{-2^{(k(0)+2)}},M^{-2^{(k(0)+1)}})$ will necessarily exist. Then, the sequence of $2^{k(0)}$ terms $\|x_0\|$, $\|T(x_0)\|$, $\|T^2(x_0)\|,\dots,$ $\|T^{2^{k(0)}-1}(x_0)\|$ cannot remain in the union of the consecutive intervals $[M^{-2^{(k(0)+2)}},M^{-2^{(k(0)+1)}})$ and $[M^{-2^{(k(0)+1)}} ,M^{-2^{k(0)}})$ without becoming zero. This sequence cannot leave this double interval to the right, because of . Therefore it has to leave the interval to the left, and this proves that necessarily an $n(1)$ with $0<n(1)<2^{k(0)}-1$ will exist such that $\|T^{n(1)}x_0\|<M^{-2^{(k(0)+2)}}$.
Let us proceed now inductively with the $k(i)$ and $n(i)$. Observe that if $x_{n(i)}=T^{n(i)}(x_0)\ne 0$ then a $k(i)>k(i-1)$ will necessarily exist such that $M^{-2^{(k(i)+2)}}\le\|x_{n(i)}\|<
M^{-2^{{(k(i)+1)}}}$. The same argument as above proves that a number $n(i+1)$ will exist such that $n(i)<n(i+1)<n(i)+2^{k(i)}-1$ and $\|T^{n(i+1)}(x_0)\|<M^{-2^{(k(i)+2)}}$.
Along the sequence $(T^n(x_0))_{n\ge 0}$, as long as it does not vanish, the previous inductive step can be repeated, and each term of the sequence $(\|T^n(x_0)\|)_{n\ge 0}$ is bounded from above by the corresponding term of the following sequence: $$M^{-2^{(k(0)+1)}}, \underbrace{M^{-2^{k(0)}},M^{-2^{k(0)}},\dots M^{-2^{k(0)}}}_{\hbox{ maximum of } 2^{k(0)}-2 \hbox{ terms}}\ \ ,
M^{-2^{(k(1)+1)}}, \underbrace{M^{-2^{k(1)}},M^{-2^{k(1)}},\dots M^{-2^{k(1)}}}_{\hbox{ maximum of } 2^{k(1)}-2 \hbox{ terms}}\ \ ,$$ $$M^{-2^{(k(2)+1)}}, \underbrace{M^{-2^{k(2)}},M^{-2^{k(2)}},\dots M^{-2^{k(2)}}}_{\hbox{ maximum of } 2^{k(2)}-2 \hbox{ terms}}\ \ ,\ \ \dots$$ and the terms in this last sequence, are bounded, perhaps not very sharply, but bounded in any case, by the next one $$\underbrace{M^{-2^{k(0)}},M^{-2^{k(0)}},\dots M^{-2^{k(0)}}}_{\hbox{ exactly } 2^{k(0)}-1 \hbox{ terms}},
\underbrace{M^{-2^{(k(0)+1)}},M^{-2^{(k(0)+1)}},\dots M^{-2^{(k(0)+1)}}}_{\hbox{ exactly } 2^{(k(0)+1)}-1 \hbox{ terms}}\ \ ,$$ $$\underbrace{M^{-2^{(k(0)+2)}},M^{-2^{(k(0)+2)}},\dots M^{-2^{(k(0)+2)}}}_{\hbox{ exactly } 2^{(k(0)+2)}-1 \hbox{ terms}},\ \ \dots$$ or by the simpler one $$\underbrace{M^{-2^{k(0)}},M^{-2^{k(0)}},\dots M^{-2^{k(0)}}}_{\hbox{ exactly } 2^{k(0)} \hbox{ terms}},
\underbrace{M^{-2^{(k(0)+1)}},M^{-2^{(k(0)+1)}},\dots M^{-2^{(k(0)+1)}}}_{\hbox{ exactly } 2^{(k(0)+1)} \hbox{ terms}}\ \ ,$$ $$\underbrace{M^{-2^{(k(0)+2)}},M^{-2^{(k(0)+2)}},\dots M^{-2^{(k(0)+2)}}}_{\hbox{ exactly } 2^{(k(0)+2)} \hbox{ terms}}.\ \ \dots$$ This last sequence has the property that it bounds the sequence $(\|T^n(x_0)\|)_{n\ge 0}$, even if this sequence vanishes after some term. One needs only that $\|x_0\|\in [M^{-2^{(k(0)+2)}},M^{-2^{(k(0)+1)}})$.
To analyse the last sequence, it is more convenient to analyse only the sequence of the exponents, without the minus sign, and writing $k$ instead of $k(0)$, that is $$(a_n)_{n\ge 0}:=(\underbrace{{2^{k}},{2^{k}},\dots {2^{k}}}_{ 2^k \hbox{ terms}},
\underbrace{{2^{(k+1)}},{2^{(k+1)}},\dots {2^{(k+1)}}}_{2^{(k+1)} \hbox{ terms}},
\underbrace{{2^{(k+2)}},{2^{(k+2)}},\dots {2^{(k+2)}}}_{2^{(k+2)} \hbox{ terms}},\ \ \dots).$$ We add now the lengths of these blocks and use that $ 2^k+2^{k+1}+2^{k+2}+\dots +2^{k+j}=2^{k+j+1}-2^k,$ and this implies the following values for the final terms of each block: if $n=2^{k+j+1}-2^k$ then $a_n=2^{k+j}$, or in terms of $n$, $a_n=(n+2^k)/2$. The map $n\mapsto (n+2^k)/2$ is monotone increasing in $n$, coincides with $n\mapsto a_n$ at the end of each block, and $a_n$ is constant on these blocks, therefore we conclude that $a_n\ge (n+2^k)/2$ for all $n\ge 0$.
Therefore, $\|T^n(x_0)\|\le M^{-a_n}\le M^{-(n+2^{k(0)})/2)}$ for all $n\ge 0$, that we can also write as $\|T^n(x_0)\|\le \left(M^{-1/2}\right)^n M^{-2^{(k(0)-1)}}$ or $\|T^n(x_0)\|\le \left(M^{-1/2}\right)^n \left(M^{-2^{(k(0)+2)}}\right)^{1/8}$, and then $$\label{exp}
\|T^n(x_0)\|\le \left(M^{-1/2}\right)^n \|x_0\|^{1/8}\ \ \hbox{ for all }\ \ n\ge 0,$$ that proves the exponential asymptotic stability, since $M>1$.
[5]{}
, Translations of Mathematical Monographs, v. 43, AMS, Providence (1974).
J. Nonlinear Sci., v. 27, 1641–-1666 (2017).
Graduate texts in Mathematics, v. 19, Springer-Verlag, New York, Heidelberg, Berlin, 1974.
, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, v. 840, Springer, Berlin (1981).
North-Holland mathematics studies, v. 36, North-Holland, Amsterdam, New York, Oxford (1979).
Princeton, D. van Nostrand, 1960.
, J. Differential Equations [**201**]{} (2004), no. 2, 351-382.
, J. Dynamics and Differential Equations [**18**]{} (2006), no. 4, 961-974.
, Sao Paulo Journal of Mathematical Sciences [**6**]{}, n.2 (2012), 375–384.
[Spectral condition for instability]{}, in [*Nonlinear PDE’s, dynamics and continuum physics (South Hadley, MA, 1998)*]{}, 189–-198, Contemp. Math., 255, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2000.
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1975.
[^1]: Instituto de Ciências Matemáticas e de Computaçao, Universidade de São Paulo-Campus de São Carlos, Caixa Postal 668, 13560-970 São Carlos SP, Brazil, e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: Departament de Matemàtiques, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Av. Diagonal 647, 08028 Barcelona, Spain, e-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: Partially supported by FAPESP Processo 2018/05218-8
[^4]: Partially supported by MINECO grant MTM2017-84214-C2-1-P. Faculty member of the Barcelona Graduate School of Mathematics (BGSMath) and part of the Catalan research group 2017 SGR 01392.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Bound geodesic orbits around a Kerr black hole can be parametrized by three constants of the motion: the (specific) orbital energy, angular momentum and Carter constant. Generically, each orbit also has associated with it three frequencies, related to the radial, longitudinal and (mean) azimuthal motions. Here we note the curious fact that these two ways of characterizing bound geodesics are not in a one-to-one correspondence. While the former uniquely specifies an orbit up to initial conditions, the latter does not: there is a (strong-field) region of the parameter space in which pairs of physically distinct orbits can have the same three frequencies. In each such isofrequency pair the two orbits exhibit the same rate of periastron precession and the same rate of Lense-Thirring precession of the orbital plane, and (in a certain sense) they remain “synchronized” in phase.'
author:
- Niels Warburton
- Leor Barack
- Norichika Sago
title: Isofrequency pairing of geodesic orbits in Kerr geometry
---
Introduction
============
The motion of test bodies in the Kerr metric of a rotating black hole has been studied for almost half a century (see, e.g., [@Carter; @Bardeen-Press-Teukolsky; @Wilkins; @Chandra; @Bicak_etal]). Much of the more recent work is motivated by the need to understand radiative inspirals into a Kerr black hole as sources of gravitational waves for future detector experiments. Examples of recent work include an action-angle formalism [@Schmidt], a frequency-domain method for computing functionals of the orbit (such as the gravitational perturbation from an orbiting test particle) [@Drasco-Hughes], a system for classifying Kerr orbits [@Levin-Periz-Giz:BH_periodic_table; @Grossman-Levin-Periz-Giz], and an analytic method for solving the geodesic equations of motion [@Fujita-Hikida].
Timelike geodesics of the Kerr geometry are completely integrable. They admit three nontrivial constants of motion (“first integrals”), each associated with a Killing field of the Kerr background: the time-translation and rotational Killing vectors give rise to conserved (specific) orbital energy ${\mathcal{E}}$ and azimuthal angular momentum ${\mathcal{L}_z}$, and the second-rank Killing tensor discovered by Carter [@Carter] gives rise to what is known as the Carter constant, ${\mathcal{Q}}$. Up to initial conditions, these three constants of motion uniquely label all timelike geodesics of the Kerr geometry.
This paper is concerned with the family of [*bound*]{} geodesic orbits. Each bound orbit is confined to the interior of a compact spatial torus given by $r_{\rm p}\leq r\leq r_{\rm a}$ and $\theta_{\rm min}\leq \theta\leq \pi-\theta_{\rm min}$, where hereafter ${t,r,\theta,\varphi}$ are Boyer-Lindquist (BL) coordinates, $r=r_{\rm p},r_{\rm a}$ are two radial turning points (“periastron” and “apastron”, respectively), and $\theta=\theta_{\rm min},\pi-\theta_{\rm min}$ are two longitudinal turning points. Generically, the motion is ergodic, in the sense that a generic orbit will pass arbitrarily close to any point on the torus within a finite time $t$ (exceptional are “resonant” orbits, mentioned briefly below). The triplet $\{r_{\rm p},r_{\rm a},\theta_{\rm min}\}$ provides an alternative parametrization of bound geodesics, which is in a one-to-one correspondence with that of $\{{\mathcal{E}}, {\mathcal{L}_z}, {\mathcal{Q}}\}$ [^1].
Generically, bound orbits are triperiodic, with three frequencies $\Omega_r$, $\Omega_{\theta}$ and $\Omega_{\varphi}$ associated with the motions in the radial, longitudinal and azimuthal directions, respectively. Of these, $\Omega_r$ and $\Omega_{\theta}$ are “libration”-type frequencies, defined from the (average) radial and longitudinal periods, while $\Omega_{\varphi}$ is a “rotation”-type frequency, describing the average rate at which the BL azimuthal phase $\varphi$ accumulates in time. We define the above frequencies with respect to BL time $t$; this is useful for many purposes, because $t$ is also the proper time of an asymptotically far static observer (e.g., a gravitational-wave detector). It is important to note that, in general, the orbital radius $r$ and polar angle $\theta$ of a given orbit are [*not*]{} (separately) periodic functions of $t$: the $t$-interval between successive periastron passages is not constant, and the $t$-interval between successive $\theta=\theta_{\rm min}$ passages is not constant either. There is a choice of a time variable (the so-called “Mino time”—see Sec. \[sec:Kerr\_freqs\] below) in terms of which the radial and longitudinal motions completely separate and become precisely periodic. However, in terms of BL time $t$, the orbital periodicity can generally only be defined through an infinite time average (or, equivalently, through an average over the orbital torus [@Grossman-Levin-Periz-Giz]). We shall define the BL-time frequencies more precisely below, following Schmidt [@Schmidt] and Drasco and Hughes [@Drasco-Hughes]
The above general description simplifies in several special cases. If the ratio $\Omega_r/\Omega_{\theta}$ is a rational number (“resonant orbits”), then the trajectory traced by the orbit in the $r$–$\theta$ plane is closed (with a finite $t$-period), and the ergodicity property is lost. If the orbit is equatorial ($\theta={\rm const}=\pi/2$), then $\Omega_\theta$ loses its meaning, and the orbit becomes biperiodic with frequencies $\Omega_r$ and $\Omega_\varphi$; in this case the radial motion is strictly periodic, with a radial period $2\pi/\Omega_r$. Similarly, if the orbit is circular ($r_{\rm p}=r_{\rm a}$), then $\Omega_{r}$ loses its meaning, the orbit becomes biperiodic with frequencies $\Omega_\theta$ and $\Omega_\varphi$, and the longitudinal motion is strictly periodic with period $2\pi/\Omega_\theta$. (Orbits that are both equatorial and circular are singly periodic with frequency $\Omega_\varphi$.) Finally, in the special case of a Schwarzschild black hole, one can always set up the BL system so that the orbit is equatorial and biperiodic with frequencies $\Omega_r$ and $\Omega_\varphi$.
The purpose of this article is to challenge the commonly held notion (see, e.g., [@Drasco-2009]) that the trio of frequencies $\{\Omega_\varphi,\Omega_r,\Omega_\theta\}$ provides a good parametrization of generic bound geodesics in Kerr, i.e., one which is in a one-to-one correspondence with $\{{\mathcal{E}}, {\mathcal{L}_z}, {\mathcal{Q}}\}$ or $\{r_{\rm p},r_{\rm a},\theta_{\rm min}\}$. We show that this is not the case: there are infinitely many pairs of “isofrequency” orbits, which are physically distinct (i.e., have different $\{{\mathcal{E}}, {\mathcal{L}_z}, {\mathcal{Q}}\}$ values) and yet they share the same values of $\{\Omega_\varphi,\Omega_r,\Omega_\theta\}$. This point was already made briefly by two of us in Appendix A of [@Barack-Sago-2011] in reference to a Schwarzschild black hole (where orbits are biperiodic, and two isofrequency orbits share the same values of $\Omega_\varphi$ and $\Omega_r$). Here we first revisit the Schwarzschild problem to provide a further illumination of this phenomenon, and then extend the analysis to the Kerr case, showing that isofrequency pairing occurs even among triperiodic orbits.
We shall on occasion refer to a pair of isofrequency orbits as “synchronous”, because the phases of such orbits remain synchronized in an average sense. For example, two equatorial isofrequency orbits that pass through their periastra simultaneously at $\varphi=0$ will reach their next periastra at the same time and with the same azimuthal phase; they will have experienced an identical amount of periastron advance. Although such orbits go “in and out of phase” between periastron passages, their phase remains synchronized “on average”. We will present some graphics to illustrate this behavior.
Throughout this article we use geometric units such that the gravitational constant and the speed of light are both equal to unity. We denote the black hole’s mass and spin by $M$ and $aM$, respectively. We use an over-tilde to denote adimensionalization using $M$; for example, $\tilde\Omega_{\varphi}:=M\Omega_{\varphi}$ and $\tilde a:=a/M$. We adopt a convention whereby $a>0$ and $a<0$ correspond to prograde and retrograde orbits, respectively, with ${\mathcal{L}_z}$ always positive. We use the term “orbit” synonymously with “timelike geodesic orbit”. In Sec. \[Sec:Schwarzschild\] we consider (biperiodic) synchronous orbits in Schwarzschild geometry ($a=0$). We delineate the region in the parameter space where such orbits occur, and also provide an intuitive explanation as to why isofrequency pairing must occur. In Sec. \[Sec:Kerr\] we generalize our discussion to the Kerr case, where we consider first equatorial orbits and then generic, triperiodic orbits.
Isofrequency orbits in Schwarzschild geometry {#Sec:Schwarzschild}
=============================================
Orbital frequencies and separatrix
----------------------------------
The radial motion of geodesic test particles in the equatorial plane of a Schwarzschild black hole satisfies $$\label{EOM}
\dot{r}^2={{\mathcal{E}}}^2-V,\quad\quad
V(r;{{\mathcal{L}_z}}):=\left(1-\frac{2M}{r}\right)\left(1+\frac{{\mathcal{L}_z}^2}{r^2}\right),$$ where a dot denotes differentiation with respect to proper-time, and $V(r;{\mathcal{L}_z})$ is an effective potential for the radial motion. Bound orbits exist for ${\mathcal{L}_z}>2\sqrt{3}M$ with $\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}<\mathcal{E}<1$. For each $\{{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{L}_z}\}$ in this range, $\dot{r}^2(r)$ has three real roots, and motion is allowed between the second largest and largest of these, which we label $r_{\rm p}$ and $r_{\rm a}$, respectively. A convenient alternative parametrization of bound orbits is provided by the pair of values $\{p,e\}$ defined through $$\label{pe}
M p := \frac{2r_{\rm p} r_{\rm a}}{r_{\rm a}+r_{\rm p}},
\quad\quad
e := \frac{r_{\rm a}-r_{\rm p} }{r_{\rm a}+r_{\rm p}},$$ which are relativistic generalizations of semi-latus rectum and eccentricity, respectively [@Darwin-1961]. This parametrization is in a one-to-one correspondence with that of $\{{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{L}_z}\}$. Explicitly, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{E}}^2 = \frac{(p-2-2e)(p-2+2e)}{p(p-3-e^2)},\quad {\mathcal{L}_z}^2=\frac{p^2M^2}{p-3-e^2}, \label{eq:Schwarzschild_Energy_Ang_Mom}\end{aligned}$$ which can be inverted (for real $p,e$) to give unique expressions for $p({\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{L}_z})$ and $e({\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{L}_z})$. In the $(p,e)$ space, bound orbits span the range $0\le e<1$ with $p\ge p_s(e):=6+2e$. The boundary $p_s(e)$ (“separatrix”) separates between stable and unstable orbits in the $(p,e)$ space [@Cutler-Kennefick-Poisson]. The $(p,e)=(6,0)$ terminus of the separatrix curve is known as the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO). The existence of a separatrix is one of the salient features of motion in black hole spacetimes, and it marks a major qualitative departure from Newtonian dynamics. As we shall see, the occurrence of isofrequency pairing of orbits is intimately related to the existence of a separatrix.
The function $r(t)$ is periodic with ($t$-)period $T_r$. Following Darwin [@Darwin-1961], it is convenient to introduce the “relativistic anomaly” parameter $\chi$, which is related to $t$ via $$ \frac{dt}{d\chi} = \frac{Mp^2[(p-2)^2-4e^2]^{1/2}(p-6-2e\cos\chi)^{-1/2}}{(p-2-2e\cos\chi)(1+e\cos\chi)^2}\, ,\hskip3mm \label{eq:dt_dchi}$$ and in terms of which the radial motion is given simply by $r(\chi)=Mp/(1+e\cos\chi)$ (taking $\chi=0$ at a periastron passage). The radial period can then be computed via $$T_r = \int^{2\pi}_0 \frac{dt}{d\chi}\,d\chi\,, \label{eq:T_r}$$ with associated radial frequency $$\Omega_r := \frac{2\pi}{T_r} \, . \label{eq:Schwarzschild_r_frequency}$$
The [*azimuthal*]{} frequency of the orbit is defined as the average of $d\varphi/dt$ (with respect to $t$) over a complete radial period: $$\Omega_\varphi := \frac{1}{T_r}\int_0^{T_r}\frac{d\varphi}{dt}dt=\frac{\Delta\varphi}{T_r}\, , \label{eq:Schwarzschild_phi_frequency}$$ where $\Delta\varphi$ is the azimuthal phase accumulated over time interval $T_r$. The latter can be computed via $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\varphi &=& \int^{2\pi}_0 \frac{d\varphi}{d\chi}\,d\chi =
\int_{0}^{2\pi}\frac {\sqrt{p}}{\sqrt{p-6-2e\cos\chi}}\, d\chi \nonumber\\
&=&
4\sqrt{ \frac{p}{\epsilon}}\, K\left(-\frac{4e}{\epsilon}\right)\,, \label{eq:DeltaPhi} \end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon := p-p_s(e)$ and $K(x):=\int_{0}^{\pi/2}d\theta(1-x\sin^2\theta)^{-1/2}$ is the complete elliptic integral of the first kind. At the separatrix limit, $\epsilon\to 0^{+}$, both $\Delta\varphi$ and $T_r$ diverge at a similar rate \[see Eqs. (\[DeltaphiAsy\]) and (\[TrAsy\]) below\], so that $\Omega_r\to 0$ while $\Omega_{\varphi}$ attains a finite value \[$=(M/r_{\rm p}^3)^{1/2}$, corresponding to the frequency of the unstable circular orbit of radius $r_{\rm p}=p/(1+e)$\]. This gives rise to the well known “zoom-whirl” behavior [@Glampedakis-Kennefick]: orbits with $\epsilon\ll 1$ can “whirl” around the black hole many times near the periastron before “zooming” back out towards the apastron.
Isofrequency orbits
-------------------
As pointed out in Ref. [@Barack-Sago-2011], the Jacobian matrix of the transformation $(p,e) \to (\Omega_r,\Omega_\varphi)$ turns out to be singular along a certain curve in the parameter space, well [*outside*]{} the separatrix. This indicates that the transformation is not bijective. To see this most clearly it is instructive to move to a new orbital parametrization given by the pair $(\Omega_\varphi,e)$. This reparametrization is admissible because (i) as argued above, the original parametrization $(p,e)$ is a good one, and (ii) as can be easily checked, $\Omega_\varphi$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $p$ for any fixed $e$. Our argument now follows from examining the structure of the $\Omega_r = \text{const}$ contour lines in the $(\Omega_\varphi,e)$ plane, as shown in Figure \[fig:Schwarzschild\_Omega\_phi\_e\]. The key feature here is that some $\Omega_r = \text{const}$ contours have vertical tangents (the locus of which is shown by the dashed black line in the figure). Each of these contour lines is intersected [*twice*]{} by vertical lines just right of the vertical tangent. But vertical lines are also $\Omega_\varphi = \text{const}$ contours, and so the two intersections mark a pair of isofrequency orbits. (Any two such isofrequency orbits are clearly physically distinct: they have different eccentricities.)
In Fig. \[fig:Schwarzschild\_sample\_pair\] we show, superimposed, the orbital trajectories of a sample pair of isofrequency orbits of rather different eccentricities. The radial and azimuthal motions of these two orbits are plotted in Fig. \[fig:Schwarzschild\_example\_r\_phi\]. Since the rate of relativistic periastron advance depends only on the frequency ratio $\Omega_\varphi/\Omega_r$, two isofrequency orbits will exhibit the same rate of advance. This means that their phase remains “synchronized” on average, a behavior illustrated in the figures.
![The $(\Omega_\varphi,e)$ parameter space for bound geodesic orbits in Schwarzschild geometry. Bound orbits are confined to the region right of the curve marked [*separatrix*]{}. Thin (blue) curves are contour lines of constant $\Omega_r$. The marginal contour line $\Omega_r = 0$ is shown as a thick (red) line. $\Omega_r$ takes its greatest value at the point marked $c$, representing a (slightly perturbed) circular orbit of radius $r_c=8M$. The dotted (black) line shows the curve along which the Jacobian matrix of the transformation $(p,e) \leftrightarrow (\Omega_r,\Omega_\varphi)$ becomes singular. The singular curve intersects the $e=0$ axis at $b$, corresponding to a circular orbit of radius $r_b = (39+\sqrt{145})M/8\simeq 6.3802M$. Any vertical ($\Omega_\varphi=\text{const}$) line left of $b$ intersects some $\Omega_r=\text{const}$ contours [*twice*]{}. Each pair of intersections identifies a pair of isofrequency orbits; a sample pair is marked in the plot. Each and every orbit between the separatrix and the singular curve has an isofrequency dual between the singular curve and the dashed (green) curve marked COD (for [*circular-orbit duals*]{}). The COD is the locus of all orbits dual to circular orbits of radius $r$ with $r_i=6M<r<r_b$. []{data-label="fig:Schwarzschild_Omega_phi_e"}](Fig1.pdf)
Before giving a more detailed analysis, let us remark on the practicalities of producing the contour map of Fig. \[fig:Schwarzschild\_Omega\_phi\_e\]. The relation $\Omega_r(\Omega_\varphi,e)$ is not known analytically, so we resort to a numerical calculation: First, for a given $e$, we numerically invert the relation $\Omega_\varphi(p,e)$ \[Eq. (\[eq:Schwarzschild\_phi\_frequency\])\] to find $p(\Omega_\varphi,e)$. Then we use Eq. to obtain $\Omega_r(p(\Omega_\varphi,e),e)$. Much of the interesting portion of the parameter space for our purpose lies very near the separatrix, where it becomes numerically challenging to evaluate the divergent quantities $T_r,\Delta\varphi$ and their ratio in Eq. (\[eq:Schwarzschild\_phi\_frequency\]). In this problematic domain we instead use the near-separatrix analytic expansions [@Cutler-Kennefick-Poisson] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{DeltaphiAsy}
\Delta\varphi &\approx& \sqrt{\frac{6+2e}{e}}\log\left(\frac{64e}{\epsilon}\right) + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon\log\epsilon)\,, \\
T_r &\approx& \frac{4M(3+e)^2}{\sqrt{e}(1+e)^{3/2}} \left[\log\left(\frac{64e}{\epsilon}\right) \right. \nonumber\\
&+& \left. \frac{\pi e (9+6e-7e^2)}{4(1-e^2)^{3/2}} + e I(e)\right] + \mathcal{O}(\epsilon\log\epsilon)\,. \label{TrAsy}\end{aligned}$$ Here, the integral $I(e) := \int^\pi_0 (1+e \cos\chi)^{-2} D(\cos\chi)\,d\chi$, with $$\begin{aligned}
D(\cos\chi) &=& \frac{3+2e-e^2\cos^2\chi}{2+e(1-\cos\chi)}[2(1-\cos\chi)]^{1/2} \nonumber\\
&-& 3+e-\frac{1}{4}(7e-3)(1+\cos\chi)\, , \end{aligned}$$ is easily evaluated numerically.
![Orbital trajectories in the equatorial plane of a Schwarzschild black hole, for a sample pair of isofrequency orbits. The motion is anticlockwise, and the black hole is drawn to scale. Orbit 1 (red, round markers) has parameters $(p_1,e_1)=(6.255,0.05)$, and orbit 2 (blue, square markers) has parameters $(p_2,e_2)\simeq$ $(6.718788076, 0.3522488173)$. Both share the same orbital frequencies, $(\tilde\Omega_r, \tilde\Omega_\varphi) \simeq (0.01257801, 0.06426083)$. The orbital period of both orbits is $T_r\simeq499.535318M$ and each accumulates $\Delta\varphi\simeq 32.100669$ radians during that period. Both orbits start at their periastron marker ‘0’ along the radial line $P1$. Each successive marker shows the orbital phase after a time period of $n\times T_r/8$, where $n$ is the marker number. At $T_r/2$ (marker 4) both orbits are synchronized again at their apastra along the line $A1$. When each test body has completed one orbit (marker 8) they are again synchronized at their periastra along the line $P2$. Both orbits have precessed by the same amount over their common radial period.[]{data-label="fig:Schwarzschild_sample_pair"}](Fig2.pdf){width="85mm"}
![Evolution of $r(t)$ and $\varphi(t)-\Omega_\varphi t$ for the isofrequency pair shown in Fig. \[fig:Schwarzschild\_sample\_pair\]. Both radial and azimuthal motions are “phase-synchronized” on average. []{data-label="fig:Schwarzschild_example_r_phi"}](Fig3.pdf){width="85mm"}
It is in fact not hard to demonstrate the existence of isofrequency orbits without resorting to a numerical calculation as above. The argument follows from a few simple observations, which we now describe. First, it is easily established that, in the $(e,\Omega_{\varphi})$ plane, the separatrix $e=e_s(\Omega_{\varphi})$ is a curve of a [*positive*]{} slope as shown in Fig. \[fig:Schwarzschild\_Omega\_phi\_e\] (noting that in the figure we have chosen the horizontal axis with $\Omega_\varphi$ increasing to the [*left*]{}, so that, e.g, the radius of circular orbits increases to the right) . To see this, use Eq. (\[eq:Schwarzschild\_phi\_frequency\]) with (\[DeltaphiAsy\]) and (\[TrAsy\]) to derive the relation $\Omega_\varphi(e)$ along the separatrix, and invert to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
e_s(\Omega_\varphi) = \frac{6\tilde\Omega_\varphi^{2/3}-1}{1-2\tilde\Omega_\varphi^{2/3}}\, , \label{eq:e_s}\end{aligned}$$ where, recall, $\tilde\Omega_{\varphi}:=M\Omega_{\varphi}$. This gives $de_s/d\Omega_{\varphi}>0$ in the relevant range $0<\tilde\Omega_{\varphi}<1/8$. Next, examine the curve $\Omega_r=0$ in the $(e,\Omega_{\varphi})$ plane: It runs up along the separatrix, then proceeds horizontally along the line $e=1$ (which represents orbits with $r_{\rm a}\to\infty$ and hence $T_r\to\infty$), and finally descends along the line $\Omega_{\varphi}=0$ (which represents weak-field orbits with $r_{\rm p}\to\infty$, for which both frequencies vanish). Hence, the $\Omega_r=0$ contour is represented by the thick red line in Fig. \[fig:Schwarzschild\_Omega\_phi\_e\], circumscribing the parameter space of bound orbits on 3 sides. From continuity, it is now clear that a contour line of sufficiently small $\Omega_r$ must “bend backward” inside the wedge formed by the separatrix and the $e=1$ line, so that it becomes vertical at a point. The existence of isofrequency pairs follows immediately, as discussed above.
Let us now delineate the region in the parameter space where isofrequency pairing occurs. In Fig. \[fig:Schwarzschild\_Omega\_phi\_e\] we have indicated in a dotted black line the curve along which the transformation $(p,e)\leftrightarrow(\Omega_r,\Omega_\varphi)$ becomes singular. Each and every orbit left of this singular curve has an isofrequency dual right of the curve. In particular, each and every circular ($e=0$) orbit on the open segment $(i,b)$ has an isofrequency dual on the dashed green line marked as [*circular-orbit duals*]{} (COD). (Here we define the radial frequency of a circular orbit to be that of a slightly eccentric orbit, at the limit $e\to 0$.) Hence, each and every orbit between the separatrix and the singular curve has an isofrequency dual between the singular curve and the COD, and vice versa. We conclude that (i) all isofrequency pairs are confined to the region left of the COD, and (ii) every orbit left of the COD has an isofrequency dual.
How “strong field” is the region left of the COD, where isofrequency pairing occurs? The isofrequency pair of lowest azimuthal frequency sits where the singular curve intersects the $e=0$ axis, at point $b$ (refer again to Fig. \[fig:Schwarzschild\_Omega\_phi\_e\]). To calculate the value of $\Omega_{\varphi}$ at $b$, we analytically Taylor-expand the Jacobian determinant $J:=\left|\partial(\Omega_{r},\Omega_{\varphi})/\partial(p,e)\right|$ in $e$ about $e=0$ (for fixed $p$). We find, to leading order, $$\label{J}
J(e\to 0)=-\frac{9(4p^2-39p+86)}{4M^2 p^{9/2}(p-2)(p-6)^{3/2}},$$ of which the relevant root is $$p=\frac{1}{8}(39+\sqrt{145}) \simeq 6.3802.$$ This corresponds to a circular orbit of radius $r_b\simeq 6.3802M$ and frequency $\Omega_{\varphi}=(M/r_b^3)^{-2}\simeq 0.06205/M $. Recall this is the [*lowest*]{} frequency of any isofrequency pair. The isofrequency pair of [*highest*]{} frequency sits at the upper-left corner of the diagram in Fig. \[fig:Schwarzschild\_Omega\_phi\_e\]; it has $\tilde\Omega_\varphi=1/8$. Hence, for a Schwarzschild black hole, the range of isofrequency pairing is given by $$0.06205\lesssim \tilde\Omega_\varphi< 0.125 .$$ (For comparison, the ISCO frequency is $\tilde\Omega_{\varphi}=6^{-3/2}\simeq 0.068$.) Evidently, the phenomenon is confined to the very strong-field regime of the Schwarzschild black hole.
Finally, we note that all orbits in isofrequency pairs are strongly zoom-whirling. For example, the lowest-frequency isofrequency pair mentioned above (slightly perturbed circular orbits of radii $r\to r_b^{\pm}$) have $\Delta\varphi \simeq 4.1\times 2\pi$, i.e., they each complete more than 4 full revolutions in $\varphi$ over a single radial period. This behavior is also manifest in the example shown in Fig. \[fig:Schwarzschild\_sample\_pair\].
Isofrequency orbits in Kerr geometry {#Sec:Kerr}
====================================
Equatorial orbits
-----------------
We consider first the case of equatorial orbits, in which the treatment is entirely analogous to that of orbits in Schwarzschild spacetime. Equatorial orbits have ${\mathcal{Q}}=0$, and are therefore parametrized by the pair $\{{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{L}_z}\}$ alone. As in the Schwarzschild case, bound equatorial orbits may instead be parametrized by the (BL coordinate values of the) turning points $\{r_{\rm a},r_{\rm p}\}$, or by a pair $\{p,e\}$ defined from them as in Eq. (\[pe\]). One can then write integral expressions analogous to Eqs. (\[eq:Schwarzschild\_r\_frequency\]) \[with (\[eq:T\_r\]) and (\[eq:dt\_dchi\])\] and (\[eq:Schwarzschild\_phi\_frequency\]) \[with (\[eq:DeltaPhi\])\] for the radial and azimuthal frequencies of the motion; the dependence upon the black hole’s spin $a$ only enters via the explicit form of the functions $dt/d\chi(\chi;p,e,a)$ and $d\varphi/d\chi(\chi;p,e,a)$, which are significantly more complicated than their Schwarzschild ($a=0$) reductions. The integral formulas for $\Omega_r$ and $\Omega_{\varphi}$, for arbitrary spin, can be found in Sec. II.A of Ref. [@Glampedakis-Kennefick], and an analytic formula for the separatrix curve, $p_s(e)$, again for arbitrary spin, is given in Ref. [@Levin-Perez-Giz]. We will not reproduce these expressions here given their complexity, and since we will be giving explicit formulas for generic orbits in the next subsection.
One finds that our intuitive argument for the existence of isofrequency orbits carries over directly from the Schwarzschild case to equatorial orbits in Kerr. Along the separatrix of the Kerr black hole, the function $e_s(\Omega_\varphi)$ is most neatly expressed in terms of the periastron radius $\tilde r_{\rm p}=(\tilde\Omega_\varphi^{-1}-\tilde a)^{2/3}$ (which, on the separatrix, corresponds to the radius of an unstable circular orbit of frequency $\Omega_\varphi$) [@Levin-Perez-Giz]: $$e_s =
\frac{-\tilde r_{\rm p}^2+6\tilde r_{\rm p}-8\tilde a \tilde r_{\rm p}^{1/2}+3\tilde a^2 }{\tilde r_{\rm p}^2-2\tilde r_{\rm p}+\tilde a^2}\, . \label{eq:e_s_Kerr}$$ It can be easily checked that $de_s/d\tilde r_w<0$ and $d\tilde r_w/d\tilde\Omega_{\varphi}<0$ for all $a$ and all $\Omega_{\varphi}$ in the relevant range $0<\Omega_{\varphi}<\Omega_{\varphi}^{\rm max}$, leading, again, to $de_s/d\Omega_\varphi>0$. \[Here $\Omega_{\varphi}^{\rm max}$ is the whirl frequency of the marginally bound and marginally stable orbit with ${\cal E}=1$ (and $e=1$), an expression for which will be given in Eq. (\[Omegamax\]) below.\] The pattern of the $\Omega_r={\rm const}$ contour lines in the $(e,\Omega_\varphi)$ plane should therefore be qualitatively as in Fig. \[fig:Schwarzschild\_Omega\_phi\_e\], including the crucial feature that contour lines “curve back” inside the wedge formed by the separatrix and the $e=1$ line. It follows that isofrequency pairing should be a feature of equatorial orbits for any black hole spin $a$ (and, in particular, we expect to see it in both prograde and retrograde orbits).
Figure \[fig:KerrEq\_Omega\_phi\_e\] shows an actual contour-line map, similar to that in Fig. \[fig:Schwarzschild\_Omega\_phi\_e\], for the sample case $a=0.5M$. The $\Omega_r={\rm const}$ contours were computed numerically as in the Schwarzschild case, this time using the integral expressions from Ref. [@Glampedakis-Kennefick]. Near the separatrix we have used the asymptotic expressions also given in [@Glampedakis-Kennefick]. Evidently, the essential features are as in the Schwarzschild case. One again identifies a singular curve and a COD curve in the ($e,\Omega_\varphi$) plane, so that for any orbit between the separatrix and the singular curve there exists a dual isofrequency orbit between the singular curve and the COD, and vice versa. The situation is qualitatively the same for other values of the spin and for retrograde orbits.
![ The $(\Omega_\varphi,e)$ parameter space for bound equatorial geodesic orbits in Kerr geometry with $a=0.5M$. Compare with Fig. \[fig:Schwarzschild\_Omega\_phi\_e\]. The relevant features are as in the Schwarzschild case, and the existence of isofrequency pairing below the COD is similarly evident. We indicate a sample pair with $(p,e)=(4.915656,0.45)$ and $(4.62288270,0.26313140)$, both having frequencies $(\Omega_\varphi,\Omega_r)=(0.112675037,0.01291945)$. Labelled points on the horizontal axis correspond to circular orbits of radii (left to right) $r_w\simeq 3.8994M$ (whirl radius of marginally bound marginally stable orbit; orbit of highest azimuthal frequency), $r_{i}\simeq 4.2330M$ (ISCO), $r_b\simeq 4.5039M$ (outermost orbit in an isofrequency pair), and $r_c\simeq 5.7628M$ (orbit of highest radial frequency, $M\Omega_r\simeq 0.03312$). []{data-label="fig:KerrEq_Omega_phi_e"}](Fig4.pdf)
Let us identify the frequency range $\Omega_{\varphi}^{\rm min}(a) < \Omega_{\varphi} < \Omega_{\varphi}^{\rm max}(a)$ where isofrequency pairing occurs. The $a\ne 0$ version of Eq. (\[J\]) is too complicated to be solved analytically for $p=r_b$ (the radius of the outermost circular orbit belonging to an isofrequency pair) as we have done in the Schwarzschild case, so we resort to numerical solutions. Table \[table\] lists $r_b$ values for a sample of black hole spins. Once a numerical value for $r_b$ is at hand (for a given $a$), $\Omega_{\varphi}^{\rm min}$ is obtained via $$\label{Omegamin}
\tilde\Omega_{\varphi}^{\rm min}=\frac{1}{\tilde r_b^{3/2}+\tilde a},$$ where we have used the general relation between the frequency of a circular equatorial orbit and its BL radius [@Bardeen-Press-Teukolsky]. The [*maximal*]{} value $\Omega_{\varphi}^{\rm max}$ corresponds to the whirl frequency of the marginally bound marginally stable orbit with $e=1$ (top left corner in Fig. \[fig:KerrEq\_Omega\_phi\_e\]). It is given by $$\label{Omegamax}
\tilde\Omega_{\varphi}^{\rm max}=
\frac{1}{(2-\tilde a+2\sqrt{1-\tilde a})^{3/2}+\tilde a}.$$ The range $\Omega_{\varphi}^{\rm min}(a) < \Omega_{\varphi} < \Omega_{\varphi}^{\rm max}(a)$ is illustared in Fig. \[fig:Omegaminmax\].
$\tilde a$ $\tilde r_{\rm isco}$ $\tilde r_{b}$
------------ ----------------------- ----------------
0 6 6.38020
0.1 5.66930 6.02903
0.2 5.32944 5.66813
0.3 4.97862 5.29559
0.4 4.61434 4.90877
0.5 4.23300 4.50387
0.6 3.82907 4.07499
0.7 3.39313 3.61219
0.8 2.90664 3.09586
0.9 2.32088 2.47458
0.95 1.93724 2.06835
0.99 1.45450 1.56060
1 1 1.19441
: Numerical values for $r_b$, the BL radius of the outermost circular orbit belonging to an isofrequency pair (cf. Fig. \[fig:KerrEq\_Omega\_phi\_e\]). The frequency $\Omega_{\varphi}^{\rm min}$ of this orbit \[given in Eq. (\[Omegamin\])\] marks the lower end of the frequency range where synchronous pairing occurs. For comparison, the second column displays the ISCO radius $r_{\rm isco}$ (elsewhere in this paper denoted $r_i$); it is given by [@Bardeen-Press-Teukolsky] $\tilde r_{\rm isco}=3+Z_2-{\rm sign}(a)[(3-Z_1)(3+Z_1+2Z_2)]^{1/2}$, where $Z_1:=1+(1-\tilde a^2)^{1/3}[(1+\tilde a)^{1/3}+(1-\tilde a)^{1/3}]$ and $Z_2:=(3\tilde a^2+Z_1^2)^{1/2}$. Numerical values are truncated at the 5th decimal place, rounding up. []{data-label="table"}
$\tilde a$ $\tilde r_{\rm isco}$ $\tilde r_{b}$
------------ ----------------------- ----------------
-0.1 6.32289 6.72309
-0.2 6.63904 7.05292
-0.3 6.94927 7.38801
-0.4 7.25427 7.71208
-0.5 7.55458 8.03103
-0.6 7.85069 8.34549
-0.7 8.14297 8.65588
-0.8 8.43176 8.96255
-0.9 8.71735 9.26583
-1 9 9.56598
: Numerical values for $r_b$, the BL radius of the outermost circular orbit belonging to an isofrequency pair (cf. Fig. \[fig:KerrEq\_Omega\_phi\_e\]). The frequency $\Omega_{\varphi}^{\rm min}$ of this orbit \[given in Eq. (\[Omegamin\])\] marks the lower end of the frequency range where synchronous pairing occurs. For comparison, the second column displays the ISCO radius $r_{\rm isco}$ (elsewhere in this paper denoted $r_i$); it is given by [@Bardeen-Press-Teukolsky] $\tilde r_{\rm isco}=3+Z_2-{\rm sign}(a)[(3-Z_1)(3+Z_1+2Z_2)]^{1/2}$, where $Z_1:=1+(1-\tilde a^2)^{1/3}[(1+\tilde a)^{1/3}+(1-\tilde a)^{1/3}]$ and $Z_2:=(3\tilde a^2+Z_1^2)^{1/2}$. Numerical values are truncated at the 5th decimal place, rounding up. []{data-label="table"}
![Range of isofrequency pairing (shaded area), as a function of the black hole spin, for orbits in the equatorial plane. The large-spin portion of the plot is shown separately in an inset for clarity. Isofrequency orbits are confined to the strong-field frequency regime $\Omega_{\varphi}>\Omega_{\varphi}^{\rm min}$. The frequency $\Omega_{\varphi}^{\rm max}$ is the highest attainable by [*any*]{} bound orbit (at given $M,a$), corresponding to the whirl frequency of the marginally bound, marginally stable orbit with ${\mathcal{E}}=1$ (which is also the azimuthal frequency of the “unstable” circular orbit with that energy). []{data-label="fig:Omegaminmax"}](Fig5.pdf){width="9cm"}
Triperiodic orbits: frequencies and separatrix {#sec:Kerr_freqs}
----------------------------------------------
We now turn to consider generic bound motion in Kerr geometry. Nonequatorial orbits possess a third frequency, $\Omega_\theta$, associated with the longitudinal motion. It is not immediately obvious how the three fundamental frequencies can be computed in practice, since the radial and longitudinal motions are coupled in the usual BL-coordinate representation \[see Eqs. (\[EOMr\]) and (\[EOMq\]) below\]. Schmidt [@Schmidt] was able to derive formal expressions for the fundamental frequencies using angle-action variables in the Hamilton–Jacobi formalism, which circumvented the problem of coupling. Mino [@Mino] observed that the radial and longitudinal motions can in fact be decoupled using a simple transformation of the time coordinate, and Fujita and Hikida [@Fujita-Hikida] (building on work by Drasco and Hughes [@Drasco-Hughes]) used this to obtain closed-form analytic formulas for the three frequencies. We give their formulas below in a slightly modified form. (Fujita and Hikida considered the cases $|a|\ne M$ and $|a|=M$ separately. For brevity we reproduce here only the nonextremal case; expressions for $|a|=M$ can be found in Appendix B of [@Fujita-Hikida].)
To establish some necessary notation, let us begin with the $r$ and $\theta$ components of the geodesic equation of motion. For bound (${\cal E}<1$), nonequatorial ($\theta_{\min}\ne \pi/2$) orbits around a rotating ($a\ne 0$) black hole, these can be written in the form $$\label{EOMr}
\Sigma^2 \dot r^2 = \gamma(r_1-r)(r-r_2)(r-r_3)(r-r_4),$$ $$\label{EOMq}
\Sigma^2 \dot z^2 = a^2 \gamma(z_-^2-z^2)(z_+^2-z^2),$$ where $z:=\cos\theta$, $\Sigma:=r^2+a^2 z^2$, $\gamma:=1-{\cal E}^2$, and an overdot denotes differentiation with respect to proper time along the geodesic. The roots of the quartic expressions on the right-hand sides are certain functions of ${{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{L}_z},{\mathcal{Q}}}$; the radial roots are ordered as $r_1\geq r_2\geq r_3\geq r_4$, and the roots $\pm z_-,\pm z_+$ satisfy $|z_-|\leq 1$ and $|z_+|> 1$. Bound orbits have $r_{\rm p}\equiv r_2\leq r\leq r_1\equiv r_{\rm a}$ and $|z|\leq z_-\equiv \cos\theta_{\min}$ (the latter inequality corresponds to $\theta_{\min}\leq\theta\leq \pi-\theta_{\min}$). We may introduce the parametrization $\{p,e,\theta_{\min}\}$, where $p,e$ are defined from $r_{\rm p},r_{\rm a}$ as in Eq. (\[pe\]). The above roots are then most succinctly expressed (using a “mixed” parametrization) as $$\label{zpm}
z_- = \cos\theta_{\min},\quad\quad
z_+=\left(1+\frac{{\mathcal{L}_z}^2}{a^2\gamma\sin^2\theta_{\min}}\right)^{1/2},
$$ $$\label{r12}
r_1\equiv r_{\rm a}= \frac{Mp}{1-e}, \quad\quad r_2\equiv r_{\rm p}= \frac{Mp}{1+e},$$ $$\label{r34}
r_3 = \frac{1}{2}\left[\alpha + \sqrt{\alpha^2 - 4\beta}\right]\,,\qquad r_4 = \frac{\beta}{r_3},$$ where $\alpha := 2M/\gamma - (r_{\rm a}+r_{\rm p})$ and $\beta := a^2\mathcal{Q}/(\gamma r_{\rm a}r_{\rm p})$.
Note that the $r$ and $\theta$ motions are coupled, due to the factor $\Sigma^2(r,\theta)$ on the left-hand sides of Eqs. (\[EOMr\]) and (\[EOMq\]). This can be easily rectified by introducing a new time parameter $\lambda$ (often referred to as “Mino time” in recent literature), satisfying $\dot\lambda=\Sigma^{-1}$. In terms of $\lambda$, the $r$ and $\theta$ motions decouple, and each becomes manifestly periodic, with $\lambda$-frequencies $\Upsilon_r$ and $\Upsilon_\theta$, respectively. One can also define the azimuthal frequency $\Upsilon_\varphi$ as the average of $d\varphi/d\lambda$ with respect to $\lambda$, where in general the average needs to be taken over an infinite time. The three $\lambda$-frequencies are given explicitly (for $|a|\ne M$) by [@Fujita-Hikida] $$\begin{aligned}
\Upsilon_r &=& \frac{\pi\sqrt{\gamma(r_{\rm a}-r_3)(r_{\rm p}-r_4)}}{2K(k_r)}\,, \label{eq:Upsilon_r} \\
\Upsilon_\theta &=& \frac{\pi (a^2 \gamma)^{1/2} z_+}{2K(k_\theta)}\,, \\
\Upsilon_\varphi &=& \frac{{\mathcal{L}_z}\Pi(z_-^2,k_\theta)}{K(k_\theta)} + \frac{a}{r_+ - r_-}\left[\frac{2M{\mathcal{E}}r_+ - a{\mathcal{L}_z}}{r_3 - r_+} \right. \label{eq:Upsilon_phi} \\
&\times& \left. \left( 1 - \frac{\mathcal{F}_+}{r_{\rm p}-r_+}\right) - (+ \leftrightarrow -) \right]\,, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\Pi(x,y):=\int_{0}^{\pi/2}d\theta(1-x\sin^2\theta)^{-1}(1-y\sin^2\theta)^{-1/2}$ is the complete elliptic integral of the third kind, $r_\pm:=M\pm\sqrt{M^2-a^2}$, the arguments of the elliptic functions are $$\begin{aligned}
k_r := {\frac{r_{\rm a}-r_{\rm p}}{r_{\rm a}-r_3}\frac{r_3-r_4}{r_{\rm p}-r_4}}\,,\qquad k_\theta := (z_-/z_+)^2,\end{aligned}$$ and hereafter we use $(+ \leftrightarrow -)$ to denote a term formed by interchanging the $+$ and $-$ subscripts in the previous terms within the enclosing brackets. In Eq. (\[eq:Upsilon\_phi\]) we have also introduced $$\mathcal{F}_A := (r_{\rm p} - r_3) \frac{\Pi(h_A,k_r)}{K(k_r)}$$ for $A=\{r,+,-\}$, with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hpm}
h_\pm = \frac{(r_{\rm a}- r_{\rm p})(r_3 - r_\pm)}{(r_{\rm a} - r_3)(r_{\rm p} - r_\pm)}\,,\qquad h_r = \frac{r_{\rm a} - r_{\rm p}}{r_{\rm a}-r_3}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Finally, the $t$-frequencies are obtained from the $\lambda$-frequencies via [@Drasco-Hughes] $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_r = \frac{\Upsilon_r}{\Gamma}\,,\qquad \Omega_\theta = \frac{\Upsilon_\theta}{\Gamma}\,,\qquad \Omega_\varphi = \frac{\Upsilon_\varphi}{\Gamma}\,,\label{eq:freqs_from_mino_to_t}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma$ is the average of $dt/d\lambda$ with respect to $\lambda$. The latter is given explicitly (for $|a|\ne M$) by [@Fujita-Hikida]
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Gamma}
\Gamma &=& 4M^2\mathcal{E} + \frac{\mathcal{E}\mathcal{Q}(1-\mathcal{G}_\theta)}{\gamma z_-^2} + \frac{\mathcal{E}}{2}\left[r_3(r_{\rm a}+r_{\rm p}+r_3) - r_{\rm a} r_{\rm p} + (r_{\rm a} + r_{\rm p} + r_3 + r_4)\mathcal{F}_r +(r_{\rm a}-r_3)(r_{\rm p}-r_4)\mathcal{G}_r\right] \hspace{0.5cm} \\
&+& 2M\mathcal{E}(r_3+\mathcal{F}_r) + \frac{2M}{r_+ - r_-}\left[ \frac{(4M^2\mathcal{E} - a\mathcal{L})r_+ - 2Ma^2\mathcal{E}}{r_3 - r_+}\left(1-\frac{\mathcal{F}_+}{r_{\rm p}-r_+}\right) - (+\leftrightarrow -) \right]\,, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where we have also introduced $$\label{G}
\mathcal{G}_B := \frac{E(k_B)}{K(k_B)}$$ for $B=\{r,\theta\}$, with $E(x):=\int_{0}^{\pi/2}d\theta(1-x\sin^2\theta)^{1/2}$ being the complete elliptic integral of the second kind.
Equation (\[eq:freqs\_from\_mino\_to\_t\]), with the necessary substitutions from Eqs. (\[zpm\])–(\[hpm\]), (\[Gamma\]) and (\[G\]), gives closed-form expressions for the fundamental frequencies $\Omega_r$, $\Omega_{\theta}$ and $\Omega_\varphi$, given the parameters $\{{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{L}_z},{\mathcal{Q}}\}$ as well as the corresponding parameters $\{p,e,\theta_{\min}\}$. To complete the formulation, one requires a link between the two sets of parameters. Explicit expressions for $\{{{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{L}_z},{\mathcal{Q}}}\}$ in terms of $\{p,e,\theta_{\min}\}$ were derived by Schmidt in Appendix B of Ref. [@Schmidt] (they are reproduced in a somewhat more concise form in Appendix A of [@Drasco-Hughes-2006]). With this link, Eq. (\[eq:freqs\_from\_mino\_to\_t\]) can be used to compute the fundamental frequencies for a geodesic with given $\{p,e,\theta_{\min}\}$.
The [*separatrix*]{} between stable and unstable orbits is given by the condition $r_{\rm p}=r_3$, which identifies the point where the inner turning point of the bound orbit is lost \[recall Eq. (\[EOMr\])\]. It can be checked that this condition coincides with $\Omega_r=0$, as expected (note $k_r=1=h_A$ and $\mathcal{F}_A =0= \mathcal{G}_r$ along the separatrix). Using Eqs. (\[r12\]) and (\[r34\]), with the link between $\{{\cal E},{\cal L},{\cal Q}\}$ and $\{p,e,\theta_{\min}\}$ from [@Schmidt; @Drasco-Hughes-2006], the condition $r_{\rm p}=r_3$ translates to a relation between $p$, $e$ and $\theta_{\min}$, which can be solved numerically for $p$ to obtain the separatrix surface $p=p_s(e,\theta_{\min})$. We checked, using numerical examples, that this procedure for identifying the separatrix is consistent with the analytical method of Ref. [@Levin-Perez-Giz] for equatorial orbits, and with the alternative numerical method of Sundararajan [@Sundararajan] for generic orbits.
Isofrequency pairing in triperiodic orbits
------------------------------------------
We now seek to demonstrate the existence of isofrequency pairs of triperiodic orbits, i.e., ones sharing all three fundamental frequencies $\{\Omega_r,\Omega_\theta,\Omega_\varphi\}$. Here our analysis will not be as complete as it was for biperiodic orbits. Rather, we will content ourselves with demonstrating by way of numerical example that such pairing does indeed occur.
To this end it will suffice to inspect the contour map of $\Omega_r$=const curves in the $(e,\Omega_{\theta}$) plane, for some fixed value of $\Omega_{\varphi}$. For this, we need to be able to compute $\Omega_r$ given $\{\Omega_\theta,e,\Omega_\varphi\}$. To achieve this in practice we take the following steps. First, we numerically invert, for given $e,\theta_{\min}$, the equation $\Omega_\varphi(p)=\text{const}$ (in the example presented below we take the constant to be $0.14M^{-1}$). For this we use a bisection method, taking as initial guess the value $p=p_s(e,\theta_{\min})$ obtained using the method described above. Once we have the trio $\{p,e,\theta_{\min}\}$, we calculate the corresponding values of $\Omega_\theta$ and $\Omega_r$ using the analytic expressions presented above. We repeat these two steps for a great many values of $e$ and $\theta_{\min}$, making sure to achieve a good coverage of the parameter space, particularly near the separatrix. The outcome of this procedure is a list of $\{\Omega_\theta,e,\Omega_r\}$ values for many orbits, all with our fixed value of $\Omega_\varphi$. This dataset can then be used to create a contour map of $\Omega_r$=const curves in the $(e,\Omega_{\theta}$) plane.
We remark that the analytic formulation by Fujita and Hikida proves extremely useful for our purpose, because is can be readily implemented on a computer algebra platform such as *Mathematica*, which allows for high precision floating-point arithmetic. In our procedure, such high precision is crucial near the separatrix, and it avoids the need to use asymptotic expansions as in Eqs. (\[DeltaphiAsy\]) and (\[TrAsy\]).
An example with $\tilde\Omega_\varphi=0.14$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:Kerr\_case\]. We observe that the essential features of the contour map are just as in Figs. \[fig:Schwarzschild\_Omega\_phi\_e\] and \[fig:KerrEq\_Omega\_phi\_e\]. In particular, there are vertical ($\Omega_{\theta}$=const) lines that cross single $\Omega_r$=const contours twice. Each pair of intersections represents a pair of isofrequency orbits sharing all three frequencies $\{\Omega_r,\Omega_\theta,\Omega_\varphi\}$. The existence of isofrequency pairing in triperiodic orbits is thus established. Continuity suggests that there should be a certain volume in the 3-dimensional parameter space where isofrequency orbits reside, but here we will not endeavour to identify the boundaries of this volume.
![Illustration of isofrequency pairing in triperiodic orbits. Thin solid (blue) lines are contours of constant $\Omega_r$ in the $(e,\Omega_{\theta})$ plane, for inclined eccentric orbits with fixed $\tilde\Omega_\varphi = 0.14$. Here $a=0.7M$. (The “empty” lower-right corner of the diagram lies outside the parameter space of bound orbits.) Dashed vertical lines are sample $\Omega_\theta$=const contours, along each of which we indicate a pair of isofrequency orbits. The parameters of these three pairs are given in Table \[table:kerr\_sample\_pairs\] (sample pairs ‘1’, ‘2’ and ‘3’, from right to left). All essential features are as in Figs. \[fig:Schwarzschild\_Omega\_phi\_e\] and \[fig:KerrEq\_Omega\_phi\_e\]. Similar contour maps can be obtained for other values of $\tilde\Omega_\varphi$ and $a$. []{data-label="fig:Kerr_case"}](Fig6.pdf){width="85mm"}
We have indicated in Fig. \[fig:Kerr\_case\] three sample pairs of triperiodic isofrequency orbits, whose parameters we give in Table \[table:kerr\_sample\_pairs\]. The third sample pair is visualized in real space in Fig. \[fig:Kerr\_sample\_pair\], and in Fig. \[fig:Kerr\_sample\_pair\_r\_theta\_phi\] we illustrate the synchronized evolutions of $r(t)$, $\theta(t)$ and $\varphi(t)$ for this pair. We note that in the case of triperiodic orbits the “synchronization” is not exact (because the $r$ and $\theta$ motions are not separately periodic). Rather, the isofrequency orbits are synchronized only in a long-time average sense. For example, if the two orbits pass their respective periastra at $t=0$, they may pass subsequent periastra at slightly different times, but the discrepancy should average to zero over a long time. One way to identify such behavior is by inspecting the difference between the orbital phases of the two orbits: the difference will remain quasi-periodic only if the two are isofrequency. The lower panel of Fig. \[fig:Kerr\_sample\_pair\_r\_theta\_phi\] exemplifies this for the $\theta$ phase.
orbit 1 orbit 2 fundamental frequencies
-- ----------------- --------------------------------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------
$p$ $3.615857065600587178089905$ $3.4855158540000000000000$ $\tilde\Omega_r=0.009040307723329$
$e$ $0.068206017767752935160626$ $0.01201000000000000000000$ $\tilde\Omega_\theta=0.1162029753375$
$\theta_{\min}$ $1.953894865146840010777339$ $1.8378366992075975844562$ $\tilde\Omega_\varphi=0.1400000000000$
$p$ $3.572207717388546694585166$ $4.3523435765502772064368261758$ $\tilde\Omega_r=0.006051252001160$
$e$ $0.0388932801825514054684027$ $0.27300090000000000000000000000$ $\tilde\Omega_\theta=0.1162584817374$
$\theta_{\min}$ $1.943740959072074359824863$ $2.3444136677413832042020276247$ $\tilde\Omega_\varphi=0.1400000000000$
$p$ $3.80671950837597698109947211$ $4.477551959004760003175297459526$ $\tilde\Omega_r=0.005364669707792$
$e$ $0.105336584613486946768869507$ $0.300000000000000000000000000000$ $\tilde\Omega_\theta=0.1163492371285$
$\theta_{\min}$ $2.11092907046831122994268532$ $2.395463898362217344327765579750$ $\tilde\Omega_\varphi=0.1400000000000$
![A sample pair of triperiodic isofrequency orbits for $a=0.7M$. The orbits depicted correspond to ‘sample pair 3’ from Table \[table:kerr\_sample\_pairs\] (also leftmost pair in Fig. \[fig:Kerr\_case\]), with ‘orbit 1’ shown on the left and ‘orbit 2’ shown on the right. The top row shows the motion in the $(x,y)$-plane and the bottom row shows the motion in the $(x,z)$-plane, where $x=r\cos\varphi\sin\theta/M$, $y=r\sin\varphi\sin\theta/M$ and $z=r\cos\theta/M$. The black hole is shown to scale. In both orbits the motion begins at $t=0=\lambda$ at periastron, with $\varphi=0$ and $\theta=\pi/2$. In integrating the geodesic equations we used the method of Drasco and Hughes [@Drasco-Hughes], which avoids numerical difficulties near the orbital turning points. We show the portion of the orbits between $\lambda=0$ and $\lambda=30M^{-1}$. []{data-label="fig:Kerr_sample_pair"}](Fig7.pdf){width="85mm"}
![Evolution of $r(t)$, $\varphi(t)-\Omega_\varphi t$ and $\cos[\theta_1(t)]-\cos[\theta_2(t)]$ for ‘sample pair 3’ of Table \[table:kerr\_sample\_pairs\] and Fig. \[fig:Kerr\_sample\_pair\]. Both orbits begin at $t=0$ at periastron with $\varphi=0$ and $\theta=\pi/2$. Triperiodic isofrequency orbits are “synchronized” only in a long-time average sense. Periastra are reached only approximately at the same time (as a closer inspection of the upper panel would reveal) but the time differences should average to zero over a long time. The same applies to the average azimuthal motion (middle panel, where a close inspection reveals that the azimuthal phases of the two orbits are not in precise agreement at the periastra), and to the motion in $\theta$ (lower panel). In the latter case we show the [*difference*]{} between the two longitudinal phases, which remains quasi-periodic. It would have not remained quasi-periodic had the two orbits not been in an isofrequency pair.[]{data-label="fig:Kerr_sample_pair_r_theta_phi"}](Fig8.pdf){width="85mm"}
Before concluding, let us comment on the validity of our numerical algorithm, which, as already mentioned, involves delicate high precision computation of the orbital frequencies. To establish confidence in our results we tested our code in a number of ways. First, we checked that our code reproduces all the double-precision-accurate results for $\{{\mathcal{E}}, {\mathcal{L}_z},{\mathcal{Q}}\}$ (given $\{p,e,\theta_{\min}\}$) tabulated in Ref. [@Drasco-Hughes-2006]. We also verified, to over one hundred significant figures, that the results of Fujita and Hikida’s orbital frequency formulas (in the form given above) agree with the results of Schmidt’s less explicit formulas [@Schmidt]. We further validated our equations using a direct numerical integration of the $\lambda$-time geodesic equations in a few test cases. We were able to reproduce the analytically calculated $\lambda$-frequencies $\Upsilon_r$ and $\Upsilon_\theta$ to within 25 significant figures. (The quantities $\Upsilon_\varphi$ and $\Gamma$ involve infinite time averages and are therefore less easily tested in this manner.)
Concluding remarks
==================
In this article we have shown that the three fundamental frequencies of bound geodesics in Kerr geometry do not constitute a good parametrization of the orbits in the strong-field regime. We identified a mapping between pairs of physically distinct orbits that possess the same set of orbital frequencies. A pair of isofrequency orbits are “synchronous” in that they exhibit the same periastron and Lense-Thirring precession rates. All orbits in isofrequency pairs are confined to the very strong-field regime near the innermost stable orbit—cf. Table \[table\] and Fig. \[fig:Omegaminmax\]. (Some orbits in isofrequency pairs have very large eccentricities and apastra at arbitrarily large radii, but their periastra are in the very strong field.) Our numerical experiments suggest that all members of isofrequency pairs are of “zoom-whirl” type, but this is yet to be checked more thoroughly in the case of triperiodic orbits and across all spin values.
The first practical lesson from our analysis is a cautionary note for colleagues studying the data-analysis problem for gravitational-wave detectors, in particular the problem of parameter extraction for systems of extreme-mass-ratio inspirals (EMRIs). The fundamental frequencies extracted from a “snapshot” of an EMRI waveform, on their own, as a matter of principle, do not necessarily provide enough information from which to extract the system’s intrinsic physical parameters ${\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{L}_z},{\mathcal{Q}}$ (or $p,e,\theta_{\min}$). If the system is sufficiently close to the innermost stable orbit, a measurement of the instantaneous frequencies could at most narrow down on two possible sets of system parameters. This “degeneracy”, however, can be removed in any one of the following ways: (i) by examining the power spectrum of the waveform (the power distribution among the various harmonics of the fundamental frequencies will be different for the two orbits); (ii) by inspecting the waveform snippet in the time domain (the shape of the waveform is strongly dependent upon the eccentricity, for instance); or (iii) by accounting for radiation-reaction evolution effects (two orbits which are instantaneously isofrequency will evolve radiatively in different ways).
At a more fundamental level, our analysis identifies a new feature in the strong-field dynamics of compact-object binaries in general relativity. The fundamental frequencies in a bound binary (of any mass ratio) are important invariant characteristics of the “conservative” sector of the dynamics. As such they have long been studied in the context of post-Newtonian (PN) theory. The instantaneous frequencies in a binary of inspiralling black holes can even, nowadays, be extracted from high-precision fully nonlinear simulations in numerical relativity (NR)—see, for example, Ref. [@LeTiec_etal-2011]. Our analysis here revealed the occurrence of isofrequency pairing in the test-particle limit (i.e., the limit of vanishing mass ratio), but it is not unreasonable to speculate that the phenomenon is a general feature of the dynamics in strongly gravitating binaries, and would reveal itself also when the mass ratio is finite. It is not clear if available PN theory can predict isofrequency pairing—this would be interesting to check. When new, higher-order PN terms are calculated in the future, it would again be interesting to check if they reveal the phenomenon, as a way of assessing the faithfulness of the PN expressions in the strong-field regime. It would also be interesting to examine whether the phenomenon manifests itself in NR simulations of inspiralling black holes of comparable masses near the innermost stable orbit.
Because the fundamental frequencies are [*invariant*]{} characteristics of the conservative dynamics, they are useful as reference points for comparing the predictions of different approaches to the relativistic two-body problem. Recent examples of such “cross-cultural” comparisons include (i) calculations of the ISCO frequency in the self-force (SF), PN and effective-one-body (EOB) approaches [@Barack-Sago-PRL; @Damour-2010; @Favata-2011]; and (ii) calculations of the periastron advance in slightly eccentric orbits in SF, PN, EOB and NR [@Damour-2010; @Barack-Damour-Sago; @LeTiec_etal-2011]. In both examples (which involve two nonrotating black holes) relations between the two invariant frequencies associated with infinitesimally perturbed circular orbits were utilized as benchmarks for comparison. The singular curve/surface identified in our current work is an [*invariant structure*]{} in the parameter space [^2], which provides yet another, independent, comparison point in the strong field, this time utilizing eccentric orbits.
As a first example, one could consider the function $\Omega_{\varphi}(\Omega_r)$ along the singular curve in the parameter space of nonrotating binaries (Fig. \[fig:Schwarzschild\_Omega\_phi\_e\] shows this curve in the test-particle limit). In principle, one could compute this function in the SF approximation (i.e., order by order in the mass ratio), and perhaps also in fully nonlinear NR, making for an interesting comparison. There may be a way of using the results of such a calculation to calibrate the potentials of EOB theory in the strong field, although how this could be done in practice is yet unclear [@Damour-priv_comm]. Comparison with existing PN expressions could test the performance of the PN expansion in the strong field. A more constructive synergy could be achieved within the recent “phenomenological” approach to PN calculations, whereby high-order terms in the PN expansion are determined by fitting to numerical data from SF or NR calculations [@Blanchet_etal1; @Blanchet_etal2]. A faithful phenomenological PN model would need to be able to recover the singular curve in the strong field, perhaps through the inclusion of suitable “poles” in PN expressions.
Finally, let us mention the intriguing possibility that isofrequency pairing in astrophysical black holes (e.g., between clumps of accreting matter) could have observational implications. The question is worth asking because we are at an era where astronomical observations in a range of electromagnetic wavelengths routinely peer into processes deep in the strong-field potentials of accreting black holes. Quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) in x-rays from accreting black-hole systems probe the innermost regions of accretion disks [@Remillard-McClintock], and (to a lesser extent) so do x-ray flares from the Galactic center [@Eckart_etal]. Could the peculiar strong-gravity phenomenon of isofrequency pairing have a dynamical effect on matter orbiting the black hole, perhaps through resonant interaction? Although admittedly far-fetched, this possibility deserves exploration.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Sam Dolan, Steve Drasco, Carsten Gundlach, Scott Hughes, Amos Ori and Eric Poisson for helpful discussions. We are also grateful to Maarten van de Meent for feedback on the first version of this paper. NWs work was supported by STFC through a studentship grant and by the Irish Research Council, which is funded under the National Development Plan for Ireland. LB acknowledges support from the European Research Council under grant No. 304978, and from STFC through grant number PP/E001025/1.
[31]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRev.174.1559) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/151796) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.5.814) @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0264-9381/19/10/314) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.044015), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.103005), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.023012), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0264-9381/26/13/135002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.104016), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.084023) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1098/rspa.1961.0142) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.50.3816) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.044002) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.124013) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.084027) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.024027), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.124050) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.141101), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.191101), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.024017), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.024028), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.084036), @noop [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.084033), “,” in [**](\doibase 10.1007/978-90-481-3015-3_15), () pp. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1146/annurev.astro.44.051905.092532), [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1742-6596/372/1/012022),
[^1]: That the mapping $\{r_{\rm p},r_{\rm a},\theta_{\rm min}\}\leftrightarrow\{{\mathcal{E}}, {\mathcal{L}_z}, {\mathcal{Q}}\}$ is one-to-one can be establishing in the following way. We first note that Schmidt [@Schmidt] provides formula for $\{{\mathcal{E}}, {\mathcal{L}_z}, {\mathcal{Q}}\}$ in terms of $(p,e,\theta_\text{min})$, and that there is a bijection between $(p,e)\leftrightarrow\{r_{\rm p},r_{\rm a}\}$ (straightforward to see from Eqs. and their inverse). Furthermore Eqs. and imply that $r_1 \equiv r_a$, $r_2 \equiv r_p$ and $z_-$ (and hence $\theta_\text{min}$) are given uniquely in terms of $\{{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{L}_z},{\mathcal{Q}}\}$. The existence of these relations asserts that the original mapping is one-to-one.
[^2]: By “invariant structure” we refer to the fact that the singular surface in the frequency space is invariant under re-parametrization of the orbit, so long as the parameters used are in one-to-one correspondence with $\{{\mathcal{E}},{\mathcal{L}_z},{\mathcal{Q}}\}$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the Burgers equation on the real line with forcing given by Poissonian noise with no periodicity assumption. Under a weak concentration condition on the driving random force, we prove existence and uniqueness of a global solution in a certain class. We describe its basin of attraction that can also be viewed as the main ergodic component for the model. We establish existence and uniqueness of global minimizers associated to the variational principle underlying the dynamics. We also prove the diffusive behavior of the global minimizers on the universal cover in the periodic forcing case.'
address: |
School of Mathematics\
Georgia Institute of Technology\
686 Cherry Street\
Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0160\
USA\
author:
-
title: The Burgers equation with Poisson random forcing
---
.
.
Introduction
============
The Burgers equation is one of the basic nonlinear evolution equations. $$\label{eqburgers} \partial_t u(t,x)+u(t,x)\cdot\partial_x
u(t,x)= f(t,x).$$ Here $t\in{\mathbb{R}}$ is the time variable, and $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$ is the space variable. The equation describes the evolution of velocity vector field $u(\cdot,\cdot)$ of sticky dust particles in the presence of external potential forcing $f(t,x)=-\partial_x F(t,x)$.
Burgers introduced this equation as a turbulence model. Although it was soon discovered that the dynamics governed by [(\[eqburgers\])]{} does not describe turbulence adequately, the equation has naturally appeared in various other contexts, from cosmology to traffic modeling. An informative recent survey on Burgers turbulence is [@Bec-KhaninMR2318582].
One of the remarkable properties of the Burgers equation is that even if the initial data at time $t_0$ and the forcing are smooth, the solution of the Cauchy problem typically develops discontinuities or shocks, and if one wants to extend the solution beyond the formation of shock waves, one has to work with generalized solutions. Under mild assumptions on the initial data and forcing, only one of the generalized solutions is physical. This solution is called the entropy or viscosity solution, and it can be found using a characterization that is often called the Lax–Oleinik variational principle (see, e.g., [@Bec-KhaninMR2318582] and references therein). Namely, the solution potential \[a function $U$ such that $\partial_x
U(t,x)=u(t,x)$ for a.e. $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$\] satisfies $$U(t,x)=\inf_{\gamma: \gamma(t)=x} \biggl\{U\bigl(t_0,\gamma(t_0)
\bigr)+\int_{t_0}^t L\bigl(s,\gamma(s),\dot
\gamma(s)\bigr)\,ds \biggr\}. \label{eqvariationalprinciple}$$ The expression in the curly brackets is called action, and the the infimum of action is taken over all absolutely continuous trajectories $\gamma$ defined on $[t_0,t]$ and terminating at $x$ at time $t$. The Lagrangian $L$ is defined by $$L(t,x,p)= \frac{p^2}{2}-F(t,x).$$
Following the hydrodynamic interpretation of the Burgers equation, one can identify the action minimizers in [(\[eqvariationalprinciple\])]{} as the particle trajectories. This kind of representation holds true for a more general equation of Hamilton–Jacobi type. The specifics of the Burgers equation is that if $\gamma^*$ is a unique minimizer in [(\[eqvariationalprinciple\])]{}, then $u(t,x)=\dot\gamma^*(t)$.
When the forcing is a random field, one has to work with optimization problems for paths accumulating action from a random Lagrangian landscape, so questions about Burgers equations with randomness become random media questions.
The ergodic theory of the Burgers equation with random forcing begins with [@ekmsMR1779561]. The forcing in [@ekmsMR1779561] is assumed to be white noise type in time and smooth and periodic in space. Due to the periodicity assumption, the evolution effectively takes place on a circle. The compactness of the circle allows for efficient control of the long time behavior of action minimizers, which leads to constructing attracting global solutions and thus to a complete description of the ergodic components for the dynamics, each one consisting of all velocity profiles with given mean velocity.
This work was extended and streamlined in [@IturriagaMR1952472] and [@Gomes-Iturriaga-KhaninMR2241814], where the multidimensional version of the Burgers equation with positive or zero viscosity on a torus was considered. In [@ybMR2299503] the ergodic theory for the Burgers equation on a segment with random boundary conditions was developed.
In all of these papers the compactness of the domain played an important role. In fact, in the case of unbounded domain with no periodicity assumption, currently there is no complete understanding of the ergodic properties of the Burgers equation. Let us summarize what is known.
In [@Khanin-HoangMR1975784], the Burgers equation in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ with aperiodic white-noise forcing with certain localization properties was considered. A global solution constructed in the paper was shown to have a basin of attraction containing the zero velocity profile, but no interesting properties of the global solution were established, and the description of the domain of attraction of the global solution was incomplete.
In [@SuidanMR2141893], it was noted that in the absence of periodicity assumptions, the long time behavior of solutions can depend on the behavior of the initial condition at infinity in an essential way. In particular, it was shown that outside the main ergodic component (containing the zero velocity profile), there are solutions with significantly different behavior.
In this paper we introduce a new kind of random forcing for the Burgers equation on the real line with no periodicity assumption. The forcing potential we suggest is given by a Poisson point field. In this model, paths accumulate their action traveling through a cloud of random Poissonian points. Although this model preserves many features of the white noise model, it is easier to analyze and visualize. It also has much in common with the well-known Hammersley process (see, e.g., [@Aldous-DiaconisMR1355056]) which has been explicitly used for the analysis of hydrodynamic limit resulting in the Burgers equation in [@SeppMR1386297].=1
For the new model, we are able to construct a global solution via a limiting procedure seeded at zero initial condition, prove a so called one force—one solution principle (1F1S), and describe the main ergodic component of the system, that is, the basin of attraction of the global solution.
1F1S for the Burgers equation on the circle is tightly connected to the hyperbolicity of the global action minimizer. In particular, for any two Burgers particles, the distance between their backward trajectories (given by the corresponding one-sided action minimizers) converges to zero. A stronger phenomenon occurs in the case of Poissonian forcing: for any two particles, their backward trajectories will meet at one of the Poissonian points in finite time and coincide from that point on in the reverse time. This stronger form of hyperbolicity may naturally be called hyperhyperbolicity.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section \[secpoissonianmodel\] we introduce the new forcing model based on Poissonian points. In Section \[secgeometry-of-solutions\] we discuss the geometry of foliation of the space–time into particle trajectories under point forcing. In Section \[secmainres\] we formulate our main results. In Section \[secconstructing\] we construct the global solution. In Section \[secatinfty\] we describe its behavior at infinity. In Section \[secattractor\], we show that this solution is an attractor and describe its basin of attraction. In Section \[secglobalmin\] we study global minimizers. An important part of that section is a Central limit theorem discribing the diffusive behavior of global minimizers for periodic Poissonian forcing.
Poissonian point forcing {#secpoissonianmodel}
========================
The goal of this section is to describe the model rigorously, so let us now be more precise. The model is based on a Poisson point field, and we refer to [@KallenbergMR854102] for an introduction to point processes as random integer-valued measures.
We are working on a complete probability space $(\Omega,{\mathcal{F}},{\mathsf{P}})$. It is convenient to identify $\Omega$ with the space of locally finite point configurations $\omega=\{(s_i,x_i),
i\in{\mathbb{N}}\}$ in space–time ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}$. The sigma-algebra ${\mathcal{F}}$ is generated by maps $N(B)$ assigning to each $\omega$ the number of points of $\omega$ in a bounded Borel set $B\subset{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}$. The measure ${\mathsf{P}}$ is the distribution of a Poisson point field with intensity measure $\mu(dt\times dx)$.
Since we want the forcing to be stationary in time, we shall always assume that the intensity is a product measure $$\mu(dt\times dx)=dt\times m(dx).$$ Then for disjoint sets $B_1,\ldots, B_n$, the random variables $N(B_1),\ldots,N(B_n)$ are independent and Poissonian with parameters $\mu(B_1),\ldots,\mu(B_n)$.
We will denote the integral term in [(\[eqvariationalprinciple\])]{} as $${\mathcal{A}}^{t_0,t}(\gamma)=\int_{t_0}^t L\bigl(s,
\gamma(s),\dot\gamma(s)\bigr)\,ds=\frac{1}{2}\int_{t_0}^{t}
\dot\gamma^{2}(s)\,ds - \int_{t_0}^{t} F
\bigl(s,\gamma(s)\bigr)\,ds,$$ and redefine the contribution from the potential by $$\label{eqpoisson-forcing} \int_{t_0}^{t} F\bigl(s,
\gamma(s)\bigr)\,ds=N^{t_0,t}(\gamma),$$ where for a path $\gamma$ and times $t_0$ and $t$ satisfying $t_0<t$, $N^{t_0,t}(\gamma)=N^{t_0,t}_\omega(\gamma)$ is the number of Poissonian points that $\gamma$ passes through between $t_0$ and $t$. In other words, each Poissonian point visited by the path contributes $-1$ to the action. An immediate generalization of our model is a compound Poisson point field where each point comes with a random weight which results in random contributions to the action. In fact, all our results can be extended to that case under reasonable assumptions on the random weights. However, for simplicity we concentrate here on the simple Poisson process.
Definition [(\[eqpoisson-forcing\])]{} results in the following expression for action accumulated by a path $\gamma$ between times $t_0$ and $t>t_0$: $${\mathcal{A}}^{t_0,t_1}(\gamma)={\mathcal{A}}_\omega^{t_0,t}(\gamma)=
\frac{1}{2}\int_{t_0}^{t}\dot
\gamma^{2}(s)\,ds - N^{t_0,t}_\omega(\gamma).$$
It is well known (or can be easily derived from the Euler–Lagrange equations) that in the zero forcing field, the minimizers (or particle trajectories) are straight lines. We conclude that between visits to Poissonian points, action-minimizing paths are straight lines.
Let us introduce more notation. For two times $t_0$ and $t_1$, and two sets $A_0,A_1\subset{\mathbb{R}}$, we denote by $\Gamma_{t_0,A_0}^{t_1,A_1}$ the set of all piecewise linear paths defined between $t_0$ and $t_1$ such that switchings from one linear regime to another happen only at Poissonian points. We also denote the set of action minimizers over $\Gamma_{t_0,A_0}^{t_1,A_1}$ by $M_{t_0,A_0}^{t_1,A_1}=M_{t_0,A_0}^{t_1,A_1}(\omega)$. If $A_0$ or $A_1$ consists of one point $x$, we will often use index $x$ instead of $\{x\}$ in these notation.
To define the main random dynamical system, we must start with the phase space. First we recall that the natural space of solutions for the Burgers equation consists of piecewise continuous functions $u$ defined on ${\mathbb{R}}$, with right and left limits at every point, with at most countably many discontinuities, each discontinuity being a downward jump or shock $u(x-)>u(x+)$. (The shock absorbs incoming particles on both sides.) We shall impose an additional restriction on these functions to be bounded and will not distinguish between two functions that coincide at all their continuity points. We will denote the resulting factor space by ${\mathbb{U}}$, and often we will abuse the notation writing $u\in{\mathbb{U}}$ when $u$ is a representative of an element of ${\mathbb{U}}$.
We will need a measure of proximity in ${\mathbb{U}}$. We denote the set of continuity points of a function $h\in{\mathbb{U}}$ by $C_h$, and for any $h_1,h_2\in{\mathbb{U}}$, write $$d(h_1,h_2)=\exp\bigl[-\sup\bigl\{r>0\dvtx
h_1(x)=h_2(x), x\in C_{h_1}\cap C_{h_2}
\cap B_r \bigr\} \bigr],$$ where $B_r=[-r,r]$. If there is no neighborhood of the origin where $h_1$ and $h_2$ coincide, we set $d(h_1,h_2)=1$. If $h_1\equiv h_2$, we set $d(h_1,h_2)=0$. Thus defined $d$ is a metric in ${\mathbb{U}}$ taking values in $[0,1]$.
Given $v\in{\mathbb{U}}$, we can define a potential $V$ so that $V'(x)=v(x)$ for all $x$. For any times $t_0,t_1$ with $t_0<t_1$, we set $$\label{eqdefofcocycle} \Phi^{t_0,t_1}_\omega v(x)=\dot
\gamma^*(t_1),$$ where $\gamma^*$ is the solution of $$\label{eqminimizationproblem} A_V^{t_0,t_1}(\gamma)=V\bigl(
\gamma(t_0)\bigr)+{\mathcal{A}}^{t_0,t_1}_\omega(\gamma) \to\min,\qquad
\gamma\in\Gamma_{t_0,{\mathbb{R}}}^{t_1,x}.$$ Let us assume that $$\label{eqfiniteness-of-poisson} m({\mathbb{R}})<\infty,$$ and briefly summarize (without proof) several facts about the Burgers equation solution map $\Phi$ that apply to the current setting.
If $h\in{\mathbb{U}}$, then with probability 1 the following hold:
For any time interval $[t_0,t_1]$, in definition [(\[eqdefofcocycle\])]{}–[(\[eqminimizationproblem\])]{}, the minimizer $\gamma^*$ \[and, consequently, its slope $\dot\gamma
^*(t_1)$ at the terminal time $t_1$\] is defined uniquely for all $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$ except at most countably many points. Every point $x$ where $\Phi^{t_0,t_1}_\omega v(x)$ is uniquely defined is a continuity point of $\Phi^{t_0,t_1}_\omega v$. At any point where the minimizer is not unique, $\Phi^{t_0,t_1}_\omega v$ makes a downward jump.
The function $\Phi^{t_0,t_1}_\omega v$ is bounded (in particular, combining this with the first part of this lemma, we obtain that $\Phi^{t_0,t_1}_\omega$ is a map from ${\mathbb{U}}$ to itself).
Moreover, for all $\omega$, if $t_0\le t_1\le t_2$, $$\label{eqcocycle1} \Phi^{t_1,t_2}_\omega\Phi^{t_0,t_1}_\omega
v= \Phi^{t_0,t_2}_\omega v.$$
Introducing $\Phi^{t}_\omega=\Phi^{0,t}_\omega$ for $t\ge0$, we can rewrite the cocycle property [(\[eqcocycle1\])]{} as $$\Phi^{t_1+t_2}_\omega v=\Phi^{t_2}_{\theta^{t_1}\omega}
\Phi^{t_1}_\omega v,\qquad t_1,t_2\ge0,$$ where $\theta^t$ denotes the time shift of the Poissonian point field $(s_i,x_i)\mapsto\break (s_i-t,x_i)$.
Let us denote by ${\mathcal{F}}_A$ the sigma-algebra generated by the restriction of the Poissonian point field to $A\times{\mathbb{R}}$ for any set $A$ of times. Clearly, the random operator $\Phi_\omega^{t_0,t_1}$ depends only on the realization of the Poisson process between times $t_0$ and $t_1$; that is, it is measurable w.r.t. ${\mathcal{F}}_{[t_0,t_1]}$.
Geometry of solutions under Poissonian forcing {#secgeometry-of-solutions}
==============================================
Throughout this paper, we consider the external forcing that is concentrated on a discrete set of Poissonian points (we will often call them *forcing points*). This is different from traditionally considered smooth forcing fields, so let us understand the effect of this kind of forcing on the solution.
Let us consider a model situation where a smooth beam of Burgers particles encounters a forcing point at the origin at time $0$. Let us assume that at time $0$, the velocity vector field near $0$ is $u_0(y)=a+by$, where $b>0$.
It is clear that for every $(t,x)$ with $t>0$ and $x$ close to the origin, there are two minimizer candidates. The minimizer either passes through the origin, or it does not. If it does, then (assuming there are no other point sources of forcing) it has to be a straight line connecting the origin to $(t,x)$, and the accumulated action is $A_1(t,x)=x^2/(2t)-1$, where $-1$ is the contribution of the forcing point at the origin, and $x^2/(2t)$ is the action accumulated while moving with constant velocity $x/t$ between $0$ and $t$. If the minimizer does not pass through the origin, then it is a straight line connecting some point $(0,x_0)$ to $(t,x)$. On the one hand, the velocity of the particle associated with the minimizer is $(x-x_0)/t$. On the other hand, it has to coincide with $u_0(x_0)=a+bx_0$. Therefore, we can find $x_0=(x-at)/(1+bt)$. Taking into account that $U_0(x_0)=ax_0+bx_0^2/2$, we can compute that the total action of that path is $A_2(t,x)=(bx^2+2ax-a^2t)/(2(1+bt))$.
To see which of the two cases is realized for $(t,x)$ we must compare $A_1(t,x)$ and $A_2(t,x)$. If $A_1(t,x)<A_2(t,x)$, then the particle arriving to $x$ at time $t$ is at the origin at time $0$. If $A_1(t,x)>A_2(t,x)$, then the particle arriving to $x$ at time $t$ is one of the particles that moved with constant velocity and was a part of the incoming beam. If $A_1(t,x)=A_2(t,x)$, then both of these paths are minimizers, and at time $t$ there is a shock at point $x$. The relation $A_1(t,x)=A_2(t,x)$ can be rewritten as $$(x-at)^2=2t(1+bt).$$ For small values of $t$, the set of points satisfying this relation looks like a parabola $(x-at)^2=2t$; see Figure \[fig1pt\] where an example with $a=1$ and $b=1/2$ is shown.
![Minimizers around a forcing point.[]{data-label="fig1pt"}](747f01.eps)
We see that when a Poissonian point appears, it emits a continuum of particles, each moving with constant velocity, creating two shock fronts moving (at least for a short time) to the left and right.
It is important to notice that in our model case with a forcing point at the origin, $u(t,x)=x/t$ for all points connected to the origin by a minimizing segment. It means that for each time $t$, the velocity is linear in the domain of influence of the forcing point, and the velocity gradient decays with time as $1/t$.
In general, the behavior of this kind occurs near each forcing point, and in the long run more and more points of the space–time plane get assigned to forcing points. Grouping together points assigned to the same forcing point, we obtain a tesselation of space–time into domains of influence of forcing points. Inside each domain or cell, the velocity field is linear in $x$ if the time $t$ is fixed.
It is well known that in the Burgers equation the energy is dissipated at the shocks; see, e.g., [@Bec-KhaninMR2318582]. By seeding new particles at each Poissonian point, the forcing pumps energy into the system, and, therefore, we can hope that there is a dynamical or statistical energy balance in the system. We will actually see that this dissipation results in asymptotic alignment of the velocities of particles that keep moving away from the origin without being absorbed into shocks.
Another point of view at the stationarity and ergodicity issues for this system is related to the stabilization of the tesselation of space–time into cells described above.
Main result {#secmainres}
===========
Although it would be interesting to consider the situation where the spatial intensity measure $m(dx)$ satisfies $m({\mathbb{R}})=\infty$ (e.g., the Lebesgue measure on ${\mathbb{R}}$), throughout this paper we will adopt either assumption [(\[eqfiniteness-of-poisson\])]{} or an even stronger finite first moment assumption $$\int_{\mathbb{R}}\bigl(1+|x|\bigr)m(dx)< \infty. \label{eqmomentcondition}$$
\[thmain\] Suppose [(\[eqmomentcondition\])]{} holds. Then there is a set $\Omega'$ with ${\mathsf{P}}(\Omega')=1$ and a function $u\dvtx{\mathbb{R}}\times\Omega'\to{\mathbb{U}}$ such that on $\Omega'$ the following hold:
$u$ is measurable w.r.t. ${\mathcal{F}}_{(-\infty,0]}$. In other words, it depends only on $\omega|_{(-\infty,0]}$.
$u$ defines a global solution \[in other words, it is skew-invariant under $(\Phi,\theta)$\] $$\Phi^t_\omega u_\omega=u_{\theta^t\omega},\qquad t\ge0.$$
The solution $u_\omega$ is piecewise linear.
There is a nonrandom constant $q>0$ such that $$\lim_{x\to\pm\infty}u_\omega(x)=\pm q.$$
This solution $u$ plays the role of a one-point attractor. Namely, if $V'=v\in{\mathbb{U}}$ and $$\label{eqasymptoticslope} \liminf_{x\to\infty} \frac{V(x)}{x}> -q,$$ we have forward attraction, $$\label{eqfwdattr} d\bigl(\Phi^t_\omega v, u_{\theta^t\omega}
\bigr)\to0,\qquad t\to\infty,$$ and pullback attraction, $$\label{eqpullattr} d\bigl(\Phi^t_{\theta^{-t}\omega} v, u_\omega
\bigr)\to0,\qquad t\to\infty.$$
The function $u$ is a unique (up to zero measure modifications) global solution satisfying $$\label{equniqunessclass} \liminf_{x\to\infty} \frac{U_\omega
(x)}{x}>- q,$$ with positive probability (here $U_\omega$ is the potential of $u_\omega$, i.e., $U'_\omega\equiv u_\omega$).
One can reformulate the theorem in terms of a global solution defined as a function of three variables, $u_\omega(t,x)=u_{\theta^t\omega}(x)$.
If one accepts a weaker condition [(\[eqfiniteness-of-poisson\])]{}, then all conclusions of Theorem \[thmain\] except conclusion () still hold, and their proofs do not change. Conclusion () has to be replaced with a weaker one, $$\lim_{x\to\infty} \frac{U_\omega(x)}{x}=q.$$
Conclusion () means that in the stationary regime, at infinity one observes particles moving away from the origin with velocity $q$.
Conclusion () means that if one starts with an initial condition that sends particles from infinity toward zero with speed that is less than $q$ \[see condition [(\[eqasymptoticslope\])]{}\], then this inbound flow is not strong enough to compete with the outbound flow of particles developed due to the noise, and in the long run it is dominated by the latter. If condition [(\[eqasymptoticslope\])]{} is violated, then the long term properties of solutions are sensitive to the details of the behavior of the initial condition at infinity because the inbound flow of particles may be stronger than the outbound one, and one will observe effects similar to those discussed in [@SuidanMR2141893].
The uniqueness conclusion () and measurability property \[conclusion ()\] can be combined into 1F1S principle—at time 0 there is a unique velocity profile compatible with the history of the forcing.
Constructing a global solution {#secconstructing}
==============================
In this section we construct a global solution $u$. To do this, we start with the zero initial condition at time $-T$ and take $T$ to infinity. Our goal is to show that $\Phi^{-T,0}_\omega
0$ converges in $({\mathbb{U}},d)$ to a limiting function and that this limit defines a global solution.
It will be convenient to assume that 0 belongs to the support of measure $m$, i.e., for any $\delta>0$, $m(B_\delta)>0$. We adopt this nonresrictive assumption without loss of generality since one can always introduce a shift coordinate change to make it hold true.
Since all admissible paths are composed of straight line segments, we will often use the following elementary result on action accumulated along one segment:
\[lmaction-for-segment\] A path corresponding to a particle moving with constant velocity $v$ for time $t$ and visiting no Poissonian points, accumulates action equal to $$\frac{v^2t}{2}=\frac{vx}{2}=\frac{x^2}{2t},$$ where $x=vt$ is the traveled distance.
\[lmquasi-optimalpath\] There are numbers $a,b>0$ and an a.s.-finite random variable $\beta>0$ such that if $t>0$, $x\in{\mathbb{R}}$, and $\omega\in\Omega$ sastisfy $t-|x|-2b\ge\beta(\omega)$, then there is a path $\bar\gamma$ with $\bar\gamma(-t)=x$ and $${\mathcal{A}}^{-t,0}_\omega(\bar\gamma)<-\bigl(t-|x|\bigr)a+ |x|+b.$$
Let us consider sets $A_k=[-2k,-2k+1]\times
B_{1/2}$. For any $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, we have $${\mathsf{P}}\bigl\{N(A_k)\ne0\bigr\}=1 - e^{-M},$$ where $N(A_k)$ denotes the number of Poisson points in $A_k$ and $M=m(B_{1/2})$. For any $s>0$ we denote by $X(s)$ the random number of indices $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ satisfying $k<s/2$ and $N(A_k)\ne0$. The sequence ${\mathbf{1}}_{\{N(A_k)\ne0\}}$ is i.i.d. with mean $1-e^{-M}$, and the strong law of large numbers implies that there is a random time $\beta$ such that if $s>\beta$, then $$\label{eqllnforR} X(s)>s\bigl(1-e^{-M}\bigr)/3.$$ Consider a path $\bar\gamma$ that starts at $(-t,x)$ and visits exactly one point in set $A_k$ if $k$ satisfies $N(A_k)\ne0$ and $2k<t-|x|-1$, and no other points. Each Poissonian point in the path contributes $-1$ to the action, and we can use Lemma \[lmaction-for-segment\] to see that each segment connecting these points contributes at most $(2\cdot1/2)^2/2=1/2$. The slope of the segment with endpoint $(-t,x)$ does not exceed $1$, and contributes at most $(|x|+1)/2$ to the action.
If $t-|x|-1>\beta$, then we can combine this with [(\[eqllnforR\])]{} applied to $t-|x|-1$ and obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{A}}_\omega^{-t,0}(\bar\gamma)&<& - \bigl(t-|x|-1\bigr)\frac{1-e^{-M}}{3}
\frac
{1}{2}+\bigl(|x|+1\bigr)/2
\\
&<& - \bigl(t-|x|\bigr) \bigl(1-e^{-M}\bigr)/6 +|x|+\bigl(1-e^{-M}
\bigr)/6+1/2,\end{aligned}$$ and the lemma follows with $a=(1-e^{-M})/6$ and $b=(1-e^{-M})/6+1/2>1/2$ since $t-|x|-2b>\beta$ implies $t-|x|-1>\beta$.
Let us recall that $B_r=[-r,r]$ for any $r>0$. The following is the main localization lemma.
\[lmmain-loc\] There are random variables $r^-$, $r^+$, $r^{\pm}$, $(\tau
^-_R)_{R>0}$, $(\tau^+_R)_{R>0}$, $(\tau^\pm_R)_{R>0}$, such that for any $R>0$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqr-}
\qquad &&{\mathsf{P}}\bigl\{\mbox{there are } t>\tau^-_R, x\in
B_R \mbox{ and } \gamma\in M_{-t,x}^{0,{\mathbb{R}}} \mbox{ s.t. } \bigl|\gamma(0)\bigr|>r^- \bigr\}=0;
\\
\label{eqr+}
&&{\mathsf{P}}\bigl\{\mbox{there are } t>\tau^+_R, x\in
B_R \mbox{ and } \gamma\in M^{t,x}_{0,{\mathbb{R}}} \mbox{ s.t. } \bigl|\gamma(0)\bigr|>r^+ \bigr\}=0;
\\
\label{eqtwo-sided-r1}
&&{\mathsf{P}}\bigl\{\mbox{there are } t_-,t_+>\tau
^{\pm}_R,
x_-,x_+\in B_R \mbox{ and } \gamma\in M_{-t_-,x_-}^{t_+,x_+}
\mbox{ s.t. } \bigl|\gamma(0)\bigr|>r^\pm\bigr\}
\nonumber
\\[-8pt]
\\[-8pt]
\nonumber
&&\qquad=0.\end{aligned}$$
Additionally, there are random variables $(\bar\tau_R)_{R>0}$ and a number $R'>0$ such that for any $R>R'$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqtwo-sided-r2}\qquad &&{\mathsf{P}}\bigl\{\mbox{there are } t_->\bar\tau_R ,
t_+>\tau^{\pm
}_R, x_+\in B_R \mbox{ and }
\gamma\in M_{-t_-,{\mathbb{R}}}^{t_+,x_+} \mbox{ s.t. } \bigl|\gamma(0)\bigr|>r^\pm
\bigr\}
\nonumber
\\[-8pt]
\\[-8pt]
\nonumber
&&\qquad=0.\end{aligned}$$
The idea of this lemma is that minimizers over long time intervals are localized within a random neighborhood of the origin. Each of the random variables $r^-,r^+$ and $r^{\pm}$ can be called localization radius.
Let us prove [(\[eqr-\])]{} first. We are going to construct random variables $K$ and $h$ so that for any $R>0$ and for sufficiently large $t$, no path $\gamma$ with $|\gamma(0)|>Kh$ can belong to $M_{-t,x}^{0,{\mathbb{R}}}$ with $x\in B_R$. The reason why we need two random variables is that we will use $h$ as an intermediate threshold.
Let $x\in B_R$. Consider a path $\gamma$ defined on $[-t,0]$ such that $|\gamma(0)|>Kh$ and $\gamma(-t)=x$. Suppose that $|\gamma(-s)|\le h$ for some $s\in[0,t]$ and define $\sigma=\sup\{s\le t\dvtx |\gamma(-s)|\ge h\}.$ Then $${\mathcal{A}}^{-\sigma,0}_\omega(\gamma)\ge\frac{(K-1)^2h^2}{2\sigma}-
N\bigl([-
\sigma,0]\times B_{h}^c\bigr).$$ To treat the second term on the right-hand side, we need the following result:
\[lmlln-bound\] For any ${\varepsilon}>0$, there is a positive random variable $R_0$ such that with probability 1, for every $t>0$, $$N\bigl([-t,0]\times B_{R_0}^c\bigr) < {\varepsilon}t.$$
Let us choose a number $\alpha_1$ such that $m(B_{\alpha
_1}^c)<{\varepsilon}/2$. Due to the strong law of large numbers, there is a random time $\tau>0$ such that $N([-t,0]\times B_{\alpha_1}^c)<{\varepsilon}t$ for all $t>\tau$. With probability 1, there are finitely many Poissonian points in $[-\tau,0]\times{\mathbb{R}}$. Let $\alpha_2$ be the maximal absolute value of the spatial components of these points. The conclusion of the lemma holds true with $R_0=\alpha_1\vee\alpha_2$.
Coming back to the proof of [(\[eqr-\])]{}, let us set ${\varepsilon}=a/2$, where $a$ is defined in Lemma \[lmquasi-optimalpath\]. Lemma \[lmlln-bound\] applied to this value of ${\varepsilon}$ ensures the existence of $h=h(\omega)$ such that $${\mathcal{A}}^{-\sigma,0}_\omega(\gamma)\ge\frac{(K-1)^2h^2}{2\sigma} -
{\varepsilon}\sigma.
\label{eqlowerbound2}$$ If $\sigma<(K-1)h/\sqrt{2{\varepsilon}}$, then $A_\omega^{-\sigma,0}(\gamma
)>0$, and the comparison with a zero velocity trajectory with zero action proves that $\gamma$ cannot be a minimizer.
To treat the case where $$\label{eqthecaseoflargesigma1} \sigma\ge(K-1)h/\sqrt{2{\varepsilon}},$$ we will impose some restrictions on $K$. First, we require that $
K(\omega)\ge K_1(\omega)$, where $$K_1(\omega)= \biggl(\frac{\beta(\omega)+2b}{h(\omega)}+1 \biggr
)\sqrt{2{\varepsilon}}+2,$$ with $\beta$ and $b$ constructed in Lemma \[lmquasi-optimalpath\].
Then, under assumption [(\[eqthecaseoflargesigma1\])]{}, $\sigma
-h-2b>\beta$ and we can apply Lemma \[lmquasi-optimalpath\]. The path $\bar\gamma$ constructed in that lemma for point $(-\sigma,\gamma(-\sigma))$ satisfies $${\mathcal{A}}^{-\sigma,0}_\omega(\bar\gamma)\le-(\sigma-h)a+h+b.$$ On the other hand, [(\[eqlowerbound2\])]{} implies $${\mathcal{A}}_\omega^{-\sigma,0}(\gamma)\ge- {\varepsilon}\sigma\ge-a\sigma/2.$$ The last two inequalities imply $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{A}}^{-\sigma,0}_\omega(\bar\gamma)-{\mathcal{A}}^{-\sigma,0}_\omega
(\gamma)& \le&-(\sigma-h)a+h+b+ a\sigma/2
\\
&\le&-a\sigma/2 +h(a+1)+b,\end{aligned}$$ and, due to [(\[eqthecaseoflargesigma1\])]{}, the right-hand side is negative if we assume that $K(\omega)\ge K_2(\omega)$, where $$K_2(\omega)=\frac{2\sqrt{2{\varepsilon}}(h(\omega)(a+1)+b)}{ah(\omega)}+2.$$ Therefore, under this assumption $\gamma$ cannot be a minimizer. We conclude that if $K>K_1\vee K_2$, then $\gamma$ with $|\gamma(0)|>Kh$ cannot be a minimizer satisfying $|\gamma(-s)|\le h$ for some $s\in[0,t]$.
Let us now consider a path $\gamma$ with $|\gamma(-s)|>h$ for all $s\in[0,t]$. We have then $${\mathcal{A}}_\omega^{-t,0}(\gamma)\ge- {\varepsilon}t\ge-at/2.$$ On the other hand, we can invoke Lemma \[lmquasi-optimalpath\] to see that if $t-|x|-2b>\beta$, then there is a path $\bar\gamma$ with $\bar\gamma(-t)=x$ such that $${\mathcal{A}}_\omega^{-t,0}(\bar\gamma)<-\bigl(t-|x|\bigr)a+|x|+b$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{A}}_\omega^{-t,0}(\bar\gamma)-{\mathcal{A}}_\omega^{-t,0}(
\gamma)& \le&-\bigl(t-|x|\bigr)a+|x|+b+ at/2
\\
&\le&-at/2 +(a+1)|x|+b.\end{aligned}$$ Since $|x|\le R$, the right-hand side is negative if we require that $$t>\frac{2(R(a+1)+b)}{a}.$$ Under this additional assumption, $\gamma$ cannot be a minimizer. We conclude that [(\[eqr-\])]{} holds if one chooses $$r^-(\omega)= \bigl(K_1(\omega)\vee K_2(\omega)\bigr)h(
\omega)$$ and $$\tau^-_R(\omega)= \frac{2(R(a+1)+b)}{a} \vee\bigl(\beta(\omega)+R+2b
\bigr).\vspace*{1pt}$$
The second part of the lemma, equation [(\[eqr+\])]{}, is only a time reversed version of the first one. The proof of [(\[eqtwo-sided-r1\])]{} is an adaptation of the above argument to the two-sided situation.
Let us prove [(\[eqtwo-sided-r2\])]{}. First, choose $R'$ large enough to ensure that due to the law of large numbers, an optimal path cannot stay infinitely outside $B_{R'}$. Therefore, for sufficiently large $t_-$, minimizers from $M_{-t_-,{\mathbb{R}}}^{t_+,x_+}$ visit a point $x_-\in
B_{R'}\subset B_R$ between $-t_-$ and $-\tau_{R}^\pm$. Since $x_-,x_+\in B_R$ and a restriction of a minimizer is a minimizer itself, we can finish the proof by invoking [(\[eqtwo-sided-r1\])]{}.
Let us denote $$\begin{aligned}
r(\omega)&=&r^-(\omega)\vee r^+(\omega)\vee r^{\pm}(\omega),
\\
\tau_R(\omega)&=&\tau_R^-(\omega)\vee
\tau_R^+(\omega)\vee\tau_R^{\pm}(\omega),\qquad R>0,
\\
D_1(R,T)&=&\bigl\{r(\omega)<R,r\bigl(\theta^T\omega
\bigr)<R, \tau_{R}(\omega)<T, \tau_{R}\bigl(
\theta^T\omega\bigr)<T\bigr\},\qquad R,T>0.\end{aligned}$$
\[lmloc-with-positive-prob\] For any $L>0$ there are numbers $R>L$ and $T>0$ such that $P(D_1(R,T))>0$.
We take $R$ so large that ${\mathsf{P}}\{r(\omega)>R\}
<1/4$. Then ${\mathsf{P}}\{
r(\theta^t\omega)>R\}<1/4$ for any $t$ since $\theta^t$ preserves the measure. Then we take $T$ so large that ${\mathsf{P}}\{\tau_{R}(\omega)>T\}<1/4$. Then ${\mathsf{P}}\{\tau_{R}(\theta
^T\omega)>T\}<1/4$, and the lemma follows.
Let us fix the values of $R$ and $T$ given by Lemma \[lmloc-with-positive-prob\] and introduce a new event $D_2(R,T)$ consisting of all outcomes $\omega$ admitting a point $(t^*,x^*)=(t^*,x^*)(\omega)\in[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}$ such that for any $x,y\in B_R$, the optimal path connecting $(0,x)$ and $(T,y)$ passes through $(t^*,x^*)$.
\[lmcollapse-with-positive-prob\] Let $R$ and $T$ be provided by Lemma \[lmloc-with-positive-prob\]. Then $${\mathsf{P}}\bigl(D_1(R,T)\cap D_2(R,T)\bigr)>0.$$
The proof of this lemma is based on a resampling of the point configurations in $[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}$ according to a certain kernel. In this proof it is convenient to represent $\omega\in\Omega$ as $\omega=(\omega_{\mathrm{in}},\omega_{\mathrm{out}})$ where $\omega_{\mathrm{in}}\in\Omega_{\mathrm{in}}$ and $\omega_{\mathrm{out}}\in\Omega_{\mathrm{out}}$ are restrictions of the point configuration $\omega$ to $[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}$ and its complement. We also denote by ${\mathsf{P}}_{\mathrm{in}}$ and ${\mathsf{P}}_{\mathrm{out}}$ the distributions of Poisson point field in $[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}$ and its complement in ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}$.
We will take a large number $n$ and consider a family of rectangles $L_k,k=1,\ldots,n$ in $[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}$. We postpone a precise description of these rectangles.
For every $\omega\in D_1=D_1(R,T)$ we consider a new random configuration $\omega'$. It coincides with $\omega$ outside of $[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}$, and the restriction of $\omega
'$ onto $[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}$ consists of $n$ independent random points such that for each $k=1,\ldots,n$, the distribution of $k$th point is concentrated in $L_k$, $k=1,\ldots,n$. Let us denote the distribution of the configuration of these $n$ points in $[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}$ by ${\mathsf{P}}'_{\mathrm{in}}$. Later, we shall choose the distributions of individual points appropriately to make ${\mathsf{P}}'_{\mathrm{in}}$ absolutely continuous w.r.t. ${\mathsf{P}}_{\mathrm{in}}$.
To define the resampling more formally, for any $\omega$ we consider a version of conditional probability ${\mathsf{P}}(\cdot|\omega_{\mathrm{out}})$ defined for a set $D$ by $${\mathsf{P}}(D|\omega_{\mathrm{out}})= {\mathsf{P}}_{\mathrm{in}}\bigl\{\omega'_{\mathrm{in}}
\dvtx\bigl(\omega'_{\mathrm{in}},\omega_{\mathrm{out}}\bigr)\in D
\bigr\},$$ and define a new measure ${\mathsf{P}}'$ via $${\mathsf{P}}'(E|\omega_{\mathrm{out}})={\mathsf{P}}(D_1|
\omega_{\mathrm{out}}){\mathsf{P}}'_{\mathrm{in}}\bigl\{
\omega'_{\mathrm{in}}\dvtx\bigl(\omega'_{\mathrm{in}},
\omega_{\mathrm{out}}\bigr)\in E\bigr\}$$ and $${\mathsf{P}}'(E)=\int_{\Omega_{\mathrm{out}}} {\mathsf{P}}_{\mathrm{out}}(d
\omega_{\mathrm{out}}){\mathsf{P}}'(E|\omega_{\mathrm{out}}).$$
Let us prove that ${\mathsf{P}}'\ll{\mathsf{P}}$. We must show that for any set $E$ with ${\mathsf{P}}'(E)>0$, we have ${\mathsf{P}}(E)>0$. Since ${\mathsf{P}}'(E)>0$, the definition of ${\mathsf{P}}'$ yields $${\mathsf{P}}_{\mathrm{out}}\bigl\{\omega_{\mathrm{out}}\dvtx{\mathsf{P}}'(E|
\omega_{\mathrm{out}})>0\bigr\}>0. \label{eqpositiveset}$$ Notice that if $\omega_{\mathrm{out}}$ satisfies ${\mathsf{P}}'(E|\omega_{\mathrm{out}})>0$, then ${\mathsf{P}}(D_1|\omega_{\mathrm{out}})>0$ and ${\mathsf{P}}'_{\mathrm{in}}\{\omega'_{\mathrm{in}}\dvtx\break (\omega'_{\mathrm{in}},\omega_{\mathrm{out}})\in E\}
>0$. The latter and the absolute continuity of ${\mathsf{P}}'_{\mathrm{in}}$ w.r.t. ${\mathsf{P}}_{\mathrm{in}}$ imply that ${\mathsf{P}}_{\mathrm{in}}\{\omega'_{\mathrm{in}}\dvtx(\omega'_{\mathrm{in}},\omega_{\mathrm{out}})\in E\}>0$ for such $\omega_{\mathrm{out}}$. Therefore, due to [(\[eqpositiveset\])]{}, $${\mathsf{P}}(E)= {\mathsf{P}}_{\mathrm{out}}\times{\mathsf{P}}_{\mathrm{in}}(E)=\int
_{\Omega} {\mathsf{P}}_{\mathrm{out}}(d\omega_{\mathrm{out}})
{\mathsf{P}}_{\mathrm{in}}\bigl\{\omega'_{\mathrm{in}}\dvtx\bigl(
\omega'_{\mathrm{in}},\omega_{\mathrm{out}}\bigr)\in E\bigr\} > 0,$$ and the absolute continuity is proven.
Therefore, ${\mathsf{P}}(D_1(R,T)\cap D_2(R,T))>0$ will hold if $$\label{eqp-prime-positive} {\mathsf{P}}'\bigl(D_1(R,T)\cap
D_2(R,T)\bigr)>0.$$ So, it remains to finish the construction of the measure ${\mathsf{P}}'_{\mathrm{in}}$ and ensure that [(\[eqp-prime-positive\])]{} holds along with ${\mathsf{P}}'_{\mathrm{in}}\ll{\mathsf{P}}_{\mathrm{in}}$.
We know that ${\mathsf{P}}(D_1(R,T))>0$, and therefore there are numbers $l\in
{\mathbb{N}}$ and $\Delta,M>0$ such that $${\mathsf{P}}\bigl(D_1(R,T,l,M,\Delta)\bigr)>0, \label
{eqpositiveprobabilitywithnumberofpoints}$$ where $$D_1(R,T,l,M,\Delta)=D_1(R,T)\cap\bigl\{N\bigl([0,T]
\times{\mathbb{R}}\bigr)=N\bigl([\Delta,T-\Delta]\times B_M\bigr)=l\bigr\}.$$
We let $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ be a large number and $\delta\in(0,1/2)$ a small number to be chosen later and define $L_k=J_k\times
B_\delta$, $k=1,\ldots, n$, where $J_k=[(2k-1)T/(2n+1), 2kT/(2n+1)]$. The measure ${\mathsf{P}}'_{\mathrm{in}}$ on configurations in $[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}$ is defined as follows: all configurations consist of exactly $n$ independent points, $k$th point distributed independently in $L_k$ according to $(2n+1)/(m(B_\delta)T)m(dx)\,dt$. Equivalently, we can say that ${\mathsf{P}}'_{\mathrm{in}}$ is the distribution of the original Poissonian point field conditined on having exactly one point in each $L_k$. Thus, the absolute continuity property ${\mathsf{P}}'_{\mathrm{in}}\ll{\mathsf{P}}_{\mathrm{in}}$ holds and it remains to prove [(\[eqp-prime-positive\])]{}. Taking into account [(\[eqpositiveprobabilitywithnumberofpoints\])]{}, it is sufficient to show that for any $\omega\in
D_1(R,T,l,M,\Delta)$, $${\mathsf{P}}'_{\mathrm{in}} \bigl\{\omega'_{\mathrm{in}}
\dvtx\bigl(\omega'_{\mathrm{in}},\omega_{\mathrm{out}}\bigr)\in
D_1(R,T)\cap D_2(R,T) \bigr\}=1. \label{eqwithprob1newomegaisgood}$$
First, let us prove that resampled point configurations belong to $D_1(R,T)$. Since resampling happens only inside $[0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}$, the time $\tau^-_R$ (depending only on the realization in $(-\infty
,0]\times{\mathbb{R}}$) does not change. Therefore $r^-(\omega')<R$ and $\tau^-_R(\omega')<T$, where $\omega
'=(\omega'_{\mathrm{in}},\omega_{\mathrm{out}})$.
Let us prove that $r^+(\omega')<R$ and $\tau^+_R(\omega')<T$. We need to show that for any $y\in B_R$ and any $t>T$, any $\gamma'\in M_{0,{\mathbb{R}}}^{t,y}(\omega')$ satisfies $\gamma'(0)\in B_R$. This is certainly true if $\gamma'$ passes through a point of $\omega'_{\mathrm{in}}$. So, let us assume that it does not pass through any points of $\omega'_{\mathrm{in}}$. Therefore, between $0$ and $T$ it is a straight line. Consider now a path $\gamma\in
M_{0,{\mathbb{R}}}^{t,y}(\omega)$. We know that $\gamma(0)\in B_R$. Let $t_0=\sup\{t\in[0,T]\dvtx
\gamma
(t)\in B_R\}$. Due to the definition of $D_1(R,T,l,M,\Delta)$, $t_0>\Delta$.
Let the path $\bar\gamma$ visit all available points in $\omega
'_{\mathrm{in}}$ between $0$ and $t_0/2$, then move straight to $(t_0,\gamma'(t_0))$ and coincide with $\gamma$ after $t_0$. We are going to show that ${\mathcal{A}}_{\omega'}^{0,t}(\bar\gamma)<
{\mathcal{A}}_{\omega'}^{0,t}(\gamma')$ so that $\gamma'$ cannot be a minimizer. Since $\gamma'$ does not pass through any points of $\omega'_{\mathrm{in}}$, $$\label{eqinterchangingpaths} {\mathcal{A}}_{\omega'}^{0,t}\bigl(
\gamma'\bigr)\ge{\mathcal{A}}_{\omega}^{0,t}\bigl(
\gamma'\bigr) \ge{\mathcal{A}}_{\omega}^{0,t}(\gamma)\ge
{\mathcal{A}}_{\omega'}^{0,t}(\bar\gamma)+\bigl({\mathcal{A}}_{\omega}^{0,t}(
\gamma)-{\mathcal{A}}_{\omega'}^{0,t}(\bar\gamma)\bigr).$$
Let us estimate the difference in the right-hand side. Switching from $\gamma$ to $\bar\gamma$, we lose at most $l$ Poissonian points, but what do we gain? The action of a path visiting $r$ points from $\omega'_{\mathrm{in}}$ in a row does not exceed $$A(r)=r\frac{(2\delta)^2}{2T/(2n+1)}-r,$$ and, since there are at least $nt_0/(3T)$ points visited by $\bar
\gamma$ in $\omega'_{\mathrm{in}}$ between $0$ and $t_0$, $${\mathcal{A}}_{\omega'}^{0,t_0}(\bar\gamma)<\frac{nt_0}{3T} \biggl(
\frac
{(2\delta)^2}{2T/(2n+1)}-1 \biggr)+\frac{R^2}{2(t_0/2)}.$$ Therefore, $${\mathcal{A}}_{\omega}^{0,t}(\gamma)-{\mathcal{A}}_{\omega'}^{0,t}(
\bar\gamma)\ge-l + \frac{nt_0}{3T} \biggl(1-\frac{(2\delta
)^2}{2T/(2n+1)} \biggr)-
\frac
{R^2}{2(t_0/2)}.$$ Choosing $n$ to be large and $\delta$ small, we see that the right-hand side is positive, which in conjunction with [(\[eqinterchangingpaths\])]{}, gives the desired inequality ${\mathcal{A}}_{\omega'}^{0,t}(\bar\gamma)< {\mathcal{A}}_{\omega'}^{0,t}(\gamma')$.
This finishes the proof of $r^+(\omega')<R$ and $\tau^+_R(\omega
')<T$. It is also easy to adjust the above argument to show that $r(\omega')<R$ and $\tau_R(\omega')<T$, and in the same way one can prove that $r(\theta^T\omega')<R$ and $\tau_R(\theta^T\omega')<T$. Thus, $\omega'\in D_1(R,T)$, and it remains to prove that $\omega'\in D_2(R,T)$ a.s.
Let us prove the following claim: for any points $x,y\in B_R$, an optimal path $\gamma\in M_{x,0}^{y,T}(\omega')$ cannot avoid all points of $\omega'$ between $0$ and $T/3$. In fact, if it does avoid these points, then $$\label{eqactionforonethirdavoiding} {\mathcal{A}}_{\omega'}^{0,T}(\gamma)
\ge-\tfrac{2}{3}n-1.$$ On the other hand, consider the path $\bar\gamma\in\Gamma
_{0,x}^{T,y}$ that visits all points of $\omega'$ between $T/8$ and $7T/8$, $$\label{eqactionforthreequartersvisits} {\mathcal{A}}_{\omega'}^{0,T}(\bar
\gamma)\le2 \frac{(2R)^2}{2
T/8}- \biggl(n \biggl(\frac{7T}{8}-
\frac{T}{8} \biggr)-2 \biggr) \biggl(1-\frac{(2\delta
)^2}{2T/(2n+1)} \biggr),$$ and, for sufficiently small $\delta$ and large $n$, ${\mathcal{A}}_{\omega
'}^{0,T}(\bar\gamma)<{\mathcal{A}}_{\omega'}^{0,T}(\gamma)$, which contradicts our assumption $\gamma\in M_{x,0}^{y,T}(\omega')$. Our claim is proven, and in the same way one can prove that an optimal path $\gamma\in M_{x,0}^{y,T}(\omega')$ must pass through one of the points of $\omega'$ between $2T/3$ and $T$. Clearly, for sufficiently small $\delta>0$ any optimal path passing through a point in $\omega'$ between $0$ and $T/3$ and a point in $\omega'$ between $2T/3$ and $T$ also passes through all points in $\omega'$ in between. Therefore, $\omega'\in D_2(R,T)$, and the proof of Lemma \[lmcollapse-with-positive-prob\] is complete.
We can now construct a global solution. For a set $A$ of paths and a time interval $[s,t]$, we denote by $A |_{[s,t]}$ the set of restrictions of all trajectories from $A$ to $[s,t]$.
Let $R>0$. There are two random times $\sigma_0,\sigma
_1>0$ such that for all $x\in B_R$ and any two times $t_1,t_2>\sigma_1$, $$M_{-t_1,{\mathbb{R}}}^{0,x}(\omega) |_{[-\sigma_0,0]}= M_{-t_2,{\mathbb{R}}}^{0,x}(
\omega) |_{[-\sigma_0,0]}.$$
The ergodicity of $\theta^1$, Lemma \[lmcollapse-with-positive-prob\] and Poincaré’s Recurrence theorem imply that with probability $1$, there is an integer time $n>T$ such that $\theta
^{-n}\omega\in D_1(R,T)\cap D_2(R,T)$. Without loss of generality we can assume that $R>R'$, where $R'$ is defined in Lemma \[lmmain-loc\]. The last part of that lemma implies that if we define $$\sigma_1(\omega)=n+\bar\tau_R\bigl(
\theta^{-n}\omega\bigr)+\bar\tau_R\bigl(
\theta^{-n+T}\omega\bigr), \label{eqcouplingtime}$$ then for any $t>\sigma_1$ and any $x\in B_R$, any path $\gamma\in
M_{-t,{\mathbb{R}}}^{0,x}(\omega)$ satisfies $\gamma(-n)\in B_{r^{\pm}(\theta^{-n}\omega)}\subset B_R
$ and $\gamma(-n+T)\in
B_{r^{\pm}(\theta^{-n+T}\omega)}\subset B_R$. Here we used the fact that $\theta^{-n}\omega\in D_1(R,T)$.
Since $\theta^{-n}\omega\in D_2(R,T)$, for any $t_1$ and $t_2$ satisfying [(\[eqcouplingtime\])]{} and any $x\in B_R$, any paths $\gamma_1\in M_{-t_1,{\mathbb{R}}}^{0,x}(\omega)$ and $\gamma_2\in M_{-t_2,{\mathbb{R}}}^{0,x}(\omega)$ pass through a common point at some time $\sigma_0\in[-n,-n+T]$. Therefore, the restrictions of the sets of minimizers on $[-\sigma_0,0]$ coincide, and the proof is complete.
\[remone-sidedminimizers\] In fact, there is an infinite, strictly increasing sequence $(n_k)_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}}$ such that $\theta^{-n_k}\omega\in D_1(R,T)\cap D_2(R,T)$ for all $k$. Therefore, the theorem can be strengthened. Its conclusion holds for any (random or deterministic) $\sigma_0>0$. In particular, the finite time minimizers stabilize to a limiting infinite one-sided minimizer.
We can now finish our construction of the global solution $u$. For any $r\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and $R>0$, the restriction of $\Phi^{-s,t}0$ on $B_R$ stabilizes for large values of $s$, and $$u_\omega(t)=({\mathbb{U}},d)\lim_{s\to\infty} \Phi^{-s,t}0$$ is well defined. Clearly, the construction of $u_\omega(t)$ depends only on the restriction of $\omega$ on $(-\infty,t]\times{\mathbb{R}}$.
Since restrictions of minimizers are also minimizers, we can deduce that for any time interval $[t_0,t_1]$, $u_\omega(t_1)$ is the solution of the Cauchy problem with initial value $u_\omega(t_0)$. Therefore, thus constructed function $u_\omega$ is a global solution of the Burgers equation corresponding to the realization of the random forcing $\omega$. This proves parts () and () of the main theorem.
Let us prove part () of the main theorem. For each point $x$ of continuity of $u_\omega$, we denote $\pi_\omega(x)$ the Poissonian point that is visited last by the minimizer $\gamma\in M_{-t,{\mathbb{R}}}^{0,x}$ for sufficiently large $t$. The map $\pi_\omega$ is piecewise constant. If $\pi_\omega(x)=(s_i,x_i)$ for all $x$ in an interval $J$, then $$u_\omega(x)=\frac{x-x_i}{|s_i|},\qquad x\in J,$$ and part () follows.
The behavior of global solution u(t,x) as x to infinity {#secatinfty}
=======================================================
In this section we prove part () of the main theorem. We will concentrate on proving the limit behavior as $x\to+\infty$ since the limit $x\to-\infty$ can be studied in exactly the same way.
The idea is that if we want to consider, say, a path in $M_{0,{\mathbb{R}}}^{T,x}$ for large values of $x$ and $T$, then the path naturally decomposes into two parts. Most Poissonian points are scattered over a compact domain, so in a certain time interval $[0,t]$ the path mostly stays in a compact domain around the origin collecting action at approximately linear rate $S<0$, and then it leaps from the compact domain straight to $x$ roughly with constant speed between $t$ and $T$, hardly meeting any Poissonian points in this regime and collecting approximately $x^2/(2(T-t))$ action. Finding the minimum of $$St+\frac{x^2}{2(T-t)},\qquad t\in[0,T],$$ we obtain that the optimal $t$ satisfies $$\frac{x}{t}=\sqrt{-2S}.\vadjust{\goodbreak}$$
This nonrigorous argument shows that we can hope that part () of the main theorem holds with $q=\sqrt{-2S}$.
To make this argument precise, we need to control the deviations of the action on $[0,t]$ from $St$ and to control the behavior of minimizers very far from the origin where Poissonian points are sparse.
For any connected set $I\subset{\mathbb{R}}$ and any time interval $[t_0,t_1]$, we can define
$$S_I^{t_0,t_1}=S_I^{t_0,t_1}(\omega)=\inf
\bigl\{{\mathcal{A}}^{t_0,t_1}_\omega(\gamma)\dvtx\gamma(s)\in I\mbox{ for
all } s\in[t_0,t_1] \bigr\}.$$ Clearly, this function is superadditive: $$S_I^{t_0,t_2}\ge S_I^{t_0,t_1}+
S_I^{t_1,t_2},\qquad t_0\le t_1 \le
t_2.$$
The ergodicity of the flow $(\theta^t)_{t\in{\mathbb{R}}}$ and Kingman’s subbaditive ergodic theorem imply that the following random variable is well defined and a.s.-constant: $$S_I=\lim_{t_1\to\infty}\frac{1}{t_1-t_0}S_I^{t_0,t_1}=
\lim_{t_0\to-\infty}\frac{1}{t_1-t_0}S_I^{t_0,t_1}=\mathop{
\lim_{t_0\to-\infty}}_
{t_1\to\infty}\frac{1}{t_1-t_0}S_I^{t_0,t_1}.$$ Clearly, $S_{B_R}$ is a nonincreasing negative function of $R>0$, and we define $S=\lim_{R\to\infty}S_{B_R}<0$.
\[lmSaslimit\] Thus defined constant $S$ satisfies $S=S_{\mathbb{R}}$.
Obviously, $S_{\mathbb{R}}\le S_{B_R}$ for any $R$. Therefore, we only have to prove that $S_{\mathbb{R}}\ge S$. Let us take any $t>0$ and any path $\gamma$ realizing $S_{{\mathbb{R}}}^{0,t}$. Taking any $R>0$ and decomposing $\gamma$ into parts that stay inside $B_R$ and outside $B_R$, we see that $$S_{\mathbb{R}}^{0,t}={\mathcal{A}}^{0,t}_\omega(\gamma)\ge
S_{B_R}^{0,t}-N\bigl([0,t]\times B_R^c
\bigr).$$ Dividing by $t$ and taking $t\to\infty$, we obtain $$S_{\mathbb{R}}\ge S_{B_R}-m\bigl(B_R^c
\bigr).$$ Taking $R\to\infty$ finishes the proof of the lemma.
\[lmexpectation-converge\] $$\lim_{t\to\infty} \frac{{\mathsf{E}}S_{B_R}^{0,t}}{t} = S_{B_R}.$$
Since $$0\ge\frac{S_{B_R}^{0,t}}{t} \ge-\frac{N([0,t]\times{\mathbb{R}})}{t},$$ the lemma follows by dominated convergence.
\[lmlarge-deviation\]
Let $R\in(0,\infty]$. If $S'<S$, then there are constants $c=c(S')>0$ and $T_0=T_0(S')>0$ such that for $T>T_0$, $${\mathsf{P}}\biggl\{\inf_{t\ge T} \frac{S^{0,t}_{B_R}}{t}<S' \biggr
\}<e^{-cT}.$$
If $S'>S$, then there is a constant $R_0=R_0(S')$ with the following property: for every $R\in[R_0,\infty]$, there are $c=c(S', R)>0$ and $T_0=T_0(S',\break R)>0$ such that for $T>T_0$, $${\mathsf{P}}\biggl\{\sup_{t\ge T} \frac{S_{B_R}^{0,t}}{t}> S' \biggr
\}<e^{-cT}.$$
Recall that $S_{B_R}\downarrow S<0$. Since $S'<S<S_{B_R}$, Lemma \[lmexpectation-converge\] allows us to choose $s$ such that $$\label{eqestimateonexpect} {\mathsf{E}}S_{B_R}^{0,s}> s
\frac{S_{B_R}+S'}{2}.$$ Then we notice that $$\begin{aligned}
S_{B_R}^{0,t}&\ge& S_{B_R}^{0,s}(
\omega)+S_{B_R}^{s,2s}(\omega)+\cdots+S_{B_R}^{[t/s]s,([t/s]+1)s}(
\omega)
\\
&\ge& S_{B_R}^{0,s}(\omega)+S_{B_R}^{0,s}
\bigl(\theta^{s}\omega\bigr)+\cdots+S_{B_R}^{0,s}
\bigl(\theta^{[t/s]s}\omega\bigr).\end{aligned}$$ Let us denote the right-hand side by $\Sigma_{[t/s]+1}$. It is the sum of $[t/s]+1$ i.i.d. nonpositive random variables with finite exponential moments, and with expectations estimated by [(\[eqestimateonexpect\])]{}.
Since $\frac{S't}{[t/s]+1}\to S's$ as $t\to\infty$, and $S'<(S_{B_R}+S')/2$, the estimate $${\mathsf{P}}\bigl\{S_{B_R}^{0,t}<S't\bigr\}\le
K_1e^{-c_1t}$$ for all $S'<S$, some $K_1=K_1(S')$, $c_1=c_1(S')>0$ and all $t>0$, is a consequence of the classical Cramér large deviation estimate. Since $S_{B_R}^{0,t}$ is nonincreasing in $t$, and $$\inf_{s\in[t,t+1]}\bigl(S_{B_R}^{0,s}-S_{B_R}^{0,t}
\bigr)\ge- N\bigl([t,t+1]\times{\mathbb{R}}\bigr),$$ we can use this maximal inequality in a standard way to interpolate between $t$ and $t+1$ and obtain $${\mathsf{P}}\biggl\{\inf_{s\in[t,t+1]} \frac{S_{B_R}^{0,s}}{s}<S' \biggr\}
\le
K_2e^{-c_2t}$$ for all $S'<S$, some $K_2=K_2(S')$, $c_2=c_2(S')>0$ and all $t>0$. Now the first part of the lemma follows. The proof of the second part of the lemma is essentially the same.
Now we turn to ruling out paths ending at a large $x$ and having slopes deviating significantly from $q$. For any $x>0$, ${\varepsilon}\in(0, q)$, and $R\in(0,x)$ let us denote $$\begin{aligned}
Q_+(x,{\varepsilon},R)&=&\bigl\{(t,y)\dvtx y\in(R,x), t<0, y< x+t(q+{\varepsilon})\bigr\},
\\
Q_-(x,{\varepsilon},R)&=&\bigl\{(t,y)\dvtx y\in(R,x), t<0, y> x+t(q-{\varepsilon})\bigr\}.\end{aligned}$$
\[lmnoshortpath\] For each ${\varepsilon}>0$, there is random variable $R$ such that:
\[lmQplus\]For any $x>2R$, a path $\gamma$ inside $Q_+$ connecting a point $(t,y)\in
\partial Q_+(x,{\varepsilon}, R)$ with $y> R$ to $(0,x)$ and $\dot\gamma(0)>q+2{\varepsilon}$ cannot be a minimizer.
For any $x>2R$, a path $\gamma$ inside $Q_-$ connecting a point $(t,y)\in
\partial Q_-(x,{\varepsilon}, R)$ with $y> R$ to $(0,x)$ and $\dot\gamma(0)<q-2{\varepsilon}$ cannot be a minimizer.
First, we notice that condition [(\[eqmomentcondition\])]{} implies that the set $\{(t,x)\dvtx\break -x<t<0 \}$ contains finitely many Poissonian points with probability $1$. Therefore, we can define a random variable $r_0$ such that with probability $1$, there are no Poissonian points in the set $$A=\bigl\{(t,x)\dvtx x>r_0, -x<t<0 \bigr\}.$$ Let us now define $\rho=q/(2+q)$ and, for any $x$, $$A_x=[-\rho x/q,0]\times[x-\rho x,x].$$ It is easy to check that $(-\rho x/q, x-\rho x)\in A$ for sufficiently large values of $x$. Therefore, for these values of $x$, $A_x\subset A$. We conclude that there is a random number $r_1$ such that for $x>r_1$, there are no Poissonian points in $A_x$.
Let us now take a path $\gamma$ satisfying the conditions of part \[lmQplus\] of the lemma. We would like to compare this path to the straight line segment connecting $(t,y)$ and $(0,x)$.
\[lmdeviation-from-straight\] Consider points $(t_0,x_0)$, $(t_1,x_1)$, $(t_2,x_2)$ satisfying $t_0<t_1<t_2$. The free action (i.e., the action without taking account the contribution from the Poissonian points) of the path connecting these points is bounded below by $$\frac{(x_2-x_0)^2}{2(t_2-t_0)}+\frac{2}{t_2-t_0}(x_1-\bar x)^2,$$ where $$\bar x=\frac{x_2(t_1-t_0)+x_0(t_2-t_1)}{t_2-t_0},$$ so that $|x_1-\bar x|$ is the distance from $(t_1,x_1)$ to the straight line connecting $(t_0,x_0)$ and $(t_2,x_2)$, measured along the $x$-axis.
The free action minimizing path consists of two straight line segments connecting $(t_0,x_0)$ to $(t_1,x_1)$ and $(t_1,x_1)$ to $(t_2,x_2)$. The resulting action is a quadratic polynomial in $x_1$, $$\begin{aligned}
f(x_1)&=&\frac{(x_1-x_0)^2}{2(t_1-t_0)}+\frac
{(x_2-x_1)^2}{2(t_2-t_1)}
\\
&=&\frac{t_2-t_0}{2(t_2-t_1)(t_1-t_0)}(x_1-\bar x)^2+\frac
{(x_2-x_0)^2}{2(t_2-t_0)},\end{aligned}$$ and the estimate $$\frac{t_2-t_0}{2(t_2-t_1)(t_1-t_0)}=\frac
{(t_2-t_1)+(t_1-t_0)}{2(t_2-t_1)(t_1-t_0)}\ge\frac
{2}{(t_2-t_1)+(t_1-t_0)} =\frac{2}{t_2-t_0}$$ completes the proof.
Let us denote by $(s,z)$ the Poissonian point that is connected by the last segment of path $\gamma$ to $(0,x)$. To apply Lemma \[lmdeviation-from-straight\], we must estimate the distance from $(s,z)$ to the straignt line connecting $(t,y)$ and $(0,x)$ measured along the $x$-axis, that is, $x-z+s(q+{\varepsilon})$. Since there are no Poissonian points in $A_x$, we have $(s,z)\in Q_+\setminus A_x$ and, consequently, $z\le x-\rho x$. Since $\dot\gamma(0)>q+2{\varepsilon}$, we have $(x-z)/(-s)>q+2{\varepsilon}$. The minimum of $x-z+s(q+{\varepsilon})$ under these restrictions is attained at $(-\rho x/(q+2{\varepsilon}), x-\rho
x)$ and equals ${\varepsilon}\rho x/(q +2 {\varepsilon})$. We also have $|t|<(x-R)/(q +{\varepsilon})$. Therefore, Lemma \[lmdeviation-from-straight\] implies that the action gain of $\gamma$ compared to the straight line motion between $t$, and $0$ is at least $$\label{eqlowerboundonactionincrement} \frac{2(q +{\varepsilon})}{x-R}\frac
{{\varepsilon}^2\rho^2 x^2}{(q + 2{\varepsilon})^2}\ge K(
{\varepsilon})x,\qquad x>(2R)\vee r_1(\omega)$$ for some $K({\varepsilon})$.
Now we must estimate the effect of Poissonian points. We use Lemma \[lmlln-bound\] to find $R_0=R_0(\omega)$ such that $N([-t,0]\times B_{R_0}^c)< t K({\varepsilon})q/2$ for all $t>0$. Since the time component of any point in $Q_+$ is bounded by $x/q$ in absolute value, we see that if $R>R_0$, then there are at most $(x/q) K({\varepsilon})q/2< K({\varepsilon})x/2$ Poissonian points in $Q_+$. Therefore, the reduction of action due to visits to Poissonian points does not exceed $K({\varepsilon})x/2$, and cannot compensate for the action gain computed in [(\[eqlowerboundonactionincrement\])]{}. Therefore, if we choose $R>R_0\vee r_1$, then for any $x>2R$ the straight line segment from $(t,y)$ to $(0,x)$ is more efficient than any path $\gamma$ satisfying the imposed requirements, so $\gamma$ cannot be a minimizer. The proof of the first part of the lemma is complete. The proof of the second part is similar, and we omit it.
\[lmexclude-lower-paths-1\] For any ${\varepsilon}>0$ there are random variables $R>0$ and $X>0$ such that if $x>X$ and $\tau>(x-R)/(q-{\varepsilon})$, then no path $\gamma\in M_{-\tau,R}^{0,x}$ can satisfy $$\label{eqgammastaysoutside} \gamma(s)> \bigl(x+(q-{\varepsilon})s \bigr
)\vee R, \qquad s\in(-
\tau,0 ].$$
We begin with taking $\delta>0$ (to be chosen later) and using Lemma \[lmlln-bound\] to find $R_0$ such that for all $\tau>(x-R)/(q-{\varepsilon})$ and all $R>R_0$, the action of any path $\gamma$ satisfying [(\[eqgammastaysoutside\])]{}, connecting $(-\tau,R)$ to $(0,x)$ and staying outside of $B_R$ for all times in $(-\tau,0]$, is at least $$\frac{(x-R)^2}{2\tau}-\delta\tau.$$ To prove that $\gamma\notin M_{-\tau,R}^{0,x}$, let us find a better path $\tilde\gamma$ in $\Gamma_{-\tau,R}^{0,x}$. First, we will choose $\tilde\gamma$ so that $\tilde\gamma|_{[-\tau
+1,-[(x-R)/q]-2}\in
M_{-\tau+1,B_R}^{-[(x-R)/q]-2,B_R}$. Then we denote $x_1=\tilde\gamma
(-[(x-R)/q]-2)$ and $x_2=\tilde\gamma(-\tau+1)$. The remaining parts of $\tilde\gamma$ are straight line segments connecting $(-\tau,R)$ to $(-\tau+1,x_2)$, $(-[(x-R)/q]-2,x_1)$ to $(-[(x-R)/q]-1,R)$, and $(-[(x-R)/q]-1,R)$ to $(0,x)$.
The action of this path is at most $$\frac{(x-R)^2}{2([(x-R)/q]+1)}+\frac{(2R)^2}{2}+ S_{B_R}^{0,\tau
-1-([(x-R)/q]+2)}\bigl(
\theta^{-[(x-R)/q]-2}\omega\bigr)+\frac
{(2R)^2}{2}.$$ We want to exclude the situation where $${\mathcal{A}}^{-\tau,0}(\tilde\gamma)\ge{\mathcal{A}}^{-\tau,0}(\gamma).
\label{eqineq-wrong-sign}$$ Suppose [(\[eqineq-wrong-sign\])]{} holds. Then $$\frac{(x-R)^2}{2([(x-R)/q]+1)}+(2R)^2+ S_\tau\ge\frac
{(x-R)^2}{2\tau}-
\delta\tau,$$ where we denoted $S_\tau=S_{B_R}^{0,\tau-3-[(x-R)/q]}(\theta
^{-[(x-R)/q]-2}\omega)$ for brevity. This can be rewritten as $$\label{eqneed-large-dev} \frac{S_\tau}{\tau-3-[(x-R)/q]}\ge U,$$ where $$U=\frac{({(x-R)^2}/{2}) ({1}/{\tau}-
{1}/{([(x-R)/q]+1)} )-\delta\tau-(2R)^2}{\tau-3-[(x-R)/q]}.$$ To apply large deviation estimates from Lemma \[lmlarge-deviation\], we need to estimate $U$ and the length of time interval in the definition of $S_\tau$. Since $\gamma$ satisfies [(\[eqgammastaysoutside\])]{} for $s\in[-\tau,0]$, we have $\tau>(x-R)/(q-{\varepsilon})$. For sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqlowerboundontau} \tau-3-\bigl[(x-R)/q\bigr]&\ge&\frac
{x-R}{q-{\varepsilon}}-
\frac{x-R}{q}-4 \ge\frac
{(x-R){\varepsilon}}{q(q-{\varepsilon})}-4
\nonumber
\\[-8pt]
\\[-8pt]
\nonumber
&\ge&\frac{(x-R){\varepsilon}}{2q^2}.\end{aligned}$$ To estimate $U$, we first notice that, due to [(\[eqlowerboundontau\])]{}, there is a random variable $X_1(R,{\varepsilon},\delta)$ such that $x>X_1$ implies $$\label{eqauxil-contrib} \frac{\delta\tau+(2R)^2}{\tau
-3-[(x-R)/q]}<2\delta.$$ For the same reason, there is a random variable $X_2(R,{\varepsilon},\delta)$ such that $x>X_2$ implies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqmain-contrib}
\nonumber
&&\frac{({(x-R)^2}/{2} )({1}/{\tau}-
{1}/{([(x-R)/q]+1)} )}{\tau-3-[(x-R)/q]}\\
&&\qquad=\frac{(x-R)^2}{2\tau([
(x-R)/q]+1)}\cdot\biggl(-\frac{\tau-1-[(x-R)/q]}{\tau
-3-[(x-R)/q]}
\biggr)
\nonumber
\\[-8pt]
\\[-8pt]
\nonumber
&&\qquad\ge-\frac{(x-R)q}{2\tau}(1+\delta)
\\
&&\qquad\ge-\frac{q(q-{\varepsilon})}{2}(1+\delta) ,\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from $\tau>(x-R)/(q-{\varepsilon})$.
Combining [(\[eqauxil-contrib\])]{} and [(\[eqmain-contrib\])]{} and choosing $\delta$ sufficiently small we see that (with the choices of $R$ and $x$ described above) $$U>-\frac{q(q-{\varepsilon}/2)}{2}. \label{eqlowerboundonU}$$
Notice that if $k$ is sufficiently large, all the above estimates apply uniformly for all $x\in[R+kq,R+(k+1)q]$ and all $\tau\ge(x-R)/(q-{\varepsilon})$.
Let us denote by $B_k$ the event that for some $x\in[R+kq,R+(k+1)q]$ and some $\tau\ge(x-R)/(q-{\varepsilon})$ there is a path $\gamma\in M_{-\tau,R}^{0,x}$ satisfying [(\[eqgammastaysoutside\])]{} for $s\in[-\tau,0]$. The definition of $q$, inequality [(\[eqlowerboundonU\])]{}, and Lemma \[lmlarge-deviation\] imply that for some $c>0$ and all sufficiently large $k$, $${\mathsf{P}}(B_k)<e^{-ck}.$$ Now the Borel–Cantelli lemma implies that with probability, 1 only finitely many events $B_k$ happen, and the proof is complete.
\[lmexcludelongerlower\] There are positive random variables $R,X$ and $(T_x)_{x>0}$ such that if $x>X$ and $\tau>T_x$, then for any $y\in{\mathbb{R}}$, no path $\gamma\in M_{-\tau,y}^{0,x}$ can satisfy [(\[eqgammastaysoutside\])]{}.
If for some $y$ a path $\gamma\in\Gamma
_{-\tau,y}^{0,x}$ satisfies [(\[eqgammastaysoutside\])]{} and the time $\tau'=\sup\{s\dvtx\gamma(s)\le R\}$ is well defined, then we can apply Lemma \[lmexclude-lower-paths-1\] with $\tau$ replaced by $\tau'$ to see that $\gamma$ cannot be a minimizer for appropriately chosen $R$ and $X$.
Let us fix $\delta\in(0,-S)$. Due to Lemma \[lmlln-bound\], we can choose $R$ large enough to ensure that ${\mathcal{A}}^{-\tau,0}>-\delta\tau$ for any $\gamma$ satisfying $\gamma(s)>R$ for all $s\in[-\tau,0]$. On the other hand, the optimal action is asymptotic to $S\tau$ as $\tau\to\infty$, so $\gamma$ cannot be a minimizer for large values of $\tau$.
\[lmexcludelongerupper\]There are positive random variables $R,X$ and $(T_x)_{x>0}$ such that for $x>X$ and $T>T_x$, and any $y\in{\mathbb{R}}$ no $\gamma\in M_{-T,y}^{0,x}$ can satisfy $$\label{eqabovezone} \gamma(s)<x+s(q+{\varepsilon}),\qquad s\in\bigl
[-(x-R)/(q+{\varepsilon}),0\bigr].$$
We need an auxiliary path ${\bar{\gamma}}\in\Gamma
_{-(1+{\varepsilon})[(x-R)/q],-R}^{0,x}$. This special path consists of three straight line segments connecting consecutively $(-(1+{\varepsilon})[(x-R)/q],-R)$ to $(-[(x-R)/q],-R)$ to $(-[(x-R)/q]+1,R)$ to $(0,x)$.
There are positive random variables $R$ and $X$ such that for any $x>X$, any $T>-(1+{\varepsilon})[(x-R)/q]$ and any $y\in{\mathbb{R}}$, any $\gamma\in M_{-T,y}^{0,x}$ satisfying [(\[eqabovezone\])]{} intersects ${\bar{\gamma}}$.
Denote by $B_k$ the event that there are $y\in
{\mathbb{R}}$ and $\gamma
\in M_{-T,y}^{-t,-R}$ for some $t<k$ and $T>(1+{\varepsilon})k$ such that $\gamma(s)<-R$ for all $s\in[-T,-t]$.
Lemmas \[lmlln-bound\] and \[lmlarge-deviation\] imply that for sufficiently large $R$, for some constants $c_1,c_2>0$ and all $k$, $P(B_k)\le c_1e^{-c_2{\varepsilon}k}$. The Borel–Cantelli lemma implies that with probability 1, only finitely many events $B_k$ happen.
Clearly, if there is a path $\gamma$ satisfying the conditions of the lemma and not intersecting ${\bar{\gamma}}$, then $B_k$ holds for $k=[(x-R)/q]$. Since only finitely many $B_k$ can hold, a path with these properties is impossible for sufficiently large $x$.
There are random variables $R$ and $X$ such that for $x>X$ and any path $\gamma$ satisfying [(\[eqabovezone\])]{} and intersecting ${\bar{\gamma}}$ at some time $-\tau$, $${\mathcal{A}}^{-\tau,0}(\gamma)>{\mathcal{A}}^{-\tau,0}({\bar{\gamma}}). \label{eqcanimproveaction}$$
First let us consider the possibility that $\tau<[(x-R)/q]$. We denote $\nu=\inf\{s\dvtx\gamma(-s)=R\}$. For any $\delta>0$, there is $R$ such that for $x>R$, $$\label{eqlowerestimateonAgamma} {\mathcal{A}}^{-\tau,0}(\gamma)\ge
\frac{(x-R)^2}{2\nu}+S_{{\mathbb{R}}}^{-[
{(x-R)}/{q}]+1,-\nu}-\delta\nu.$$
On the other hand, $${\mathcal{A}}^{-\tau,0}({\bar{\gamma}})\le\frac{(x-R)^2}{2([{(x-R)}/{q}]-1)}+\frac
{(2R)^2}{2}.$$ If [(\[eqcanimproveaction\])]{} is violated, the last two inequalities imply $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqimplicationofwronineq}
\qquad\frac{S_{{\mathbb{R}}}^{-[{(x-R)}/{q}]+1,-\nu}}{[{(x-R)}/{q}]-1-\nu
}&<&-\frac{(x-R)^2}{2\nu([({x-R)}/{q}]-1)}+\frac{\delta\nu
}{{[{(x-R)}/{q}]-1-\nu}}
\nonumber
\\[-8pt]
\\[-8pt]
\nonumber
&&{}+ \frac{2R^2}{{[{(x-R)}/{q}]-1-\nu}}.\end{aligned}$$ From [(\[eqabovezone\])]{} we know that $\nu<(x-R)/(q+{\varepsilon})$. We can use this to derive that the second term in the right-hand side is bounded by $K\delta/{\varepsilon}$ for a constant $K>0$ and the third term converges to $0$ as $x\to
\infty$. Choosing $\delta$ sufficiently small, then choosing $R$ so that [(\[eqlowerestimateonAgamma\])]{} holds, we conclude that for sufficiently large $x$, the right-hand side does not exceed $-q(q+{\varepsilon}/2)/2$. Now the large deviation estimate of Lemma \[lmlarge-deviation\] and the Borel–Cantelli lemma imply that [(\[eqimplicationofwronineq\])]{} can hold true only for a bounded set of $x$.
Now we have to exclude the paths $\gamma$ that cross ${\bar{\gamma}}$ for the first time at $-R$. By considering a smaller value of $\delta$ in the above reasoning, it is easy to strengthen it and conclude that that there is $\Delta>0$ such that for sufficiently large $x$, all paths $\gamma$ satisfying this restriction satisfy also $${\mathcal{A}}^{-[(x-R)/q],0}(\gamma)>{\mathcal{A}}^{-[(x-R)/q],0}({\bar{\gamma}})+\Delta(x-R).
\label{eqDelta}$$ On the other hand, denoting $I_{{\varepsilon},R,x}= [-(1+{\varepsilon})[\frac
{x-R}{q}],-[\frac{x-R}{q}] ]$, $$\inf_{t\in I_{{\varepsilon},R,x} }{\mathcal{A}}^{t,[(x-R)/q]}(\gamma)\ge- N\bigl(I_{{\varepsilon},R,x}\times(-
\infty,-R]\bigr).$$ Suppose $R$ is chosen so that ${\mathsf{E}}N(I_{{\varepsilon},R,x}\times(-\infty
,-R])<\Delta(x-R)/2$. Then probability that for some $x\in[k,k+1]$, there is a path $\gamma$, with $\gamma(0)=x$, satisfying [(\[eqDelta\])]{} and violating [(\[eqcanimproveaction\])]{}, decays exponentially in $k$. An application of the Borel–Cantelli finishes the proof.
Part () of the main theorem follows now from Lemmas \[lmnoshortpath\], \[lmexclude-lower-paths-1\], \[lmexcludelongerlower\] and \[lmexcludelongerupper\].
The global solution as a one-pont attractor {#secattractor}
===========================================
In this section we prove part () of the main theorem.
Let us denote by $M_{t_0,{\mathbb{R}},V}^{t_1,x}$ the set of minimizers of [(\[eqminimizationproblem\])]{}.
\[lminitialpointloc\] Suppose $V$ satisfies [(\[eqasymptoticslope\])]{}. Then for any $L>0$, there is a random variable $R_0>0$ such that for all $t>0$ and all $x\in B_L$, any $\gamma\in M_{0,{\mathbb{R}},V}^{t,x}$ satisfies $\gamma(0)\in B_{R_0}$.
Property [(\[eqasymptoticslope\])]{} implies that there is $\alpha\in(0,q)$ such that $$\label{eqVforlargey} V(y)> -\alpha y \qquad\mbox{for sufficiently large } y>0.$$
Let us take a small $\delta>0$ to be chosen precisely later and use Lemmas \[lmSaslimit\] and \[lmlln-bound\] to find $h>L$ such that $S_{B_h}<S+\delta$ and $N(B_h^c\times[0,s])<\delta s$ for all $s>0$. Let us consider $y\in[k,k+1]$ for large values of $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and estimate the action of a path $\gamma\in\Gamma_{0,y}^{t,x}$. Since $x\in B_L\subset B_h$, we can define $$\tau=\inf\bigl\{s\dvtx\gamma(s)\in B_h\bigr\}.$$ The complete action of this path on $[0,\tau]$ satisfies $${\mathcal{A}}_V^{0,\tau}(\gamma)\ge-\alpha(k+1)-\delta\tau+
\frac
{(k-h)^2}{2\tau}.$$ On the other hand, there is a number $C(h)$ such that the optimal path $\gamma_h\in M_{0,B_h}^{\tau,h}$ satisfies $${\mathcal{A}}_V^{0,\tau}(\gamma_h)\le C(h)+S_{B_h}^{0,\tau-1}.$$ Therefore, if $\gamma$ is optimal, then $$-\alpha(k+1)-\delta\tau+\frac{(k-h)^2}{2\tau}\le
C(h)+S_{B_h}^{0,\tau-1}.$$ According to the definition of $S_{B_h}$, there is $\tau_{h,\delta}$ such that if $\tau>\tau_{h,\delta}$, then $S_{B_h}^{0,\tau-1}+C(h)\le(S_{B_h}+\delta)\tau\le(S+2\delta
)\tau$. Therefore, if for optimal $\gamma$, $\tau>\tau_{h,\delta}$, then $$(S+3\delta)\tau- \frac{(k-h)^2}{2\tau} \ge-\alpha(k+1). \label
{eqfindoptimalpathtomiddle}$$
Elementary calculus shows that the global maximum of the left-hand side in $\tau$ is achieved at $\tau^*=(k-h)/\sqrt{2(-S-3\delta)}$ and equals $-(k-h)\sqrt{-2S-6\delta}$. Since $\alpha\in(0,\sqrt
{-2S} )$, inequality [(\[eqfindoptimalpathtomiddle\])]{} will be violated for large values of $k$ if we choose sufficiently small $\delta$.
We conclude that with this choice of $\delta$ and $h$, for sufficiently large $y$, no path $\gamma\in M_{0,{\mathbb{R}},V}^{t,x}$ with $\gamma(0)=y$ can have $\tau>\tau_{h,\delta}$. On the other hand, if $\tau\le
\tau_{h,\delta}$, then $${\mathcal{A}}_V^{0,\tau}(\gamma)\ge\frac{(k-h)^2}{2\tau_{h,\delta
}}-N\bigl([0,
\tau_{h,\delta}]\times{\mathbb{R}}\bigr)>V(h)$$ for sufficiently large $k$, and such a path cannot be a minimizer since $V(h)$ is the complete action on $[0,\tau]$ for the trajectory staying at $h$.
The case of $y\in[-k-1,-k]$ is treated similarly.
[Proof of part () of Theorem \[thmain\]]{} Let us take any two initial conditions $v_1=V'_1,v_2=V'_2$ such that $V_1$ and $V_2$ satisfy [(\[eqasymptoticslope\])]{}. Then there is $\alpha\in(0,q)$ such that [(\[eqVforlargey\])]{} holds for $V=V_1$ and $V=V_2$.
Let us take $R>L$ given by Lemma \[lmcollapse-with-positive-prob\] and $R_0=R_0(\omega)$ given by Lemma \[lminitialpointloc\]. Due to Lemma \[lmcollapse-with-positive-prob\], ${\mathsf{P}}\{r^{\pm}<R\}>0$, where $r^\pm$ was introduced in Lemma \[lmmain-loc\]. That lemma, along with the ergodicity of the flow $(\theta^t)$ and Poincaré Recurrence theorem, allows us to find $n>0$ such that $r^{\pm}(\theta^{-n}\omega)<R$ and .
If $V=V_1$ or $V=V_2$, then for any $x\in B_{R_0}$ and for sufficiently large $t$, any $\gamma\in M_{0,{\mathbb{R}},V}^{t,x}$ must (by Lemma \[lminitialpointloc\]) belong to $M_{0,y}^{t,x}$ for some $y\in B_{R_0}$, and, consequently, Lemma \[lmmain-loc\] implies $\gamma(n)\in B_R$.
Lemma \[lmcollapse-with-positive-prob\] and the Poincaré Recurrence theorem imply that there is $n'>n$ and a point $(t^*,x^*)$ such that for sufficiently large $t$ and for all $z,x\in B_R$, every $\gamma\in M_{n,z}^{t,x}$ passes through $(t^*,x^*)$. Therefore, for these values of $t$ and any $x\in B_L\subset B_R$, any two minimizers $\gamma_1\in M_{0,{\mathbb{R}},V_1}^{t,x}$ and $\gamma_2\in M_{0,{\mathbb{R}},V_2}^{t,x}$ pass through $(t^*,x^*)$. Therefore $$M_{0,{\mathbb{R}},V_1}^{t,x} |_{[t^*,t]}=M_{0,{\mathbb{R}},V_2}^{t,x}
|_{[t^*,t]},$$ which implies $$\Phi^{0,t}_{\omega} v_1 |_{B_L}=
\Phi^{0,t}_{\omega} v_2 |_{B_L},$$ and the forward attraction follows since one can take $v_2=u_\omega$.
The proof of the backward attraction is similar, and we omit it.
The global solution uniqueness also follows automatically if [(\[equniqunessclass\])]{} holds with probability 1. If all we know is that [(\[equniqunessclass\])]{} holds with positive probability, then we can use its invariance under the dynamics and the ergodicity of $(\theta^t)$ to see that then it holds with probability 1.
Global minimizers {#secglobalmin}
=================
A path $\gamma\dvtx{\mathbb{R}}\to{\mathbb{R}}$ is called a global minimizer if $\gamma|_{[t_0,t_1]}\in M_{t_0,\gamma(t_0)}^{t_1,\gamma(t_1)}$ for any $t_0,t_1$ satisfying $t_0<t_1$. A global minimizer is called recurrent if there is $R>0$ and a two-sided sequence $(t_k)_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}$ such that $\lim_{k\to\pm\infty} t_k=\pm\infty$ and $\gamma
(t_k)\in B_R$ for all $k$.
With probability 1, there is a unique recurrent global minimizer $\gamma$.
[Sketch of proof]{} We can use Lemma \[lmcollapse-with-positive-prob\] to derive sequentially that (i) for any $T_1>0$ and for sufficiently large values $T_2$ the restrictions onto $[-T_1,T_1]$ of minimizers in $M_{-T_2,0}^{T_2,0}$ can be bounded by the process of localization radii $r^{\pm}(\theta^t\omega)$, $t\in[-T_1,T_1]$ ; (ii) for any $T_1>0$, and for sufficiently large values $T_2$, these minimizers pass through common points before $-T_1$ and after $T_1$, and, therefore, coincide between these points. We conclude that as $T_2\to\infty$ the minimizers stabilize on any finite interval, and the restriction of the resulting limiting trajectory $\gamma
=\gamma_\omega$ on any finite time interval is a minimizer. Moreover, $|\gamma_\omega(t)|<r^{\pm}(\theta^t\omega)$ and the recurrence property of $\gamma_\omega$ follows.
If $\tilde\gamma$ is another recurrent global minimizer, then again one can use Lemma \[lmcollapse-with-positive-prob\] to prove that there is a sequence of times $(s_k)_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}$ such that $\lim_{k\to
\pm\infty} s_k=\pm\infty$ and $\tilde\gamma(s_k)=\gamma_\omega(s_k)$. Therefore, $\tilde\gamma$ has to coincide with $\gamma_\omega$.
The following statement can be proven in a similar way:
\[thhyperhyperbolicity\] If $\tilde\gamma$ is one of the one-sided infinite minimizers constructed in Remark \[remone-sidedminimizers\], then there is $\tau>0$ such that restrictions of $\gamma$ and $\tilde\gamma$ on $(-\infty
,\tau]$ coincide.
This property shows that the global minimizer has superstrong attraction property in the reverse time. In previously considered situations the exponential convergence of one-sided minimizers in the reverse time was a manifestation of hyperbolicity of the global minimizer. In analogy with that case, it is natural to refer to the property of finite-time supercontraction described in Theorem \[thhyperhyperbolicity\] as “hyperhyperbolicity.”
*Global minimizers for the Burgers equation with spatially periodic forcing*. Let us now change the framework and switch to the Burgers equation with spatially periodic random forcing. One of the questions that has not been answered for the periodic Burgers equation is the fluctuations of the global minimizer. This question was posed to the author by Yakov Sinai. The goal of this section is to prove that for the Poissonian forcing on the circle ${\mathbb{S}}^1$, the unique global minimizer has diffusive behavior.
Let us consider the Burgers dynamics on ${\mathbb{S}}^1={\mathbb{R}}/{\mathbb{Z}}$ under Poissonian forcing with intensity measure given by $dt\times
m(dx)$ on the cylinder ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{S}}^1$ for some Borel measure $m$ on ${\mathbb{S}}^1$. If we restrict ourselves to the set ${\mathbb{U}}_0=\{u\dvtx\int_{{\mathbb{S}}^1}u=0\}$, then the potential $V$ of any $v\in{\mathbb{U}}_0$ is well-defined, and we can define the dynamics via [(\[eqdefofcocycle\])]{}, [(\[eqminimizationproblem\])]{} with the only correction that paths are in ${\mathbb{S}}^1$.
The set ${\mathbb{U}}_0$ is invariant under this dynamics. In fact, between occurences of Poissonian points, we are solving the usual unforced Burgers equation and the mean velocity stays constant. On the other hand it is easy to see that the mean velocity is continuous in time even at the time corresponding to the occurence of a forcing point. A continuous piecewise constant function is constant, and our invariance claim follows.
The theory that was developed above for the Poisson forcing on the line, applies to this case as well, so one has a unique global attracting soliution. One also has a unique global minimizer $\gamma_\omega$ with asymptotic slope 0 corresponding to the mean velocity 0. To formulate the main theorem we must unfold ${\mathbb{S}}^1$ onto its universal cover ${\mathbb{R}}$ and treat $\gamma_\omega$ as a continuous path on ${\mathbb{R}}$.
There is a nonrandom number $D>0$ such that $\gamma
_\omega(t)/\break\sqrt{D|t|}$ converges in distribution to the standard Gaussian random variable as $t\to\infty$.
The times between occurrences of Poisson points are exponentially distributed. Therefore, the set of all Poisson points $(t_k(\omega),x_k(\omega))$ such that there are no other Poisson points in $[t_k-1,t_k+1]\times{\mathbb{S}}^1$ is unbounded in both directions. We agree that $\cdots<t_{-2}<t_{-1}<0<t_{0}<t_1<t_2<\cdots$. It is easy to check that the global minimizer $\gamma$ passes through all these points on the cylinder (or their lifts on the universal cover).
Let us denote $\Delta_k t=t_k-t_{k-1}$, $\Delta_k x=x_{k}-x_{k-1}
(\mathrm{mod}\ 1)$ and $\Delta_k \gamma= \gamma(t_k)-\gamma(t_{k-1})$. Notice that all random variables from sequences $(x_k)_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}$, $(\Delta_k t)_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}$, and realizations of Poissonian point field between $t_{k-1}$ and $t_k$ are jointly independent. They are also identically distributed within each sequence, the tails of $\Delta_k t$ are exponential and the distribution of $x_k$ is $m(dx)/m({\mathbb{S}}^1)$.
Since $\Delta_k \gamma$ is a functional of $\Delta_k t$, $\Delta_k x$, and the realization of the Poissonian field between $t_{k-1}$ and $t_k$, the sequence $(\Delta_k\gamma)_{k\in{\mathbb{Z}}}$ of identically distributed random variables is 1-dependent (the dependence comes only through $x_k$ occuring in both $\Delta_k x$ and $\Delta_{k+1}x$).
We know that there is no systematic drift, that is, $(\gamma
(t_k)-\gamma(t_0))/(t_k-t_0)\to0$ as $k\to\infty$. By the law of large numbers, $(t_k-t_0)/k\to h ={\mathsf{E}}(t_1-t_0)$, so $(\gamma(t_k)-\gamma(t_0))/k\to
0$, and ${\mathsf{E}}(\gamma(t_1)-\gamma(t_0))=0$.
Therefore, by Bernstein’s CLT for $m$-dependent random variables, we conclude that the distribution of $(\gamma(t_k)-\gamma(t_0))/\sqrt{\sigma^2 k}$ converges weakly to the standard Gaussian one, where $\sigma^2={\mathsf{E}}(\gamma(t_1)-\gamma(t_0))^2 $. Applying the law of large numbers once again, we conclude that $$\frac{\gamma(t)}{\sqrt{{\sigma^2t}/{h} }}\stackrel{d}
{\longrightarrow}{\mathcal{N}}(0,1)$$ as $t\to\infty$ along the sequence $(t_k)$. To finish the proof, one has to extend this convergence to all intermediate values of $t$, but this is not hard since the tails of $\Delta_k t$ are exponential. This completes the proof with $D=\sigma^2/h$.
It is also possible to prove a functional version of the above CLT with two-sided Wiener measure in the role of the limiting distribution for appropriately normalized global minimizer.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The author thanks Konstantin Khanin for stimulating discussions.
[11]{}
(). . .
(). . .
(). . .
, , (). . .
, , (). . .
(). . .
(). . .
(). , ed. , .
(). . .
(). . .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate structure and evolution of long positive spark breakdown; and we study at which stage pulses of hard X-rays are emitted. Positive high-voltage pulses of standardized lightning impulse wave form of about 1 MV were applied to about 1 meter of ambient air. The discharge evolution was imaged with a resolution of tens of nanoseconds with an intensified CCD camera. LaBr$_{3}$(Ce$^+$) scintillation detectors recorded the X-rays emitted during the process. The voltage and the currents on both electrodes were measured synchronously. All measurements indicate that first a large and dense corona of positive streamers emerges from the high voltage electrode. When they approach the grounded electrode, negative counter-streamers emerge there, and the emission of hard X-rays coincides with the connection of the positive streamers with the negative counter-streamers. Leaders are seen to form only at later stages.'
address:
- '$^1$ Department of Electrical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, POBox. 513, NL-5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands'
- '$^2$ Department of Applied Physics, Eindhoven University of Technology, and Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI), POBox 94079, NL-1090 GB Amsterdam, The Netherlands'
author:
- 'P O Kochkin$^1$, C V Nguyen$^1$, A P J van Deursen$^1$ and U Ebert$^2$'
title: 'Experimental study of hard X-rays emitted from meter-scale positive discharges in air'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The generation of X-rays from electrical discharges at near to atmospheric pressure requires that electrons reach very high energies despite their numerous collisions with gas molecules; the X-rays are then generated by Bremsstrahlung. Wilson [@Wilson1925] suggested that favourable conditions for electron run-away to high energies could exist in thunderclouds. After unsuccessful attempts in the 1930ies it took many years before the association of X-rays and thunderstorms could be established. In Chapters 2 and 6 of his book [@Babich2003] Babich presents an extensive overview of the early and later experiments. McCarthy [@McCarthy1985] observed X-rays of the order of 10 keV in aircraft flights through thunderstorms in the 1980ies. At surface level, X-rays associated with the approaching lightning leader have been detected in triggered lightning measurements [@Dwyer2003; @Dwyer2004; @Dwyer2011]; their energy is of the order of 250 keV. Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes from thunderstorms with energies of up to 20 MeV [@Smith2005] or even up to 40 MeV [@Marisaldi2010] are measured from satellites.
X-rays can also occur during the initiation of sparks in the laboratory on a scale of millimetres up to meters, even with standard atmospheric conditions of approximately 1 bar and 20 $^{\circ}$C. Unrolling adhesive tapes generates X-rays [@Camara2008], as do helium filled spark chambers [@Frankel1966], the formation of corona discharges [@Nguyen2010] on a centimetre scale, or meter long discharges [@Dwyer2008; @Nguyen2008; @March2011; @Cooray2009]. X-rays are a common feature of a high-voltage discharge, regardless of size.
While in short gaps the accelerated electrons actually might emit their Bremsstrahlung during collision with surrounding metal equipment, experiments in sufficiently long air gaps are actually similar to thunderstorm conditions as the Bremsstrahlung photons are generated by collisions with air molecules as well. We will argue that for the experiments reported here the photons are indeed generated in open air.
As shown in recent simulations [@Moss2006; @Li2009; @Chanrion2010; @Celestin2011], the highly enhanced electric field at the tip of a negative streamer discharge could actually accelerate the electrons into the run-away regime, and the effect is even stronger at the tip of a naked lightning leader with its larger dimensions and higher voltage [@Xu2012] if such a naked corona-less leader exists. We will show below how the streamers develop in our experiment, and at which stage they actually emit the hard X-rays. The effect is created here not by a single streamer, but by the complete streamer corona.
We study the initiation phase before breakdown. Such studies have been performed earlier by several groups. Here we refer in particular to the early work in France [@Reess1995] [@LesRenardieres1977]. Les Renardieres group investigated static, streak and Schlieren photos of positive discharges. They described first corona formation followed by leader propagation, final jump and return stroke. But they did not measure X-rays emitted from a spark during this processes. We measure the voltage and the current on both electrodes, synchronized with nanosecond fast photography and X-ray detection. Our aim is to find where and when the X-rays are generated.
Experimental setup {#sec:experimental_setup}
==================
The 2 MV Marx generator at Eindhoven University of Technology delivers an IEC standardized lightning impulse voltage waveform of 1.2/50 $\mu$s rise/fall time when not loaded. The generator is connected to a spark gap with cone-shaped electrodes. The setup is similar to the one described in [@Nguyen2008], with five changes worth mentioning here. First, the discharge channel is vertical rather than horizontal. This provided a more symmetrical environment of the discharge than in [@Nguyen2008]. Second, conductive Velostat plastic covered all sharp protruding objects close to the gap, in order to avoid local streamer formation. Third, current probes were mounted on both electrodes. Fourth, an intensified CCD camera was used. Finally, two scintillator detectors were placed at varying positions. The goal was to find the angular distribution of the X-ray emission.
The distance between the high-voltage (HV) and grounded (GND) electrodes was 1 meter. The applied voltage between electrodes was about 1 MV and did not change within all experimental study.
To obtain time-integrated and time-resolved images of the pre-breakdown phenomena, a ns-fast 4Picos ICCD camera was located at 4 m distance from the gap, perpendicular to discharge-developing axes. The camera was placed inside a small but well-protected cabinet. The cables between the camera cabinet and the large cabinet with registration equipment () were about 5 m long. All cables were placed inside a stainless steel flexible hose. The hose and its mounting were near to vacuum tight; this ensured adequate electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) and interference-free operation of the camera. The field of view of the camera just covered the full gap, including grounded and high-voltage electrodes. The optical gain by a built-in image intensifier was 10$^{4}$. The camera has a black and white CCD; it was not calibrated. However, the camera parameters and optical system remained the same, except only one parameter: the exposure time.
{width="150mm"}
Two LaBr$ _{3} $(Ce$ ^{+} $) scintillator detectors manufactured by Saint-Gobain were mounted in EMC cabinets and recorded the X-rays. Any interference on their signals due to the discharge initiation can be excluded, since such interference would most likely manifest itself as oscillatory signal, and not mimic a clear scintillator signal. Also, in many discharges only the signal channel noise floor was measured. The scintillators have a fast primary rise/decay time (11/16 ns) and a high light yield of 63 photons/keV, which is 165% of the more common NaI(TI). The linearity of the detectors has been tested [@NguyenCV2012] on $ ^{241} $Am, $ ^{137} $Cs, $ ^{60} $Co and remains perfect up to 2505 keV, which is the total absorbed energy from two gamma quanta of the $ ^{60} $Co source in the scintillator. The slight deviation from linearity at higher energies is attributed to saturation of the photomultiplier. The output of the photomultiplier is recorded directly on the oscilloscope without any waveshaping electronics usually employed in photon counting. This allows to distinguish individual pulses even when pile-up occurs within the decay time of the scintillator. In some series of measurements the detectors were located inside separate EMC-cabinets; one detector was placed in a small cabinet at positions A and B and the other detector was placed in the large cabinet at positions C, D, F, F’ as indicated in .
The total aluminium thickness between the scintillator and surrounding area is 550 $ \mu $m. This shielding is almost transparent for photons with an energy above 30 keV (attenuation 15% or less). To determine the origin and the energy composition of the X-ray signals, we used up to 2.5 cm thick lead attenuators and collimators around one detector. The attenuators effectively absorb photons with energies up to 1 MeV (10 times attenuation). Attenuation by 2 m of air between the spark gap and detector is 8% including scattering and photoelectric absorption for 30 keV photons. At 200 keV energy level the air impact is less than 3%. We did not take attenuation by air into account.
Some X-ray signals corresponded to a total absorbed energy of about 3.4 MeV. We determined the attenuation curve by measurements with lead attenuators of different thickness. The slope of the curves contains information about the incident radiation. Additional measurements with the 662 keV gammas of $ ^{137} $Cs confirmed the analysis (see ).
The spark gap with two cone-shaped electrodes deviates from the more commonly used point-plane configuration. Two cones provide clear points for the corona discharge to start, and allow more precise measurements of currents due to moving charges. Two Pearson 7427 current probes detected the pre-breakdown currents on both electrodes. In order to protect the probes against a direct discharge we mounted a vaulted aluminium disk between probe and electrode tip. The probe for the HV electrode had an optical transmission system. Suitable attenuators and two antiparallel high speed diodes protected the input of the transmitter. The diodes limited the linear response to 250 A. The GND electrode and the probe were mounted on top of the small EMC cabinet containing the scintillator detector ().
The Marx generator HV divider (80.000:1) was used for voltage measurements. In spite of the large distance between divider and gap, this voltage measurement sufficed to distinguish the different phases of the discharge development. That voltage recording should not be considered as the gap voltage, because of the inductive effects caused by the 8 m long leads between divider top and spark gap HV electrode. Two 4-channel Lecroy oscilloscopes with a maximum sampling rate of 5 Giga-Samles/s collected the data of the X-rays, current and voltage synchronously.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Several reports on the observation of X-rays with lightning impulse generators have been published [@Dwyer2008; @Nguyen2008; @March2011]. Up to a few meter distance between detector and discharge is usually maintained because of safety. In this study X-rays are observed in many, but not in all discharges. We studied the formation of X-rays during the initiation of 951 discharges of positive polarity. The minimal time from one discharge to the next was 10 seconds. In some discharges, we observed up to three easily recognizable individual X-ray peaks with different times and amplitudes. This allowed us to obtain statistical information on the energy spectra and the time distribution averaged over many HV discharges.
Discharge development process {#subsec:discharge_development_process}
-----------------------------
The growth of the discharge is shown in . Every picture corresponds to a single discharge. We applied a special linear colour coding scheme to the CCD output in order to enhance the faint streamers (pictures *a* up to *i*). For low luminosity the coding approaches an emulsion film negative with white as lowest light level. For the very bright leaders, this coding uses colour (pictures *j* up to *o*) up to the white level for maximum brightness. The solid vertical line *z* at *t* = 0.36 $ \mu $s in the bottom panel corresponds to the shutter opening time. Dotted vertical lines *a - o* correspond to the shutter closing times for the corresponding pictures. Thus, a single picture is time-integrated from the starting time *z* until a camera closing time between 60 (picture *a*) to 1000 (picture *o*) nanoseconds later. Fast moving luminous streamers heads appear as streaks whose lengths correspond to their propagation lengths within the exposure time, similarly as in Figure 1 of [@Ebert2006]. The electrical signals corresponding to picture *l* are represented at the bottom plot: the voltage waveform U, the currents at the high-voltage and at the grounded electrode, and the X-ray signal. On the time axis *t* = 0 $ \mu $s corresponds to the start of the voltage waveform. The pictures of the discharge development show a large similarity from discharge to discharge. There is also no significant difference in electrical characteristics. It means that one record represents most of the important steps in the process and can be used to describe the phenomena.
At the beginning, current up to 15 A are measured on the HV electrode during 0.15 to 0.30 $ \mu $s, while the voltage starts to exceed 100 kV. The capacitive current due to the increasing voltage is much smaller. Therefore this small current leap must correspond to the first positive corona formation around the sharp tip of the HV electrode. This is probably a highly conductive inception cloud around the tip, similarly to the ones seen at lower voltages in [@Briels2008a; @Briels2008b; @Nijdam2011]. It extends radially until the electric field on its surface equals the breakdown field of 30 kV/cm. Image *a* of shows a cloud of approximately 6 cm radius at some later stage. The required charge is then about 1 $ \mu $C, in agreement with the current measurement when integrated up to 0.3 $ \mu $s.
After the leap, the first picture *a* represents processes in the gap between 0.351 and 0.420 $ \mu $s: the voltage rises approximately linearly in time while the HV current increases rapidly. This high-voltage current jump occurs because of the additional corona formation followed by streamer bursts from the edges of the protection aluminium dish. Below the corona ignition zone there is a diffuse structure originating from the electrode tip (marked $t$). We interpret this as re-excitation of the inception cloud by the current needed for the streamers emanating from the cloud. The current through the grounded electrode remains zero and there is no light emission from that area.
Images *b*, *c*, *d* show that a large number of streamers propagate downward in a rather synchronous manner. Downward streamers from the electrode tip and streamers, directed sidewards from the dish propagate at a speed of 2$\cdot10^{6}$ m/s in our experiments. The diameter of a single streamer is of the order of 1 cm measured at FWHM level by technique described in [@Nijdam2010]. It is remarkable that HV current gradually decreases then.
Near *t* = 0.65 $ \mu $s, the downward positive streamers approach the GND electrode and increase the local electric field. At that time for images *d* and *e* the distance between the positive streamer tips and the grounded electrode cone is approximately 20 cm. The electric field in this region is now strong enough to initiate the formation of negative streamers out of the grounded electrode. The very first current of the order of 10 Amps is detected on the GND current probe at that moment.
![Detailed development of one meter length discharge in consecutive time steps. Each picture corresponds to a single discharge. The shutter always opens at *t* = 0.36 $\mu$s (solid line *z*). The exposure time varies from 60 (picture *a*) to 1000 (picture *o*) nanoseconds. The jitter with respect to the generator voltage and current is of the order of 0.04 $\mu$s. X-rays, voltage, cathode and anode currents are represented in the bottom plot. The data are those of picture *l*. The moment of X-rays detection coincides with the connection between downward positive streamers and upward negative counter-streamers as shown in pictures *e* – *h*.[]{data-label="fig:plot"}](pictures/figure2a.pdf){width="30mm"}
![Detailed development of one meter length discharge in consecutive time steps. Each picture corresponds to a single discharge. The shutter always opens at *t* = 0.36 $\mu$s (solid line *z*). The exposure time varies from 60 (picture *a*) to 1000 (picture *o*) nanoseconds. The jitter with respect to the generator voltage and current is of the order of 0.04 $\mu$s. X-rays, voltage, cathode and anode currents are represented in the bottom plot. The data are those of picture *l*. The moment of X-rays detection coincides with the connection between downward positive streamers and upward negative counter-streamers as shown in pictures *e* – *h*.[]{data-label="fig:plot"}](pictures/figure2b.pdf){width="30mm"}
![Detailed development of one meter length discharge in consecutive time steps. Each picture corresponds to a single discharge. The shutter always opens at *t* = 0.36 $\mu$s (solid line *z*). The exposure time varies from 60 (picture *a*) to 1000 (picture *o*) nanoseconds. The jitter with respect to the generator voltage and current is of the order of 0.04 $\mu$s. X-rays, voltage, cathode and anode currents are represented in the bottom plot. The data are those of picture *l*. The moment of X-rays detection coincides with the connection between downward positive streamers and upward negative counter-streamers as shown in pictures *e* – *h*.[]{data-label="fig:plot"}](pictures/figure2c.pdf){width="30mm"}
![Detailed development of one meter length discharge in consecutive time steps. Each picture corresponds to a single discharge. The shutter always opens at *t* = 0.36 $\mu$s (solid line *z*). The exposure time varies from 60 (picture *a*) to 1000 (picture *o*) nanoseconds. The jitter with respect to the generator voltage and current is of the order of 0.04 $\mu$s. X-rays, voltage, cathode and anode currents are represented in the bottom plot. The data are those of picture *l*. The moment of X-rays detection coincides with the connection between downward positive streamers and upward negative counter-streamers as shown in pictures *e* – *h*.[]{data-label="fig:plot"}](pictures/figure2d.pdf){width="30mm"}
![Detailed development of one meter length discharge in consecutive time steps. Each picture corresponds to a single discharge. The shutter always opens at *t* = 0.36 $\mu$s (solid line *z*). The exposure time varies from 60 (picture *a*) to 1000 (picture *o*) nanoseconds. The jitter with respect to the generator voltage and current is of the order of 0.04 $\mu$s. X-rays, voltage, cathode and anode currents are represented in the bottom plot. The data are those of picture *l*. The moment of X-rays detection coincides with the connection between downward positive streamers and upward negative counter-streamers as shown in pictures *e* – *h*.[]{data-label="fig:plot"}](pictures/figure2e.pdf){width="30mm"}
![Detailed development of one meter length discharge in consecutive time steps. Each picture corresponds to a single discharge. The shutter always opens at *t* = 0.36 $\mu$s (solid line *z*). The exposure time varies from 60 (picture *a*) to 1000 (picture *o*) nanoseconds. The jitter with respect to the generator voltage and current is of the order of 0.04 $\mu$s. X-rays, voltage, cathode and anode currents are represented in the bottom plot. The data are those of picture *l*. The moment of X-rays detection coincides with the connection between downward positive streamers and upward negative counter-streamers as shown in pictures *e* – *h*.[]{data-label="fig:plot"}](pictures/figure2f.pdf){width="30mm"}
![Detailed development of one meter length discharge in consecutive time steps. Each picture corresponds to a single discharge. The shutter always opens at *t* = 0.36 $\mu$s (solid line *z*). The exposure time varies from 60 (picture *a*) to 1000 (picture *o*) nanoseconds. The jitter with respect to the generator voltage and current is of the order of 0.04 $\mu$s. X-rays, voltage, cathode and anode currents are represented in the bottom plot. The data are those of picture *l*. The moment of X-rays detection coincides with the connection between downward positive streamers and upward negative counter-streamers as shown in pictures *e* – *h*.[]{data-label="fig:plot"}](pictures/figure2g.pdf){width="30mm"}
![Detailed development of one meter length discharge in consecutive time steps. Each picture corresponds to a single discharge. The shutter always opens at *t* = 0.36 $\mu$s (solid line *z*). The exposure time varies from 60 (picture *a*) to 1000 (picture *o*) nanoseconds. The jitter with respect to the generator voltage and current is of the order of 0.04 $\mu$s. X-rays, voltage, cathode and anode currents are represented in the bottom plot. The data are those of picture *l*. The moment of X-rays detection coincides with the connection between downward positive streamers and upward negative counter-streamers as shown in pictures *e* – *h*.[]{data-label="fig:plot"}](pictures/figure2h.pdf){width="30mm"}
![Detailed development of one meter length discharge in consecutive time steps. Each picture corresponds to a single discharge. The shutter always opens at *t* = 0.36 $\mu$s (solid line *z*). The exposure time varies from 60 (picture *a*) to 1000 (picture *o*) nanoseconds. The jitter with respect to the generator voltage and current is of the order of 0.04 $\mu$s. X-rays, voltage, cathode and anode currents are represented in the bottom plot. The data are those of picture *l*. The moment of X-rays detection coincides with the connection between downward positive streamers and upward negative counter-streamers as shown in pictures *e* – *h*.[]{data-label="fig:plot"}](pictures/figure2i.pdf){width="30mm"}
![Detailed development of one meter length discharge in consecutive time steps. Each picture corresponds to a single discharge. The shutter always opens at *t* = 0.36 $\mu$s (solid line *z*). The exposure time varies from 60 (picture *a*) to 1000 (picture *o*) nanoseconds. The jitter with respect to the generator voltage and current is of the order of 0.04 $\mu$s. X-rays, voltage, cathode and anode currents are represented in the bottom plot. The data are those of picture *l*. The moment of X-rays detection coincides with the connection between downward positive streamers and upward negative counter-streamers as shown in pictures *e* – *h*.[]{data-label="fig:plot"}](pictures/figure2j.pdf){width="30mm"}
![Detailed development of one meter length discharge in consecutive time steps. Each picture corresponds to a single discharge. The shutter always opens at *t* = 0.36 $\mu$s (solid line *z*). The exposure time varies from 60 (picture *a*) to 1000 (picture *o*) nanoseconds. The jitter with respect to the generator voltage and current is of the order of 0.04 $\mu$s. X-rays, voltage, cathode and anode currents are represented in the bottom plot. The data are those of picture *l*. The moment of X-rays detection coincides with the connection between downward positive streamers and upward negative counter-streamers as shown in pictures *e* – *h*.[]{data-label="fig:plot"}](pictures/figure2k.pdf){width="30mm"}
![Detailed development of one meter length discharge in consecutive time steps. Each picture corresponds to a single discharge. The shutter always opens at *t* = 0.36 $\mu$s (solid line *z*). The exposure time varies from 60 (picture *a*) to 1000 (picture *o*) nanoseconds. The jitter with respect to the generator voltage and current is of the order of 0.04 $\mu$s. X-rays, voltage, cathode and anode currents are represented in the bottom plot. The data are those of picture *l*. The moment of X-rays detection coincides with the connection between downward positive streamers and upward negative counter-streamers as shown in pictures *e* – *h*.[]{data-label="fig:plot"}](pictures/figure2l.pdf){width="30mm"}
![Detailed development of one meter length discharge in consecutive time steps. Each picture corresponds to a single discharge. The shutter always opens at *t* = 0.36 $\mu$s (solid line *z*). The exposure time varies from 60 (picture *a*) to 1000 (picture *o*) nanoseconds. The jitter with respect to the generator voltage and current is of the order of 0.04 $\mu$s. X-rays, voltage, cathode and anode currents are represented in the bottom plot. The data are those of picture *l*. The moment of X-rays detection coincides with the connection between downward positive streamers and upward negative counter-streamers as shown in pictures *e* – *h*.[]{data-label="fig:plot"}](pictures/figure2m.pdf){width="30mm"}
![Detailed development of one meter length discharge in consecutive time steps. Each picture corresponds to a single discharge. The shutter always opens at *t* = 0.36 $\mu$s (solid line *z*). The exposure time varies from 60 (picture *a*) to 1000 (picture *o*) nanoseconds. The jitter with respect to the generator voltage and current is of the order of 0.04 $\mu$s. X-rays, voltage, cathode and anode currents are represented in the bottom plot. The data are those of picture *l*. The moment of X-rays detection coincides with the connection between downward positive streamers and upward negative counter-streamers as shown in pictures *e* – *h*.[]{data-label="fig:plot"}](pictures/figure2n.pdf){width="30mm"}
![Detailed development of one meter length discharge in consecutive time steps. Each picture corresponds to a single discharge. The shutter always opens at *t* = 0.36 $\mu$s (solid line *z*). The exposure time varies from 60 (picture *a*) to 1000 (picture *o*) nanoseconds. The jitter with respect to the generator voltage and current is of the order of 0.04 $\mu$s. X-rays, voltage, cathode and anode currents are represented in the bottom plot. The data are those of picture *l*. The moment of X-rays detection coincides with the connection between downward positive streamers and upward negative counter-streamers as shown in pictures *e* – *h*.[]{data-label="fig:plot"}](pictures/figure2o.pdf){width="30mm"}
![Detailed development of one meter length discharge in consecutive time steps. Each picture corresponds to a single discharge. The shutter always opens at *t* = 0.36 $\mu$s (solid line *z*). The exposure time varies from 60 (picture *a*) to 1000 (picture *o*) nanoseconds. The jitter with respect to the generator voltage and current is of the order of 0.04 $\mu$s. X-rays, voltage, cathode and anode currents are represented in the bottom plot. The data are those of picture *l*. The moment of X-rays detection coincides with the connection between downward positive streamers and upward negative counter-streamers as shown in pictures *e* – *h*.[]{data-label="fig:plot"}](pictures/figure2.pdf){width="158mm" height="60mm"}
The current through the grounded electrode rises rapidly due to the formation of negative primary upward streamers from the sharp tip. In analogy to the counter-leaders that rise from the ground towards approaching lightning leaders, we will call these negative streamers counter-streamers. All cathode current initiations and steps are accompanied by damped oscillations at frequencies of several hundred MHz, well above the specified bandwidth of the probe 70 MHz.
Immediately after that, at the moment just before *f*, a positive streamer connects to a negative counter-streamer. At *t* = 0.67 $\mu$s the first channel is formed by the encounter of two streamers – positive from HV and negative from GND electrode. This encounter is again accompanied by high-frequency oscillations at the cathode current signal and more importantly by X-ray emission. This is the beginning of a gradual increase of the HV current. A few more connections between positive and negative streamers will take place later up to moment *l* when all connection processes end. All of them are accompanied by HF oscillations. We refrain to speculate about the origin of these oscillations until a new current probe with an extended bandwidth is available. It seems safe to presume that many of these encounters are accompanied by X-rays. Some of the X-rays are detected by our detectors as first, second, etc. peaks. As plotted in , we detected X-rays emitted by one on those connection processes.
The HV current measurements after picture *i*, or current values larger than 250 A should be regarded with caution since the protecting diodes of the optical transmission start to act. The current graph shows the behaviour of the current, whether staying constant or rising, but not the actual values.
At the moment between *i* and *j* a hot conductive channel – the leader – arises. We can distinguish the leader from the streamers by its higher luminosity. The leader channel is much brighter than the streamers. Here we should recall that the optical and electrical parameters of the camera remain the same during all pictures from *a* till *o*. The leader formation process is the joule heating of one of the conductive streamer channels formed before. The leader tip itself does not emit any new visible streamers during its propagation in our experiments.
On the pictures *j* – *n* the development of the positive leader is clearly shown. The leader grows in a highly ionized medium and repeats one of the streamer’s paths. The speed of the positive leader is 1.5$\cdot$10$^6$ m/s.
Briefly before the exposure time of image *l* ends, an upward leader rises from the cathode towards the anode. The cathode current $I_{GND}$ increases rapidly. This new counter-leader will propagate upward until it connects with the downward leader.
Continuous Ohmic heating of the conductive streamer channels between anode and cathode leads to a well-conducting leader channel at *t* = 1.4 $ \mu $s. On image *o* we see the final breakdown that is accompanied by strong current rises and voltage drop. The high-voltage current curve is limited by the diodes on the input to the optical transmission line. The GND current is limited by clipping of the oscilloscope channel amplifier. The total vertical length of the discharge on image *o* is equal to 1 meter.
The streamer head propagates and thus the streamer channel must have some finite conductivity, in spite of the low light emission of that channel. According to current understanding [@Li2009; @Ebert2006; @Ebert1997] the density of free electrons is about 10$ ^{13} $ to 10$ ^{14} $ cm$ ^{-3} $ in the freshly formed streamer channel depending on the field enhancement at the streamer tip. This electron density determines the conductivity of the channel. The conductivity will vary in space and time, and clear predictions cannot be given. From the experimental side it is difficult to retrieve conductivity values because many parallel streamers contribute to the current. In we observe a sudden increase in luminosity starting at picture *j*. One of the streamers channels heats up critically and increases its conductance to further develop into a leader. Because of the size, our leader is not comparable to a fully developed lightning leader.
The horizontal dimension of the cloud formed collectively by the numerous streamers is much larger than was expected before and equals approximately 1.4 m. This means, that all equipment placed at shorter distances will emit or receive streamers at certain times and will affect the measurements [@Nguyen2008]. This is why we changed the setup and applied the Velostat foil, as mentioned in .
Note that the HV electrode carries a current 0.67 $\mu$s before the GND electrode does. This is due to the Ramo-Shockley effect. During that time, the loop of the current that includes the HV electrode closes via the displacement current to the environment, most notably to the soil and to the conducting safety fence near the spark gap. Only a very small part of the displacement current $dD/dt$ is captured by the grounded electrode.
The images also show broad slanted streaks and horizontal lines that clearly do not originate from the electrodes. These artefacts are caused by reflections of the light from spark gaps in the Marx generator on the plies in the black background foil. It is worth mentioning that our camera detected emissions not only from the gap and the electrodes. The full conductive 9-meter connection line from the top of the divider to the spark gap and the top of the Marx generator emits streamers. Anyway, this illumination is relatively small and does not affect the pictures but it should be taken into account in the interpretation of the relation of current and voltage.
{width="80mm"}
From the apparently constant luminosity throughout the length of streamer, we conclude that the positive streamer heads are “disconnected” from the HV electrode and fly like bullets through the medium, as also seen for streamers at lower voltages. Pictures with shorter exposure time (such as 20 ns in ) confirm this. In the pictures shown in we see the traces of those bullets. It is well known from streamer studies at lower voltages, that only the active ionization zones at the streamer heads emit light. At the streamer head the electric field is so high that electrons gain high energies and efficiently ionize and excite neutral molecules. The de-excitation of a certain nitrogen level (within about 1 ns in STP air) creates the light observed by the camera. Therefore the conducting channels stay invisible while the growing streamer tips are seen as “glowing dots”. This was first photographed in [@Blom1997] and is illustrated in Figure 1 of [@Ebert2006]. The same glowing dots at the tips of growing streamer channels have also been observed in sprite discharges high above thunderstorms at air pressures of about 10 microbar [@McHarg2007], and a similar phenomenon also occurs as so-called “plasma bullets” in the complex gas mixture of pulsed atmospheric pressure plasma jets [@Sarron2011; @Robert2012].
In the leader develops only after streamers and counter-streamers have connected. There is no leader observed with this 1 m gap before the first conductive channel is formed. But this is only a matter of scale. At larger gap lengths we did observe a positive leader before the positive streamers reached the cathode; this is illustrated in for a gap of 1.5 m.
In a faint speckle trace from the anode to cathode can be observed. This is caused by the huge brightness of the main discharge after the camera shutter was closed. The shutter is electronic and very good but not perfect. Some light leaks through the image intensifier even when it is off. But this fact gives us the opportunity to see the final breakdown path even on pre-breakdown pictures. That is why we decided not to suppress it further. For instance, in it is clear to see that breakdown followed the positive leader path. In this trace also exists but due to longer exposure time and smaller scale it is almost indistinguishable.
X-ray timing {#sec:xray_timing}
------------
Some of the discharges had up to three X-rays peaks; see . Triple events were quite rare, of the order of 0.5% occurrence. The discharges with two X-ray events occurred in up to 35% of the discharge.
{width="80mm"}
The first X-ray photons were detected immediately after the first cathode current oscillation. shows the distribution of X-ray occurrence times.
{width="80mm"}
The leftmost peak coincides with the onset of the GND current. These immediate X-rays (immediate component) stem from the first early period of active streamer connection. Many upward and downward streamers meet at this time interval. The first encounters occur between positive downward streamers and negative upward counter-streamers emitted from the cone tip of the cathode. As will be shown later, the corresponding X-rays are the most energetic. Negative streamers emitted from the edge of the protection dish are involved in subsequent collisions. Subsequent X-rays still correlate in time with cathode oscillations and are produced in subsequent connection events. The number of these connections is higher than those of the first clashes, but the X-rays registered later have softer spectra. On the other hand, the HF oscillations amplitude is significantly larger during the first connections than during the subsequent ones. That means that the first connection events are more energetic and X-ray productive events than those occurring later.
The total X-ray duration is of the order of 1 $\mu$s in our setup. The duration of one X-ray burst is determined by streamer collisions and can be less than the 11 ns of detector resolution.
We finally note that the background of the detector set at a discrimination level of 30 keV is approximately 50 counts per second and was determined by the measuring time needed to register 5000 detector pulses. This includes the contributions from cosmic rays, the laboratory environment and the internal isotope decay. The background remains constant during the day. The chance to observe any background signal that might mimic an X-ray signal from the gap during the X-ray duration time is less than 10$^{-4}$.
Probability of X-ray registration
---------------------------------
We did not register X-rays in all discharges. The registration rate depends on the detector position as well. We determined the X-ray occurrence for different detector positions. shows the result as the ratio of discharges with X-ray detection over the total number of discharges. To measure the registration rate at the points A and B we have placed a small EMC cabinet under the grounded electrode (as shown in ) and this cabinet remained there during all measurements in Series I and II. This cabinet also enhanced the X-ray production by streamers from the four sharp corners, from the surface of the cabinet and from the additional length of shielded cable to the current probe. For instance, at 2.1 meter distance from the gap, the X-ray occurrence was of the order of 7% without the cabinet and 34% with cabinet under otherwise the same conditions and effective registration areas.
[@llll]{} Point&Coordinates&Occurrence&Occurrence\
&x;y (m)&out of surges&P (%)\
A$^1$ & 0.15;-0.13 & 290/441 & 66\
B$^1$ & 0.35;-0.13 & 51/120 & 43\
C$^1$ & 2.10; 0.15 & 54/160 & 34\
D$^1$ & 1.50; 0.15 & 97/140 & 69\
E$^2$ & 1.15;-0.3 & 10/10 & 100\
F$^2$ & 1.50; 0.6 & 29/30 & 97\
F’ up$^2$ & 1.50; 0.6 & 19/50 & 38\
F’ mid$^2$ & 1.50; 0.6 & 5/20 & 25\
F’ down$^2$ & 1.50; 0.6 & 32/50 & 64\
G$^2$ & 1.50; 2.0 & 48/50 & 96\
$^1$ Series I.
$^2$ Series II.
The occurrence data for positions A,B,C,D were obtained in one series of experiments. E, F and G were obtained in another series two month later. All numerical values are shown in .
It is still difficult to find the correlation between registration rate and detector distance due to the significant impact of the registration equipment at distances shorter than 1.5 m from the discharge (see ). But the occurrence of registration reduces with larger distance from the gap. In our opinion, the X-ray generation area can be approximated by a point-like source for larger distances. If we consider only geometrical decay (without absorption and scattering), the registration rate will follow an inverse square law for distances larger than 1.5 m, as suggested by the ratio of occurrence for positions D (69%) and C (34%). The run-away electrons from one negative streamer are certainly beamed. But for electron energies below 0.5 MeV, the Bremsstrahlung is rather isotropic (see Figure 3 in [@Chris2012]), in contrast to Bremsstrahlung from electrons with relativistic energies.
Cathode shape
-------------
Following the thought that mainly the upward negative streamers are responsible for the high-energetic electrons that generate the X-rays, the shape of GND electrode should significantly affect the number of negative streamers and thereby the X-ray occurrence. Implicitly we assume that the number of the positive streamers is constant and independent of the shape of the grounded electrode, at least during the first stages of discharge development. To check this, we made an aluminium belt of 55 by 10 cm with 75 sharp dots on its surface (). We bent it according to the positive corona face as shown in picture *d* of and mounted it on the GND electrode. The small EMC cabinet was replaced by a post of the same height.
{width="80mm"}
shows that the total number of negative streamers is greatly enhanced. The effective connection area and the number of encounters between positive streamers and negative counter-streamers significantly increased while the shape of the positive corona and the streamer density remain the same.
{width="80mm"}
The X-rays were observed from 2.1 m distance by two LaBr$_{3}$ detectors. The total effective scintillator area was 23 cm$^{2}$. The X-ray occurrence increased from 7% without the belt up to 70% with the belt. The number of cathode current oscillations also remarkably increased. Without belt we registered triple X-ray signals in 0.5% of the discharges and with belt in 15%. So, a fakir’s bed strongly enhances the X-ray production. The small EMC cabinet under the cathode (row C in ) caused a similar increase. This cabinet causes impact on all points in the table. So the all X-ray data during Series I and Series II are intensified by additional negative counter-streamers from the small EMC cabinet.
The region of X-ray emission {#sec:the_region_of_xray_emission}
----------------------------
In order to determine where the X-rays are generated, we limited the field of view of the detector by lead tubes of 1 and 2.5 cm thickness covering the detector over its full length. This thickness is sufficient as will be shown in on attenuation curves. A number of 100 surges were enough to determine the probability of seeing X-rays. But we refrained from an analysis of the X-ray energy spectra in these experiments. We pointed the detectors to different parts of the gap: the HV electrode, the GND electrode and the middle (see cones in , point F’). With the detector pointing to the cathode (F’ down, ), two times more events were observed than with the detector pointing to the anode (F’ up, ). When we directed the detector to the middle position, we found less X-ray events (F’ mid, in ) than from the anode and cathode region.
Both first and subsequent X-rays were registered to come from the cathode, anode and central regions. In some cases X-rays from the cathode and from the anode region were detected simultaneously, to within the time resolution of our detectors. It means that the high-energy electrons can emerge from the region between the streamers (see images *e*, *f*, *g* in ) but create Bremsstrahlung over the full length of the gap including the anode and the surrounding area.The time that relativistic electrons need to cross the full gap is of the order of 3 nanoseconds or less, which is within the time resolution of the X-ray detectors.
Energy spectra and attenuation curves {#sec:energy_spectra}
-------------------------------------
We collected data of 441 discharges with the detector at position A () inside the small EMC cabinet. The number of occurrences as a function of energy is shown in , where each X-ray signal in a discharge is counted individually. The energy scale is divided in bins of 60 keV. Please note that the first X-ray signal can be delayed with respect to the first cathode current. This is because we probably did not register X-rays produced by first streamer encounters. An example is shown in the two lower records of . X-ray in bottom plot is marked as first X-ray. The first occurrence is most often the most energetic. Even a single event with up to 3.4 MeV has been observed. For the sake of clarity we limited the energy scale to 1 MeV, which is also the maximum energy a single electron can acquire with the available voltage. The later X-ray signals are less frequent by a factor of three or more. But the energy of the second signal can still be comparable to or larger than the first; see for example the third record in . As mentioned in , the X-ray signals correlate well in time with the connection moments of positive and negative streamers as shown in the pictures of . In order to determine the actual photon energy of the observed X-rays we carried out a series of experiments with lead attenuators in front of the collimated detector. One detector was again mounted in the small cabinet at position A close to the gap, another in the large cabinet at 1.5 m from the gap. Caps of various thicknesses were used: 1.5, 3.0, 4.5 mm, and 50 to 100 discharges were investigated for every cap thickness. The green ($\opensquare$) and blue ($\opencircle$) data in show the dependence of X-ray occurrence on the lead thickness.
{width="80mm"}
{width="80mm"}
also shows the absorption curve ($\opentriangle$) that would be observed assuming that the amplitude of the X-ray signals without absorber would one-to-one correspond to single photon energy. This spectrum integrated absorption curve lies definitely above the experimental data. This indicates that many of the high energy signals are due to pile up: several lesser energy X-ray photons are registered simultaneously within the 11 ns time resolution of the detector. Two additional lines represent the lead absorption for monoenergetic photons of 200 and 300 keV, calculated with data from [@Berger1998]. The experimental data fit best to the 200 keV line. However, with the wide spectrum of X-rays, one may question whether it is allowed to convert the attenuation curve into an equivalent energy.
{width="80mm"}
In order to get some insight into the energy spectrum, we obtained the attenuation curves of 662 keV gammas from a near to monochromatic $^{137}$Cs source in a similar setup (), where we focused on the attenuation of all photons arriving at the detector. The question is whether it can be expected that the attenuation curve is a straight line on a semi-logarithmic plot? The experimental linear attenuation coefficient (curve slope) is $\mu~=~4.66\cdot10 ^{-2}$ cm$^{2}$/g. The coefficient $\mu$ consist of two parts: $\tau$ – the photoelectric component and $\varepsilon$ – the Compton effect component. Pair production in the lead can be neglected due to the energy threshold of 1.022 MeV. To draw the attenuation curve (), we counted all photons that penetrated through the lead attenuator. We did not select on energy. Partial absorption by the lead is then not accounted for. This also occurs with the X-rays from the spark, where the photon energy before attenuation is a priori unknown.
{width="80mm"}
According to the NIST database [@Berger1998], the photoelectric absorption coefficient for 662 keV photons equals $\tau~=~4.33\cdot10^{-2}$ cm$^2$/g. The small difference between the total attenuation coefficient $\mu$ and the photoelectric absorption coefficient from the NIST data implies that the Compton effect inside the lead for this setup is negligible. Most of the Compton-scattered photons penetrate the lead attenuator and hit the scintillator. If this statement is correct for 662 keV energy photons (Compton effect comparable to photoelectric absorption) it is particularly correct for 200 keV energy photons, where the photoelectric component is 10 times larger than the Compton component. Consequently, we should only take the photoelectric part into account for the energy reconstruction from attenuation curves.
Discussion and conclusions {#sec:discussion}
==========================
Our experimental results clearly demonstrate that the presence of negative streamers is a necessary condition for X-ray generation in meter long positive discharges in the laboratory. There were no X-rays observed before the negative counter-streamers initiated from the grounded electrode. Most of the detected X-rays correlated with high-frequency current oscillations on the current probe of the grounded electrode. By increasing the number of negative streamers with our fakir’s bed electrode we dramatically increased the occurrence of X-rays. That negative streamers play a role in X-ray generation is consistent with the theoretical papers quoted in the introduction [@Moss2006; @Li2009; @Chanrion2010; @Celestin2011] that show how electrons are accelerated out of the streamer tip and away from the electrode. The Bremsstrahlung photons are therefore generated in open air, and not at some metal parts. The X-ray localization confirms this statement.
The current data together with the pictures show that the high-energy electrons necessary for the X-rays correlate in time with the encounter of positive downward and negative upward streamers. It is most probable that the run-away process occurs in the region between positive and negative streamer tips just before the connection because the electric field and total available voltage then and there are higher than anywhere else. It would be a hard but interesting task to assign an individual connection to the run-away process. As mentioned before, run-away process and X-ray generation occur within the 11 ns time resolution of our detectors, but do no need to coincide in space. Streamer encounters generate ns-fast X-ray bursts.
The absorption data are consistent with a predominant photon energy of 200 keV.
There is only a small allusion of non-homogeneity of the X-ray emission present in our data. The spectra in point G () seem to be more energetic than at other points. It is unlikely that X-rays were emitted by other parts of the Lightning Surge Generator installation due to absence of negative streamers. No strong orientation dependence of the X-ray emission was found in our experiments, in agreement with [@Chris2012].
The pictures discriminate very well between the streamers and the leaders and clearly indicate the moment when the leader starts to develop. Streamers are less bright than leaders. Both appear to have nearly the same velocity (2$\cdot$10$^6$ m/s) and thickness of the order of 1 cm for the streamer channel and for the leader channel core. All thicknesses are measured at FWHM level by the technique described in [@Nijdam2010]. Around the leader core there is a region of lower luminosity with a diameter of about 7 cm, that might be identified as leader sheath. A more detailed discussion requires knowledge of the contrast transfer function of the optical chain consisting of lens, image intensifier and CCD. This information is not available yet.
A full breakdown is not a necessary condition to generate X-rays because the X-rays are generated in the streamer phase. Even the leader is not necessary. But it is difficult to avoid full breakdown of the high voltage gap in our setup. The usual way is to short-circuit the generator by a second gap. This gap would then also generate X-rays.
It is interesting to speculate and to extrapolate our results to negative high-voltage discharges. There the space stem that can appear in front of the negative leader can play the role of the positive electrode. The main point from our work is that negative streamers approaching positive ones appear to be a necessary condition for X-rays in our setup, even for positive high-voltage discharges. Though there are certainly features in our setup that are not representative for natural lightning like the gap length and the voltage amplitude and shape, we observe generic phenomena of streamer and leader formation, and our measurements show the dominant role of the negative streamer corona for the production of hard radiation; such negative streamer coronas appear as well at the negative ends of lightning leaders and space stems.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{} url \#1[[\#1]{}]{}urlprefix\[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{} Wilson C T R 1925 [*Proceedings of the Royal Society of London*]{} [**37**]{} 32D
2003 [*[High-Energy Phenomena in Electric Discharges in Dense Gases]{}*]{} (Futurepast Inc, Arlington, Virginia)
McCarthy M and Parks G K 1985 [*Geophysical Research Letters*]{} [**12**]{} 393
Dwyer J R, Uman M a, Rassoul H K, Al-Dayeh M, Caraway L, Jerauld J, Rakov V a, Jordan D M, Rambo K J, Corbin V and Wright B 2003 [*Science (New York, N.Y.)*]{} [**299**]{} 694–7
Dwyer J R 2004 [*Geophysical Research Letters*]{} [**31**]{} L12102
Dwyer J R, Schaal M, Rassoul H K, Uman M A A, Jordan D M and Hill J D 2011 [ *Journal of Geophysical Research*]{} [**116**]{} D20208
Smith D M, Lopez L I, Lin R P and Barrington-Leigh C P 2005 [*Science*]{} [**307**]{} 1085–1088
Marisaldi M 2010 [*Journal of Geophysical Research*]{} [**115**]{} A00E13
Camara C G, Escobar J V, Hird J R and Putterman S J 2008 [*Nature*]{} [ **455**]{} 1089–1092
Frankel S, Highland V, Sloan T, van Dyck O and Wales W 1966 [*Nuclear Instruments and Methods*]{} [**44**]{} 345–348
Nguyen C V, van Deursen A P J, van Heesch E J M, Winands G J J and Pemen A J M 2010 [*Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics*]{} [**43**]{} 025202
Dwyer J R, Saleh Z, Rassoul H K, Concha D, Rahman M, Cooray V, Jerauld J, Uman M A and Rakov V A 2008 [*Journal of Geophysical Research*]{} [**113**]{} D23207
Nguyen C V, van Deursen A P J and Ebert U 2008 [*Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics*]{} [**41**]{} 234012
March V and Montanyà J 2011 [*Geophysical Research Letters*]{} [**38**]{} L04803
Cooray V, Arevalo L, Rahman M, Dwyer J and Rassoul H 2009 [*Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics*]{} [**71**]{} 1890–1898
Moss G D, Pasko V P, Liu N and Veronis G 2006 [*Journal of Geophysical Research*]{} [**111**]{} A02307
Li C, Ebert U and Hundsdorfer W 2009 [*Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics*]{} [**42**]{} 202003
Chanrion O and Neubert T 2010 [*Journal of Geophysical Research*]{} [**115**]{} A00E32
Celestin S and Pasko V P 2011 [*Journal of Geophysical Research*]{} [**116**]{} A03315
Xu W, Celestin S and Pasko V P 2012 [*Geophysical Research Letters*]{} [ **39**]{} L08801
Reess T, Ortega P and Gibert A 1995 [*Journal of Physics D*]{} [**28**]{} 2306–2313
1977 [*Electra*]{} [**53**]{} 31–128
2012 [*[Experimental Study on Hard Radiation from Long Laboratory Spark Discharges in Air]{}*]{} Phd thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology <http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/731153.pdf>
Ebert U, Montijn C, Briels T M P, Hundsdorfer W, Meulenbroek B, Rocco A and [van Veldhuizen]{} E M 2006 [*Plasma Sources Science and Technology*]{} [ **15**]{} S118–129
Briels T M P, [Van Veldhuizen]{} E M and Ebert U 2008 [*Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics*]{} [**41**]{} 234008
Briels T, van Veldhuizen E and Ebert U 2008 [*Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on*]{} [**36**]{} 908–909
Nijdam S, Miermans K, van Veldhuizen E and Ebert U 2011 [*Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on*]{} [**39**]{} 2216–2217
Nijdam S, [van De Wetering]{} F M J H, Blanc R, [van Veldhuizen]{} E M and Ebert U 2010 [*Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics*]{} [**43**]{} 145204
Ebert U, van Saarloos W and Caroli C 1997 [*Physical Review E*]{} [**55**]{} 1530
Blom P P M 1997 [*High-Power Pulsed Corona*]{} Ph.D. thesis Eindhoven University of Technology <http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra1/PRF14A/9702338.pdf>
McHarg M G, Stenbaek-Nielsen H C and Kammae T 2007 [*Geophysical Research Letters*]{} [**34**]{} L07810
Sarron V, Robert E, Dozias S, Vandamme M, Ries D and Pouvesle J M 2011 [ *Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on*]{} [**39**]{} 2356–2357
Robert E, Sarron V, Ri[è]{}s D, Dozias S, Vandamme M and Pouvesle J M 2012 [ *Plasma Sources Science and Technology*]{} [**21**]{} 034017
Koehn C and Ebert U 2012 [Angular distribution of Bremsstrahlung photons and of positrons for calculations of terrestrial gamma-ray flashes and positron beams \[revised version resubmitted to Atmospheric Research\]]{} <http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4879>
Berger M, Hubbell J, Seltzer S, Chang J, Coursey J, Sukumar R and Zucker D 1998 [*NIST Standard Reference Database*]{} [**8**]{} 87–3597 <http://www.nist.gov/pml/data/xcom/index.cfm>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- '[^1] for the Pierre Auger Collaboration'
bibliography:
- 'generalbib.bib'
title: 'In-situ absolute calibration of electric-field amplitude measurements with the LPDA radio detector stations of the Pierre Auger Observatory'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
To do high precision measurements of ultra-high energy cosmic rays with the Auger Engineering Radio Array (AERA) [@SchulzProcICRC2015; @GlaserArena2016] at the Pierre Auger Observatory [@Aab_OverviewAuger15], the radio detector needs to be well-calibrated. The largest challenge in performing such a calibration is to place a signal source at every direction relative to the detector station and at least 20m away to guarantee far-field conditions. Different calibration methods have been developed and already performed at AERA [@Abreu_aeracalib2012] and other experiments [@2015ApelLOPES_improvedCalibration; @TunkaRex_NIM_2015; @NellesLOFAR_calibration2015]. In this contribution, we present a novel and very flexible method using a flying drone to carry the signal source. A drone is a very useful tool, since it can be placed at any point above the array and can carry any piece of equipment as long as it is not too heavy. With the presented method, a higher accuracy can be achieved than in the previous calibrations mostly due to a larger set of measurements and a better handling of environmental conditions.
At AERA, two different antenna types are used. The core consists of a dense array of 24 stations equipped with log-periodic dipole antennas (LPDA). They consist of nine separate dipoles optimized for a frequency range of 30 to 80 MHz. The other stations are equipped with butterfly antennas. However, in this proceeding, only LPDA stations are considered.
Extensive air showers produce short radio pulses. These pulses then induce a signal measurable as voltages at the antenna output. The value which relates the Fourier transformed electric field $\mathcal{\vec{E}}$ to the measured Fourier transformed voltage $\mathcal{U}$ is called the vector effective length (VEL) $\vec{H}$:
$$\mathcal{U}(f, \theta, \phi) =\vec{H}(f, \theta, \phi) \cdot \mathcal{\vec{E}}(f).$$
$\vec{H}$ depends on the frequency of the signal $f$ and the incoming direction, described by the zenith angle $\theta$ and the azimuth angle $\phi$. In spherical coordinates, $\vec{H}$ is a superposition of a horizontal $H_\phi$ and a perpendicular meridional $H_\theta$ component. The absolute value of these components is determined in a transmission measurement using a calibrated transmitting antenna. For the absolute value of a VEL component at a specific frequency and direction the following holds
$$|H_{i}| = \sqrt{\frac{4 \cdot \pi \cdot Z_A}{Z_0}} \cdot R \cdot \sqrt{\frac{P_{r, i}}{G_t \cdot P_t}},
\label{eq:absH}$$
where $i = \theta, \phi$ denotes the VEL component, $Z_A$ denotes the impedance of the antenna, is the vacuum impedance, $R$ describes the distance between the antenna under test (AUT) and the transmitting antenna, $P_r$ denotes the power received at the AUT, and $G_t$ and $P_t$ are the gain and power of the transmitting antenna [@WeidenhauptPHD2015].
Calibration Setup
=================
![Experimental setup for the optical position determination.[]{data-label="pic:setupcam"}](setup.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}
![Experimental setup for the optical position determination.[]{data-label="pic:setupcam"}](setupcam.png){width=".9\linewidth"}
A sketch of the setup for the calibration measurements is shown in Fig \[pic:setup\]. The AUT is connected to a spectrum analyzer model Rohde & Schwarz FSH 4. This device measures the received power at each frequency. A signal generator and a calibrated transmitting antenna are attached to an octocopter and placed at a distance of at least 20m to make sure far-field conditions apply. The signal generator RSG-1000 produces continuous signals at every 5 MHz. During the measurement the octocopter then flies straight up to a height of approximately 30m, flies towards the antenna until it is directly above it. Afterwards, it flies back and finally lands at the starting position. In this way, the complete zenith angle range is covered.
Reconstruction of the Octocopter Position
=========================================
As seen in Eq. , the distance $R$ between the transmitting antenna used for the calibration and the AUT is of crucial importance. The positions of the antennas at AERA have been previously measured with a differential GPS system and are known to within a few cm. For the position of the octocopter, an internal GPS receiver for the position in the x-y plane and a barometer for the height measurement are built-in. The statistical uncertainty of the position measurement has been found to be better . However, the systematical uncertainty is on the order of a few meters. To make a high precision measurement with small systematical uncertainties, another position determination method has been developed. It makes use of two standard digital cameras. The setup is shown in Fig \[pic:setupcam\]. Two cameras are placed on orthogonal axes with a distance of $\sim$100m to the AUT. Canon Ixus 132 cameras with a resolution of 16 Megapixel are utilized. They are set to an autonomous mode where they take pictures every three seconds.
From these pictures the position of the octocopter during the full flight is reconstructed. In the first step, the pixel tuple of the octocopter in each picture is determined by a “template matching” algorithm. Using this pixel tuple, a vector pointing from each camera to the octocopter is constructed. The point of closest approach of these vectors is calculated and used as the reconstructed octocopter position. For more details on the whole reconstruction process, see [@BriechleMa2015].
From comparison with a differential GPS and the built-in position sensors, a statistical uncertainty of 1.5m and a systematical uncertainty of 1m for this optical method has been found. So, the optical method compared to the built-in sensors has a smaller systematical uncertainty, albeit with a larger statistical uncertainty. Therefore, in the calibration flights the built-in sensors are used, corrected by the optical method. In the x-y plane, the absolute offset between the built-in sensors and the optical method, measured in each separate flight, is added, while in the height, the height measured with the built-in sensors is multiplied by the ratio of the measured height with the built-in sensors and the height measured with the optical method.
Results of the Calibration Measurements
=======================================
![Ratio of measured and simulated $|H_{\phi}$|. Each entry represents one specific frequency and zenith angle. Q1 and Q3 denote the 25% and 75% quartiles, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:simquothist"}](55mhz.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}
![Ratio of measured and simulated $|H_{\phi}$|. Each entry represents one specific frequency and zenith angle. Q1 and Q3 denote the 25% and 75% quartiles, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:simquothist"}](simquothist.png){width=".9\linewidth"}
Several flights for measuring both $|H_{\phi}$| and $|H_{\theta}$| over a time of a few weeks have been performed. In Fig. \[fig:ex\], the results of the calibration for $|H_{\phi}$| as a function of $\theta$ at a frequency of 55MHz for a fixed azimuth angle $\phi = 0^\circ$ are shown. Each value represents the mean over a zenith angle The error bars denote the statistical spread of the measurement while the error bands denote the systematical uncertainties. These uncertainties are dominated by the spectrum analyzer, which has an uncertainty of 0.5dB given by the manufacturer. This uncertainty has to be applied to the injected and the received power. For a frequency of 55MHz, which is the middle of the frequency spectrum of the antennas, and a zenith angle of $45^\circ$, from which most of the air shower signals originate, a statistical uncertainty of 4.4% is found. The systematical uncertainty is found to be 8.1%. These values do not vary much over the whole frequency and directional range. Combining these uncertainties gives an overall uncertainty of 9.3%. This is a significant improvement on the previous calibration, which had an uncertainty of 12.5% [@Abreu_aeracalib2012].
The green line in Fig. \[fig:ex\] shows a simulation of the antenna pattern done with the 4NEC2 simulation code. In Fig. \[fig:simquothist\], the ratios of the simulated and measured VEl for each 5$^\circ$ zenith angle bin and each measured frequency are histogrammed. The mean of the distribution is 0.99, which shows a good agreement between simulation and measurement.
The same analysis has also been done for the meridional component $|H_{\theta}|$. It is found that the sensitivity is much lower than in the horizontal component.
Summary and Outlook
===================
A calibration campaign of the LPDA antennas at AERA using an octocopter and a calibrated reference source has been performed. To determine the position of the reference source during the flight, a new optical reconstruction method has been developed and evaluated. The absolute vector effective length, which describes the antenna response pattern to an incoming electric field, has been measured with an uncertainty of 9.3%. A good agreement between simulation and measurement was found. A journal article about the whole calibration process is currently in the works.
This calibration is a crucial component in the determination of an absolute energy scale of cosmic rays from first principles. Using the new calibration presented here, the uncertainty of the cosmic-ray energy measurements can be lowered with regard to current values [@Aab_energyaera16; @Aab_energyaera_prd2]. In the future, these results from AERA will be used to improve the measurements of the whole Pierre Auger Observatory [@GlaserArena2016].
[^1]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We redesigned an advanced physics laboratory course to include a project component. The intention was to address learning outcomes such as modeling, design of experiments, teamwork, and developing technical skills in using apparatus and analyzing data. The course included experimental labs in preparation for a six-week team project in which students designed and implemented a research experiment. The final assignment given to students was a reflective essay, which asked students to discuss their learning and satisfaction in doing the project. Qualitative analysis of the students’ reflections showed that the majority of the students reported satisfaction and achievement, functional team dynamics, learning outcomes unique to this experience, practicing modeling skills, and potential future improvements. We suggest that reflections are useful as support for student learning as well as in guiding curricular improvements. Our findings may be useful for other course redesign initiatives incorporating project-based learning and student reflections.'
author:
- Bei Cai
- Lindsay Mainhood
- 'Robert G. Knobel'
title: Using reflections to explore student learning during the project component of an advanced laboratory course
---
Introduction
============
The laboratory has long been an essential part of the undergraduate physics curriculum. At Queen’s University and throughout the physics education community, the redesign and study of undergraduate laboratory courses has become an area of increasing focus [@cite:Schumacher; @cite:ZwicklGoals; @cite:Dounas1z]. The American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT) recently advised that the learning outcomes of students in physics undergraduate laboratory courses should include the ability to pose research questions, model systems, design experiments, and analyze data [@cite:AAPT]. These outcomes, however, are difficult to achieve when students do procedural experiments in which they follow a well-planned recipe to obtain predictable results. One effective way to achieve the recommended learning outcomes, and to encourage student engagement, is to incorporate student-led open-ended experimental projects.
Our shift toward design- and project-based laboratory courses is motivated not only on the basis of the above recommendations, but also because there is evidence that this mode of instruction changes students’ attitudes about physics. For example, lab courses with research and design as the focus have been shown to be effective at increasing student retention in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) [@cite:STEMretention]. Lab courses that carefully consider learning goals and the methods of instruction may significantly influence students’ scientific practices and attitudes [@cite:Etkina2; @cite:Wilcox]. Further, modeling can be used to “integrate sophisticated conceptual and quantitative reasoning into the experimental process ... a natural way to integrate an analysis and discussion of systematic error into a lab activity” [@cite:ZwicklGoals]. Dounas-Frazer et al. recently found “concrete implications for the design of experimental physics projects in courses for which student ownership is a desired learning outcome” [@cite:Dounas1z].
Reflective writing exercises are a key step in metacognition, allowing the student to interrogate their own learning and laboratory process. Student reflections are a benefit for both assessing and supporting students’ learning in laboratories [@cite:NAS; @cite:Gandhi2016]. Such reflection exercises have been shown to help students develop problem solving skills [@cite:reflection1], content knowledge [@cite:reflection2], conceptual understanding [@cite:reflection3; @cite:dounas-frazer], and attitudes about physics [@cite:reflection4].
In this paper we begin by describing the lab course and the student reflections upon which this research is based. Our redesign efforts in incorporating design and project elements into this lab course are briefly described. We then discuss in depth the findings of our qualitative analysis of the student reflections at the end of their project. Our findings offer some additional implication to existing literature of benefits of design- and project-based lab courses.
Course Context
==============
Our third-year engineering physics laboratory course introduces concepts of quantum and modern physics (nuclear, particle, atomic and optical physics) with increasingly sophisticated apparatus and analysis. The class of $\sim$60 students meets for a 50-minute lecture and a three-hour lab (in two sections) weekly for 12 weeks. For several years the course offered four common experiments done in pairs for the first few weeks, followed by a rotation through a selection of experiments, each completed in the three-hour period. Students reported dissatisfaction with the amount of work required for these procedural experiments, did not demonstrate much retention of the learning goals in subsequent courses, and seemed less engaged than in parallel engineering design project courses.
The course was substantially redesigned for Fall 2017 with the goal of addressing more of the learning outcomes from the AAPT report [@cite:AAPT]. To this end, students were given six weeks to complete an experimental project in teams of four. The project required students to research an existing experiment of their choosing, design the apparatus and procedure, predict the results using a model, carry out the experiment and analysis, and report on their findings. In order to help ensure success in such a short time, students were required to find an experiment already published in an undergraduate-level journal, and instructors carefully vetted projects for both feasibility and ambition at the proposal stage. Projects that the students carried out in Fall 2017 included: measuring Faraday rotation in water, measuring the speed of light, measuring the angular dependence of cosmic ray muon flux, determining the abundance of potassium-40 in everyday objects, and measuring the Hall coefficient of aluminum.
The first six weeks of the course included exercises and experiments aimed at teaching students technical skills and scientific attitudes that are necessary for, and ease the transition to, the open-ended project phase. There were activities which demonstrated flexible equipment available for later re-use, experiments that focused on data analysis, and exercises that supported core elements of experimental design. In order to evaluate the first delivery of this redesigned course, we used a mixed-methods approach. We took quantitative data with the E-CLASS survey [@cite:ECLASS] to evaluate student attitude and with the LOPUS lab observation protocol [@cite:LOPUS] to evaluate student engagement in the labs. The findings of the quantitative analysis will be reported in a future publication.
As the last deliverable for the course, after presenting their final project report orally and in written form, students were asked to write a short 300-500 word guided reflection essay. In this essay (worth 3% of the course grade) students were asked to reflect on the learning and process during the project. The students were given a rubric showing that this grade came from clarity of writing, reflection on learning, reflection on team, and plans for the future. Question prompts were given to the students asking them to reflect on: their happiness with what their team achieved; how their team worked during the project; what they learned over the course of the project; what they learned specifically when they compared a prediction to a model; and finally what they would do differently if they were to do the same project again. One possible confounding effect is that students may report more positive reflections in the hope of obtaining higher grades.
Methodology
===========
Our qualitative approach to explore the learning experiences of students used the text-coding steps (open, axial, and selective coding) described by Corbin and Strauss [@cite:coding]. These analysis steps allowed us to deduce how students’ reflection responses addressed our research questions. Importantly, the following five research questions directly informed the reflection prompts given to students, and also guided our analysis of the reflections:
1. Were students satisfied with the outcome of their project?
2. What team dynamics did the students encounter in their project?
3. What learning did the students describe in their reflection on their project experience?
4. What did the students learn specifically from comparison of model to data?
5. What would the students do to improve their experience next time?
The primary coder (BC) worked closely with the course instructor (RGK) in the course redesign before and during the time the course was offered. BC completed the open coding phase of the student reflections in consultation with LM. Together, BC and LM completed the axial and selective coding phases to create categories and themes.
Results
=======
In this section we describe the findings of our qualitative thematic analysis of the student reflections. Specifically, we discuss the five themes that emerged from the deductive analysis and corresponded to the prompts we provided the students prior to completing the reflection assignment. We discuss the themes separately in five subsections: students’ project satisfaction, team dynamics, described learning, experiences with modeling, and future improvements to the project experience.
Project satisfaction
--------------------
The students were asked whether they were happy with what their team achieved at the end of their experimental project. Out of the 55 responses we received and analyzed, 30 students explicitly wrote that they found their project interesting, regarded their project as a success, and/or were happy with what their team achieved. Three students explicitly reported that they were unhappy, disappointed, or stressed. Six students wrote that they had mixed feelings: on one hand they were happy with their experimental process but on the other hand they were unsatisfied with their project outcome. The remaining 16 students did not report their level of project satisfaction.
Although we did not prompt the students to do so, 27 students reflected on how they benefited from this course. Their responses conveyed an important message: students valued the project experience because of the unique learning that happened through doing experimental projects. Some example quotations include:
> *Being able to delve into this project from start to finish, as opposed to simply taking what is given and testing what is expected, such as in the past, has been a great experience and one which will help me in future endeavours to succeed in collaboration, in sound process, and in design.*
>
> *I think the design portion of the project is very important as it is the first time I have had to solve physics problems without a known solution, and use the result to produce a meaningful outcome. This put all the physics I’ve learned over my university career in perspective, and now see how it could all actually be applied.*
Team dynamics
-------------
Most project teams felt that they functioned quite well. Common functional team dynamics included: having clear team expectations, good communication among team members, fair task distribution, friendly relationships that are supportive and trustworthy, and all members being willing to take responsibility and contribute more or less equally. A designated leader was a feature of some functional teams, while other teams felt effective without a defined leader. Students who felt they were part of a functional team said:
> *We agreed at the start of our project what our goals and expectations were in terms of time and effort commitments. This ensured that everybody was prepared for the process of our project up to its completion.*
>
> *When there was a task at hand, more than one person volunteered to do it, and it was assigned to the most appropriate individual based on related works or past experience. ... Proper team communication was very important as many in depth topics read by other members were summarized to convey the key points relevant to the lab.*
A small fraction of the teams did not feel that they worked well together. Common non-functional team dynamics were described as poor communication, unfair task distribution, and/or lack of responsibility among team members.
> *There was a gap in understanding between team members as each member only had a clear understanding of their portion of the project.*
>
> *While no particular group member was specifically bad, the individual sense of responsibility when it came to doing the less exciting part of the projects (background research, writing reports, doing presentations) was lacking.*
It is interesting to note that some teams felt functional because they had previous experience working with their team members, this allowed them to *“work off each other’s strengths to the best of \[their\] abilities”*. Yet another student wrote that their non-functional team *“dynamic was caused by having a group of close friends working together, which lowered the pressure of showing up very late to meetings or not doing the required work by the time it is due”*. While the students may feel more comfortable working on their project in the teams that they form themselves, it might not necessarily lead to functional team dynamics.
Described learning
------------------
Students were asked to reflect on the prompt, “What did you learn over the course of the project?” They reported three major learning items in their reflections: **ways of thinking, learning by doing projects, and requirements for success**.
The ways of thinking that students felt they learned or developed include conceptual understanding, problem solving, and critical thinking. While students had to have a basic understanding of physics concepts behind their project goal before they started designing their experiment, they felt they practiced conceptual thinking as they progressed through their project phases. In terms of problem solving, students described having to *“figure out the problems presented to \[them\] and rise above them to complete \[their\] project”*. They also reported that doing a project allowed them to *“critically think\[ing\] about results”*. The conceptual understanding, problem solving, and critical thinking skills that students reported learning through the project affirm what value design- and project-based learning experiences afford physics and engineering students. As one student wrote:
> *Since it was not the same as following the procedures on an experiment handbook, we had to solve all the problems ourselves, and it really made me think about how each part of the apparatus worked, and it turned out to be essential in the data and error analysis.*
The other types of learning reported by students were related to learning by doing projects and their requirements for success. The students wrote that they learned the whole research process including reading literature, modeling, designing experiments, and interpreting data and results. Technical skills and an acquired scientific attitude are byproducts the students felt they gained during their project experience. Students also reflected on what elements were imperative to their project’s success. Requirements for success included research skills, project management, working in effective teams, utilizing resources, time management, and making necessary adjustments when difficulties and problems occur. An example of one student’s awareness of such needs was described as:
> *Through our successes (and failures) as a team, we learned that performing an experiment requires a lot of careful documentation, thoughtfulness regarding procedure and analysis, and excellent communication between team members.*
Experiences with modeling
-------------------------
The course instructor emphasized from the first description of the project the importance of modeling to the students and explicitly stated that one goal of the project was to compare a prediction with a model. Despite such efforts to emphasize modeling, less than half of the students reflected on their experiences with modeling. These students reported that they learned how to model but offered no further reflections, and they were able to identify some limitations of their models. There are two possible explanations: the lack of student responses related to modeling may be because that the students did not understand what the instructor wanted them to reflect upon; the lack of depth in reflection on modeling signifies that, as instructors, we can do a much better job supporting students thinking about modeling and developing their modeling skills such as by using the Modeling Framework for Experimental Physics [@cite:ZwicklModel; @cite:DounasModel].
Future improvements
-------------------
Students reflected on the numerous issues they encountered prior to reflecting on what future improvements could be made. The challenges and issues the students encountered included: coming up with a research question that is appropriate for the short timeline, poor physics conceptual understanding, technical challenges including apparatus and lack of other resources, ineffective team dynamics, poor time management, and obtaining poor experimental results. Without this deeper understanding of students’ challenges, which we gained through their reflections, improving the project experience for students in the future would lack consideration of students’ learning needs.
Three ideas emerged from student reflections about what future improvements could help them to have a more successful project experience: **better project management, utilizing resources, and better research methods**. Students voiced that project management is key; the team should consider the whole project phase, properly plan the procedures to allow time for critical tasks, ensure good documentation of steps taken, and work together as a team toward its project expectations. Students recognized that there were resources provided that were not necessarily utilized. They reported that finding out what resources are available and acquiring the appropriate hardware/software would improve the experience. Students also realized that lab courses are normally supported by a team of experts including the course instructor(s), teaching assistants, and technicians, all of whom would be helpful to access. Last but not least, as many of the students wrote in their reflections, doing projects is similar to going through an authentic research process. They reported the need to empower themselves with better research methods, specifically mentioning improved literature search skills, conceptual understanding, scientific attitude, technical knowledge, and data analysis skills.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we sought to illustrate the use of and analytic findings from a reflection assignment given to third-year engineering physics students after completing a six-week experimental project. We conclude by suggesting that design- and project-based learning experiences are powerful tools to help students achieve the learning outcomes recommended by the AAPT [@cite:AAPT]. This suggestion is based on our findings that most students were satisfied with their experimental project and achievements, experienced functional team dynamics, described numerous learning outcomes unique to this experience, learned some modeling skills, and were able to assess how an improved experience could better support their learning. These student impressions are consistent with those of the instructional team. The instructors were uniformly impressed with the increased engagement from the students during the project, by the ambition they showed in the designing of the experiments, and by the satisfaction students took in presenting their final results. Further planned improvements to the course will attempt to lessen the stress some students reported by emphasizing experimental process over data. We intend for our findings to be useful for other course redesign initiatives incorporating project-based learning and student reflections.
[99]{} G. Planinsic and D. Schumacher, [Eur. J. Phys.](http://iopscience.iop.org/issue/0143-0807/28/3) [**28**]{} (3) (2007).
B.M. Zwickl, N. Finkelstein, and H.J. Lewandowski, [Am. J. Phys. ](https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.4875924) [**82**]{}, 876-882 (2014).
D.R. Dounas-Frazer, J.T. Stanley, and H.J. Lewandowski, [Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. ](https://journals.aps.org/prper/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.020136) [**13**]{}, 020136 (2017).
AAPT Committee on Laboratories, [*AAPT Recommendations for the Undergraduate Physics Laboratory Curriculum*](https://www.aapt.org/Resources/upload/LabGuidlinesDocument_EBendorsed_nov10.pdf) (2014).
N.L. Fortenberry, J.F. Sullivan, P.N. Jordan, and D.W. Knight, [Science](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5842/1175.full) [**317**]{}, 1175-1176 (2007).
E. Etkina et al., [J. Learn. Sci.](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10508400903452876) [**19**]{} (1), 54-98 (2010).
B.R. Wilcox and H.J. Lewandowski, [Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.](https://journals.aps.org/prper/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.13.010108) [**1**]{}3, 010108 (2017).
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, *Integrating Discovery-Based Research into the Undergraduate Curriculum: Report of a Convocation*, National Academies Press, Washington D.C. (2015), Chap. 3, Promising Practices and Ongoing Challenges.
P.R. Gandhi et al., [Am. J. Phys.](https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1119/1.4955147?journalCode=ajp) [**84**]{}, 696 (2016).
A. Mason and C. Singh, [AIP Conf. Proc.](http://www.per-central.org/items/detail.cfm?ID=10379) [**1289**]{}, 41-44 (2010).
M.L. Scott, T. Stelzer, and G. Gladding, [AIP Conf. Proc.](https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.2820929) [**951**]{}, 188-191 (2007).
D.B. May and E. Etkina, [Am. J. Phys.](https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.1503377) [**70**]{}, 1249-1258 (2002).
D.R. Dounas-Frazer and D.L. Reinholz, [Am. J. Phys.](https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1119/1.4930083?journalCode=ajp) [**83**]{}, 881 (2015).
K. Ward and G. Duda, [Phys. Educ. Res. Conf. Proc.](https://www.compadre.org/per/items/detail.cfm?ID=13502) (2014).
B.R. Wilcox and H.J. Lewandowski, [Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res.](https://journals.aps.org/prper/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010123) [**12**]{}, 010123 (2016).
J.B. Velasco et al., [J. Chem. Educ.](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00062) [**93**]{}, 1191 (2016).
J. Corbin and A. Strauss, *Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory*, Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 4th edition (2015).
B.M. Zwickl, D. Hu, N. Finkelstein, and H.J. Lewandowski, [Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res.](https://journals.aps.org/prper/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.11.020113) [**11**]{}, 020113 (2015).
D.R. Dounas-Frazer and H.J. Lewandowski, in press Eur. J. Phys., [e-Print: arXiv:1805.10334](https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10334) (2018).
[TRESTLE](http://trestlenetwork.org/) (Transforming Education, Stimulating Teaching and Learning Excellence) is an international teaching and learning network.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Dense quantum plasmas are ubiquitous in planetary interiors and in compact astrophysical objects (e.g. the interior of white dwarf stars, in magnetars etc.), in semiconductors and micro-mechanical systems, as well as in the next generation intense laser-solid density plasma interaction experiments and in quantum x-ray free-electron lasers. In contrast to classical plasmas, one encounters extremely high plasma number density and low temperature in quantum plasmas. The latter are composed of electrons, positrons and holes, which are degenerate. Positrons (holes) have the same (slightly different) mass as electrons, but opposite charge. The degenerate charged particles (electrons, positrons, holes) follow the Fermi-Dirac statistics. In quantum plasmas, there are new forces associated with i) quantum statistical electron and positron pressures, ii) electron and positron tunneling through the Bohm potential, and iii) electron and positron angular momentum spin. Inclusion of these quantum forces provides possibility of very high-frequency dispersive electrostatic and electromagnetic waves (e.g. in the hard x-ray and gamma rays regimes) having extremely short wavelengths. In this review paper, we present theoretical backgrounds for some important nonlinear aspects of wave-wave and wave-electron interactions in dense quantum plasmas. Specifically, we shall focus on nonlinear electrostatic electron and ion plasma waves, novel aspects of 3D quantum electron fluid turbulence, as well as nonlinearly coupled intense electromagnetic waves and localized plasma wave structures. Also discussed are the phase space kinetic structures and mechanisms that can generate quasi-stationary magnetic fields in dense quantum plasmas. The influence of the external magnetic field and the electron angular momentum spin on the electromagnetic wave dynamics is discussed. Finally, future perspectives of the nonlinear quantum plasma physics are highlighted.'
author:
- P K Shukla
- B Eliasson
title: Nonlinear aspects of quantum plasma physics
---
Introduction
============
The field of quantum plasma physics has a long and diverse tradition [@Klimontovich52; @Bohm52; @Bohm53; @Pines1; @Pines2], and is becoming of increasing current interest[@Bonitz03; @Manfredi05], motivated by its potential applications in modern technology (e.g. metallic and semiconductor nanostructures-such as metallic nanoparticles, metal clusters, thin metal films, spintronics, nanotubes, quantum well and quantum dots, nano-plasmonic devices, quantum x-ray free-electron lasers, etc.). Due to the recent development of ultrafast spectroscopy techniques, it is now possible to monitor the femtosecond dynamics of an electron gas confined in metallic plasmas. In dense quantum plasmas, the number densities of degenerate electrons and/or positrons are extremely high, and the plasma particles (mainly electrons and positrons) obey Fermi-Dirac statistics.
The quantum degeneracy effects start playing a significant role when the de Broglie thermal wavelength $\lambda_B =\hbar/(2\pi m_e k_B T)^{1/2}$ for electrons is similar to or larger than the average inter-electron distance $n_e^{-1/3}$, i.e. when [@Bonitz03; @Manfredi05] $$n_e \lambda_B^3 \gtrsim 1,$$ or, equivalently, the temperature $T$ is comparable or lower than the electron Fermi temperature $T_{Fe}=E_F/k_B$, where the electron Fermi energy is $$E_F =\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_e} (3\pi^2)^{2/3}n_e^{2/3},$$ so that $$\chi =\frac{T_{Fe}}{T} = \frac{1}{2}(3\pi^2)^{2/3}({n_e\lambda_B^3})^{2/3}\gtrsim 1.$$ Here $\hbar$ is the Planck constant divided by $2\pi$, $n_e$ is the electron number density, $m_e$ is the rest electron mass, and $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant.
When the temperature approaches the electron Fermi temperature $T_{Fe}$, one can show, by using the density matrix formalism [@Bransden00], that the equilibrium electron distribution function changes from the Maxwell–Boltzmann $\propto \exp(-E/k_B T)$ to the Fermi–Dirac distribution $\propto (2/\hbar^3)\left[\exp((E+\mu)/k_B T_{Fe})+1\right]^{-1}$, where $E$ is the electron kinetic energy and $\mu$ is the chemical potential. In a dense Fermi plasma, the Thomas-Fermi screening radius reads $$\lambda_F =\frac{V_{Fe}}{\sqrt{3}\omega_{pe}}$$ which is the quantum analogue of the Debye-Hückel radius. Here the electron Fermi speed $$V_{Fe} =(2 E_F/m_e)^{1/2} = \frac{\hbar}{m_e}(3\pi^2 n_e)^{1/3}$$ is the speed of an electron at the Fermi surface.
A measure of the importance of collisions in a dense plasma is the quantum coupling parameter, which is the ratio between the interaction energy $E_{int}=e^2 n_e^{1/3}$ and the average kinetic energy $E_{kin}$ of electrons, where $e$ is the magnitude of the electron charge. For a classical plasma, the kinetic energy is $k_B T$ and hence we have $\Gamma_C ={E_{int}}/{k_B T}$ in the classical case. In a quantum plasma, we have instead $E_{kin}=E_F$, which gives the quantum coupling parameter [@Bonitz03; @Manfredi05; @Fortov00] $$\Gamma_Q =\frac{E_{int}}{E_F}=\frac{2}{(3\pi^2)^{2/3}}\frac{m_e e^2}{\hbar^2 n_e^{1/3}} \sim
\left(\frac{1}{n_e\lambda_F^3}\right)^{2/3}
\sim \left(\frac{\hbar \omega_{pe}}{2k_B T_{Fe}}\right)^2 \equiv H^2,$$ (where we have left out proportionality constants for the sake of clarity) is analogous to the classical one when $\lambda_F \rightarrow \lambda_D$. The various plasma regimes are illustrated in Fig. \[Fig:Plasma\_diagram\], where the straight lines correspond to i) the distinction between the classical and quantum plasmas, $\chi=1$, ii) the limit between collisionless and collisional classical plasmas, $\Gamma_C=1$, and iii) the limit between collisionless and collisional quantum plasmas, $\Gamma_Q=1$. In Fig. \[Fig:Plasma\_diagram\], various experimental and naturally occurring plasmas are exemplified. Also indicated in Fig. \[Fig:Plasma\_diagram\] are the kinetic equations used to model the plasma in each regime. The Vlasov and Wigner equations are thus used to model collisionless plasma in the classical and quantum limits, respectively, while “Boltzmann” indicates collisional kinetic models in a classical plasma. The kinetic models for a collisional quantum plasma is labeled “Wigner (+coll)” in Fig. \[Fig:Plasma\_diagram\]. We note that a quantum plasma becomes collisionless $\Gamma_Q < 1$ when the mean distance between electrons is of the order of the Bohr radius $a_0$, i.e. $d=1/n_e^{1/3}<[(3\pi^2)^{2/3}/8\pi]a_0\approx 0.38 a_0$, where $a_0=\hbar^2/m_e e^2 \approx 0.53$ Å. This corresponds to a number density of the order $n_e \gtrsim 1.22\times 10^{26}\,\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$, which is three orders of magnitude larger than the electron density in a typical metal, for example gold has $n_e =5.9\times10^{22}\,\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ at room temperature.
In Fermi-degenerate matters, there is an effect called the Pauli-blocking, which strongly reduces the electron-electron and electron-ion collisional rates. Namely, at moderate temperatures, only electrons within an energy shell of thickness $k_B T$ about the Fermi surface (where the electron energy equals $E_F$) can undergo collisions. For these electrons, the electron-electron collision rate is of the order $k_B T/\hbar$, and the average collision rate is obtained by multiplying this expression by $T/T_F$. The resulting collision frequency $\nu_{ee}$ divided by the electron plasma frequency is [@Manfredi05] $$%\nonumber
\frac{\nu_{ee}}{\omega_{pe}}\sim \frac{E_F}{\hbar \omega_p}\left(\frac{T}{T_F}\right)^2
=\frac{1}{\Gamma_Q^{1/2}}\left(\frac{T}{T_F}\right)^2.$$ Hence, $\nu_{ee}\ll\omega_{pe}$ when $T\ll T_F$ and $\Gamma_Q>1$, which is relevant for metallic electrons. For example, at room temperature we have $\nu_{ee}\sim 10^{11}\,s^{-1}$, which is much smaller than the typical collisionless frequency of collective interactions, $\omega_{pe}\sim 10^{16}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$. Also, the typical collision rate for electron-lattice (ion) collisions, $\nu_{ei}\sim 10^{15}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, is smaller than $\omega_{pe}$ by one order of magnitude. Therefore, a collisionless regime seems to be relevant for free electrons in a metal on a time-scale of the order of a femtosecond. In denser plasmas, such as in stellar interiors [@Lee50; @Hubbard66; @Lampe68] and in inertial fusion schemes [@Azechi91; @Azechi06; @Son05], the relative effects of collisions decrease even further and leads to increased electron transport and heat conductivity.
![Schematic plasma diagram in the $\log_{10}(T)$ – $\log(n)$ plane: IONO: ionospheric plasma, SPACE: space plasma, CORONA: solar corona, DISCHA: typical electric discharge, TOK: tokamak/magnetic fusion experiments, ICF: inertial confinement fusion, MET: metals and metal clusters, JUP: Jupiter’s core, DWARF: white dwarf star. After Refs. [@Bonitz03; @Manfredi05].[]{data-label="Fig:Plasma_diagram"}](Plasma_diagram.jpg){width="10cm"}
More than sixty five years ago, Wigner [@Wigner32] introduced a phase-space formalism to treat a quantum state of charged particles in a collisionless quantum system. He introduced a quantum distribution function of the phase-space variables $f(x,p.t)$. The Wigner distribution function is defined as $$f(x,p,t) =\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3N}}\int_\infty^\infty
\rho\bigg(x-\frac{\hbar}{2}\tau, x+ \frac{\hbar}{2} \tau, t\bigg)
\exp(-ip \tau) d \tau,$$ where $N$ is the number of particles in the system, $x\{x;1,x_2..., x_N\}$ and $p\{p_1,p_2,...,P_N\}$ are the sets of coordinates and momenta for the particles, $t$ is the time, and $\rho(x,x^{\prime},t)$ is the density matrix. The Wigner function is not a probability density in phase space $x,p$, because it can take negative values. The Wigner distribution function $W_i(x,p.t)$, corresponding to the wave function $\psi_i(x,t)$, can be expressed as $$W_i(x,p, t)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{3N}\hbar}\int_\infty^\infty dy
\left<\psi_i(x-y/2,t)\psi_i^*(x+y/2,t)\right>\exp(-py/\hbar),$$ which has the property $$\int_\infty^\infty dp W_i(x,p.t) = <|\psi_i(x,t)|^2>,$$ where the asterisk denotes complex conjugate. The quantum kinetic equation based on the Wigner distribution was developed by Moyal [@Moyal49], and is now referred to as the Wigner-Moyal description for treating statistical effects on electron plasma waves in a quantum plasma [@Anderson02].
Analytical investigations of collective interactions between an ensemble of degenerate electrons in a dense quantum plasma dates back to early fifties. Specifically, Klimontovich and Silin [@Klimontovich52] and Bohm and Pines [@Bohm52; @Bohm53; @Pines1; @Pines2] presented properties of linear electron plasma oscillations (EPOs) in a dense quantum plasma. In the latter, electrons, positrons, and holes are degenerate, while ions are cold and classical (typically, in a dense quantum plasma the ion Fermi speed is much smaller than the electron Fermi speed). Accordingly, electrons, positrons and holes have a Fermi-Dirac distribution function [@Tsintsadze09], contrary to the Boltzmann-Maxwell distribution function for charged particles in a classical plasma.
The dispersion relation for high-frequency electron plasma oscillations in a dense quantum plasma with fixed ion background reads (see Appendix B) $$\begin{split}
&1-\frac{4 \pi e^2}{m_e}
\int
\frac{f_0({\bf u})}{(\omega-{\bf k}\cdot{\bf u})^2-\frac{\hbar^2 k^4}{4 m_e^2}} d^3 u=0,
\end{split}$$ which was also obtained by Bohm and Pines [@Bohm53] by performing a series of canonical transformations on the Hamiltonian of the system of individual electrons, interacting via the electrostatic force. In the zero temperature limit, we have (see Appendix B) $$\begin{split}
1+\frac{3\omega_{pe}^2}{4 k^2 V_{Fe}^2}\left\{
2-\frac{m_e}{\hbar k V_{Fe}}\left[V_{Fe}^2-\left(\frac{\omega}{k}+\frac{\hbar k}{2 m_e}\right)^2\right]
\log\left|
\frac{
\frac{\omega}{k}-V_{Fe}+\frac{\hbar k}{2 m_e}
}{
\frac{\omega}{k}+V_{Fe}+\frac{\hbar k}{2 m_e}
}
\right|
\right.
\\
\left.
+\frac{m_e}{\hbar k V_{Fe}}\left[V_{Fe}^2-\left(\frac{\omega}{k}-\frac{\hbar k}{2 m_e}\right)^2\right]
\log\left|
\frac{
\frac{\omega}{k}-V_{Fe}-\frac{\hbar k}{2 m_e}
}{
\frac{\omega}{k}+V_{Fe}-\frac{\hbar k}{2 m_e}
}
\right|
\right\}\equiv 1+\chi_e=0,
\end{split}
\label{Wigner_disp}$$ which, in the limit $\hbar k/m_e\rightarrow 0$ yields $$1+\frac{3\omega_{pe}^2}{k^2 V_{Fe}^2}\left(
1-\frac{\omega}{2k V_{Fe}}\log\left|\frac{\omega+k V_{Fe}}{\omega-k V_{Fe}}\right|
\right)=0,$$ where we have assumed that $\omega$ is real and $\omega/k>V_{Fe}$. Here $\omega$ is the wave frequency, ${\bf k}$ is the wave vector, and $\omega_{pe} =(4\pi n_e e^2/m_e)^{1/2}$ is the electron plasma frequency, On the other hand, for small wavenumbers up to terms containing $k^4$, we obtain from (\[Wigner\_disp\]) $$\omega^2\approx\omega_{pe}^2+\frac{3}{5}k^2 V_{Fe}^2+(1+\alpha)\frac{\hbar^2 k^4}{4 m_e^2},$$ where $\alpha=(48/175)m_e^2 V_{Fe}^4/\hbar^2\omega_{pe}^2\approx 2.000 (a_0^3 n_0)^{1/3}$, where $a_0=\hbar^2/m_e e^2\approx 53\times 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{cm}$ is the Bohr radius. Equation (14) shows that the wave dispersion arises due to the finite width of the electron wave function in a dense Fermi plasma [@Gardner96; @Manfredi01; @Manfredi05; @Shukla06; @Shukla06a; @ShuklaEliasson07].
Furthermore, in the low phase speed limit, viz. $\omega \ll k V_{Fe}$, the dielectric constant for ion oscillations reads $$\epsilon(\omega, {\bf k}) \approx 1 + \frac{3\omega_{pe}^2}{k^2 V_{Fe}^2
+ 3\hbar^2k^4/4m_e^2}-\frac{\omega_{pi}^2}{\omega^2},$$ which yields, with $\epsilon(\omega, {\bf k}) =0$, the ion oscillation frequency
$$\omega \approx \frac{\omega_{pi}}{(1+Q)^{1/2}},$$
where $\omega_{pi} =(m_e/m_i)^{1/2}\omega_{pe}$ is the ion plasma frequency, and $m_i$ is the ion mass, $ Q = 3\omega_{pe}^2/(k^2 V_{Fe}^2+ 3\hbar^2 k^4/4m_e^2)$, and $\alpha\ll 1$. For $Q \gg 1$, we have from (16b) $$\omega \approx kC_{Fs} \left(1+ \frac{\hbar^2k^4}{4m_e^2\omega_{pe}^2}\right)^{1/2},$$
where $C_{Fs} =(T_{Fe}/3 m_i)^{1/2}$ is the sound speed.
Dispersion properties of electrostatic waves in an unmagnetized dense quantum plasmas with arbitrary electron degeneracy have been presented by Maafa [@Maafa93] and Melrose [@Melrose07]. By using the random phase approximation, the permittivity of a degenerate collisionless plasma is given in textbooks [@Lifshitz81; @Nozieres99]. Furthermore, since the pure electromagnetic wave in a non-streaming unmagnetized dense plasma do not accompany density fluctuations, the wave frequency is $\omega=(\omega_{pe}^2+k^2c^2)^{1/2}$, where $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum. Theoretical studies of quantum statistical properties of dense plasmas in the presence of electromagnetic waves appear in Kremp et al. [@Kremp99] and in textbooks [@Bonitz98; @Kremp05], while quantum parameter regimes are discussed by Bonitz [@Bonitz03]. In a magnetized dense quantum plasma, one finds that the external magnetic field significantly affects the dynamics of degenerate electrons and positrons, and subsequently there appear new collective phenomena associated with the electron angular momentum spin [@Uhlenbeck25; @Dbohm52], the electron spin magnetic moment [@Sasabe08], and quantized Landau energy levels [@Landau77] of the Fermions in a strong magnetic field. It turns out that the thermodynamics and kinetics [@Steinberg00], as well as the dispersion properties of both electrostatic and electromagnetic waves [@John06; @Shukla06b; @ShuklaAli06; @Shukla07a; @Lundin07; @Misra07; @Saleem09] in a quantum magnetoplasma are significantly different from those in an unmagnetized quantum plasma.
It was early recognized that the underlying physics of nonlinear quantum-like equations can be better understood by casting those equations in the form of hydrodynamical (or the Euler) equations, which essentially represent the evolution of quantum particle densities and momenta. This was elegantly done by Madelung [@Madelung26] and Bohm [@Bohm52] by introducing an eikonal representation for the wave function evolution in the non-stationary Schrödinger equation. The derivation of the Madelung quantum fluid equations for the Pauli equation with the quantum particle angular momentum spin was presented by Takabayashi [@Takabayashi52; @Takabayashi55a; @Takabayashi83], Bohm et al. [@Bohm55a; @Bohm55b], Janossy and Ziegler-Naray [@Janossy65], and others [@Ghosh82]. To incorporate relativistic effects into the quantum fluid formalism, Takabayashi derived the quantum electron fluid equations for the Klein-Gordon equation [@Takabayashi53] and for the Dirac equation [@Takabayashi55b; @Takabayashi56; @Takabayashi57]. Extensions have also been done to fluid descriptions of the Weyl equation for massless spin-1/2 particles (neutrinos) by Bialynicki-Birula [@Bialy95].
Recently, there has been growing and vibrant interests in investigating new aspects of quantum plasma physics by developing non-relativistic quantum hydrodynamical (QHD) equations [@Gardner94; @Gardner96; @Manfredi01; @Manfredi05]. The latter include the quantum statistical electron pressure and the quantum force involving tunneling of degenerate electrons through the Bohm potential [@Gardner96]. The Wigner-Poisson (WP) model has also been used to derive a set of non-relativistic quantum hydrodynamical (QHD) equations [@Manfredi01; @Manfredi05] for a dense electron plasma, assuming immobile ions. The QHD equations are composed of the electron continuity, electron momentum and Poisson equations. The quantum force [@Gardner96; @Manfredi01; @Manfredi05] appears in the non-relativistic electron momentum equation through the pressure term, which requires knowledge of the Wigner distribution for a quantum mixture of electron wave functions, each characterized by an occupation probability. Quantum transport models similar to the QHD plasma model have also been used in superfluidity [@r9] and superconductivity [@r10], as well as in the study of metal clusters and nanoparticles, where they are referred to as nonstationary Thomas-Fermi models [@r11].
The electrostatic QHD equations are useful for studying collective interactions (e.g. different types of waves, instabilities, quantum fluid turbulence and nonlinear structures [@Manfredi01; @Manfredi05; @Haas03; @Eliasson08; @Haas05; @Shukla06; @ShuklaStenflo06; @Shukla07; @Shaikh07; @Shaikh08; @Bersh08; @Eliasson08a] in dense quantum plasmas. The quantum kinetic and QHD equations have also been generalized to include the electromagnetic, ambient magnetic field and electron angular momentum spin effects [@Semikoz03; @MarklundBrodin07; @Brodin07; @Shukla07a; @Shukla08b; @Shukla09a]. The latter give rise to high-frequency spin waves, which can be excited by neutrino beams in supernovae [@Semikoz02a; @Semikoz03]. Furthermore, studies of numerous collective interactions in dense plasmas are relevant in the context of i) intense laser-solid density plasma experiments [@Hu99; @Andreev00; @Mourou06; @MarklundShukla06; @Salamin06; @Azechi91; @Azechi06; @Malkin07; @Kritcher08; @Hartemann08; @Lee09; @Norreys09], where one would be exploring new frontiers in high-energy density physics [@Drake09]; ii) in the cores of giant planets and the crusts of old stars [@Horn91; @Guillot99; @Fortney09]; iii) superdense astrophysical objects [@Meszaros92; @Gurevich93; @Craighead00; @Opher01; @Shapiro04; @Benvenuto05; @Chabrier02; @Chabrier06; @Lai06] (e.g. interiors of white dwarfs and magnetospheres of neutron stars and magnetars); iv) as well as for micro and nano-scale objects (e.g. quantum diodes [@Lao91; @Ang03; @Ang04; @Ang06; @Ang07; @Shukla08], quantum dots and nanowires [@r13D], nano-photonics [@r14D; @r14Db], plasmonics [@r14Dc], ultra-small electronic devices [@r0; @r1; @r1m], and metallic nanostructures [@r1a]); v) micro-plasmas [@r2], and quantum x-ray free-electron lasers [@r3; @r4]. Furthermore, it should be stressed that a Fermi degenerate dense plasma may also arise when a pellet of hydrogen is compressed to many times the solid density in the fast ignition scenario for inertial confinement fusion [@Son05; @Lindl95; @Tabak05]. Since there is an impressive developments in the field of short pulse petawatt laser technology, it is highly likely that such plasma conditions can be achieved by intense laser pulse compression using powerful x-ray pulses. Here ultrafast x-ray Thomson scattering techniques can be used to measure the features of laser enhanced plasma lines, which will, in turn, give invaluable informations regarding the equation of state of shock compressed dense matters. Recently, spectrally resolved x-ray scattering measurements [@Kritcher08; @Lee09] have been performed in dense plasmas allowing accurate measurements of the electron velocity distribution function, temperature, ionization state, and of plasmons in the warm dense matter regime [@Glenzer07]. This novel technique promises to access the degenerate, the closely coupled, and the ideal plasma regime, making it possible to investigate extremely dense states of matter, such as the inertial confinement fusion fuel during compression, reaching super-solid densities.
In this review article, we present the theoretical progress that has been recently made in the area of collective nonlinear interactions in collisionless dense quantum plasmas. The manuscript is organized in the following fashion. In section 2, we shall briefly recapitulate the hydrodynamic representation of some quantum-like models that appear in different branches of physics. The governing equations for nonlinearly interacting electrostatic waves in an unmagnetized quantum plasma are derived in section 3. Section 4 presents numerical studies of nonlinear electron plasma wave excitations in the form of quantized one-dimensional dark solitons and quantized two-dimensional vortices. The model used here is the nonlinear Schrödinger equation for the dispersive EPOs, coupled with the Poisson equation for the electrostatic potential. This model is also used for studying 3D quantum electron fluid turbulence in section \[sec:turbulence\], where we find non-Kolmogorov-type turbulence spectra. In section \[sec:kinetic\], we present recent results concerning the phase space (kinetic) turbulence, by using the Wigner and Vlasov models for the electron distribution function. A theoretical model for the generation of quasi-stationary magnetic fields in a dense quantum plasma due to the Weibel instability is presented in section \[sec:Weibel\]. The magnetization of a dense plasma in the presence of a large amplitude electromagnetic wave is demonstrated in subsection \[sec:Magnetization\]. The dynamics of electromagnetic waves in a dense magnetoplasma are discussed in section \[emwaveequation\]. Here we focus on spin waves propagating across the magnetic field direction, and develop nonlinear equations for low-phase speed (in comparison with the speed of light) electromagnetic waves in a dense quantum magnetoplasma. Finally, section \[sec:conclusions\] highlights our main results and describes the future prospectives of the quantum plasma physics research.
Fluid representation of quantum-like models
===========================================
This section is included to show how different types of quantum-like models can be cast in the form of hydrodynamic equations.
First, we consider the non-stationary nonlinear Schrödinger equation(NLSE) $$i \hbar\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}+\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m}\nabla^2\psi - U_{0}(|\psi|^2) \psi =0,
\label{Schrod}$$ where $\psi({\bf r}, t)$ is the macroscopic wave function, $m$ is the particle mass, and $U_0(|\psi|^2)$ is an effective potential. The NLSE also arises in various physical context in the description of amplitude modulated nonlinear waves in fluids [@Benney67; @Benjamin67], in transmission lines [@Scott73], in nonlinear optics for ultra-fast communications [@Hasegawa73; @Agrawal06; @Wan07], in plasmas [@Karpman69; @Karpman71; @Zakharov72; @Karpman75; @SchamelShukla76; @Shukla78], and in many other areas of physics [@Sulem99; @Fedele02; @Dauxois06].
Introduce the Madelung transformation [@Madelung26] $$\psi ({\bf r}, t) =\sqrt{n}\exp \left(i \frac{\varphi_q}{\hbar} \right),$$ where $n$ and $\varphi_q$ are real, and obtain from (17) a pair of quantum hydrodynamic equations composed of the continuity and momentum equations, respectively, $$\frac{\partial n}{\partial t}+\nabla\cdot(n{\bf v})=0,
\label{cont}$$ and $$m\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+{\bf v}\cdot \nabla \right){\bf v} = -\nabla [U_0(n) + U_B].
\label{mom}$$ Here $n = n({\bf r}, t) = |\psi|^2$ corresponds to the local density per unit length, and $ \hbar \nabla \varphi_q({\bf r}, t) =m {\bf v}$. The quantum potential is $$U_B=-\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m}\frac{\nabla^2\sqrt{n}}{\sqrt{n}}.$$
We note that the quantum particle number density $n$ and the quantum velocity field ${\bf v}$ can be written as, respectively, $$n ({\bf r}, t) = \psi \psi^* \equiv |\psi|^2,$$ and $${\bf v}=\frac{\hbar}{2 i m}\frac{(\psi^*\nabla\psi-\psi\nabla\psi^*)}{|\psi|^2}
=-\frac{i\hbar}{2m}\nabla \left[{\rm ln} \left(\frac{\psi}{\psi^*}\right)\right].$$ where the asterisk denotes the complex conjugate. The quantum-like velocity, given by (23), is a potential field, namely,
$$\nabla \times {\bf v} =0$$
everywhere in a single-connected region.
Let us now define the generalized vorticity on the weighted velocity field as [@Bersh08] $$\boldsymbol{\Omega} = \frac{\nabla \times(|\psi|^2{\bf v})}{|\psi|^2}
= \nabla \times {\bf v} + \frac{\nabla |\psi|^2 \times {\bf v }}{|\psi|^2},$$ where the first term in the right-hand side in (25) represents the ordinary vorticity. It is well known [@Ghosh82; @Barenghi01] that in the condensate state all rotational flow is carried by quantized vortices (the circulation of the velocity around the core of each such vortex is quantized). In the absence of quantized vortices, the first term is zero in view of (24). In such a situation, the second term in (25) determines the generalized vorticity. Various aspects of quantized vortex dynamics and superfluid turbulence appear in Barenghi et al [@Barenghi01]. Bewley et al [@Sreeni06] have presented a technique for visualization of quantized vortices in liquid helium.
Second, the nonlinear Schrödinger equation can be generalized by including the trapping potential
$$V_b (x,y,z) = \frac{1}{2} m_b \left(\omega_x^2 x^2 + \omega_y^2 y^2 + \omega_z^2 z^2\right),$$
which confines identical bosons [@Bose24] in the harmonic trap of an ultracold quantum system. Here $m_b$ is the boson mass, and $\omega_x$, $\omega_y$ and $\omega_z$ are the harmonic frequencies of the bosons along the $x, y,$ and $z$ directions, respectively, of a Cartesian coordinate system. The nonlinear dynamics of the Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) [@Bose24; @Einstein24] is then governed by the Gross-Pitaevskii equation [@Gross61; @Pita61; @Pita03]
$$i\hbar \frac{\partial \phi ({\bf r},t)}{\partial t} + \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \nabla^2 \psi ({\bf r},t)
- V_b \psi ({\bf r},t) - G |\psi|^2({\bf r}, t) \psi ({\bf r}, t) =0,$$
where for the BECs we have $U_0(|\psi|^2) =(4\pi \hbar^2a_s/m_b)^{1/2}|\psi|^2 \equiv G|\psi|^2$. Here $m_b$ is the mass of the bosons and $a_s$ is the scattering length for boson-boson collisions. The BECs are repulsive (attractive) for $G >$ $(< ) 0$.
Introducing the Ansatz $\psi ({\bf r},t) =\sqrt{n_b({\bf r}, t)} \exp[\varphi_b({\bf r}, t)]$ in (27), we obtain generalized quantum hydrodynamic equations [@Dalfovo99; @Dell04] $$\frac{\partial n_b}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot (n {\bf u}_b) =0,$$ and $$m_b \frac{\partial {\bf u}_b}{\partial t}
= - \nabla \left(V_b + + \frac{m_b}{2} u_b^2 + G n_b
- \frac{\hbar^2}{2m_b\sqrt{n_b}} \nabla^2\sqrt{n_b}\right),$$ where the particle flux $$n_b({\bf r},t) {\bf u}_b ({\bf r}, t) = \frac{\hbar^2}{2i m_b}
\left(\psi^* \nabla \psi-\psi \nabla \psi^*\right),$$ with ${\bf u}_b =(\hbar/m_b)\nabla \varphi_b({\bf r}, t)$. Equation (29) establishes the irrotational nature of the superfluid motion of the BECs. Equations (29) and (30) can be used to study the linear and nonlinear properties of BECs.
Next, we consider the dynamics of a non-relativistic single Fermi ($1/2-$ spin) particle (a degenerate electron) governed by the Pauli equation [@Pauli25; @Bere99] $$i\hbar\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} + \frac{\hbar^2}{2 m_e} \nabla^2 \Psi
-\left[\frac{i e\hbar}{2m_e c} \left({\bf A} \cdot \nabla + \nabla \cdot {\bf A}\right)
+ \frac{e^2{\bf A}^2}{2m_ec^2} - e \phi - \mu_e {\bf \sigma} \cdot{\bf B}\right]\Psi =0,
\label{Schrod2}$$ where $\Psi ({\bf r}, t, {\boldsymbol \sigma})$ is the wave function of the single particle species having the spin ${\bf s} =1/2{\boldsymbol \sigma}$, ${\boldsymbol \sigma}$ is the Pauli spin matrices, ${\bf A}$ is the vector potential, $\phi$ is the scalar potential, ${\bf B} = \nabla \times {\bf A}$, and $\mu_B=e\hbar/2m_ec$ is the Bohr magneton.
By using the Madelung representation for the complex wave function [@Brodin07R] $$\Psi ({\bf r}, t, {\boldsymbol \sigma})
= s \sqrt{n_e({\bf r}, t, {\boldsymbol \sigma})} \exp\left[\frac{i S_e ({\bf r}, t,
{\boldsymbol \sigma})}{\hbar}\right],$$ one can obtain from (31) the quantum magnetohydrodynamic equation [@Brodin07R; @Tsintsadze09] $$\frac{\partial n_e}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot \left( \frac{n {\bf p}_e}{m_e}\right) =0,$$ and $$\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + \frac{1}{m_e} {\bf p}_e \cdot\nabla \right) {\bf p}_e
= e \left[\nabla \phi +\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial {\bf A}}{\partial t}
- \frac{1}{c} {\bf v}_e \times (\nabla \times {\bf A}) \right]
+ \frac{\hbar^2}{2m_e} \nabla\left(\frac{\nabla^2 \sqrt{n_e}}{\sqrt{n_e}}\right)
+ \mu_B \nabla ({\boldsymbol \sigma} \cdot {\bf B}),$$ where $s$ mimics the spinor through which the electron-$1/2$ spin properties are mediated, $n_e ({\bf r}, t, {\boldsymbol \sigma})= \Psi \Psi^*$ represents the probability density of finding the single electron at some point with a spin ${\bf s}$. We have denoted the generalized electron momentum ${\bf p}_e =\nabla S_e -i \hbar s^* \nabla s +(e/c) {\bf A}$.
We can now express the quantum electron velocity [@Brodin07R] $${\bf v}_e = \frac{\hbar}{2 m_e}\frac{(\Psi^*\nabla\Psi-\Psi\nabla\Psi^*)}{|\Psi|^2}
+ i \frac{\hbar}{m_e} s^* \nabla s -\frac{e}{m_e c}{\bf A},
\label{velocity}$$ the spin density vector $${\bf s}=\frac{\hbar}{2} s^* {\boldsymbol \sigma} s.$$ and the spin vector transport equation [@Takabayashi52] $$\frac{d{\bf s}}{dt}=\frac{e}{m_ec}({\bf s}\times {\bf B})+\frac{1}{m_e n_e}
\bigg[{\bf s}\times\frac{\partial}{\partial x_k}\bigg(n_e\frac{\partial {\bf s}}
{\partial x_k}\bigg)\bigg],$$ where we have used the summation convention for repeated indices, and have denoted $d/dt\equiv (\partial/\partial t) +{\bf v}_e\cdot \nabla$ is the total derivative. The electron momentum and electromagnetic fields are coupled via the Maxwell equations.
Ignoring the electromagnetic fields and the particle spin, one can obtain, after linearizing (33) and (34), the frequency of electron oscillations $$\omega_g = \frac{\hbar k^2}{2m_e},$$ where $k$ is the wave number.
Finally, we consider interaction of an electron with both background electrons and singly charged positive ions. The electron dynamics is governed by [@Dvornikov09]
$$i\hbar \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} + \frac{\hbar^2}{2m_e}\nabla^2 \psi
-U(|\psi|^2) =0,$$
where
$$U(|\psi|^2) = e^2 \int d^3 {\bf r}^{\prime}\frac{1}{|{\bf r}-{\bf r}^{\prime}|}
\left(|\psi({\bf r}^{\prime},t))|^2-n_i ({\bf r}^{\prime},t)\right),$$
is the potential responsible for the interaction of an electron with background matter which includes electrons and positively charged ions with the number density $n_i({\bf r}^{\prime},t)$. The wave function is normalized on the number density of electrons, viz. $n_e({\bf r}, t)
=|\psi({\bf r}, t)|^2$. We note that Eq. (39) accounts only for the Coulomb interactions between electrons and ions, and completely ignores the quantum statistical pressure, the self-consistent ambipolar field arising from the charge separation, and the electron spin-1/2 effect.
Assume that $\psi ({\bf r}, t) =\psi_0 + \psi_1 ({\bf r}, t)$, where $|\psi_0|^2= n_0$ represent the unperturbed electron number density and the perturbation wave function $\psi_1 ({\bf r}, t)$ for spherically symmetric oscillations has the form $(A_k/r) {\rm sin (kr)} \exp(-i \omega t)$, with $A_k$ being the normalization constant. Thus, the dispersion relation deduced from (39) reads [@Dvornikov09] $$k^2 =\frac{\omega m_e}{\hbar}\left[1 \pm \left(1-4\frac{\omega_{pe}^2}{\omega^2}\right)^{1/2}\right].$$
The interaction between two electrons participating in spherically symmetric electron oscillations has been considered in Ref. [@Dvornikov09]. The latter predicts that there would be an effective attraction between electrons mediated by low energy \[given by the minus sign in Eq. (41)\] spherically symmetric oscillations of electrons in a quantum plasma. We can thus have attracting degenerate electrons in dense plasmas. The underlying physics of electron attraction here seems to be similar to that of the Cooper pairing of electrons in superconductors in which electrons close to the Fermi level attract each other due to their interactions with crystal lattice vibrations (phonon oscillations). The pairs of electrons act more like bosons which can condensate into the same energy level, contrary to single electrons which are fermions and must obey the Pauli exclusion principle.
Nonlinear equations for unmagnetized quantum plasmas
====================================================
In the preceding section, we have seen that the quantum Madelung fluid description predicts a diffraction pattern of a single electron or positron. However, collective interactions between an ensemble of degenerate electrons (Fermions) in dense plasmas are responsible for new linear and nonlinear waves and structures.
The quantum $N$-body problem is governed by the Schrödinger equation for the $N$-particle wave function $\psi(q_1,q_2,\ldots, q_N, t)$, where $q_j=({\bf r}_j,s_j)$ is the coordinate (space, spin) of particle $j$. For identical Fermions, the equilibrium $N$-particle wave function is given by the Slater determinant [@Bransden00] $$\psi(q_1,\,q_2,\,\ldots,\,q_N, t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N!}}
\left| \begin{array}{cccc}
\psi_1(q_1,t)& \psi_2(q_1,t)& \cdots &\psi_N(q_1,t)\\
\psi_1(q_2,t)& \psi_2(q_2,t)& \cdots &\psi_N(q_2,t)\\
\vdots & \vdots& \ddots & \vdots\\
\psi_1(q_N,t)& \psi_2(q_N,t)& \cdots &\psi_N(q_N,t)\\
\end{array}\right|,$$ which is anti-symmetric under odd numbers of permutations. Hence, $\psi$ vanishes if two rows are identical, which is an expression of the Pauli exclusion principle that two identical Fermions cannot occupy the same state. Example $(N=2)$: $\psi(q_1,q_2,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[\psi_1(q_1,t)\psi_2(q_2,t)-\psi_1(q_2,t)\psi_2(q_1,t)]$ so that $\psi(q_2,q_1,t)=-\psi(q_1,q_2,t)$ and $\psi(q_1,q_1,t)=0$. Due to the Pauli exclusion principle, all electrons are not permitted to occupy the lowest energy state, and in the ultra-cold limit when all energy states up to the Fermi energy level are occupied by electrons, there is still a quantum-statistical pressure determined by the Fermi pressure.
To describe collective electrostatic oscillations in a plasma, the quantum analogue of the Vlasov-Poisson system is the Wigner-Poisson system, given by $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} + {\bf v}\cdot \nabla f= -\frac{iem_e^3}{(2\pi)^3 \hbar^4}
\int\!\!\!\int e^{im_e({\bf v}-\bf{v}')\cdot {\boldsymbol\lambda}/\hbar}
\bigg[\phi\bigg({\bf x }+\frac{\boldsymbol
\lambda}{2},t\bigg)-\phi\bigg({\bf x}-\frac{\boldsymbol
\lambda}{2},t\bigg)\bigg]f({\bf x},{\bf v}',t)\, d^3\lambda\, d^3v',
\label{eq43}$$ and $$\nabla^2 \phi =4 \pi e\left(\int f d^3v -n_0\right),$$ assuming immobile ions. We note (see Appendix A) that the Wigner equation converges to the Vlasov equation for classical particles (electrons) when $\hbar\rightarrow 0$ $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} + {\bf v}\cdot \nabla f
=- \frac{e}{m_e}\nabla\phi\cdot\frac{\partial f}{\partial {\bf v}}.$$
We now take the moments of the Wigner equation (\[eq43\]) and obtain \[up to $O(\hbar^2)$\] the non-relativistic quantum-electron fluid (or the quantum Madelung fluid) equations [@Manfredi01; @Manfredi05] composed of the electron continuity equation $$\frac{\partial n_e}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot (n_e {\bf u}_e) =0$$ the electron momentum equation including the quantum statistical pressure and the quantum force $$m_e\left(\frac{\partial }{\partial t} + {\bf u}_e\cdot \nabla\right) {\bf u}_e
=e\nabla \phi -\frac{1}{n_e} \nabla P_e+{\bf F}_Q,$$ where $\phi$ is determined from the Poisson equation $$\nabla^2\phi=4\pi e(n_e-n_0).$$
For the degenerate Fermi-Dirac distributed plasma, one has (up to constants of order unity) the quantum statistical pressure for the electrons $$P_e = \frac{m_e V_{Fe}^2n_0}{3}\left(\frac{n_e}{n_0}\right)^{(D+2)/D},$$ where $D$ is the number of degrees of freedom in the system. It should be noted that Eliasson and Shukla [@Eliasson08a] and Tsintsadze and Tsintsadze [@Tsintsadze09] have obtained different expressions for $P_e$ in the non-zero limit of the electron Fermi temperature.
The quantum force [@Gardner96] due to electron tunneling through the Bohm potential is $${\bf F}_Q=\frac{\hbar^2}{2m_e}\nabla
\left(\frac{\nabla^2\sqrt{n_e}}{\sqrt{n_e}}\right) \equiv-\nabla \phi_B,$$ where $\phi_B$ represents the Bohm potential. We note that the $\alpha$-term \[cf. (14)\] does not appear in (50) due to consideration of the term up to $O(\hbar^2)$ in the expansion parameter, as it also happens when the mean-field approximation [@Gardner96] is used in deducing ${\bf F}_Q$.
Nonlinear Schrödinger-Poisson equations
---------------------------------------
By introducing the wave function $$\psi ({\bf r}, t) =\sqrt{n_e ({\bf r}, t)}\exp(i \varphi_e({\bf r}, t)/\hbar),$$ where $S$ is defined according to $m_e {\bf u}_e =\nabla \varphi_e$ and $n_e= |\psi|^2$, it can be shown that the QHD equations \[e.g. Eqs. (46)–(48)\] are equivalent to the generalized NLS-Poisson system [@Manfredi01; @Manfredi05] $$i \hbar \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t} + \frac{\hbar^2}{2m_e}\nabla^2 \psi
+ e \phi \psi - \frac{m_e V_{Fe}^2}{2n_0^2}|\psi|^{4/D} \psi =0,
\label{NLS}$$ and $$\nabla^2 \phi = 4\pi e(|\psi^2| - n_0).
\label{Poisson}$$ The derivation of (52) required the electron plasma flow velocity to be curl free everywhere in a singly-connected region, except at points where the electron number density vanishes. This is obviously not valid in general. Similar to quantum-fluid treatment, one should include the generalized electron vorticity ${\boldsymbol \Omega}_e=\nabla\times(|\psi|^2 {\bf u}_e)/|\psi|^2$, which is non-vanishing \[see the discussions below Eq. (25)\]. Equation (\[NLS\]) captures the two main properties of a quantum plasma, namely the quantum statistical pressure (fully nonlinear) and quantum dispersion effects, and is coupled self-consistently to the electrostatic potential via the Poisson equation (\[Poisson\]). We thus have a nonlocal nonlinear interaction between the electron density and the electrostatic potential. Furthermore, we note that one-dimensional version of Eq. (\[NLS\]) without the $\phi$-term has also been used to describe the behavior of a Bose-Einstein condensate [@r12] in the absence of the confining potential.
Linearization of the NLS-Poisson Equations yields the frequency of the EPOs [@Klimontovich52; @Bohm52; @Pines1; @Pines2] $$\omega_k=\left(\omega_{pe}^2+k^2V_{Fe}^2+\frac{\hbar^2k^4}{4m_e^2}\right)^{1/2}.$$ One can identify two distinct dispersive effects from (54): One long wavelength regime, $ V_{Fe}\gg \hbar k/2 m_e $, and one short wavelength regime, $ V_{Fe}\lesssim \hbar k/2 m_e,$ separated by a critical wavenumber $k_{crit}=2\pi/\lambda_{crit}=\pi\hbar/m_e V_{Fe} \sim n_e^{-1/3}$.
Inclusion of the ion dynamics
-----------------------------
The dynamics of low-phase speed (in comparison with the electron Fermi speed) nonlinear electrostatic ion oscillations in a quantum electron-ion plasma is governed by the inertialess electron equation of motion $$0 =e\nabla \phi -\frac{1}{n_e} \nabla P_e + {\bf F}_Q,
\label{electron}$$ the ion continuity $$\frac{\partial n_i}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot (n_i {\bf u}_i ) =0,
\label{ioncontinuity}$$ the ion momentum equation $$m_i n_i \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + {\bf u}_i \cdot \nabla \right) {\bf u}_i
=-Z_i n_i e \nabla \phi
\label{ionmomentum}$$ and the Poisson equation $$\nabla^2\phi = 4 \pi e(n_e -Z_i n_i),$$ where $n_i$ is the ion number density, ${\bf u}_i$ is the ion fluid velocity, and $Z_i$ is the ion charge state.
In the quasi-neutral approximation, viz. $n_i =Z_i n_i =n$, we can combine Eqs. (\[electron\]) and (\[ionmomentum\]) to obtain $$\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} + {\bf u}_i \cdot \nabla \right) {\bf u}_i
=- \frac{C_{Fs}^2 n_0}{n_i} \nabla \left(\frac{Z_i n_i}{n_0}\right)^{(D+2)/D}
+ \frac{\hbar^2}{2m_e m_i} \nabla\left(\frac{\nabla^2 \sqrt{Z_i n_i}}{\sqrt{Z_i n_i}}\right).
\label{ionmomentum1}$$ Equations (\[ioncontinuity\]) and (\[ionmomentum1\]) are the desired set for studying nonlinear ion waves [@Haas03; @Eliasson08] in a dense quantum plasma.
Localized electrostatic excitations
===================================
We are now in a position to discuss nonlinear properties and the dynamics of localized electrostatic excitations in a dense quantum plasma based on the nonlinear equations we have developed in the preceding section.
Dark solitons and vortices associated with EPOs \[sec:vortices\]
----------------------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we shall discuss the formation of one-dimensional quantized dark solitons and two-dimensional (2D) quantized vortices associated with the EPOs in a dense quantum plasma at nanoscales (of the order of $V_{Fe}/\omega_{pe}$). We note that the dynamics of dark solitons in the 2D nonlinear Schrödinger equation in a defocusing medium has been studied by Ivonin [@Ivonin97] and Ivonin et al. [@Ivonin99]. However, for studying the formation and dynamics of electrostatic nanostructures in a dense quantum plasma, we shall use the nonlinear Schrödinger-Poisson equations [@Shukla06]
$$i \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t} + A \nabla^2 \Psi + \varphi \Psi
- |\Psi|^{4/D} \Psi =0,
\label{Eq1}$$
and $$\nabla^2\varphi = |\Psi|^2 -1,
\label{Eq2}$$ where the normalized wave function $\Psi$ is $\psi/\sqrt{n_0}$, the normalized $\varphi$ is $e\phi/k_B T_{Fe}$, and the time and space variables are in units of $\hbar/k_B T_{Fe}$ and $V_{Fe}/\omega_{pe}$, respectively. We have denoted $A= 4\pi m_e e^2/\hbar^2 n_0^{1/3}$ (see Ref. [@Shukla06]).
The system of equations(\[Eq1\]) and (\[Eq2\]) is supplemented by the Maxwell equation $$\frac{\partial {\bf E}}{\partial t}=
iA\left(\Psi\nabla\Psi^*-\Psi^*\nabla\Psi\right),
\label{Eq3}$$ where the electric field is ${\bf E}=-\nabla \phi$.
The system (\[Eq1\])–(\[Eq3\]) has the following conserved integrals: the number of electrons $$N=\int |\Psi|\, d^3 x,$$ the electron momentum $${\bf P}=-i\int \Psi^*\nabla\Psi\, d^3 x,$$ the electron angular momentum $${\bf L}=-i\int \Psi^*{\bf r}\times\nabla\Psi\, d^3 x,$$ and the total energy $${\cal E}=\int [-\Psi^*A\nabla^2\Psi + |\nabla\varphi|^2/2 + |\Psi|^{2+4/D}D/(2+D)] \,d^3 x.$$ The conserved quantities are required to check the accuracy of the numerical integration of (60) and (61).
For quasi-stationary one-dimensional structures moving with a constant speed $v_0$, one can find localized, solitary wave solutions by introducing the ansatz $\Psi=W(\xi)\exp(iKx-i\Omega t)$, where $W$ is a complex-valued function of the argument $\xi=x-v_0t$, and $K$ and $\Omega$ are a constant wavenumber and the frequency shift, respectively. By the choice $K=v_0/2A$, the coupled system of equations can be written as $$\frac{d^2 W}{d\xi^2}+\lambda W+\frac{\varphi W}{A}-\frac{|W|^4
W}{A}=0,
\label{Eq4}$$ and $$\frac{d^2\varphi}{d\xi^2}=|W|^2-1,
\label{Eq5}$$ where $\lambda=\Omega/A-v_0^2/4A^2$ is an eigenvalue of the system. From the boundary conditions $|W|=1$ and $\varphi=0$ at $|\xi|=\infty$, we determine $\lambda=1/A$ and $\Omega=1+v_0^2/4A$. The system of Eqs. (\[Eq4\]) and (\[Eq5\]) admits a first integral in the form $${\cal H} =A\left|\frac{dW}{d\xi}\right|^2
-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d\varphi}{d\xi}\right)^2
+|W|^2
-\frac{|W|^6}{3}+\varphi |W|^2-\varphi-\frac{2}{3}=0,
\label{Eq6}$$ where the boundary conditions $|W|=1$ and $\varphi=0$ at $|\xi|=\infty$ have been employed.
![The electron density $|W|^2$ (the upper panel) and electrostatic potential $\varphi$ (the lower panel) associated with a dark soliton supported by the system of equations (\[Eq4\]) and (68), for $A=5$ (solid lines), $A=1$ (dashed lines), and $A=0.2$ (dash-dotted line). After Ref. [@Shukla06].[]{data-label="Fig1"}](Fig1qp.jpg){width="8cm"}
![The time-development of the electron density $|\Psi|^2$ (left-hand panel) and electrostatic potential $\varphi$ (the right-hand panel), obtained from a simulation of the system of equations (\[Eq1\]) and (\[Eq2\]). The initial condition is $\Psi=0.18+\tanh[20\sin(x/10)]\exp(i K x)$, with $K=v_0/2A$, $A=5$ and $v_0=5$. After Ref. [@Shukla06].[]{data-label="Fig2"}](Fig2qp.jpg){width="8cm"}
Figure \[Fig1\] shows profiles of $|W|^2$ and $\varphi$ obtained numerically from (\[Eq4\]) and (\[Eq5\]) for a few values of $A$, where $W$ was set to $-1$ on the left boundary and to $+1$ on the right boundary, i.e. the phase shift is 180 degrees between the two boundaries. The solutions are in the form of dark solitons, with a localized depletion of the electron density $N_e=|W|^2$, associated with a localized positive potential. Larger values of the parameter quantum coupling parameter $A$ give rise to larger-amplitude and wider dark solitons. The solitons localized “‘shoulders’’ on both sides of the density depletion.
Numerical solutions of the time-dependent system of Eqs. (\[Eq1\]) and (\[Eq2\]) is displayed in Fig. \[Fig2\], with initial conditions close (but not equal) to the ones in Fig. \[Fig1\]. Two very clear and long-lived dark solitons are visible, associated with a positive potential of $\varphi\approx 3$, in agreement with the quasi-stationary solution of Fig. \[Fig1\] for $A=5$. In addition there are oscillations and wave turbulence in the time-dependent solution presented in Fig. \[Fig2\]. Hence, the dark solitons seem to be robust structures that can withstand perturbations and turbulence during a considerable time.
![The electron density $|\Psi|^2$ (upper panel) and electrostatic potential $\varphi$ (lower panel) associated with a two-dimensional vortex supported by the system (\[Eq7\]) and (\[Eq8\]), for the charge states $s=1$ (solid lines), $s=2$ (dashed lines) and $s=3$ (dash-dotted lines). We used $A=5$ in all cases. After Ref. [@Shukla06].[]{data-label="Fig3"}](Fig3qp.jpg){width="8cm"}
![The electron density $|\Psi|^2$ (left panel) and an arrow plot of the electron current $i\left(\Psi\nabla\Psi^*-\Psi^*\nabla\Psi\right)$ (right panel) associated with singly charged ($|s|=1$) two-dimensional vortices, obtained from a simulation of the time-dependent system of equations (\[Eq1\]) and (\[Eq2\]), at times $t=0$, $t=3.3$, $t=6.6$ and $t=9.9$ (upper to lower panels). We used $A=5$. The singly charged vortices form pairs and keep their identities. After Ref. [@Shukla06].[]{data-label="Fig4"}](Fig4qp.jpg){width="8cm"}
![The electron density $|\Psi|^2$ (left panel) and an arrow plot of the electron current $i\left(\Psi\nabla\Psi^*-\Psi^*\nabla\Psi\right)$ (right panel) associated with double charged ($|s|=2$) two-dimensional vortices, obtained from a simulation of the time-dependent system of Eqs. (\[Eq1\]) and (\[Eq2\]), at times $t=0$, $t=3.3$, $t=6.6$ and $t=9.9$ (upper to lower panels). We used $A=5$. The doubly charged vortices dissolve into nonlinear structures and wave turbulence. After Ref. [@Shukla06].[]{data-label="Fig5"}](Fig5qp.jpg){width="8cm"}
For the two-dimensional ($D=2$) system, it is possible to find vortex structures of the form $\Psi=\psi(r)\exp(is\theta-i\Omega t)$, where $r$ and $\theta$ are the polar coordinates defined via $x=r\cos(\theta)$ and $y=r\sin(\theta)$, $\Omega$ is a constant frequency shift, and $s=0,
\, \pm 1,\, \pm 2,\ldots$ for different excited states (charge states). The index $s$ is also known as the circulation number [@Ghosh82]. With this ansatz, Eqs. (\[Eq1\]) and (\[Eq2\]) can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
&&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\left[\Omega+A\left(\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}-\frac{s^2}{r^2}\right)
+\varphi-|\psi|^2\right]\psi=0,
\label{Eq7}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\left(\frac{d^2}{dr^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}\right)\varphi=|\psi|^2-1,
\label{Eq8}$$ respectively, where the boundary conditions $\psi=1$ and $\varphi=d\psi/dr=0$ at $r=\infty$ determine the constant frequency $\Omega=1$. Different signs of charge state $s$ describe different rotation directions of the vortex. For $s\neq 0$, one must have $\psi=0$ at $r=0$, and from symmetry considerations one has $d\varphi/dr=0$ at $r=0$. Figure \[Fig3\] shows numerical solutions of Eqs. (\[Eq7\]) and (\[Eq8\]) for different $s$ and for $A=5$. Here the vortex is characterized by a complete depletion of the electron density at the core of the vortex, and is associated with a positive electrostatic potential.
Figure \[Fig4\] shows time-dependent solutions of Eqs. (\[Eq1\]) and (\[Eq2\]) in two space dimensions for singly charged ($s=\pm 1$) vortices, where, in the initial condition, four vortex-like structures were placed at some distance from each other. The initial conditions were such that the vortices are organized in two vortex pairs, with $s_1=+1$, $s_2=-1$, $s_3=-1$, and $s_4=+1$, seen in the upper panels of Fig. \[Fig4\]. The vortices in the pairs have opposite polarity on the electron fluid rotation, as seen in the in the upper right panel of Fig. \[Fig4\]. Interestingly, the “partners” in the vortex pairs attract each other and propagate together with a constant velocity, and in the collision and interaction of the vortex pairs (see the second and third pairs of panels in Fig. \[Fig4\]), the vortices keep their identities and change partners, resulting into two new vortex pairs which propagate obliquely to the original propagation direction. On the other hand, as shown in Fig. \[Fig5\], vortices that are multiply charged ($|s_j|>1$) are unstable. Here the system of Eqs. (\[Eq1\]) and (\[Eq2\]) was again solved numerically with the same initial condition as the one in Fig. \[Fig4\], but with doubly charged vortices $s_1=+2$, $s_2=-2$, $s_3=-2$, and $s_4=+2$. The second row of panels in Fig. \[Fig5\] reveals that the vortex pairs keep their identities for some time, while a quasi one-dimensional density cavity is formed between the two vortex pairs. At a later stage, the four vortices dissolve into complicated nonlinear structures and wave turbulence. Hence, the nonlinear dynamics is very different between singly and multiply charged solitons, where only singly charged vortices are long-lived and keep their identities. This is in line with previous results on the nonlinear Schrödinger equation, where it was noted that vortices with higher charge states are unstable [@Ivonin99].
Localized ion wave excitations in quantum plasmas
-------------------------------------------------
In his classic paper, Haas et al. [@Haas03] developed both small and large amplitude theories for one-dimensional solitary ion waves in a dense quantum plasmas. They found that the dynamics of small amplitude solitary waves is governed by the Kortweg de-Vries (k-dV) equation $$\frac{\partial U}{\partial \tau} + 2 U \frac{\partial U}{\partial \xi}
+ \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{H}{8}\right) \frac{\partial^3U}{\partial \xi^3} =0,
\label{qiaEq0}$$ where $U$ represents the relative (with respect to $n_0$) ion density perturbation, the time and space variables are in units of the ion plasma period $\omega_{pi}^{-1}$ and the electron Thomas-Fermi radius $(k_B T_{Fe}/4\pi n_0 e^2)^{1/2}$, respectively.
The K-dV equation admits both the solitary and the periodic (cnoidal) waves [@Whitham99]. Introducing the wave form $U(\eta=\xi-M_s \tau)$, we can write (72) in the stationary frame as $$\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{H}{8}\right) \frac{\partial^2U}{\partial \eta^2}- M_s U + U^2 + C=0,
\label{qiaEq00}$$ where $M_s$ represents the Mach number, and $C$ is a constant of integration. In the special case when $U$ and its derivatives tend to zero at $\pm \infty$, $C=0$. Multiplying (73) by $\partial U/\partial \eta$ one can integrate once the resultant equation, and express it in the form of an energy integral [@Sagdeev66; @Sagdeev79; @Shukla78a]. The resulting solitary wave solution of (73) is $$U = U_m {\rm sech}^2 (\eta/\eta_0),
\label{qiaEq000}$$ where $U_m =(3M_s/2)$ and $\eta_0=(2/M_s)^{1/2}(1-H/8)^{1/2}$ are the maximum amplitude and the width of the soliton. We see that compressive solitary wave solutions are possible if $0 < H < 8$.
There also exist possibility of one-dimensional large amplitude localized ion wave excitations. To demonstrate this, we assume that the quantum force acting on the electrons dominates over the quantum statistical pressure, viz. $k_BT_{Fe}n_e \ll (\hbar^2/4m_e)
\partial^2 n_{e}/\partial x^2$. Hence, the electron density is obtained from [@Eliasson08]
$$e \phi +\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m_e \sqrt{n_e}} \frac{\partial^2 \sqrt{n_e}}{\partial x^2} =0.
\label{qiawEq1}$$
The electrons are coupled with ions through the space charge electric field ($-\nabla \phi$).
The dynamics of singly charged ions is governed by the ion continuity $$\frac{\partial n_i}{\partial t}+ \frac{\partial(n_i u_i)}{\partial x}=0,
\label{qiawEq2}$$ and ion momentum equation $$m_i\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+ u_i \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\right) u_i=-
e \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x},
\label{qiawEq3}$$ where $u_i$ is $x$ component of the ion fluid velocity perturbation. The system of Eqs. (\[qiawEq1\])–(\[qiawEq3\]) is closed by the Poisson equation
$$\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^2} = 4\pi e(n_e-n_i).
\label{qiawEq4}$$
We now look for stationary nonlinear ion wave structures moving with a constant speed $u_0$. Hence, all unknowns depend only on the variable $\xi=x-u_0 t$. Defining $\sqrt{n_e}\equiv\psi$, Eq. (\[qiawEq1\]) takes the form $$\frac{\hbar^2}{2 m_e}\frac{\partial^2\psi}{\partial \xi^2}+e\phi\psi=0.
\label{qiawEq5}$$
Equations (\[qiawEq2\]) and (\[qiawEq3\]) can be integrated once with the boundary conditions $n_i=n_0$ and $u_i=0$ at $\xi=|\infty|$, and the results can be combined to have $$n_i=\frac{n_0u_0}{\sqrt{u_0^2-2e\phi/m_i}}.
\label{qiawEq6}$$ Inserting (\[qiawEq6\]) into (\[qiawEq4\]) we obtain $$\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial \xi^2}=4\pi e\left(
\psi^2-\frac{n_0u_0}{\sqrt{u_0^2-2e\phi/m_i}} \right).
\label{qiawEq7}$$ Equations (\[qiawEq5\]) and (\[qiawEq7\]) are the desired equations for studying the nonlinear ion waves in dense quantum plasmas.
It is convenient to introduce dimensionless quantities \[see below Eq. (\[qiawEq9\])\] into Eqs. (\[qiawEq5\]) and (\[qiawEq7\]), and rewrite them as $$\frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial X^2}+\frac{\Phi\Psi}{2}=0,
\label{qiawEq8}$$ and $$\frac{\partial^2\Phi}{\partial X^2}-
\Psi^2+\frac{M}{\sqrt{M-2\Phi}}=0,
\label{qiawEq9}$$ where we have normalized the space variable as $X=k_q \xi$, the electron wave function as $\Psi=\sqrt{n_0}\psi$, and the potential as $\Phi=e\phi/m_i c_q^2$. Here $c_q=\omega_{pi}/k_q$ is the quantum ion wave speed and $k_q=(2m_e\omega_{pe}/\hbar)^{1/2}$ is the quantum wavenumber. The quantum “Mach number” is defined as $M=u_0/c_q$.
We note that the coupled Eqs. (\[qiawEq8\]) and (\[qiawEq9\]) admit a conserved quantity $${\cal H}=-2\left(\frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial X}\right)^2
+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial\Phi}{\partial X}\right)^2
-\Phi\Psi^2-M(\sqrt{M^2-2\Phi}-M)=0,
\label{qiawEq10}$$ where we have used the boundary conditions $\Phi=\partial\Phi/\partial X=\partial\Psi/\partial X=0$, and $\Psi=1$ at $|X|=\infty$. For a symmetric solitary ion wave structure, we can assume that $\Phi=\Phi_{\rm max}$ and $\Psi=\Psi_{\rm max}$, as well as ${\partial\Psi}/{\partial X}={\partial\Phi}/{\partial X}=0$ at $X=0$. Hence, at $X=0$ Eq. (\[qiawEq10\]) yields $$\Phi_{\rm max}\Psi_{\rm max}^2 + M(\sqrt{M^2-2\Phi_{\rm max}}-M)=0.$$ In the wave-breaking limit, where $M=(2\Phi_{\rm max})^{1/2}$, we find that $-\Phi_{\rm max}\Psi_{\rm max}^2+ 2\Phi_{\rm max}=0$, or $\Psi_{\rm max}=2$. Accordingly, the electron density will locally rise to twice the background density at wave breaking.
![The profiles of the potential $\Phi$ (top panel) and the electron density $\Psi^2$ (bottom panel) as a function of $X$, for different values of the Mach number: $M=1.1$ (dashed curves), $M=0.9$ (solid curve), and $M=0.75$ (dotted curve). After Ref. [@Eliasson08].[]{data-label="qiawFig1"}](qiawFig1.jpg){width="8.5cm"}
In Fig. \[qiawFig1\], numerical solutions of Eqs. (\[qiawEq8\]) and (\[qiawEq9\]) are displayed, showing profiles of the electrostatic potential and electron number densities for different values of $M$. We see that both the electrostatic potential and electron density have localized and strongly peaked maxima and an oscillatory tail. The latter is in sharp contrast to the classical (non-quantum) case, where the ion acoustic solitary waves have a monotonic profile, which in the small amplitude limit, where the system is governed by the Korteweg-de Vries equation, assumes a secant hyperbolicus shape. We observe from Fig. \[qiawFig1\] that $M=1.1$ is close to the wave breaking limit above which there do not exist solitary wave solutions. Our numerical investigation also suggests that there is a lower limit of $M$ (slightly lower than 0.75), below which the solitary wave solution vanishes.
Quantum fluid turbulence\[sec:turbulence\]
==========================================
The statistical properties of turbulence and its associated electron transport at nanoscales in quantum plasmas has been investigated in both 2D and 3D by means of the coupled NLS and Poisson equations [@Shaikh07; @Shaikh08]. It has been found that the nonlinear coupling between the EPOs of different scale sizes gives rise to small-scale electron density structures, while the electrostatic potential cascades towards large-scales. The total energy associated with the quantum electron plasma turbulence, nonetheless, processes a characteristic, [*non-*]{}Kolmogorov-like spectrum. The electron diffusion caused by the electron fluid turbulence is consistent with the dynamical evolution of turbulent mode structures.
To investigate the quantum electron fluid turbulence in 3D, we use the nonlinear Schrödinger-Poisson equations [@Manfredi01; @Shukla06; @Shaikh08] $$i \sqrt{2H} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial t}+ H \nabla^2\Psi
+ \varphi \Psi - |\Psi|^{4/3}\Psi = 0,
\label{Eq1D}$$ and $$\nabla^2\varphi = |\Psi|^2-1,
\label{Eq2D}$$ which govern the dynamics of nonlinearly interacting EPOs of different wavelengths. In Eqs. (\[Eq1D\]) and (\[Eq2D\]) the wave function is normalized by $\sqrt{n_0}$, the electrostatic potential by $k_B T_{Fe}/e$, the time $t$ by the electron plasma period $\omega_{pe}^{-1}$, and the space ${\bf r}$ by the Thomas-Fermi Debye radius $V_{Fe}/\omega_{pe}$. We have introduced the notation $\sqrt{H} = \hbar \omega_{pe}/\sqrt{2} k_B T_{Fe}$.
The nonlinear mode coupling interaction studies are performed to investigate the multi-scale evolution of a decaying 3D electron fluid turbulence, which is described by Eqs. (\[Eq1D\]) and (\[Eq2D\]). All the fluctuations are initialized isotropically (no mean fields are assumed) with random phases and amplitudes in Fourier space, and evolved further by the integration of Eqs. (\[Eq1D\]) and (\[Eq2D\]), using a fully de-aliased pseudospectral numerical scheme [@Gottlieb77] based on the Fourier spectral methods. The spatial discretization in our 3D simulations uses a discrete Fourier representation of turbulent fluctuations. The numerical algorithm employed here conserves energy in terms of the dynamical fluid variables and not due to a separate energy equation written in a conservative form. The evolution variables use periodic boundary conditions. The initial isotropic turbulent spectrum was chosen close to $k^{-2}$, with random phases in all three directions. The choice of such (or even a flatter than $-2$) spectrum treats the turbulent fluctuations on an equal footing and avoids any influence on the dynamical evolution that may be due to the initial spectral non-symmetry. The equations are advanced in time using a second-order predictor-corrector scheme. The code is made stable by a proper de-aliasing of spurious Fourier modes, and by choosing a relatively small time step in the simulations. Our code is massively parallelized using Message Passing Interface (MPI) libraries to facilitate higher resolution in a 3D computational box, with a resolution of $128^3$ grid points.
We study the properties of 3D fluid turbulence, composed of nonlinearly interacting EPOs, for two specific physical systems. These are the dense plasmas in the next generation laser-based plasma compression (LBPC) schemes [@Malkin07] as well as in superdense astrophysical objects [@Chabrier02; @Chabrier06; @Lai06] (e.g. white dwarfs). It is expected that in LBPC schemes, the electron number density may reach $10^{27}$ cm$^{-3}$ and beyond. Hence, we have $\omega_{pe} =1.76 \times 10^{18}$ s$^{-1}$, $T_F = 1.7 \times 10^{-9}$ erg, $\hbar \omega_{pe} = 1.7 \times 10^{-9}$ erg, and $H = 1$. The Fermi Debye length $\lambda_D = 0.1$ Å. On the other hand, in the interior of white dwarfs, we typically have $n_0 \sim 10^{30}$ cm$^{-3}$, yielding $\omega_{pe} =5.64 \times 10^{19}$ s$^{-1}$, $T_F = 1.7 \times 10^{-7}$ erg, $\hbar \omega_{pe} = 5.64 \times 10^{-8}$ erg, $H \approx 0.3$, and $\lambda_D = 0.025$ Å. The numerical solutions of Eqs. (\[Eq1D\]) and (\[Eq2D\]) for $H=1$ and $H=0.025$ (corresponding to $n_0 =10^{27}$ cm$^{-3}$ and $n_0 =10^{30}$ cm$^{-3}$, respectively) are displayed in Figs. \[Fig1D\] and \[Fig2D\], respectively, which are the electron number density and electrostatic (ES) potential distributions in the $(x,y)$-plane.
![Small scale fluctuations in the electron density resulted from a steady turbulence simulations of our 3D electron plasma, for $H=0.4$ (top panels) and $H=0.01$ (bottom panels). Forward cascades are responsible for the generation of small-scale fluctuations seen in panels (a) and (c). Large scale structures are present in the electrostatic potential, seen in panels (b) and (d), essentially resulting from an inverse cascade. After Ref. [@Shaikh08].[]{data-label="Fig1D"}](FIG_1_rev.jpg){width="8cm"}
![ Power spectrum of 3D EPOs in the forward cascade regime. A Kolmogorov-like spectrum $\sim k^{-11/3}$ is observed for $H=0.4$. The spectral index changes as a function of $H$. The numerical resolution is $128^3$. After Ref. [@Shaikh08].[]{data-label="Fig2D"}](FIG_2.jpg){width="8cm"}
Figures \[Fig1D\] and \[Fig2D\] reveal that the electron density distribution has a tendency to generate smaller length-scale structures, while the ES potential cascades towards larger scales. The co-existence of the small and larger scale structures in turbulence is a ubiquitous feature of various 3D turbulence systems. For example, in 3D hydrodynamic turbulence, the incompressible fluid admits two invariants, namely the energy and the mean squared vorticity. The two invariants, under the action of an external forcing, cascade simultaneously in turbulence, thereby leading to a dual cascade phenomena. In these processes, the energy cascades towards longer length-scales, while the fluid vorticity transfers spectral power towards shorter length-scales. Usually, a dual cascade is observed in a driven turbulence simulation, in which certain modes are excited externally through random turbulent forces in spectral space. The randomly excited Fourier modes transfer the spectral energy by conserving the constants of motion in $k$-space. On the other hand, in freely decaying turbulence, the energy contained in the large-scale eddies is transferred to the smaller scales, leading to a statistically stationary inertial regime associated with the forward cascades of one of the invariants. Decaying turbulence often leads to the formation of coherent structures as turbulence relaxes, thus making the nonlinear interactions rather inefficient when they are saturated. The power spectrum exhibits an interesting feature in our 3D electron plasma system, unlike the 3D hydrodynamic turbulence [@Kolmogorov41; @Lesieur90; @Frisch95; @Eyink06]. The spectral slope in the 3D quantum electron fluid turbulence is close to the Iroshnikov-Kraichnan power law [@Iroshnikov63; @Kraichnan65] $k^{-3/2}$, rather than the usual Kolomogrov power law [@Kolmogorov41] $k^{-5/3}$. We further find that this scaling is not universal and is determined critically by the quantum tunneling effect. For instance, for a higher value of H=1.0 the spectrum becomes more flat (see Fig \[Fig2D\]). Physically, the flatness (or deviation from the $k^{-5/3}$), results from the short wavelength part of the EPOs spectrum which is controlled by the quantum tunneling effect associated with the Bohm potential. The peak in the energy spectrum can be attributed to the higher turbulent power residing in the EPO potential, which eventually leads to the generation of larger scale structures, as the total energy encompasses both the electrostatic potential and electron density components. In our dual cascade process, there is a delicate competition between the EPO dispersions caused by the statistical pressure law (giving the $k^2
V_F^2$ term, which dominates at longer scales) and the quantum Bohm potential (giving the $\hbar^2k^4/4m_e^2$ term, which dominates at shorter scales with respect to a source). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that exponents other than $k^{-5/3}$ have also been observed in numerical simulations [@Larichev91; @Scott07] of the Charney and 3D incompressible Navier-Stokes equations. Recently, Paoletti et al [@Paoletti08] have examined the velocity statistics of quantum turbulence in superfluid $^4He$, and found that it significantly differs from classical turbulence due to the topological interactions of vortices that are different from those in classical fluids.
![Time evolution of an effective electron diffusion coefficient associated with the large-scale electrostatic potential and the small-scale electron density, for $H=0.4$, $H=0.1$ and $H=0.01$. Smaller values of $H$ corresponds to a small effective diffusion coefficient, which characterizes the presence of small-scale turbulent eddies that suppress the electron transport. After Ref. [@Shaikh08].[]{data-label="Fig3D"}](FIG_3.jpg){width="8cm"}
We finally estimate the electron diffusion coefficient in the presence of small and large scale turbulent EPOs in our quantum plasma. An effective electron diffusion coefficient caused by the momentum transfer can be calculated from $D_{eff} = \int_0^\infty \langle {\bf
P}({\bf r},t) \cdot {\bf P}({\bf r},t+ t^\prime) \rangle dt^\prime$, where ${\bf P}$ is electron momentum and the angular bracket denotes spatial averages and the ensemble averages are normalized to unit mass. The effective electron diffusion coefficient, $D_{eff}$, essentially relates the diffusion processes associated with random translational motions of the electrons in nonlinear plasmonic fields. We compute $D_{eff}$ in our simulations, to measure the turbulent electron transport that is associated with the turbulent structures that we have reported herein. It is observed that the effective electron diffusion is lower when the field perturbations are Gaussian. On the other hand, the electron diffusion increases rapidly with the eventual formation of longer length-scale structures, as shown in Fig. \[Fig3D\]. The electron diffusion due to large scale potential distributions in quantum plasmas dominates substantially, as depicted by the solid-curve in Fig. \[Fig3D\]. Furthermore, in the steady-state, nonlinearly coupled EPOs form stationary structures, and $D_{eff}$ saturates eventually. Thus, remarkably an enhanced electron diffusion results primarily due to the emergence of large-scale potential structures in our 3D quantum plasma.
Kinetic phase-space structures\[sec:kinetic\]
=============================================
In the preceding sections, we have discussed the properties of quantized coherent structures and 3D quantum electron fluid turbulence based on the coupled Schrödinger and Poisson equations. Thus, it has been assumed that nonlinearly interacting plasma waves are spontaneously created by some known physical processes (e.g. the beam-plasma instability) in quantum plasmas.
The formation of electrostatic kinetic phase space structures, based on the Vlasov-Poisson equations, in classical plasmas has been well documented [@EliassonShukla06]. In the following, we shall discuss quasilinear aspects [@Haas08b] of the EPOs that are governed by the Wigner-Poisson system (i.e. a quantum analogue of the Vlasov-Poisson system). Specifically, we focus on kinetic phase-space nonlinear structures arising from the trapping of electrons in the finite amplitude wave potential and the self-consistent modification of the electron distribution function in the presence of nano-kinetic structures.
To study the differences in the nonlinear evolution of the Wigner and Vlasov equations, we have simulated the well-known bump-on-tail instability [@Haas08b], whereby a high-velocity beam is used to destabilize a Maxwellian equilibrium. We use the initial condition $f=(1+\delta)(n_0/\sqrt{2\pi} v_{th}) [0.8 \exp(-v^2/2 v_{th}^2)
+ 0.4 \exp(-2(v-2.5v_{th})^2/v_{th}^2)]$, where $\delta$ represents random fluctuations of order $10^{-5}$ that help seed the instability (see Fig. 1). Here $v_{th}=\sqrt{k_B T_e/m_e}$ is the electron thermal speed. We use periodic boundary conditions with spatial period $L=40\pi\lambda_{De}$, where $\lambda_{De}= v_{th}/\omega_{p}$ is the Debye length. Three simulations were performed, with different values of the normalized Planck constant, defined as $H=\hbar\omega_{pe}/mv_{th}^2$: $H=0$ (Vlasov), $H=1$, and $H=2$.
![(Color online) Simulations of the Wigner-Poisson and Vlasov-Poisson systems, at time $\omega_{pe} t =200$, for a) $H=0$ (Vlasov), b) $H=1$ (Wigner), and c) $H=2$ (Wigner). Initially monochromatic spectrum. Top panels: electron distribution function $f(x,v)$ in phase space. Bottom panels: spatially averaged electron distribution function $F(v)$ in velocity space. After Ref. [@Haas08b].[]{data-label="Fig2_quasi"}](Fig2quasi.jpg){width="13.5cm"}
In order to highlight the transient oscillations in velocity space, we first perturb the above equilibrium with a monochromatic wave having $ k \lambda_{De}= 0.25$ (i.e., a wavelength of $8\pi\lambda_{De}$). Figure \[Fig2\_quasi\] shows the results from simulations of the Wigner-Poisson and Vlasov-Poisson systems. In both simulations, due to the bump-on-tail instability, electrostatic waves develop nonlinearly and create periodic trapped-particle islands (electron holes) with the wavenumber $k= 0.25 \lambda_{De}^{-1}$. The theory predicts the formation of velocity-space oscillations in the Wigner evolution, which should be absent in the classical (Vlasov) simulations. This is the case in the results presented in Fig. 2, where the oscillations are clearly visible.
![(Color online) Simulations of the Wigner-Poisson and Vlasov-Poisson systems, for $\omega_{pe} t =500$, a) for $H=0$ (Vlasov) and b) $H=1$ (Wigner). Initially broad wavenumber spectrum. Top panels: electron distribution function $f(x,v)$ in phase space. Bottom panels: spatially averaged electron distribution function $F(v)$ in velocity space. After Ref. [@Haas08b].[]{data-label="Fig4_quasi"}](Fig4quasi.jpg){width="9cm"}
When the initial excitation is broad-band (i.e., wavenumbers $0.05
\le k \lambda_{De} \le 0.5$ are excited), the electron holes start merging together at later times due to the sideband instability [@Kruer69; @Albrecht07] (see Fig. \[Fig4\_quasi\]). At this stage, mode coupling becomes important and quasilinear theory is not capable of describing these effects. As the system evolves toward larger spatial wavelength, the evolution becomes progressively more classical, with the appearance of a plateau in the resonant region. Nevertheless, at $\omega_{pe} t =500$ the Wigner solution still displays some oscillatory behavior in velocity space, which is absent in the Vlasov evolution.
From the experimental viewpoint, recent collective x-ray scattering observations in warm dense matter [@Glenzer07] revealed a measurable shift in the plasmon frequency due to quantum effects. In the nonlinear regime (strong excitations), this effect could lead to trapping of electrons in the wave potential of the plasmons, and the subsequent formation of the kind of phase space structures discussed here. Furthermore, we note that there also exists a theoretical description [@Luque04] of quantum corrected electron holes based on the perturbative treatment of the Wigner-Poisson equations.
Magnetic fields in quantum plasmas \[sec:Magnetic\]
===================================================
There are several mechanisms by which magnetic fields in classical plasmas can be generated. They include i) non-parallel density and temperature gradients (the so called Biermann battery [@Biermann50]), ii) the electron temperature anisotropy (known as the Weibel instability [@Weibel59]), iii) counterstreaming electron beams [@Gruzinov01; @Schlickeiser03], and iv) the ponderomotive forces of laser beams [@Karpman76; @Karpman77; @Gradov80; @Gradov83; @Shukla84; @Shukla86; @Tsintsadze94].
In the following, we discuss two possibilities for the magnetic field generation in quantum plasmas.
The quantum Weibel instability\[sec:Weibel\]
--------------------------------------------
We first discuss linear and nonlinear aspects [@Levan08; @Haas08; @HaasLazar08; @Haas09] of the Weibel instability that is driven by equilibrium Fermi-Dirac electron temperature anisotropic distribution function in a nonrelativistic dense quantum plasma. It is well known [@Pines66] that a dense quantum plasma with an isotropic equilibrium distribution function does not admit any purely growing linear modes. This can be verified, for instance, from the expression for the imaginary part of the transverse dielectric function, as derived by Lindhard [@Lindhard54], for a fully degenerate non-relativistic Fermi plasma. It can be proven (see Eq. (30) of [@Cockayne06]) that the only exception would be for extremely small wavelengths, so that $k > 2 k_F$, where $k_F$ the characteristic Fermi wave number of the system. However, in this situation the wave would be super-luminal. On the other hand, in a classical Vlasov-Maxwell plasma containing anisotropic electron distribution function, we have a purely growing Weibel instability [@Weibel59], via which dc magnetic fields are created. The electron temperature anisotropy may arises due to the heating of the plasma by laser beams [@Wei04], where there is a signature of the Weibel instability as well. In the next generation intense laser-solid density plasma experiments, it is likely that electrons would be degenerate and that electron temperature anisotropy may develop due to an anisotropic electron heating by intense laser beams via resonant absorption, similar to the classical laser-plasma-interaction case [@Estabrook78].
Consider linear transverse waves in a dense quantum plasma composed of the electrons and immobile ions, with ${\bf k}\cdot{\bf E} = 0$, where ${\bf k}$ is the wave vector and ${\bf E}$ is the wave electric field. Following the standard procedure, one then obtains the general dispersion relation [@Klimontovich52; @HaasLazar08; @Haas09] for the transverse waves of the Wigner-Maxwell system $$\omega^2 - \omega_{pe}^2 - k^2 c^2 + \frac{m_e \omega_{pe}^2}{2n_0 \hbar}
\int d{\bf v}\left(\frac{v_{x}^2 + v_{y}^2}{\omega - kv_z}\right)
\left[f_{0}(v_{x},v_{y},v_{z} + \frac{\hbar k}{2m})
- f_{0}(v_{x},v_{y},v_{z} - \frac{\hbar k}{2m_e})\right]= 0,
\label{Eq1weibel}$$ where ${\bf v} = (v_{x}, v_{y}, v_{z})$ is the velocity vector, and $f_{0}(v_{x},v_{y},v_z)$ is the equilibrium Wigner function associated to Fermi systems. For spin $1/2$ particles, the equilibrium pseudo distribution function is in the form of a Fermi-Dirac function. Here we allow for velocity anisotropy and express $$f_0 = \frac{\alpha}{\exp\left[\frac{m}{2}\left(\frac{v_{x}^2 + v_{y}^2}{\kappa_{B}T_{\bot}}
+ \frac{v_{z}^2}{\kappa_{B}T_{\parallel}}\right) - \beta\mu\right] + 1} ,
\label{Eq2weibel}$$ where $\mu$ is the chemical potential, and the normalization constant is $$\alpha = - \frac{n_{0}}{{\rm Li}_{3/2}(- e^{\beta\mu})} \Bigl(\frac{m_e\beta}{2\pi}\Bigr)^{3/2}
= 2\Bigl(\frac{m_e}{2\pi\hbar}\Bigr)^3 \,.
\label{Eq3weibel}$$ Here ${\rm Li}_{3/2}$ is a polylogarithm function [@Abramowitz72; @Lewin81]. Also, $\beta = 1/[\kappa_{B}(T_{\bot}^2 T_{\parallel})^{1/3}]$, where $T_{\bot}$ and $T_\parallel$ are related to velocity dispersion in the direction perpendicular and parallel to $z$ axis, respectively. In the special case when $T_\bot = T_\parallel$, the usual Fermi-Dirac equilibrium is recovered. The chemical potential is obtained by solving the normalization condition (\[Eq3weibel\]), yielding, in particular, $\mu = E_F$ in the limit of zero temperature, where $E_F = (3\pi^2 n_0)^{2/3}\hbar^2/(2m_e)$ is the Fermi energy. Also, the Fermi-Dirac distribution $\hat{f}({\bf k})$, where ${\bf k}$ is the appropriated wave vector in momentum space, is related to the equilibrium Wigner function (\[Eq2weibel\]) by $\hat{f}({\bf k}) = (1/2) (2\pi\hbar/m)^3 f_{0}({\bf v})$, with the factor $2$ coming from spin [@Ross60; @Arista84]. However, these previous works refer to the cases where there is no temperature anisotropy. Notice that it has been suggested [@Leemans92] that in laser plasmas the Weibel instability is responsible for further increase of $T_\parallel$ with time.
Inserting (\[Eq2weibel\]) into (\[Eq1weibel\]) and integrating over the perpendicular velocity components, we obtain $$\omega^2 - k^2 c^2 - \omega_{pe}^2 \left(1 + \frac{T_\bot}{T_{\parallel}}W_Q\right) = 0 \,,
\label{Eq4weibel}$$ where $$W_Q = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi} H {\rm Li}_{3/2}(-e^{\beta\mu})}\int\frac{d\nu}{\nu-\xi}
\Biggl({\rm Li}_{2}\Bigl\{-\exp\Bigl[-\Bigl(\nu + \frac{H}{2}\Bigl)^2 +
\beta\mu\Bigl]\Bigr\}
- {\rm Li}_{2}\Bigl\{-\exp\Bigl[-\Bigl(\nu - \frac{H}{2}\Bigl)^2 + \beta\mu\Bigl]\Bigr\}\Biggr) \,.
\label{Eq5weibel}$$ In (\[Eq5weibel\]), ${\rm Li}_{2}$ is the dilogarithm function [@Abramowitz72; @Lewin81], $H = \hbar k/(m_e v_{\parallel})$ is a characteristic parameter representing the quantum diffraction effect, $\xi = \omega/(kv_{\parallel})$, and $\nu = v_{z}/v_{\parallel}$, with $v_\parallel = (2\kappa_{B}T_{\parallel}/m_e)^{1/2}$. In the simultaneous limit of a small quantum diffraction effect ($H \ll 1$) and a dilute system ($e^{\beta\mu} \ll 1$), it can be shown that $W_Q \simeq - 1 - \xi Z(\xi)$, where $Z$ is the standard plasma dispersion function [@Fried61]. It is important to notice that either (\[Eq1weibel\]) or (\[Eq4weibel\]) reproduces the transverse dielectric function calculated from the random phase approximation for a fully degenerate quantum plasma [@Lindhard54], in the case of an isotropic system. The simple way to verify this equivalence is to put $T_\bot = T_{\parallel}$ in (\[Eq1weibel\]) and then take the limit of zero temperature, so that $f_0 = 3n_{0}/(4\pi V_{Fe}^3)$ for $|{\bf v}| < V_{Fe}$, and $f_0 = 0$ otherwise.
![The growth rate for the Weibel instability of a dense Fermionic plasma with $n_0=10^{33}\,\mathrm{m}^{-3}$ ($\omega_{pe}=1.8\times 10^{18}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$) and $\beta\mu=5$, relevant for the next generation inertially compressed material in intense laser-solid density plasma interaction experiments. The temperature anisotropies are $T_\perp/T_{||}=3$ (dashed line), $T_\perp/T_{||}=2$ (solid line) and $T_\perp/T_{||}=1.5$ (dotted line), yielding, respectively, $T_{||}=3.9\times 10^6\,\mathrm{K}$, $T_{||}=5.2\times 10^6\,\mathrm{K}$ and $T_{||}=6.3\times 10^6\,\mathrm{K}$. After Ref. [@Haas09].[]{data-label="Fig1weibel"}](Fig1.jpg){width="8.5cm"}
![The growth rate for the Weibel instability of a dense Fermionic plasma with $n_0=10^{33}\,
\mathrm{m}^{-3}$ ($\omega_{pe}=1.8\times 10^{18}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$). Here the temperature anisotropy is $T_\perp/T_{||}=2$. We used $\beta\mu=1$ (dashed line), $\beta\mu=5$ (solid line) and $\beta\mu=10$ (dotted line), yielding $T_{||}=1.6\times 10^7\,\mathrm{K}$, $T_{||}=5.2\times 10^7\,\mathrm{K}$ and $T_{||}=2.6\times 10^6\,\mathrm{K}$, respectively. After Ref. [@Haas09].[]{data-label="Fig2weibel"}](Fig2.jpg){width="8.5cm"}
We next solve our new dispersion relation (\[Eq4weibel\]) for a set of parameters that are representative of the next generation laser-solid density plasma interaction experiments. The normalization condition (\[Eq3weibel\]) can also be written as $-{\rm Li}_{3/2}[-\exp(\beta\mu)]=(4/3\sqrt{\pi})(\beta E_F)^{3/2}$, which is formally the same relation holding for isotropic Fermi-Dirac equilibria [@Bransden00]. For a given value on the product $\beta\mu$ and the density, this relation yields the value $\beta$, from which the temperatures $T_\perp$ and $T_{||}$ can be calculated, if we know $T_\perp/T_{||}$. Consider only purely growing modes. From the definition (\[Eq5weibel\]), one can show that $W_Q\rightarrow -1$ when $\omega=i\gamma\rightarrow 0$ for a finite wavenumber $k$. From (\[Eq4weibel\]) we then obtain the maximum wavenumber for instability as $k_{\rm max}=(\omega_{pe}/c)\sqrt{T_\perp/T_{||}-1}$. When $T_\perp/T_{||}\rightarrow 1$, the range of unstable wavenumbers shrinks to zero. In Figs. \[Fig1weibel\] and \[Fig2weibel\], we have used the electron number density $n_0=10^{33}\,\mathrm{m}^{-3}$, which can be obtained in laser-driven compression schemes. The growth rate for different values on $T_\perp/T_{||}$ is displayed in Fig. \[Fig1weibel\]. We see that the maximum unstable wavenumber is $k_{\rm max}=(\omega_{pe}/c)\sqrt{T_\perp/T_{||}-1}$, as predicted, and that the maximum growth rate occurs at $k\approx k_{\rm max}/2$. Figure \[Fig1weibel\] also reveals that the maximum growth rate of the instability is almost linearly proportional to $T_\perp/T_{||}-1$. In Fig. \[Fig2weibel\], we have varied the product $\beta\mu$, which is a measure of the degeneracy of the quantum plasma. We see that for $\beta\mu$ larger than $5$, the instability reaches a limiting value, which is independent of the temperature, while thermal effects start to play an important role for $\beta\mu$ of the order unity.
![The magnetic field components $B_y$ (top panel) and $B_z$ (bottom panel) as a function of space and time, for $\beta\mu=5$ and $T_{\perp}/T_{||}=2$. The magnetic field has been normalized by $\omega_{pe} m_e/e$. We see a nonlinear saturation of the magnetic field components at an amplitude of $\sim 0.01$. After Ref. [@Haas09].[]{data-label="Fig3weibel"}](Fig3.jpg){width="8.5cm"}
![The maximum of the magnetic field amplitude, $B=(B_y^2+B_z^2)^{1/2}$, over the simulation box (top panel), and the logarithm of the magnetic field maximum (bottom panel) as a function of time, for $T_\perp/T_{||}=2$ and $\beta\mu=5$. The magnetic field has been normalized by $\omega_{pe} m_e/e$. From the logarithmic slope of the magnetic field in the linear regime one finds $\gamma\approx\Delta {\rm ln}(B_{\rm max})/\Delta t\approx 0.01\,\omega_{p}$. After Ref. [@Haas09].[]{data-label="Fig4weibel"}](Fig4.jpg){width="8.5cm"}
From several numerical solutions of the linear dispersion relation, it was deduced [@Haas09] an approximate scaling law for the instability as $\gamma_{max}/\omega_{pe}={\rm constant}\times n_0^{1/3}(T_\perp/T_{||}-1)$, where the constant is approximately $8.5\times 10^{-14}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\mathrm{m}$. Using that $n_0=(2 m_e E_F/\hbar^2)^{3/2}/(3\pi^2) \approx 1.67\times10^{36}(E_F/m_e c^2)^{3/2}$, we have $$\frac{\gamma_{\rm max}}{\omega_{pe}}=0.10\left(\frac{E_F}{m_e c^2}\right)^{1/2}
\left(\frac{T_\perp}{T_{||}}-1\right),
\label{Eq7weibel}$$ for the maximum growth rate of the Weibel instability in a degenerate Fermi plasma. This scaling law, where the growth rate depends on the Fermi energy and the temperature anisotropy, should be compared to that of a classical plasma [@Trivelpiece73; @Estabrook78], where the growth rate depends on the thermal energy and the temperature anisotropy.
For a Maxwellian plasma, it has been found [@Davidson72] that the Weibel instability saturates nonlinearly once the magnetic bounce frequency $\omega_c=eB/m_e c$ has increased to a value comparable to the linear growth rate. In order to assess the nonlinear behavior of the Weibel instability for a degenerate plasma, we have carried out a kinetic simulation of the Wigner-Maxwell system. We have assumed that the quantum diffraction effect is small, so that the simulation of the Wigner equation can be approximated by simulations of the Vlasov equation by means of an electromagnetic Vlasov code [@Eliasson07]. As an initial condition for the simulation, we used the distribution function (\[Eq2weibel\]). In order to give a seed for any instability, the plasma density was perturbed with low-frequency fluctuations (random numbers). The results are displayed in Figs. \[Fig3weibel\] and \[Fig4weibel\], for the parameters $\beta\mu=5$ and $T_\perp/T_{||}=2$, corresponding to the solid lines in Figs. \[Fig1weibel\] and \[Fig2weibel\]. Figure \[Fig3weibel\] shows the magnetic field components as a function of space and time. We see that the magnetic field initially grows, and saturates to steady state magnetic field fluctuations with an amplitude of $eB/m_e c \omega_{pe}\approx 0.008$. The maximum amplitude of the magnetic field over the simulation box as a function of time is shown in Fig. \[Fig4weibel\], where we see that the magnetic field saturates at $eB/m_e \omega_{pe}\approx 0.0082$, while the linear growth rate of the most unstable mode is $\gamma_{max}/\omega_{pe} \approx 0.009$. Similar to the classical Maxwellian plasma case [@Davidson72], we can thus estimate the generated magnetic field as $$B = \frac{m_e c \gamma_{\rm max}}{e},$$ for a degenerate Fermi plasma. For our parameters parameters relevant for intense laser-solid interaction experiments, we will thus have magnetic fields of the order $10^5\,\mathrm{Tesla}$ (one gigagauss).
Dense plasma magnetization by the electromagnetic wave \[sec:Magnetization\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second example of the dense plasma magnetization can occur in the presence of streaming electrons and large amplitude electromagnetic waves. Here, the nonstationary ponderomotive force of the electromagnetic wave would create slowly varying electric fields and currents, which generate d.c. magnetic fields in dense plasmas.
Let us consider the propagation of the electromagnetic wave with the electric field ${\bf E} ({\bf r}, t) = (1/2) {\bf E}_0 (x, t) \exp(-i \omega t + i k x)$ + c.c., in an unmagnetized non-relativistic dense plasma with streaming electrons (with the drift velocity $ u \hat {\bf z}$, where $u$ is the magnitude of the electron drift speed and $\hat {\bf z}$ is the unit vector along the $z$ axis in a Cartesian coordinate system; typically $u$ is much smaller than the electron Fermi speed) and immobile ions. Here, ${\bf E}_0 (x, t)$ is the envelope of the electromagnetic field at the position ${\bf r}$ and time $t$, and $c. c.$ stands for complex conjugate. The frequency $\omega$ and the wave vector ${\bf k} =k \hat {\bf x}$, where $\hat {\bf x}$ is the unit vector along the $x$ axis, are related by [@Shukla09b]
$$\frac{k^ 2c^ 2}{\omega^ 2} = N = 1- \frac{\omega_{pe}^ 2}{\omega^ 2}-
\frac{k^ 2u^ 2\omega_{pe}^ 2}{\omega^ 2(\omega^ 2-k^ 2 V_{Fe}^ 2- \Omega_q^ 2)},
\label{Eq_M1}$$
where $N$ is the index of refraction and $\Omega_q =\hbar k^ 2/2m_e$,
The electromagnetic wave exerts a ponderomotive force ${\bf F}_p
={\bf F}_{ps} + {\bf F}_{pt}$ on the plasma electrons, where the stationary and non-stationary ponderomotive forces [@Karpman76] are, respectively,
$${\bf F}_{ps} = \frac{(N-1)}{16 \pi}\nabla |{\bf E}_0|^2,
\label{Eq_M2}$$
and
$${\bf F}_{pt}= \frac{1}{16 \pi}\frac{\bf k}{\omega^ 2}
\frac{\partial[\omega^ 2(N-1)]}{\partial \omega}
\frac{\partial |{\bf E}_0|^ 2}{\partial t}.
\label{Eq_M3}$$
The ponderomotive force pushes the electrons locally, and creates the slowly varying electric field
$${\bf E}_s =-\nabla \phi_s - \frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial {\bf A}_s}{\partial t}
=\frac{1}{n_0 e}{\bf F}_p,
\label{Eq_M4}$$
where the scalar and vector potentials are, respectively,
$${\bf \phi}_s =-\frac{(N-1)}{16\pi n_0e}|{\bf E}_0|^ 2,
\label{Eq_M5}$$
and
$${\bf A}_s = -\frac{c}{16\pi n_0 e}\frac{{\bf k}} {\omega^ 2}
\frac{\partial[\omega^ 2(N-1)]}{\partial \omega} |{\bf E}_0|^ 2.
\label{Eq_M6}$$
The induced slowly varying magnetic field ${\bf B}_s$ is then ${\bf B}_s =\nabla \times {\bf A}_s$. Noting that
$$\frac{\partial[\omega^ 2(N-1)]}{\partial \omega}
= \frac{2 \omega k^ 2 u^ 2 \omega_{pe}^ 2}
{(\omega^ 2- k^ 2 V_{Fe}^ 2 -\Omega_q^ 2)^ 2},
\label{Eq_M7}$$
we can express the magnitude of the magnetic field as
$$|{\bf B}_s| = \frac{ e c k^ 3 u^ 2|{\bf E}_0|^2}
{2 m_e L \omega (\omega^ 2- \Omega^ 2)^2},
\label{Eq_M8}$$
where $L$ is scale length of the envelope $|{\bf E}_0|^2$ and $\Omega =
(k^ 2V_{Fe}^ 2+ \Omega_q^ 2)^ {1/2} \equiv (\hbar k^2/2m_e)[1+ 4(3\pi^ 2 n_0)^ {2/3}/k^ 2]^{1/2} $. We note from (\[Eq\_M8\]) that the magnetic field strength is proportional to $u^ 2$, and attains a large value when $\omega \sim \Omega$. The electron gyrofrequency $\Omega_c$ is
$$\Omega_c = \frac {e|{\bf B}_s|}{m_e c}
= \frac{k^ 3 V_0^2 u^ 2 \omega}{2 L(\omega^ 2-\Omega^ 2)^ 2},
\label{Eq_M9}$$
where $V_0 =e|{\bf E}_0|/m_e \omega$ is the electron quiver velocity in the electromagnetic field.
Dynamics of electromagnetic waves in dense plasmas\[emwaveequation\]
====================================================================
We here consider various electromagnetic (EM) wave modes and their nonlinear interaction in dense plasmas. As examples, we will discuss spin waves, which occur in a magnetized plasma due to the spin-1/2 effect of electrons and positrons. We also consider nonlinear interactions between finite amplitude electromagnetic and electrostatic waves in dense plasmas. We focus on the underlying physics of stimulated scattering instabilities and the wave localization due to the parametric interactions involving the radiation pressure [@Shukla86].
Electromagnetic spin waves in magnetized plasmas
------------------------------------------------
In the presence of an external magnetic field, the quantum description of the linear kinetics of a dense collisionless plasma is complicated due to quantization of the gyromagnetic motion and the inclusion of the electron and positron spin-$1/2$. In the past, many authors [@Oberman63; @Kelley64; @Benford69; @Kuzelev99; @Melrose02] investigated the high-frequency conductivity, longitudinal and transverse dielectric responses in dense magnetized plasmas. The propagation characteristics of high-frequency electromagnetic waves in quantum magnetoplasmas is different from that in a classical magnetoactive plasma [@Ginzburg60].
Recently, Oraevsky et al. [@Semikoz03] found a new electromagnetic spin wave whose electric field is parallel to $\hat {\bf z} B_0$, and which propagates across $\hat {\bf z}$, where $\hat {\bf z}$ is the unit vector along the $z$ axis in a Cartesian coordinate system and $B_0$ is the strength of the ambient magnetic field. The spin wave accompany the magnetization current due to spinning electron motion and the wave frequency is obtained from [@Semikoz03]
$$\frac{k_\perp^2c^2}{\omega^2} = 1- \frac{\omega_{pe}^2}{\omega(\omega + i \nu_e)}
+ 2\pi \mu_B^2 \frac{k_\perp^2 c^2n_0}{\omega^2 \epsilon_F}\frac{\omega_{ce}}{\omega -\omega_{ce}},
\label{spin1}$$
where $k_\perp$ is the perpendicular component of the wave vector ${\bf k} = \hat {\bf x} k_\perp$, $\hat {\bf x}$ is the unit vector transverse to $\hat {\bf z}$, $\nu_e$ is the electron collision frequency, nd $\epsilon_F \sim m_e c^2$. The third term in the right-hand side of (102) represents the electron spin-magnetic resonance at the electron gyrofrequency $\omega_{ce} =eB_0/m_e c$.
Assuming that $k_\perp^2 c^2 + \omega_{pe}^2 \neq \omega_{ce}^2$, we obtain from (102)
$$\omega \simeq \omega_{ce}\left[ 1+ \frac{2\pi \mu_B^2n_0}{\epsilon_F}
\frac{k_\perp^2 c^2}{k_\perp^2c^2 + \omega_{pe}^2 \left(1-i\nu_e/\omega\right)
-\omega_{ce}^2} \right].$$
For $\nu_e \ll \omega \sim \omega_{ce}$, the damping rate of the spin mode is
$${\rm Im} \omega \simeq \frac{\nu_e \omega_{pe}^2k_\perp^2 c^2\mu_B^2B_0^2}
{ \epsilon_F m_e c^2\omega_{ce}^2(k_\perp^2 c^2 +\omega_{pe}^2-\omega_{ce}^2)^2}.$$
The ponderomotive force of the spin wave can create compressional magnetic field perturbation due to an inverse Cotton-Mouton/Faraday effect [@Abdul88].
Nonlinearly coupled EM waves
----------------------------
Finite amplitude electromagnetic waves in quantum magnetoplasmas interact nonlinearly among themselves. In this subsection, we shall use the generalized Q-MHD equations to obtain compact nonlinear equations for the electron magnetohydrodynamic (EMHD) and the Hall-MHD plasmas, and show how does the density, the fluid velocity, and magnetic field perturbations are coupled in a non-trivial manner.
The governing nonlinear equations for the electromagnetic waves in dense magnetoplasmas are the quantum magnetohydrodynamic equations composed of the continuity equation
$$\frac{\partial n_{e,i}}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot (n_{e,i} {\bf u}_{e,i}) = 0,
\label{Eq_EM1}$$
the electron and ion momentum equations, respectively,
$$n_e m_e \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
+ {\bf u}_e \cdot \nabla\right) {\bf u}_e
= - n_e e \left({\bf E} + \frac{1}{c}
{\bf u}_e \times {\bf B} \right) - \nabla P_e + {\bf F}_{Qe},
\label{Eq_EM2}$$
$$n_i m_i \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
+ {\bf u}_i \cdot \nabla\right) {\bf u}_i
= Z_i e n_i \left({\bf E} + \frac{1}{c}
{\bf u}_i \times {\bf B} \right),
\label{Eq_EM5}$$
the Faraday law
$$c \nabla \times {\bf E} =- \frac{\partial {\bf B}}{\partial t},
\label{Eq_EM3}$$
the Maxwell equation including the magnetization spin current
$$\nabla \times {\bf B} = \frac{4\pi }{c}\left({\bf J}_p + {\bf J}_m\right)
+ \frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial {\bf E}}{\partial t},
\label{Eq_EM4}$$
where the pressure for non-relativistic degenerate electrons reads [@Eliezer05]
$$P_e = \frac{4 e B (2 m_e)^{1/2} E_F^{3/2}} {3 (2\pi)^2\hbar^2 c}
\left[1+2\sum_{n_L=1}^{n_{max}}\left(1-\frac{n_L\hbar \omega_{ce}} {E_{F}}\right)^{3/2}\right],
\label{Eq_EM6}$$
where $n_L =0,\,1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,n_{max}$, and the value of $n_{max}$ is fixed by the largest integer $n_L$ that satisfies $E_F-n_L\hbar\omega_{ce}\geq 0$.
The sum of the quantum Bohm and intrinsic angular momentum spin forces is
$${\bf F}_{Qe} = \nabla \left(\frac{\nabla^ 2\sqrt{n_e}}{\sqrt{n_e}}\right)
-\frac{n_e \mu_B^2}{k_B T_{Fe}} \nabla B.
\label{Eq_EM7}$$
In Eqs. (\[Eq\_EM1\])–(\[Eq\_EM7\]), $n_j$ is the number density of the particle species $j$ ($j$ equals $e$ for the electrons, and $i$ for the ions), ${\bf u}_j$ is the particle fluid velocity, and $B=|{\bf B}|$. We have denoted the plasma current density ${\bf J}_p = - n_e e {\bf u}_e + Z_i
n_i e {\bf u}_i $ and the electron magnetization spin current density ${\bf J}_m = \nabla \times {\bf M}$, where the magnetization for dynamics on a time scale much slower than the spin precession frequency for an electron Fermi gas reads [@Kittel] ${\bf M} = (n_e \mu_B^2/k_B T_{Fe}) \hat {\bf B}$.
### Nonlinear EMHD
First, we present the generalized nonlinear EMHD equations for a dense magnetoplasma. Here the ions form the neutralizing background. The wave phenomena in the EMHD plasma will occur on a time scale much shorter than the ion plasma and ion gyroperiods. In equilibrium, we have
$$n_{e0} = Z_i n_{i0} \equiv n_0.
\label{Eq_EM9}$$
The relevant nonlinear EMHD equations are $$\frac{\partial n_e}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot (n_e {\bf u}_e) =0,
\label{Eq_EM10}$$ the electron momentum equation (\[Eq\_EM2\]), Faraday’s law (\[Eq\_EM3\]), and the electron fluid velocity given by
$${\bf u}_e = \frac{{\bf J}_m}{e n_e}-\frac{c (\nabla \times {\bf B})}{4 \pi e n_e}
+ \frac{1}{e n_e}\frac{\partial {\bf E}}{\partial t}.
\label{Eq_EM11}$$
We observe that the quantum tunneling and spin forces play an important role if there are slight electron density and magnetic field inhomogeneities in dense plasmas. The nonlinear EMHD equations are useful for studying collective electron dynamics in metallic and semiconductor nanostructures [@r1a].
### Nonlinear Hall-MHD
Second, we derive the modified nonlinear Hall-MHD equations in a dense electron-ion plasma. The Hall-MHD equations shall deal with the wave phenomena on a time scale larger than the electron gyroperiod. The relevant nonlinear Hall-MHD equations are the electron and ion continuity equations, the inertialess electron momentum equation
$${\bf E} + \frac{1}{c} {\bf u}_e \times {\bf B} - \frac{\nabla P_e}{n_e e}
- \frac{{\bf F}_{Qe}}{n_e e} =0,
\label{Eq_EM12}$$
Faraday’s law (\[Eq\_EM3\]), the ion momentum equation
$$n_i m_i \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
+ {\bf u}_i \cdot \nabla \right) {\bf u}_i
= Z_i e n_i \left({\bf E} + \frac{1}{c}
{\bf u}_i \times {\bf B} \right),
\label{Eq_EM13}$$
and the electron fluid velocity given by
$${\bf u}_e = {\bf u}_i + \frac{{\bf J}_m}{e n_e}
-\frac{c (\nabla \times {\bf B})}{4 \pi e n_e},
\label{Eq_EM15}$$
where we have neglected the displacement current, since the Hall-MHD plasma deals with electromagnetic waves whose phase velocity is much smaller than the speed of light in vacuum.
We now eliminate the electric field from (\[Eq\_EM13\]) by using (\[Eq\_EM12\]), obtaining
$$n_i m_i \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
+ {\bf u}_i \cdot \nabla \right) {\bf u}_i
= Z_i e n_i \left[\frac{1}{c}
({\bf u}_i-{\bf u}_e) \times {\bf B} - \frac{\nabla P_e}{n_e e}
+ \frac{{\bf F}_{Qe}}{n_e e} \right] .
\label{Eq_EM16}$$
Furthermore, eliminating ${\bf u}_e$ from (\[Eq\_EM16\]) by using (\[Eq\_EM15\]), we have
$$n_i m_i \left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
+ {\bf u}_i \cdot \nabla\right) {\bf u}_i
= Z_i e n_i \left\{\frac{1}{c}
\left[- \frac{{\bf J}_m}{e n_e} +
\frac{c (\nabla \times {\bf B})}{4\pi} \right] \times {\bf B}
- \frac{\nabla P_e}{n_e e}
+ \frac{{\bf F}_{Qe}}{n_e e} \right\},
\label{Eq_EM17}$$
with the quasi-neutrality condition $n_e = Z_i n_i$.
Finally, by using (\[Eq\_EM12\]) we can eliminate ${\bf E}$ from (\[Eq\_EM2\]), obtaining
$$\frac{\partial {\bf B}}{\partial t} = \nabla \times \left[ ({\bf u}_i \times {\bf B})
+ \frac{{\bf J}_m \times {\bf B}}{e Z_i n_i}
-\frac{c}{4\pi} \left(\nabla \times {\bf B}\right)\times {\bf B} \right].
\label{Eq_EM18}$$
The ion continuity equation, Eqs. (\[Eq\_EM17\]) and (\[Eq\_EM18\]), together with (\[Eq\_EM13\]) and $Z_i n_{i1} = n_{e1}$, where $n_{e1,i1} \ll n_{e0,i0}$ are the desired generalized nonlinear equations for the low-frequency (in comparison with the electron gyrofrequency), low-phase velocity (in comparison with the speed of light in vacuum) in a Hall-MHD dense plasma. They can be used to investigate the multi-dimensional linear and nonlinear waves (e.g. magnetosonic solitons [@MES07]), as well as nanostructures and turbulences [@Shaikh09] in dense quantum magnetoplasmas.
Stimulated scattering instabilities
-----------------------------------
Nonlinear interactions between the high-frequency EM waves and low-frequency electrostatic waves give rise to stimulated scattering instabilities in classical plasmas [@Drake74; @Yu74; @Shukla78; @Stenflo90]. There also exists possibility of exciting plasma waves by the high-frequency EM waves in quantum plasmas due to the parametric instabilities [@Sagdeev69]. The governing equations for the high-frequency electromagnetic waves [@ShuklaStenflo06] and the radiation pressure driven modified Langmuir and ion-acoustic oscillations in an unmagnetized quantum plasma are, respectively,
$$\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} -c^2 \nabla^2 + \omega_{pe}^2\right) {\bf A} + \omega_{pe}^2
\frac{n_1}{n_0} {\bf A} \approx 0,
\label{QEM9}$$
$$\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} + \omega_{pe}^2 - \frac{3}{5}V_{Fe}^2 \nabla^2
+ \frac{\hbar^2}{4m_e^2}
\nabla^4\right) \frac{n_1}{n_0} = \frac{q_e^2}{2m_e^2c^2}\nabla^2|{\bf A}|^2,
\label{QEM10}$$
and
$$\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} -\frac {m_e}{m_i}V_{Fe}^2 \nabla^2 + \frac{\hbar^2}{4 m_e m_i}
\nabla^4\right) \frac{n_1}{n_0} = \frac{q_e^2}{2m_e m_i c^2}\nabla^2 |{\bf A}|^2,
\label{QEM11}$$
where ${\bf A}$ is the vector potential of the high-frequency electromagnetic wave, and $n_1$ is the electron density perturbation of the low-frequency oscillations (viz. the modified EPOs and ion waves).
Combining Eqs. (\[QEM9\])-(\[QEM11\]) we thus simply obtain the nonlinear dispersion relations
$$\omega^2 - \Omega_R^2
=- \frac{q_e^2 \omega_{pe}^2 k^2|{\bf A}_0|^2}{2m_e^2c^2}\sum_{\pm}\frac{1}{D_\pm},
\label{QEM12}$$
and
$$\omega^2 - \Omega_B^2
= - \frac{q_e^2\omega_{pe}^2k^2 |{\bf A}_0|^2}{2m_em_ic^2}\sum_{\pm}\frac{1}{D_\pm},
\label{QEM13}$$
where $\Omega_R =(\omega_{pe}^2+3k^2V_{Fe}^2/5+ \hbar^2k^4/4m_e^2)^{1/2}$ and $\Omega_B =(k^2C_{Fs}^2+ \hbar^2 k^4/m_e m_i)^{1/2}$.
Equations (126) and (127) admit stimulated Raman, stimulated Brillouin and modulational instabilities of the electromagnetic pump (with the amplitude ${\bf A}_0$ and the frequency $\omega_0
=(k_0^2c^2+\omega_{pe}^2)^{1/2}$) in dense quantum plasmas. We have denoted $D_\pm
= \pm 2 \omega_0(\omega - {\bf k}\cdot {\bf V}_g \mp \delta)$, where ${\bf V}_g = c^2 {\bf k}_0/\omega_0$ is the group velocity of the EM pump wave frequency, and $\delta= k^2c^2/2\omega_0$ is the small frequency shift arising from the nonlinear interaction of the pump with the electrostatic perturbations $(\omega, {\bf k})$ in our quantum plasma. For stimulated Raman and Brillouin scatterings, the EM pump wave is scattered off the resonant electron plasma wave and resonant ion wave, respectively, while for the modulational instability the electron and ion plasma oscillations are off resonant, so are the EM sidebands.
For three-wave decay interactions, we suppose that $D_- =0$ and $D_+ \neq 0$. Thus, we ignore $D_+$ from (126) and (127). Letting $\omega =\Omega_R + i \gamma_R$ and $\omega = \Omega_B + i \gamma_B$ in (126) and (127), respectively, and assuming $\omega-{\bf k}\cdot {\bf V}_g + \delta \equiv i \gamma_{R,B}$, we obtain the the growth rates for stimulated Raman and Brillouin scattering instabilities (denoted by the subscripts $R$ and $B$, respectively,
$$\gamma_R =\frac{\omega_{pe}ek |{\bf A}_0|^2}{2\sqrt{2 \omega_0 \Omega_R} m_e c},
\label{growthR}$$
and $$\gamma_B =\frac{\omega_{pe}ek |{\bf A}_0|^2}{2\sqrt{2 \omega_0 \Omega_B m_e m_i} c},
\label{growthB}$$ where $|{\bf k}\cdot {\bf V}_g -\delta| \sim \Omega_R, \Omega_B$. We note that the growth rates for stimulated Raman and Brillouin scattering instabilities are inversely proportional to the square roots of $\Omega_R$ and $\Omega_B$, which depend on the quantum parameters. Stimulated Raman and Brillouin scattering instabilities of the EM wave off the ES waves should provide invaluable information regarding the density fluctuations and equation of states that might exist in dense quantum plasmas.
The quantum corrected 3D Zakharov equations [@Zakharov72] have been derived by Haas [@Haas07] and Haas and Shukla [@HaasShukla09], who demonstrated that the dispersive effects associated with quantum corrections can prevent the collapse of localized Langmuir envelope electric fields in both two and three spatial dimensions.
Self-trapped EM waves in a quantum hole
---------------------------------------
Nonlinear interactions between large amplitude electromagnetic waves and electrostatic plasma waves can produce nonlinear nanostructures composed of a density cavity that traps the electromagnetic wave envelope. Here we demonstrate trapping of intense electromagnetic waves into a finite amplitude density hole [@Shukla07] arising at the scale-size of the order of the electron skin depth $c/\omega_{pe}$).
A powerful circularly polarized electromagnetic (CPEM) plane wave interacting nonlinearly with the EPOs would generate an envelope of the CPEM vector potential ${\bf A}_\perp=A_\perp(\hat{\bf x}+i\hat{\bf y}) \exp(-i\omega_0t+ik_0 z)$, which shall obey the nonlinear Schrödinger equation [@Shukla86] $$2i\Omega_0\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} +V_g\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right) A_\perp
+\frac{\partial^2A_\perp}{\partial z^2}
-\left(\frac{|\psi|^2}{\gamma}-1\right)A_\perp=0,
\label{Eq9}$$ where the electron wave function $\psi$ and the scalar potential are governed by, respectively, $$i H_e \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}
+\frac{H_e^2}{2}\frac{\partial^2\psi}{\partial z^2}+(\phi-\gamma+1)\psi=0,
\label{Eq10}$$ and $$\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial z^2}=|\psi|^2-1,
\label{Eq11}$$ where the electron number density is defined as is given by the $|\psi|^2$ term. Here $\Omega_0$ represents the CPEM wave frequency, $V_g$ is the $x$ component of the group velocity of the CPEM wave, $H_e$ is a quantum coupling parameter, and $\gamma=(1+|{A}_\perp|^2)^{1/2}$ is the relativistic gamma factor due to the electron quiver velocity in the CPEM wave fields. The details of normalization of variables is given in Ref. [@Shukla07]. The nonlinear coupling between intense CPEM waves and EPOs comes about due to the nonlinear current density, which is represented by the term $|\psi|^2 {A}_\perp/\gamma$ in Eq. (\[Eq9\]). In Eq. (\[Eq10\]), $1-\gamma$ is the relativistic ponderomotive potential [@Shukla86], which arises due to the cross-coupling between the CPEM wave-induced electron quiver velocity and the CPEM wave magnetic field.
The effect of quantum dispersion on localized electromagnetic pulses can be studied by considering a steady state structure moving with a constant speed $V_g$. Inserting the ansatz $A_\perp= W(\xi)\exp(-i\Omega t)$, $\psi= P(\xi)\exp(ikx-i\omega t)$ and $\phi=\phi(\xi)$ into Eqs. (\[Eq9\])–(\[Eq11\]), where $\xi=z-V_g t$, $k=V_g/H_e$ and $\omega=V_g^2/2H_e$, and where $W(\xi)$ and $P(\xi)$ are real, one obtains from (\[Eq9\])-(\[Eq11\]) the coupled system of equations $$\frac{\partial^2 W}{\partial \xi^2}+\left(\lambda-\frac{P^2}{\gamma}+1\right)W=0,
\label{Eq13}$$ $$\frac{H_e^2}{2}\frac{\partial^2 P}{\partial \xi^2}+(\phi-\gamma+1)P=0,
\label{Eq14}$$ where $\gamma=(1+W^2)^{1/2}$, and $$\frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial \xi^2}=P^2-1,
\label{Eq15}$$ with the boundary conditions $W=\Phi=0$ and $P^2=1$ at $|\xi|=\infty$. In Eq. (\[Eq13\]), $\lambda=2\Omega_0\Omega$ represents a nonlinear frequency shift of the CPEM wave. In the limit $H_e\rightarrow 0$, one has from (\[Eq14\]) $\phi= \gamma -1$, where $P \neq 0$, and one recovers the classical (non-quantum) case of the relativistic solitary waves in a cold plasma [@Marburger75]. The system of equations (\[Eq13\])–(\[Eq15\]) admits a Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
Q_H=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial W}{\partial\xi}\right)^2+\frac{H_e^2}{2}
\left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial\xi}\right)^2-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial\xi}\right)^2
+\frac{1}{2}(\lambda+1)W^2+P^2-\gamma P^2+\phi P^2-\phi=0,
\label{Eq16}\end{aligned}$$ where the boundary conditions $\partial/\partial\xi=0$, $W=\phi=0$ and $|P|=1$ at $|\xi|=\infty$ have been used.
Numerical solutions of the quasi-stationary system (\[Eq13\])–(\[Eq15\]) are presented Figs. \[Fig6\] and \[Fig7\], while time-dependent solutions of Eqs. (\[Eq9\])–(\[Eq11\]) are shown in Figs. \[Fig8\] and \[Fig9\]. Here parameters were used that are representative of the next generation laser-based plasma compression (LBPC) schemes [@Malkin07; @Azechi91; @Azechi06]. The formula [@Shukla86] $eA_\perp/mc^2 =6 \times
10^{-10} \lambda_s \sqrt{I}$ will determine the normalized vector potential, provided that the CPEM wavelength $\lambda_s$ (in microns) and intensity $I$ (in W/cm$^2$) are known. It is expected that in LBPC schemes, the electron number density $n_0$ may reach $10^{27}$ cm$^{-3}$ and beyond, and the peak values of $eA_\perp/mc^2$ may be in the range 1-2 (e.g. for focused EM pulses with $\lambda_s \sim 0.15$ nm and $I \sim 5 \times 10^{27}$ W/cm$^{2}$). For $\omega_{pe} =1.76 \times 10^{18}$ s$^{-1}$, one has $\hbar \omega_{pe} =1.76 \times 10 ^{-9}$ erg and $H_e =0.002$, since $mc^2 =8.1 \times 10^{-7}$ erg. The electron skin depth $\lambda_e \sim 1.7$ [Å]{}. On the other hand, a higher value of $H_e=0.007$ is achieved for $\omega_{pe} =5.64 \times 10^{18}$ s$^{-1}$. Thus, our numerical solutions below, based on these two values of $H_e$, have focused on scenarios that are relevant for the next generation intense laser-solid density plasma interaction experiments [@Malkin07].
Figures \[Fig6\] and \[Fig7\] show numerical solutions of Eqs. (\[Eq13\])–(\[Eq15\]) for several values of $H_e$. The nonlinear boundary value problem was solved with the boundary conditions $W=\phi=0$ and $P=1$ at the boundaries at $\xi=\pm 10$. One can see that the solitary envelope pulse is composed of a single maximum of the localized vector potential $W$ and a local depletion of the electron density $P^2$, and a localized positive potential $\phi$ at the center of the solitary pulse. The latter has a continuous spectrum in $\lambda$, where larger values of negative $\lambda$ are associated with larger amplitude solitary EM pulses. At the center of the solitary EM pulse, the electron density is partially depleted, as in panels a) of Fig. \[Fig6\], and for larger amplitudes of the EM waves one has a stronger depletion of the electron density, as shown in panels b) and c) of Fig. \[Fig6\]. For cases where the electron density goes to almost zero in the classical case [@Marburger75], one important quantum effect is that the electrons can tunnel into the depleted region. This is seen in Fig. \[Fig7\], where the electron density remains nonzero for the larger value of $H_e$ in panels a), while the density shrinks to zero for the smaller value of $H_e$ in panel b).
![The profiles of the CPEM vector potential $W$ (top row), the electron number density $P^2$ (middle row) and the scalar potential $\Phi$ (bottom row) for $\lambda=-0.3$ (left column), $\lambda=-0.34$ (middle column) and $\lambda=-0.4$ (right column), with $H_e=0.002$. After Ref. [@Shukla07].[]{data-label="Fig6"}](Fig6qp.jpg){width="8cm"}
![The profiles of the CPEM vector potential $W$ (top row), the electron number density $P^2$ (middle row) and the scalar potential $\Phi$ (bottom row) for $H_e=0.007$ (left column) and $H_e=0.002$ (right column), with $\lambda=-0.34$. After Ref. [@Shukla07].[]{data-label="Fig7"}](Fig7qp.jpg){width="8cm"}
![The dynamics of the CPEM vector potential ${A}_\perp$ and the electron number density $|\psi|^2$ (upper panels) and of the electrostatic potential $\Phi$ (lower panel) for $H_e=0.002$. After Ref. [@Shukla07].[]{data-label="Fig8"}](Fig8qp.jpg){width="8cm"}
![ The dynamics of the CPEM vector potential ${A}_\perp$ and the electron number density $|\psi|^2$ (upper panels) and the electrostatic potential $\phi$ (lower panel) for $H_e=0.007$. After Ref. [@Shukla07]. []{data-label="Fig9"}](Fig9qp.jpg){width="8cm"}
Figures \[Fig8\] and \[Fig9\] show numerical simulation results of Eqs. (\[Eq9\])–(\[Eq11\]), in order to investigate the quantum diffraction effects on the dynamics of localized CPEM wavepackets. Here the long-wavelength limit $\omega_0\approx 1$ and $V_g\approx 0$ was considered. In the initial conditions, an EM pump with a constant amplitude $A_\perp=A_0=1$ and a uniform plasma density $\psi=1$ was used, together with a small amplitude noise (random numbers) of order $10^{-2}$ added to ${A}_\perp$ to give a seeding any instability. The numerical results are displayed in Figs. \[Fig8\] and \[Fig9\] for $H_e=0.002$ and $H_e=0.007$, respectively. In both cases, one can see an initial linear growth phase and a wave collapse at $t\approx 70$, in which almost all the CPEM wave energy is contracted into a few well separated localized CPEM wave pipes. These are characterized by a large bell-shaped amplitude of the CPEM wave, an almost complete depletion of the electron number density at the center of the CPEM wavepacket, and a large-amplitude positive electrostatic potential. Comparing Fig. \[Fig8\] with Fig. \[Fig9\], one can see that there is a more complex dynamics in the interaction between the CPEM wavepackets for the larger $H_e=0.007$, shown in Fig. \[Fig9\], in comparison with $H_e=0.002$, shown in Fig. \[Fig8\], where the wavepackets are almost stationary when they are fully developed.
Summary and perspectives\[sec:conclusions\]
===========================================
In this paper, we have presented our up-to-date theoretical knowledge of nonlinear physics of non-relativistic quantum plasmas. We started with nonlinear quantum models that describe the physics of localized excitations in different areas of physics. We then moved to discussing the well known electron and ion plasma wave spectra in dense quantum plasmas, and presented nonlinear models for treating nonlinear interactions among finite amplitude plasma waves at nanoscales. As examples, we demonstrated the existence of localized nonlinear EPOs and localized ion waves in dense quantum plasmas. For electrostatic EPOs, the electron dynamics is governed by a pair composed of nonlinear Schrödinger and Poisson (NLSP) equations. We stress that the nonlinear Schrödinger equation governing the spatio-temporal evolution of the electron wave function in the presence of self-consistent electrostatic potential in dense plasmas has been obtained from the quantum electron momentum equation by introducing the eikonal representation as a mathematical tool for understanding the complex electron plasma wave interactions at nanoscales. Such a description also appears in the context of the nonlinear electron dynamics in thin metal films [@r1a]. Our NLSP equations admit a set of conserved quantities, e.g. the total number of electrons, the electron momentum, the electron angular momentum, and the electron energy. We have found that the NLSP equations admit quasi-stationary, localized structures in the form of one-dimensional quantized dark solitons and two-dimensional quantized vortices. These nanostructures are associated with a local depletion of the electron density associated with positive electrostatic potential, and are parameterised by the quantum coupling parameter only. In the two-dimensional geometry, there exist a class of vortices of different excited states (charge states) associated with a complete depletion of the electron density and an associated positive potential. Numerical simulations of the time-dependent NLSP equations demonstrate the stability of stable dark solitons in one space dimension with an amplitude consistent with the one found from the time-independent solutions. In two-space-dimensions, the dark solitons of the first excited state were found to be stable and the preferred nonlinear state was in the form of vortex pairs of different polarities. One-dimensional dark solitons and singly charge two-dimensional vortices are thus long-lived nonlinear structures in quantum plasmas.
Similar to the Bernstein-Green-Kruskal modes [@EliassonShukla06], we accounted for the trapping of electrons in the electrostatic wave potential and studied numerically the deformation of the equilibrium Fermi-Dirac distribution function and the subsequent emergence of localized phase space kinetic structures. Such an investigation was carried out by using the time-dependent Wigner and Poisson equations. Furthermore, we presented two mechanisms for the generation of magnetic fields in quantum plasmas. They are associated with the quantum Weibel instability in the presence of equilibrium anisotropic Fermi-Dirac electron distribution function, as well as with the the non-stationary ponderomotive force of a large amplitude electromagnetic waves in quantum plasmas with streaming electrons. Spontaneously generated magnetic fields can affect the linear and nonlinear propagation of both the electrostatic and electromagnetic waves in quantum magnetoplasmas [@ShuklaAli06]. The quantum corrections produce dispersion at short scales for the electrostatic upper-hybrid, lower-hybrid, and ion-cyclotron waves, while the quantum Bohm force and the electron$-1/2$ spin effects introduce new features to the elliptically polarized extraordinary electromagnetic mode [@Shukla07a]. Furthermore, the electron-$1|2$ spin is responsible for a new perpendicularly propagating (with respect to the magnetic field direction) electromagnetic spin wave, which can be excited by intense neutrino bursts in supernovae. The newly derived nonlinear EMHD and Hall-MHD equations can be used for investigating the multi-dimensional linear and nonlinear electromagnetic waves in quantum plasmas. Finally, we have also presented theoretical and numerical studies of stimulated Raman and Brillouin scattering instabilities of a large amplitude electromagnetic wave, and the trapping of arbitrary large amplitude circularly polarized EM waves in a fully nonlinear electron density hole in an unmagnetized quantum plasma. It is expected that localized nanostructures can transport electromagnetic wave energy over nanoscales in laboratory and astrophysical dense plasmas with degenerate electrons.
The field of the nonlinear quantum plasma physics is extremely rich and vibrant today, and it holds a great promise of providing new practical technologies. For example, the plasma assisted carbon nanostructures and nanomaterials are the future of nanotechnologies, so are the new radiation sources in the x-rays and gamma-rays regimes. In such circumstances, one should have a complete understanding of the fundamentals of collective nonlinear interactions (e.g. intense high-order harmonic generation of ultrashort laser pulses from laser-irradiated dense plasma surfaces) in quantum plasmas. Furthermore, in magnetars, and in the next generation intense laser-solid density plasma interaction experiments, one would certainly have degenerate positrons, besides degenerate electrons. The physics of dense quantum magnetoplasmas with degenerate electron-positron pairs is expected to be quite different than what has been described in this paper. The reason is the complex nonlinear dynamics of the electron-positron pairs, which would have relativistic velocities in a dense magnetoplasma. Accordingly, we should develop new theories involving relativistic kinetic and quantum relativistic magnetohydrodynamic equations that include quantum relativistic effects [@Hakim78; @Shabad91; @Lamata07], electromagnetic forces, angular momentum spin and nonlinear effects on equal footings. A detailed analysis of such theories would provide us a guide line for understanding the origin of localized high-energy radiation and other complex phenomena (e.g. the formation of structures) from astrophysical settings and future laboratory experiments aiming to model astrophysical scenarios.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
One of the authors (P K Shukla) acknowledges the benefit of useful discussions with Academician professor Vladimir Fortov. We greately appreciate our invaluable collaborations with Lennart Stenflo, Gert Brodin, Mattias Marklund, Fernando Haas and Nitin Shukla.
This research was partially supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Bonn, Germany) through the project SH21/3-1 of the Research Unit 1048, and by the Swedish Research Council (VR).
Derivation of the Vlasov equation from the Wigner equation
==========================================================
We here show that the Wigner equation converges to the Vlasov equation in the classical limit $\hbar\rightarrow 0$. The Wigner equation reads $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}+{\bf v}\cdot \nabla f
=-\frac{i e m_e^3}{(2\pi)^3\hbar^4}\int \int d^3\lambda d^3v'
\exp\left[i \frac{m_e}{\hbar} ({\bf v}-{\bf v}')
\cdot{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\right]
\left[
\phi\left({\bf x}+\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}{2},t\right)
-\phi\left({\bf x}-\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}{2},t\right)\right]f({\bf x},{\bf v}',t).
\label{w_eq1}$$ By the change of variables $\boldsymbol{\lambda}=\hbar \boldsymbol{\xi}/m_e$ we have $d^3\lambda=\hbar^3d^3\xi/m_e^3$ and Eq. (\[w\_eq1\]) takes the form $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}+{\bf v}\cdot \nabla f
=-\frac{i e}{(2\pi)^3\hbar}\int \int d^3\xi d^3v'
\exp[i ({\bf v}-{\bf v}')\cdot{\boldsymbol{\xi}}]
\left[
\phi\left({\bf x}+\frac{\hbar\boldsymbol{\xi}}{2m_e},t\right)
-\phi\left({\bf x}-\frac{\hbar\boldsymbol{\xi}}{2m_e},t\right)\right]f({\bf x},{\bf v}',t).
\label{w_eq2}$$ Assuming that $\hbar/m_e$ is small and Taylor expanding $\phi$ up to the third order around $\bf x$, $$\phi\left({\bf x}\pm\frac{\hbar\boldsymbol{\xi}}{2m_e},t\right)
\approx\phi({\bf x},t)\pm\frac{\hbar}{2m_e}(\boldsymbol{\xi}\cdot\nabla)\phi({\rm x},t)
+\frac{\hbar^2}{8 m_e^2}(\boldsymbol{\xi}\cdot\nabla)^2\phi({\rm x},t)
\pm\frac{\hbar^3}{48 m_e^3}(\boldsymbol{\xi}\cdot\nabla)^3\phi({\rm x},t),
\label{w_eq3}$$ we have $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}+{\bf v}\cdot \nabla f
\approx-\frac{i e}{(2\pi)^3 m_e}\int \int d^3\xi d^3v'
\exp[i ({\bf v}-{\bf v}')\cdot{\boldsymbol{\xi}}]
\left[\boldsymbol{\xi}\cdot\nabla\phi({\rm x},t)+\frac{\hbar^2}{24 m_e^2}
(\boldsymbol{\xi}\cdot\nabla)^3\phi({\rm x},t)\right]
f({\bf x},{\bf v}',t).
\label{w_eq4}$$ By the identity $$\exp[i ({\bf v}-{\bf v}')\cdot{\boldsymbol{\xi}}]\boldsymbol{\xi}=
i\nabla_{{\bf v}'}\exp[i ({\bf v}-{\bf v}')\cdot{\boldsymbol{\xi}}],$$ where $\nabla_{{\bf v}'}=\widehat{\bf x}\partial/\partial v_x'
+\widehat{\bf y}\partial/\partial v_y'
+\widehat{\bf z}\partial/\partial v_z'$, we have $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}+{\bf v}\cdot \nabla f
=\frac{e}{(2\pi)^3 m_e}\int \int d^3\xi d^3v'
\bigg\{\exp[i ({\bf v}-{\bf v}') \cdot\boldsymbol\xi]\bigg[
(\overleftarrow{\nabla}_{{\bf v}'}\cdot\overrightarrow{\nabla})
-\frac{\hbar^2}{24 m_e^2}(\overleftarrow{\nabla}_{{\bf v}'}\cdot\overrightarrow{\nabla})^3\bigg]
\phi({\rm x},t)\bigg\}
f({\bf x},{\bf v}',t),
\label{w_eq5}$$ where the arrows indicate the direction of operation of the nabla operators.
Integration by parts in ${\bf v}'$ space, and using that $f\rightarrow 0$ for $|{\bf v}'|\rightarrow \infty$, now yields $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}+{\bf v}\cdot \nabla f
=-\frac{e}{(2\pi)^3 m_e}\int \int d^3\xi d^3v'
\exp[i ({\bf v}-{\bf v}')\cdot\boldsymbol{\xi}]\bigg\{
\phi({\bf x},t) \bigg[(\overleftarrow{\nabla}\cdot\overrightarrow{\nabla}_{{\bf v}'})
-\frac{\hbar^2}{24 m_e^2}(\overleftarrow{\nabla}\cdot\overrightarrow{\nabla}_{{\bf v}'})^3\bigg]
f({\bf x},{\bf v}',t)\bigg\}.
\label{w_eq6}$$ Now the integration in $\boldsymbol{\xi}$ space can formally be performed, with the result $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}+{\bf v}\cdot \nabla f
=-\frac{e}{m_e}\int d^3v'
\delta({\bf v}-{\bf v}')\bigg\{
\phi({\bf x},t) \bigg[(\overleftarrow{\nabla}\cdot\overrightarrow{\nabla}_{{\bf v}'})
-\frac{\hbar^2}{24 m_e^2}(\overleftarrow{\nabla}\cdot\overrightarrow{\nabla}_{{\bf v}'})^3\bigg]
f({\bf x},{\bf v}',t)\bigg\}.
\label{w_eq7}$$ where the identity $$\int d^3\xi \exp[i ({\bf v}-{\bf v}')\cdot{\bf \xi}]=(2\pi)^3\delta({\bf v}-{\bf v}')
\label{eq8}$$ was used and where $\delta$ is Dirac’s delta function. Finally, integration over ${\bf v}'$ space yields $$\begin{split}
&\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}+{\bf v}\cdot \nabla f
=-\frac{e}{m_e}\bigg\{
\phi({\bf x},t) \bigg[(\overleftarrow{\nabla}\cdot\overrightarrow{\nabla}_{{\bf v}})
-\frac{\hbar^2}{24 m_e^2}(\overleftarrow{\nabla}\cdot\overrightarrow{\nabla}_{{\bf v}})^3\bigg]
f({\bf x},{\bf v},t)\bigg\}.
\end{split}
\label{w_eq9}$$ In the limit $\hbar\rightarrow 0$, we recover the Vlasov equation $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}+{\bf v}\cdot \nabla f
=-\frac{e}{m_e}
\nabla\phi({\rm x},t) \cdot\nabla_{{\bf v}}
f({\bf x},{\bf v},t).
\label{w_eq10}$$
Derivation of the dispersion relation for the Wigner-Poisson system
===================================================================
We here present a derivation of the dispersion relation for electrostatic waves in a degenerate quantum plasma, governed by the Wigner-Poisson system of equations. The linearized Wigner-Poisson system of equations reads $$\frac{\partial f_1}{\partial t}+{\bf v}\cdot \nabla f_1
=-\frac{i e m_e^3}{(2\pi)^3\hbar^4}\int \int d^3\lambda d^3v'
\exp\left[i \frac{m_e}{\hbar} ({\bf v}-{\bf v}')
\cdot{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\right]
\left[
\phi_1\left({\bf x}+\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}{2},t\right)
-\phi_1\left({\bf x}-\frac{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}{2},t\right)\right]f_0({\bf v}'),
\label{eq_B1}$$ and $$\nabla^2\phi_1=4 \pi e \int f_1 d^3 v,
\label{eq_B2}$$ where $f_0$ denotes the background distribution function, and $f_1$ and $\phi_1$ denote the perturbed distribution function and electrostatic potential, respectively. Fourier transforming (\[eq\_B1\])-(\[eq\_B2\]) in space and Laplace transforming them in time, we obtain $$(\omega-{\bf k}\cdot{\bf v})f_1
=\frac{e m_e^3}{(2\pi)^3\hbar^4}\int \int d^3\lambda d^3v'
\exp\left[i \frac{m_e}{\hbar} ({\bf v}-{\bf v}')
\cdot{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}\right]
\left[
e^{i {\bf k}\cdot\boldsymbol{\lambda}/2}-e^{-i {\bf k}\cdot\boldsymbol{\lambda}/2}
\right]f_0({\bf v}')\phi_1(\omega,{\bf k}),
\label{eq_B3}$$ $$k^2\phi_1=-4 \pi e\int f_1 d^3 v
\label{eq_B4}$$ Rewriting (\[eq\_B3\]) as $$\begin{split}
&(\omega-{\bf k}\cdot {\bf v})f_1
=\frac{i e m_e^3}{(2\pi)^3\hbar^4}\int \int d^3\lambda d^3v'
\left\{
\exp\left[\frac{m_e}{\hbar} ({\bf v}-{\bf v}')
\cdot{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}+i {\bf k}\cdot\boldsymbol{\lambda}/2\right]
\right.
\\
&\left.
- \exp\left[i \frac{m_e}{\hbar} ({\bf v}-{\bf v}')
\cdot{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}-i {\bf k}\cdot\boldsymbol{\lambda}/2\right]
\right\}f_0({\bf v}')\phi_1(\omega,{\bf k}),
\end{split}$$ and performing the integration over $\boldsymbol{\lambda}$ space, we have $$(\omega-{\bf v}\cdot{\bf k})f_1
=\frac{e m_e^3}{\hbar^4}\int d^3v'
\left\{
\delta\left[\frac{m_e}{\hbar} ({\bf v}-{\bf v}')+\frac{\bf k}{2}\right]
\right.
\left.
-\delta\left[\frac{m_e}{\hbar} ({\bf v}-{\bf v}')-\frac{\bf k}{2}\right]
\right\}f_0({\bf v}')\phi_1(\omega,{\bf k}),$$ where $\delta$ is the Dirac delta function. Now, the integration can be performed over ${\bf v}'$ space, obtaining the result $$\begin{split}
&(\omega-{\bf k}\cdot{\bf v})f_1
=\frac{e}{\hbar}
\left[
f_0\left({\bf v}+\frac{\hbar{\bf k}}{2m_e}\right)
-f_0\left({\bf v}-\frac{\hbar{\bf k}}{2m_e}\right)
\right]\phi_1(\omega,{\bf k}).
\end{split}
\label{eq_B7}$$ Solving for $f_1$ in (\[eq\_B7\]) and inserting the result in (\[eq\_B4\]), we obtain the dispersion relation $$\begin{split}
&1-\frac{4 \pi e^2k^2}{\hbar}
\int \left[
\frac{f_0\left({\bf v}+\frac{\hbar{\bf k}}{2m_e}\right)}{(-\omega+{\bf k}\cdot {\bf v})}
-\frac{f_0\left({\bf v}-\frac{\hbar{\bf k}}{2m_e}\right)}{(-\omega+{\bf k}\cdot {\bf v})}
\right] d^3 v=0.
\end{split}$$ Suitable changes of variables in the two terms now gives $$\begin{split}
&1-\frac{4 pi e^2 k^2}{\hbar}
\int \left[
\frac{1}{[-\omega+{\bf k}\cdot({\bf u}-\frac{\hbar{\bf k}}{2 m_e})]}
-\frac{1}{[-\omega+{\bf k}\cdot ({\bf u}+\frac{\hbar{\bf k}}{2 m_e})]}
\right]f_0({\bf u}) d^3 u=0,
\end{split}$$ which can be rewritten as $$\begin{split}
&1-\frac{4 \pi e^2}{m_e}
\int
\frac{f_0({\bf u})}{(\omega-{\bf k}\cdot{\bf u})^2-\frac{\hbar^2 k^4}{4 m_e^2}} d^3 u=0.
\end{split}
\label{eq_B10}$$ The dispersion relation (\[eq\_B10\]) was also derived by Bohm and Pines [@Bohm53] using a series of canonical transformations of the Hamiltonian of the system; see for example equation (57) in their paper. We now choose a coordinate system such that the $x$ axis is aligned with the wave vector ${\bf k}$. Then, (\[eq\_B10\]) takes the form $$\begin{split}
&1-\frac{4 \pi e^2}{m_e}
\int
\frac{f_0({\bf u})}{(\omega-k u_x)^2-\frac{\hbar^2 k^4}{4 m_e^2}} d^3 u=0.
\end{split}
\label{eq_B11}$$ We next consider a dense plasma with degenerate electrons in the zero temperature limit. Then, the background distribution function takes the simple form $$f_0=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
2\left(\frac{m_e}{2\pi \hbar}\right)^3, & |{\bf u}|\leq V_{Fe} \\
0, & \mbox{elsewhere,}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $V_{Fe}=(2{\cal E}_{Fe}/m_e)^{1/2}$ is the speed of an electron on the Fermi surface, and ${\cal E}_{Fe}=(3\pi^2 n_0)^{2/3}\hbar^2/(2m_e)$ is the Fermi energy. The integration in (\[eq\_B11\]) can be performed over velocity space perpendicular to $u_x$, using cylindrical coordinate in $u_y$ and $u_z$, obtaining the result $$\begin{split}
&1
=\frac{4 \pi e^2}{m_e}
\int
\frac{F_0(u_x)}{(\omega-k u_x)^2-\frac{\hbar^2 k^4}{4 m_e^2}} d u_x,
\end{split}
\label{eq_B13}$$ where $$F_0(u_x)=\int\int f_0({\bf u})du_y du_z=2\pi\int_0^{\sqrt{V_{Fe}^2-u_x^2}} 2\left(\frac{m_e}{2\pi \hbar}\right)^3u_\perp\,du_\perp
=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
2\pi\left(\frac{m_e}{2\pi \hbar}\right)^3(V_{Fe}^2-u_x^2), & |u_x|\leq V_{Fe} \\
0, & \mbox{elsewhere.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ Equation (\[eq\_B13\]) can be written as $$\begin{split}
&1
=\frac{8 \pi^2 e^2}{m_e}\left(\frac{m_e}{2\pi \hbar}\right)^3
\int_{-V_{Fe}}^{V_{Ve}}
\frac{V_{Fe}^2-u_x^2}{(\omega-k u_x)^2-\frac{\hbar^2 k^4}{4 m_e^2}} d u_x
=\frac{3\omega_{pe}^2}{4 V_{Fe}^3}
\int_{-V_{Fe}}^{V_{Ve}}
\frac{V_{Fe}^2-u_x^2}{(\omega-k u_x)^2-\frac{\hbar^2 k^4}{4 m_e^2}} d u_x.
\end{split}
\label{eq_B15}$$ First, in the limit $\hbar k/m_e\rightarrow 0$, we have from (\[eq\_B15\]) $$1+\frac{3\omega_{pe}^2}{k^2 V_{Fe}^2}\left(
1-\frac{\omega}{2k V_{Fe}}\log\left|\frac{\omega+k V_{Fe}}{\omega-k V_{Fe}}\right|
\right)=0,
\label{eq_B16}$$ where we have assumed that $\omega$ is real and $\omega/k>V_{Fe}$.
Expanding (\[eq\_B16\]) for small wavenumbers up to terms containing $k^2$, we have $$\omega^2=\omega_{pe}^2+\frac{3}{5}k^2 V_{Fe}^2.$$ Second, for non-zero $\hbar k^2/m_e$, we have from (\[eq\_B15\]) the dispersion relation $$\begin{split}
1+\frac{3\omega_{pe}^2}{4 k^2 V_{Fe}^2}\left\{
2-\frac{m_e}{\hbar k V_{Fe}}\left[V_{Fe}^2-\left(\frac{\omega}{k}+\frac{\hbar k}{2 m_e}\right)^2\right]
\log\left|
\frac{
\frac{\omega}{k}-V_{Fe}+\frac{\hbar k}{2 m_e}
}{
\frac{\omega}{k}+V_{Fe}+\frac{\hbar k}{2 m_e}
}
\right|
\right.
\\
\left.
+\frac{m_e}{\hbar k V_{Fe}}\left[V_{Fe}^2-\left(\frac{\omega}{k}-\frac{\hbar k}{2 m_e}\right)^2\right]
\log\left|
\frac{
\frac{\omega}{k}-V_{Fe}-\frac{\hbar k}{2 m_e}
}{
\frac{\omega}{k}+V_{Fe}-\frac{\hbar k}{2 m_e}
}
\right|
\right\}=0.
\end{split}
\label{eq_B18}$$ Expanding (\[eq\_B18\]) for small wavenumbers up to terms containing $k^4$, we obtain $$\omega^2\approx\omega_{pe}^2+\frac{3}{5}k^2 V_{Fe}^2+(1+\alpha)\frac{\hbar^2 k^4}{4 m_e^2},$$ where $\alpha=(48/175)m_e^2 V_{Fe}^4/\hbar^2\omega_{pe}^2\approx 2.000 (n_0 a_0^3)^{1/3}$ and $a_0=\hbar^2/m_e e^2\approx 53\times 10^{-10}\,\mathrm{cm}$ is the Bohr radius. For a typical metal such as gold, which has a free electron number density of $n_0=5.9\times10^{22}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-3}$, we would have $\alpha\approx 0.4$. For the free electron density in semiconductors, which is many orders of magnitude less than in metals, $\alpha$ is much smaller and can safely be dropped compared to unity.
[99]{}
Klimontovich Y L and Silin V P [*Doklady Akad. Nauk S. S. S. R.*]{} [**82**]{} 361 (1952); [*JFTF (Journal Experimental Teoreticheskoi Fisiki)*]{} [**23**]{} 151 (1952)
Bohm D [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**85**]{} 166 (1952)
Bohm D and Pines D [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**92**]{} 609 (1953)
Pines D [*J. Nucl. Energy: Part C: Plasma Phys.*]{} [**2**]{} 5 (1961)
Bohm D and Pines D in [*Plasma Physics*]{}, Ed. J. E. Drummond (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1961) Chap. 2 pp. 35-87
Bonitz M et al. [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**36**]{} 5921 (2003)
Manfredi G [*Fields Inst. Commun.*]{} [**46**]{} 263 (2005)
Bransden B H and Joachain C J *Quantum Mechanics (2nd Edition)* (Pearson Education Limited, Essex, England, 2000)
Fortov V E and Iakubov I T *The Physics of Ion-Ideal Plasma* (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000)
Lee T D [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**111**]{} 625 (1950)
Hubbard W B [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**146**]{} 858 (1966)
Lampe M [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**170**]{} 306 (1968)
Azechi H et al. [*Laser Part. Beams*]{} [**9**]{}, 193 (1991) Azechi H et al. [*Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion*]{} [**48**]{}, B267 (2006) Son S and Fisch N J [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**95**]{} 225002 (2005)
Wigner E [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**40**]{} 749 (1932)
Moyal I E [*Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc.*]{} [**45**]{} 99 (1949)
Anderson D et al. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**65**]{} 046417 (2002).
Tsintsadze N L and Tsintsadze L N [*arXiv:0903.5368v1 \[physics.plasm-ph\] 31 Mar 2009*]{}
Gardner C L and Ringhofer C [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**53**]{} 157 (1996)
Manfredi G and Haas F [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**64**]{} 075316 (2001)
Shukla P K and Eliasson B [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**96**]{} 245001 (2006)
Shukla P K [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**352**]{} 242 (2006)
Shukla P K and Eliasson B [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**9**]{} 98 (2007)
Maafa N [*Phys. Scripta*]{} [**48**]{} 351 (1993)
Melrose D B *Quantum Plasmadynamics: Unmagnetized Plasmas* (Springer, Berlin, 2007)
Lifshitz E M and Pitaevskii L P *Physical Kinetics* (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1981)
Nozieres P and Pines D *The Theory of Quantum Liquids* (Perscus Books, Cambridge, 1999) p 279
Kremp D et al. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**60**]{} 4725 (1999)
Bonitz M *Quantum Kinetic Theory* (B G Teubner, Stuttgart, 1998)
Kremp D, Schlanges M and Kraeft W D *Quantum Statistics of Nonideal Plasmas* (Springer, Berlin, 2005)
Uhlenbeck G E and Goudsmit S [*Naturwissenschaften*]{} [**47**]{} 953 (1025); [*Nature*]{} (London) [**117**]{} 264 (1926)
Bohm D *Quantum Theory* (Dover, Prentice-Hall, New York, 1952)
Sasabe S and Tsuchiya K [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**372**]{} 381 (2008)
Landau L D and Lifshitz *Quantum Mechanics* 3rd edition (Pergamon, Oxford, 1977)
Steinberg M *Thermodynamics and Kinetics of a Magnetized Quantum Plasma* (Logos, Berlin, 2000)
John P [*Contrib. Plasma Phys.*]{} [**33**]{} 488 (2006)
Shukla P K and Stenflo L [*J. Plasma Phys.*]{} [**72**]{} 605 (2006)
Shukla P K et al. [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**13**]{} 112111 (2006)
Shukla P K [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**369**]{} 312 (2007)
Lundin J et al. [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**14**]{} 062112 (2007)
Misra A P [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**14**]{} 064501 (2007)
Khan S A and Saleem H [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**16**]{} 052109 (2009)
Madelung von E [*Z. f. Physik*]{} [**40**]{} 332 (1926)
Takabayashi T [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**8**]{} 143 (1952)
Takabayashi T [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**14**]{} 283 (1955)
Takabayashi T [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**70**]{}, 1 (1983)
Bohm D, Schiller R, Tiomno J [*Suppl. Nuovo Cimento*]{} [**1**]{} 48 (1955)
Bohm D, Schiller R [*Suppl. Nuovo Cimento*]{} [**1**]{}, 67 (1955)
Janossy L and Ziegler-Naray M [*Acta Phys. Hung.*]{} [**20**]{} 23 (1965)
Ghosh S K and Deb M M [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**92**]{} 1 (1982)
Takabayashi T [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**9**]{} 187 (1953)
Takabayashi T [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**13**]{}, 222 (1955)
Takabayashi T [*Nuovo Cimento*]{} [**3**]{}, 233 (1956)
Takabayashi T [*Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.*]{} [**4**]{}, 1 (1957)
Bialynicki-Birula I [*Acta Phys. Polonica B*]{} [**26**]{} 1201 (1995)
Gardner C L [*SIAM J. Appl. Math.*]{} [**54**]{} 409 (1994)
Loffredo M and Morato L [*Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital Fis. B*]{} [**108B**]{} 205 (1993)
Feynman R P *Statistical Mechanics, A Set of of Lectures* (Benjamin, Reading, 1972)
Domps A [*et al.*]{} [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**80**]{}, 5520 (1998)
Haas F, Garcia L G, Goedert J and Manfredi G [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**10**]{} 3858 (2003)
Eliasson B and Shukla P K [*J. Plasma Phys.*]{} [**74**]{}, 581 (2008).
Haas F [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**12**]{} 062117 (2005)
Shukla P K and Stenflo L [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**13**]{} 044505 (2006)
Shukla P K and Eliasson B [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**99**]{} 096401 (2007)
Shaikh D and Shukla P K [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**99**]{} 125002 (2007)
Shaikh D and Shukla P K [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**10**]{} 083007 (2008)
Bershadskii A [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**372**]{} 2741 (2008)
Eliasson B and Shukla P K [*Phys. Scr.*]{} [**78**]{} 025503 (2008)
Oraevsky V N and Semikoz V B [*Phys. Atomic Nuclei*]{} [**66**]{} 466 (2003) \[Yadernaya Fizika, [**66**]{}, 494 (2003)\]; Oraevsky et al. [*arXiv:hep-ph/0203020v1 2 Mar 2002*]{}
Marklund M and Brodin G [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{} 025001 (2007)
Brodin G and Marklund M [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**76**]{} 055403(R) (2007)
Shukla P K and Stenflo L [*J. Plasma Phys.*]{} [**74**]{} 719 (2008)
Shukla P K [*Nature Phys.*]{} [**5**]{} 92 (2009)
Oraevsky V N and Semikoz V B [*Astropart. Phys.*]{} [**18**]{} 261 (2002)
Hu S X and Keitel C H [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{} 4709 (1999)
Andreev A V [*JETP Lett.*]{} [**72**]{} 238 (2000)
Mourou G et al. [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**78**]{} 309 (2006)
Marklund M and Shukla P K [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**78**]{} 591 (2006)
Salamin Y A et al. [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**427**]{} 41 (2006)
Malkin V M et al. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**75**]{} 026404 (2007)
Kritcher A L et al. [*Science*]{} [**322**]{} 69 (2008)
Hartemann F V et al. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**100**]{} 125001 (2008)
Lee H J et al. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**102**]{} 115001 (2009)
Norreys P A [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**16**]{} 041002 (2009)
Drake R P [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**16**]{} 055501 (2009).
van Horn H M [*Science*]{} [**252**]{} 384 (1991)
Guillot T [*Science*]{} [**286**]{} 72 (1999)
Fortney J J et al. [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**16**]{} 041003 (2009)
Meszaros P *High Energy Radiation from Magnetized Neutron Stars* (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1992)
Gurevich A V, Beskin V S, and Istomin Ya N *Physics of the Pulsar Magnetosphere* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993)
Craighead H G [*Science*]{} [**290**]{} 1532 (2000)
Opher M et al. [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**8**]{}, 2454 (2001)
Shapiro S L and Teukolsky S A [*Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects*]{} (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2004)
Benvenuto O G and De Vito M A [*Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.*]{} [**362**]{}, 891 (2005).
Chabrier G et al. [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**14**]{} 9133 (2002)
Chabrier G et al. [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**39**]{} 4411 (2006)
Lai D [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**73**]{} 629 (2001); Harding A K and Lai D [*Rep. Prog. Phys.*]{} [**69**]{} 2631 (2006)
Lau Y Y et al. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**66**]{} 1446 (1991)
Ang L K et al. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**91**]{} 208303 (2003)
Ang L K, Lau Y Y and Kwan T J T [*IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci.*]{} [**32**]{} 410 (2004)
Ang L K, Koh W S, Lau Y Y and Kwan T J T [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**13**]{} 056701 (2006)
Ang L K and Zhang P [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{}, 164802 (2007)
Shukla P K and Eliasson B [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**100**]{} 036801 (2008)
Shpatakovskaya G V [*JETP*]{} [**102**]{} 466 (2006)
Barnes W L et al. [*Nature (London)*]{} [**424**]{} 824 (2003)
Chang D E et al. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**97**]{} 053002 (2006)
Marklund M et al. [*Europhys. Lett.*]{} [**84**]{}, 17006 (2008)
Markovich A et al. *Semiconductor Equation* (Springer, Vienna, 1990)
Abrahams E et al. [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**73**]{} 251 (2001)
Magnus W C J and Schoemaker W J *Quantum Transport in Sub-Micron Devices* (Springer, Berlin, 2002)
Crouseilles N, Hervieux P A, and Manfredi G [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**78**]{} 155412 (2008)
Becker K H Schoenbach K H and Eden J G [*J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.*]{} [**39**]{} R55 (2006)
Serbeto A, Mendonça J T, Tsui K H and Bonifacio R [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**15**]{} 013110 (2008)
Piovella N et al. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**100**]{}, 044801 (2008)
Lindl J [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**2**]{}, 3933 (1995)
Tabak M et al. [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**1**]{}, 1626 (1994); [*ibid.*]{} [**12**]{} 057305
Glenzer S H et al. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{} 065002 (2007)
Benney D J and Newell A C [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**46**]{}, 81 (1967)
Benjamin T B [*Proc. R. Soc. London A*]{} [**299**]{} 59 (1967)
Scott A C et al [*Proc. IEEE*]{} [**66**]{} 1444 (1973)
Hasegawa A and Tappert F [*Appl. Phys. Lett.*]{} [**23**]{} (1973)
Agrawal G P *Nonlinear Fiber Optics* (Academic Press, San Diego, 2006)
Wan W, Jia S, and Fleisher J W [*Nature Phys.*]{} [**3**]{} 46 (2007)
Karpman V I and Krushkal E M [*Soviet Phys. JETP*]{} [**28**]{} 277 (1969)
Karpman V I [*Plasma Phys.*]{} [**13**]{} 477 (1971)
Zakharov V E [*Soviet Phys. JETP*]{} [**35**]{} 908 (1972)
Karpman V I *Nonlinear Waves in Dispersive Media* (Pergamon, New York, 1975)
Schamel H and Shukla P K [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**36**]{} 968 (1976)
Shukla P K [*Nature*]{} (London) [**274**]{} 874 (1978)
Sulem C and Sulem P L *The Nonlinear Schrödinger Equation*: Self-Focusing and Collapse (Springer, Berlin, 1999)
Fedele R [*Phys. Scr.*]{} [**65**]{} 502 (2002)
Dauxois T and Peyrard M *Physics of Solitons* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006)
Barenghi et al (Eds) *Quantized Vortex Dynamics and Superfluid Turbulence* (Springer, Berlin, 2001)
Bewley G P, Lathrop D P and Sreenivasan K R [*Nature*]{} (London) [**441**]{} 588 (2006)
Bose S [*Z. Phys.*]{} [**26**]{} 178 (1924)
Einstein A [*Sitzungsber. K. Preuss Akad. Wiss. Phys. Math. K1.*]{} [**261**]{} (1924)
Gross E P [*Il Nuovo Cimento*]{} [**20**]{} 454 (1961);
Pitaevskii L P [*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{} [**13**]{} 451 (1961)
Pitaevskii L P and Stringari S *Bose-Einstein Condensation* (Clarendon, Oxford, 2003)
Dalfovo et al. [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**71**]{} 463 (1999)
O’Dell D H J et al. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**92**]{} 250401 (2004)
Pauli W [*Z. Physik*]{} [**32**]{} 111 (1925); [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**13**]{} 203 (1941)
Berestetskii B V, Lifshitz E M and Pitaevskii L P *Quantum Electrodynamics* (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1999) p 123
Brodin G and Marklund M [*New J. Phys.*]{} [**9**]{} 277 (2007)
Dvornikov M [*arXiv:0902.4596v1 \[physics.plasm-ph\] 26 Feb 2009*]{}
Kolomeisky E B et al. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**85**]{} 1146 (2000)
Ivonin I A [*JETP* ]{} [**85**]{} 1233 (1997)
Ivonin I A, Pavlenko V P and Persson H [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**60**]{} 492 (1999)
Whitham G B *Linear and Nonlinear Waves* (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1999)
Sagdeev R Z in *Reviews of Plasma Physics* edited by Leontovich M A (Consultants Bureau, New York, 1966) Vol 4 p 23
Sagdeev R Z [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**51**]{} 11 (1979)
Shukla P K and Yu M Y [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**19**]{} 2506 (1978); Yu M Y et al. [*Phys. Fluids 23*]{} 2146 (1980)
Gottlieb D and Orszag S A [*Numerical Analysis of Spectral Methods*]{} (SIAM, Philadelphia 1977)
Kolmogorov A N [*Dokl. Akad, Nauk SSR*]{} [**30**]{} 301 (1941); [**31**]{} 438 (1941)
Lesieur M *Turbulence in Fluids* (Kluwer, Dordrecht 1990)
Frisch U *Turbulence* (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England 1995)
Eyink G L and Sreenivasan K R [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**78**]{} 87 (2006)
Iroshnikov P [*Sov. Astron.*]{} [**7**]{} 566 (1963)
Kraichnan R H [*Phys. Fluids*]{} [**8**]{} 1385 (1965)
Larichev V D and McWilliams J C [*Phys. Fluids A*]{} [**3**]{} 938 (1991)
Scott R K [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**75**]{} 046301 (2007)
Paoletti M S et al [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**101**]{} 154501 (2008)
Eliasson B and Shukla P K [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**422**]{} 225 (2006)
Haas F, Eliasson B, Shukla P K and Manfredi G [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**78**]{} 0564407 (2008)
Kruer W L, Dawson J M and Sudan R N [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**23**]{} 838 (1969)
Albrecht-Marc M et al. [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**14**]{} 072704 (2007)
Luque et al. [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**324**]{} 185 (2004)
Biermann P [*Z. Naturforsch. A*]{} [**5**]{} 65 (1950)
Weibel E S [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**2**]{} 83 (1959)
Gruzinov A [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**563**]{}, L15 (2001)
Schlickeiser R and Shukla P K [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**599**]{} L57 (2003)
Karpman V I and Washimi H [*Sov. Phys. JETP*]{} [**44**]{} 528 (1976).
Karpman V I and Washimi H [*J. Plasma Phys.*]{} [**18**]{} 173 (1977)
Gradov O M and Stenflo L [*Zh. Naturforsch.*]{} [**35a**]{} 461 (1980)
Gradov O M and Stenflo L [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**95A**]{} 233 (1983)
Shukla P K and Yu M Y [*Plasma Phys. Controll. Fusion*]{} [**26**]{}, 841 (1984)
Shukla P K et al. [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**138**]{} 1 (1986)
Tsintsadze L N and Shukla P K [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**187**]{} 67 (1994)
Tsintsadze L N and Shukla P K [*J. Plasma Phys.*]{} [**74**]{}, 431 (2008)
Haas F [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**15**]{} 022104 (2008)
Haas F and Lazar M [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**77**]{} 046404 (2008)
Haas F et al. [*J Plasma Phys.*]{} [**75**]{} 0251 (2009)
Pines D, Nozières P *The Theory of Quantum Liquids* (W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1966)
Lindhard J, Dan K [*Vidensk. Selsk. Mat. Fys. Medd.*]{} [**28**]{} 1 (1954)
Cockayne E and Levine Z H, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**74**]{} 235107 (2006)
Wei M S et al. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**70**]{} 056412 (2004)
Estabrook K [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**41**]{} 1808 (1978)
Abramowitz M and Stegun I A (eds.), [*Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs and Mathematical Tables*]{} (Dover, New York, 1972)
Lewin L [*Polylogarithms and Associated Functions*]{} (North-Holland, New York, 1981)
Ross O [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**119**]{} 1174 (1960)
Arista N R and Brandt W [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**29**]{} 1471 (1984)
Leemans W P et al. [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**46**]{} 1091 (1992)
Fried B D and Conte S D [*The Plasma Dispersion Function*]{} (Academic Press, London, 1961)
Krall N A and Trivelpiece A W [*Principles of Plasma Physics*]{} (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1973)
Davidson R C et al. [*Phys. Fluids*]{} [**15**]{} 317 (1972)
Eliasson B [*J. Comput. Phys.*]{} [**225**]{} 1508 (2007)
Shukla P K, Shukla N and Stenflo L [*J. Plasma Phys.*]{} [**75**]{} in press (2009) doi:10.1017/S0022377809008022
Oberman C and Ron A [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**130**]{} 1291 (1963)
Kelley C [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**134**]{} A641 (1964)
Benford G and Rostoker N [*Phys. Rev.* ]{}[**181**]{} 729 (1969)
Kuzelev M V and Rukhadze A A [*Phys. Usp.*]{} [**42**]{} 603 (1999)
Melrose D B and Weise J I [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**9**]{} 4473 (2002)
Ginzburg V L *Propagation of Electromagnetic Waves in Plasma* (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1960)
Abdullaev A Sh [*Sov. J. Plasma Phys.*]{} [**14**]{} 214 (1988)
Eliezer S et al. [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**12**]{} 052115 (2005)
Boose D and Perez A [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**234**]{} 113 (1997)
Kittel C [*Introduction to Solid State Physics*]{}, 7th edition (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1996) Chapter 14.
Marklund M et al. [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**76**]{} 067401 (2007)
Shaikh D and Shukla P K [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**102**]{} 045004 (2009)
Drake J F et al. [*Phys. Fluids*]{} [**17**]{} 778 (1974)
Yu M Y et al. [*Z. Naturforsch.*]{} [**29a**]{} 1736 (1974)
Stenflo L [*Phys. Scr.*]{} [**T30**]{} 166 (1990)
Sagdeev R Z and Galeev A *Nonlinear Plasma Theory* (Benjamin, New York, 1969)
Haas F [*Phys. Plasmas*]{} [**14**]{} 042309 (2007)
Haas F and Shukla P K [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**79**]{} 077402 (2009).
Marburger J H and Tooper R H [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**35**]{} 1001 (1975)
Hakim R and Heyvarerts J [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**18**]{} 1250 (1978)
Shabad A Y and Ginzburg V L *Polarization of the Vacuum and a Quantum Relativistic Gas in an External Field* (Nova Sci, Pub. Inc, New York, 1991)
Lamata L et al. [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{} 253005 (2007)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'J.-Y. Chemin proved the convergence (as the Rossby number ${\varepsilon}$ goes to zero) of the solutions of the Primitive Equations to the solution of the $3D$ quasi-geostrophic system when the Froude number $F=1$ that is when no dispersive property is available. The result was proved in the particular case where the kinematic viscosity $\nu$ and the thermal diffusivity $\nu''$ are close. In this article we generalize this result for any choice of the viscosities, the key idea is to rely on a special feature of the quasi-geostrophic structure.'
author:
- 'Frédéric Charve[^1]'
title: 'Global well-posedness and asymptotics for a penalized Boussinesq-type system without dispersion'
---
Introduction
============
Presentation of the models
--------------------------
The Primitive Equations we consider in this article (also called Primitive System) are a Boussinesq-type system that describes geophysical flows located in a large scale at the surface of the Earth under the assumption that the vertical motion is much smaller than the horizontal one. Two phenomena have a great influence on geophysical fluids: the rotation of the Earth around its axis and the vertical stratification of the density induced by gravity. The former induces a vertical rigidity in the fluid velocity as described by the Taylor-Proudman theorem, and the latter induces a horizontal rigidity to the fluid density: heavier masses lay under lighter ones.
In order to measure the importance of these two concurrent structures, physicists defined two numbers: the Rossby number $Ro$ and the Froude number $Fr$. We refer to the introduction of [@FC; @FCpochesLp] for more details and to [@BeBo; @Cushman; @Sadourny; @Pedlosky] for an in-depth presentation.
The smaller are these numbers, the more important become these two phenomena and we will consider the Primitive Equations in the whole space, under the Boussinesq approximation and when both phenomena share the same importance i.-e. $Ro={\varepsilon}$ and $Fr={\varepsilon}F$ with $F\in]0,1]$. In what follows ${\varepsilon}$ will be called the Rossby number and $F$ the Froude number. The system is then written as follows (we refer to [@Chemin2; @BMN5] for the model): $$\begin{cases}
\d_t {U_{\varepsilon}}+{v_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}-L {U_{\varepsilon}}+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}} \cA {U_{\varepsilon}}=\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}} (-{\nabla}{\Phi_{\varepsilon}}, 0),\\
{{\rm div}\,}{v_{\varepsilon}}=0,\\
{{U_{\varepsilon}}}_{|t=0}=U_{0,{\varepsilon}}.
\end{cases}
\label{PE}
\tag{$PE_{\varepsilon}$}$$ The unknowns are ${U_{\varepsilon}}=({v_{\varepsilon}}, {\theta_{\varepsilon}})=({v_{\varepsilon}}^1, {v_{\varepsilon}}^2, {v_{\varepsilon}}^3, {\theta_{\varepsilon}})$ (where ${v_{\varepsilon}}$ denotes the velocity of the fluid and ${\theta_{\varepsilon}}$ the scalar potential temperature), and ${\Phi_{\varepsilon}}$ which is called the geopotential. The diffusion operator $L$ is defined by $$L{U_{\varepsilon}}\overset{\mbox{def}}{=} (\nu {\Delta}{v_{\varepsilon}}, \nu' {\Delta}{\theta_{\varepsilon}}),$$ where $\nu, \nu'>0$ are the kinematic viscosity and the thermal diffusivity. The matrix $\cA$ is defined by $$\cA \overset{\mbox{def}}{=}\left(
\begin{array}{llll}
0 & -1 & 0 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & F^{-1}\\
0 & 0 & -F^{-1} & 0
\end{array}
\right).$$ We will also precise later the properties satisfied by the sequence of initial data (as ${\varepsilon}$ goes to zero).
*[This system generalises the well-known rotating fluids system and for more precisions we refer to [@FCpochesLp]. The fact that $\cA {U_{\varepsilon}}$ is divided by the Rossby number ${\varepsilon}$ imposes formal conditions to the limit system as ${\varepsilon}$ goes to $0$, this term is said to be penalized. The major difference between the classical Navier-Stokes system and consists in this penalized term which involves a skew-symmetric matrix, so that for the canonical ${\mathbb{C}}^4$ inner product and any $L^2$ or $H^s/\dot{H}^s$ inner products, we have $\cA {U_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {U_{\varepsilon}}=0$ therefore for all fixed ${\varepsilon}>0$, any energy method will not “see” these penalized terms and will work as for $(NS)$. Then the Leray and Fujita-Kato theorems are very easily adapted and provide global in time (unique in $2D$) weak solutions if $U_{0,{\varepsilon}}\in L^2$ and local in time unique strong solutions if $U_{0,{\varepsilon}} \in \dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}$ (global for small initial data). We refer to Remark \[illprepared\] for the notion of well/ill-prepared initial data. ]{} \[PenalizeLerayFK\]*
*[As explained in [@FC2; @FCpochesLp] two distinct regimes have to be considered regarding the eigenvalues of the linearized system: the case $F\in]0,1[$ where the system features dispersive properties, and the case $F=1$, with simpler operators but where no dispersion occurs. In the dispersive case (see [@FC] for weak solutions, [@FC2] for strong solutions), using the approach developped by Chemin, Desjardins, Gallagher and Grenier in [@CDGG; @CDGG2; @CDGGbook] for the rotating fluids system, we manage to filter the fast oscillations (going to zero in some norms thanks to Strichartz estimates providing positive powers of the small parameter ${\varepsilon}$) and prove the convergence to the solution of System below (even for blowing-up ill-prepared initial data as in [@FC3; @FCpochesLp], less regular initial data as in [@FC4] or with evanescent viscosities as in [@FC5]). On the contrary when $F=1$ no dispersion is available and only well-prepared initial data are considered. In addition, in [@Chemin2] the asymptotics are obtained only when $\nu$ and $\nu'$ are very close, in [@Dragos4] is dealt the inviscid case. We refer also refer to [@IMT; @KMY; @Scro] for results in other context such as periodic domains for example where there is no dispersion, and resonences have to be studied. ]{}*
The limit system
----------------
We are interested in the asymptotics, as the small parameter ${\varepsilon}$ goes to zero. Let us recall that in [@Chemin2; @FC] the limit system, which is a transport-diffusion system coupled with a Biot-Savart inversion law, is first formally obtained, and is called the 3D quasi-geostrophic system: $$\begin{cases}
\d_t {\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}+\tilde{v}_{QG}.{\nabla}{\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}-{\Gamma}{\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}=0\\
\tilde{U}_{QG}=(\tilde{v}_{QG},\tilde{\theta}_{QG})=(-\partial_2, \partial_1, 0, -F\partial_3) {\Delta_F}^{-1} {\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}},
\end{cases}
\label{QG1}\tag{QG}$$ where the operator ${\Gamma}$ is defined by: $${\Gamma}\overset{def}{=} {\Delta}{\Delta_F}^{-1} (\nu \d_1^2 +\nu \d_2^2+ \nu' F^2 \d_3^2),$$ with ${\Delta_F}=\d_1^2 +\d_2^2 +F^2 \d_3^2$. Moreover we also have the relation $${\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}=\d_1 \tilde{U}_{QG}^2 -\d_2 \tilde{U}_{QG}^1 -F \d_3 \tilde{U}_{QG}^4 =\d_1 \tilde{v}_{QG}^2 -\d_2 \tilde{v}_{QG}^1 -F \d_3 \tilde{\theta}_{QG}.$$
*[The operator ${\Delta}_F$ is a simple anisotropic Laplacian but ${\Gamma}$ is in general a tricky non-local diffusion operator of order 2. In the present article we will focus on the case $F=1$ where ${\Delta}_F={\Delta}$ and ${\Gamma}=\nu \d_1^2 +\nu \d_2^2+ \nu' \d_3^2$. We refer to [@FCestimLp; @FCpochesLp] for a study of ${\Gamma}$ in the general case (then neither the Fourier kernel nor the singular integral kernel have a constant sign and no classical result can be used). ]{}*
*[From now on we will consider the very particular case $F=1$. On one hand the operator ${\Gamma}$ is much simpler, but on the other hand (and as explained for example in [@FC; @FCestimLp; @FCpochesLp]) the system is not dispersive anymore. This lack of dispersive and Strichartz estimates (that were abundantly used in previous works) will force us to use completely different methods, part of them coming from [@Chemin2]. ]{}*
Led by the limit system we introduce the following decomposition: for any 4-dimensional vector field $U=(v, \theta)$ we define its potential vorticity ${\Omega}(U)$ (here in the case $F=1$): $${\Omega}(U)\overset{def}{=} \d_1 v^2 -\d_2 v^1 -\d_3 \theta,$$ then its quasi-geostrophic and oscillating (or oscillatory) parts: $$U_{QG}=\cQ (U) \overset{def}{=} \left(
\begin{array}{r}
-\d_2\\
\d_1\\
0\\
-\d_3
\end{array}
\right) {\Delta}^{-1} {\Omega}(U), \quad \mbox{and} \quad U_{osc}=\cP (U) \overset{def}{=} U-U_{QG}.$$ As emphasized in [@FC; @FC5] this is an orthogonal decomposition of 4-dimensional vector fields (similar to the Leray orthogonal decomposition into divergence-free and gradient vector fields) and if $\cQ$ and $\cP$ are the associated orthogonal projectors on the quasi-geostrophic or oscillating fields, they satisfy (see [@Chemin2; @FC; @FC2]):
**
With the same notations, for any function $U=(v, \theta)$ we have:
1. $\cP$ and $\cQ$ are pseudo-differential operators of order 0.
2. For any $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $(\cP(U)|\cQ(U))_{\dot{H}^s} =(\cA U|\cP(U))_{\dot{H}^s}=0$.
3. The same is true for nonhomogeneous Sobolev spaces.
4. $\cP(U)=U \Longleftrightarrow \cQ(U)=0\Longleftrightarrow {\Omega}(U)=0$.
5. $\cQ(U)=U \Longleftrightarrow \cP(U)=0\Longleftrightarrow$ there exists a scalar function $\Phi$ such that $U=(-\d_2,\d_1,0,-\d_3) \Phi$. Such a vector field is said to be quasi-geostrophic and is divergence-free.
6. If $U=(v, \theta)$ is a quasi-geostrophic vector field, then $v\cdot {\nabla}{\Omega}(U)={\Omega}(v\cdot {\nabla}U)$.
7. If $U$ is a quasi-geostrophic vector field, then ${\Gamma}U=\cQ (L U)$.
\[propdecomposcqg\]
Thanks to this, System can for example be rewritten into the following velocity formulation: $$\begin{cases}
\d_t \tilde{U}_{QG} +\tilde{v}_{QG}.{\nabla}\tilde{U}_{QG} -L\tilde{U}_{QG}= \cP \tilde{\Phi}_{QG},\\
\tilde{U}_{QG}=\mathcal{Q} (\tilde{U}_{QG}), \mbox{ (or equivalently } \mathcal{P} (\tilde{U}_{QG})=0),\\
\tilde{U}_{QG}|_{t=0}=\tilde{U}_{0,QG}.
\label{QG2}\tag{$QG_2$}
\end{cases}$$ Back to System , if we introduce ${\Omega_\varepsilon}={\Omega}({U_{\varepsilon}})$, ${U_{{\varepsilon},QG}}=\cQ({U_{\varepsilon}})$ and ${U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}=\cP({U_{\varepsilon}})$, they satisfy the following systems (see [@FC] for details): $$\d_t {\Omega_\varepsilon}+{v_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}{\Omega_\varepsilon}-{\Gamma}{\Omega_\varepsilon}= (\nu-\nu'){\Delta}\d_3 \theta_{{\varepsilon}, osc}+q_{\varepsilon},
\label{systomega}$$ where $q_{\varepsilon}$ is defined by $$\begin{gathered}
q_{\varepsilon}=q({U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}, {U_{\varepsilon}}) =\d_3 v_{{\varepsilon}, osc}^3(\d_1 {v_{\varepsilon}}^2-\d_2 {v_{\varepsilon}}^1) -\d_1 v_{{\varepsilon}, osc}^3 \d_3 {v_{\varepsilon}}^2 +\d_2 v_{{\varepsilon}, osc}^3 \d_3 {v_{\varepsilon}}^1\\
+\d_3 v_{{\varepsilon}, QG}\cdot {\nabla}\theta_{{\varepsilon}, osc} +\d_3 v_{{\varepsilon}, osc}\cdot {\nabla}{\theta_{\varepsilon}},\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\d_t {U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}-(L-\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\mathbb{P} \cA) {U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}= -\mathbb{P}({v_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}) -\left(
\begin{array}{c}
-\d_2\\
\d_1\\
0\\
-\d_3
\end{array}
\right) {\Delta}^{-1} \bigg( -{v_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}{\Omega_\varepsilon}+q_{\varepsilon}\bigg)\\
+(\nu-\nu') \d_3\left(
\begin{array}{c}
\d_2 \theta_{\varepsilon}\\
-\d_1 \theta_{\varepsilon}\\
0\\
\d_1 v_{\varepsilon}^2-\d_2 v_{\varepsilon}^1
\end{array}
\right).
\label{systosc}\end{gathered}$$
*[For more conciseness and without any loss of generality, we will write in what follows $$q_{\varepsilon}={\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}.$$ ]{}*
*[It is natural to investigate the link between the quasi-geostrophic/oscillating parts decomposition of the initial data and the asymptotics when ${\varepsilon}$ goes to zero. This leads to the notion of well-prepared/ill-prepared initial data depending on the fact that the initial data is already close or not to the quasi-geostrophic structure, i.-e. when the initial oscillating part is small/large (or going to zero/blowing up as ${\varepsilon}$ goes to zero). We refer to [@FCpochesLp] for more details about this subject. For example in [@FC3; @FCestimLp; @FCpochesLp] we focussed on the case $F\in]0,1[$ for very ill-prepared cases in the sense that the initial oscillating part norm goes to infinity as ${\varepsilon}$ goes to zero, a way to balance these large norms was to take advantage of the dispersive estimates satisfied by the oscillating part, providing positive powers of ${\varepsilon}$. On the contrary when $F=1$, as in [@Chemin2], we will consider well-prepared initial data.]{} \[illprepared\]*
Statement of the main results
-----------------------------
The aim of the present article is to generalize the results of Chemin from [@Chemin2], which were obtained only in the case where $\nu \sim \nu'$. To the best of our knowledge, this study has never been investigated any further in the non-dispersive case $F=1$. First let us define the family of spaces $\dot{E}_T^s$ for $s\in {\mathbb{R}}$, $$\dot{E}_T^s=\mathcal{C}_T(\dot{H}^s) \cap L_T^2(\dot{H}^{s+1}),$$ endowed with the following norm (see the appendix for notations): $$\|f\|_{\dot{E}_T^s}^2 \overset{def}{=}\|f\|_{L_T^\infty \dot{H}^s}^2+\min(\nu, \nu')\int_0^T \|f(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^{s+1}}^2 d\tau.$$ When $T=\infty$ we denote $\dot{E}^s$ and the corresponding norm is over ${\mathbb{R}}_+$ in time.\
(Global existence and uniqueness) *[There exists a positive constant $\mathbb{C}$ such that for any initial data $U_0\in H^1=L^2 \cap \dot{H}^1$, if $$\begin{cases}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\displaystyle{\|U_{0,osc}\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}} \leq \frac{1}{\mathbb{C}^2}\frac{\min(\nu, \nu')^4}{\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1}^3} \exp\left(-\mathbb{C} \frac{\|U_0\|_{L^2} \|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1}}{\min(\nu, \nu')^2}\right),}\\
\displaystyle{{\varepsilon}\leq \frac{1}{\mathbb{C}^2}\frac{\min(\nu, \nu')^4}{\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1}^4 \Big(\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}+\max(\nu,\nu')\Big)} \exp\left(-\mathbb{C}\frac{ \|U_0\|_{L^2} \|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1}}{\min(\nu, \nu')^2}\right),}
\end{cases}
\label{Condepsosc}$$ then System has a unique global solution in the space $\dot{E}^1$ and we have $\|{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{E}^1}\leq 2\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1}$. ]{} \[Th1\]*
*[Of course, due to the Leray estimates, we obtain that in fact all norms in $\dot{E}^s$ for $s\in[0,1]$ are uniformly bounded and more precisely, for all $t\geq 0$, $$\|{U_{\varepsilon}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^s}^2+\min(\nu, \nu')\int_0^t \|{U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^{s+1}}^2 d\tau \leq \|U_0\|_{L^2}^{2(1-s)}(2\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1})^{2s}.$$ ]{}*
The second result is devoted to the asymptotics as ${\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0$:
(Convergence) *[Let $({U_{0,{\varepsilon}}})_{{\varepsilon}\in]0,{\varepsilon}_0]}$ be a family of initial data, uniformly bounded in $L^2\cap \dot{H}^1$. Assume in addition that ${U_{0,{\varepsilon}, osc}}\in \dot{H}^{-1}$ and there exists a quasi-geostrophic function $\tilde{U}_{0,QG}$ and $\delta>0$ such that: $$\begin{cases}
\vspace{0.2cm}
{U_{0,{\varepsilon}, osc}}\underset{{\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0}{\longrightarrow} 0 \mbox{ in } \dot{H}^{-1},\\
\vspace{0.2cm}
{U_{0,{\varepsilon}, osc}}\mbox{ is uniformly bounded in }\dot{H}^{1+\delta},\\
{U_{0,{\varepsilon},QG}}\underset{{\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0}{\longrightarrow} \tilde{U}_{0,QG} \mbox{ in } \dot{H}^1,
\end{cases}$$ then there exists ${\varepsilon}_1\in]0,{\varepsilon}_0]$ such that for any ${\varepsilon}<{\varepsilon}_1$, the assumptions from the previous theorem are fulfilled so that System admits a unique global solution ${U_{\varepsilon}}$ and the family $({U_{\varepsilon}})_{{\varepsilon}\in]0,{\varepsilon}_1]}$ converges to the unique global solution $\tilde{U}_{QG}$ of System with initial data $\tilde{U}_{0,QG}$ in the following sense: $$\begin{cases}
\vspace{0.2cm}
{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\underset{{\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0}{\longrightarrow} 0 \mbox{ in } \dot{E}^s\mbox{ for any } s\in [-1,1[,\\
{U_{{\varepsilon},QG}}-\tilde{U}_{QG} \underset{{\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0}{\longrightarrow} 0 \mbox{ in } \dot{E}^s\mbox{ for any } s\in ]0,1].\\
\end{cases}$$ ]{} \[Th2\]*
*[The extra regularity assumption $1+\delta$ on the oscillating part is needed to prove the convergence of the quasi-geotrophic part.]{}*
Proof of Theorem \[Th1\]
========================
In this section, we will follow some parts of the method from [@Chemin2], we will also explain which parts are useless if we do not assume $\nu\sim \nu'$ anymore, and explain how (as in [@FCpochesLp]) the quasi-geostrophic structure can once more help obtaining the result.\
Let us recall that according to Remark \[PenalizeLerayFK\], as $U_0\in L^2$ we have a global weak Leray-type solution ${U_{\varepsilon}}\in L^\infty (L^2) \cap L^2(\dot{H}^1)$. Moreover as in addition $U_0\in \dot{H}^1$ then it also belongs to $\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}$ and thanks to the Fujita and Kato theorem, and the weak-strong uniqueness, ${U_{\varepsilon}}$ is also the unique local strong solution in $\dot{E}_T^\frac{1}{2}$ for all $T <T_{\varepsilon}^*$ which is the maximal lifespan.
Moreover we recall the classical propagation of regularity estimates (we refer for example to [@Chemin1; @Dbook], or [@Chemin2] section $2$, for more details in the Navier-Stokes setting, and the proofs which only rely on energy estimates, are still valid in our case), for all $s\in ]-1,1]$, for all $t$, $$\|{U_{\varepsilon}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^s}^2 +\min(\nu, \nu') \int_0^t \|{\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^s}^2 d\tau \leq \|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^s}^2 \exp \left(\frac{C}{\min(\nu, \nu')}\int_0^t \|{U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2 d\tau\right),
\label{estimapriori}$$ Thanks to this we also have ${U_{\varepsilon}}\in \dot{E}_T^1$ for all $T<T_{\varepsilon}^*$ and finally we have the classical blowup criterion: $$T_{\varepsilon}^*<\infty \Rightarrow \int_0^{T_{\varepsilon}^*} \|\nabla {U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}^2 d\tau =\infty.
\label{Blowupcrit}$$
*[Let us emphasize that the previous blowup criterion is given by results adapted to the general Navier-Stokes system (the penalization term is invisible to them so we can use them) but according to our computations, and as also observed in [@Chemin2], it is in fact the smaller quantity $\int_0^{T_{\varepsilon}^*} \|\nabla {U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}^2 d\tau$ that controls the lifespan (see ).]{} \[controleosc\]*
First step: estimates on $\d_t {U_{\varepsilon}}+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\cA {U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first important idea in [@Chemin2] consists in changing the formulation of System : taking the divergence of the first three equations from we get: $$-\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}} {\Delta}{\Phi_{\varepsilon}}={{\rm div}\,}({v_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}})+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}} {{\rm div}\,}(\cA {U_{\varepsilon}}) ={\displaystyle \sum}_{1\leq i,j\leq 3} \d_i \d_j({v_{\varepsilon}}^i {v_{\varepsilon}}^j) -\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}} {\Omega_\varepsilon}.$$ Observing that $\cA {U_{{\varepsilon},QG}}=-({\nabla}{\Delta}^{-1} {\Omega_\varepsilon}, 0)$, we end up with the following equivalent formulation of : $$\begin{cases}
\d_t {U_{\varepsilon}}+{v_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}-L {U_{\varepsilon}}+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}} \cA {U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}=({\nabla}p_{{\varepsilon}, osc},0) \overset{def}{=} \Big({\nabla}{\displaystyle \sum}_{1\leq i,j\leq 3} \d_i \d_j {\Delta}^{-1}({v_{\varepsilon}}^i {v_{\varepsilon}}^j), 0\Big),\\
{{\rm div}\,}{v_{\varepsilon}}=0,\\
{{U_{\varepsilon}}}_{|t=0}=U_{0,{\varepsilon}}.
\end{cases}
\label{PE2}
\tag{$PE_{{\varepsilon},2}$}$$ From this reformulation, Chemin connects the $\dot{H}^{-1}$ or $L^2$ norm of the block ${\varepsilon}^{-1} {U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}$ to $\d_t {U_{\varepsilon}}$ through the following proposition, that we state here in the general setting for $\nu, \nu'$:
*[There exists a constant $C>0$ such that for any ${U_{\varepsilon}}$ solution of in $\cC_T(L^2\cap \dot{H}^1)$, the following estimates hold for all $t\leq T$: $$\begin{cases}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\displaystyle{\Big\|\d_t {U_{\varepsilon}}(t)+ \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\cA {U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}(t)\Big\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}} \leq \|{U_{\varepsilon}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^1} \big(\max(\nu,\nu') +C\|{U_{\varepsilon}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}\big),}\\
\displaystyle{\Big\|\d_t {U_{\varepsilon}}(t)+ \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\cA {U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}(t)\Big\|_{L^2} \leq \|{U_{\varepsilon}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^2}\big(\max(\nu,\nu') +C\|{U_{\varepsilon}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}}\big).
\end{cases}
\label{UoscdtU}$$ ]{}*
Then we derive in time System and obtain (we easily adapt [@Chemin2], Section 2 step 3, and skip details) that for all $t$: $$\|\d_t {U_{\varepsilon}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}}^2 +\min(\nu, \nu') \int_0^t \|\d_t {U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2 d\tau \leq \|\d_t {U_{\varepsilon}}(0)\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}}^2 \exp \left(\frac{C}{\min(\nu, \nu')}\int_0^t \|{U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2 d\tau\right).$$ Using to roughly estimate $\|\d_t {U_{\varepsilon}}(0)\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}}$ we obtain: $$\begin{gathered}
\|\d_t {U_{\varepsilon}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}}^2 +\min(\nu, \nu') \int_0^t \|\d_t {U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2 d\tau\\
\leq \Big(\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\|U_{0,osc}\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}} +\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1} \big(\max(\nu,\nu') +C\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}\big)\Big)^2 \exp \left(\frac{C}{\min(\nu, \nu')}\int_0^t \|{U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2 d\tau\right).\end{gathered}$$ Then, writing $$\|\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\cA {U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}} \leq \|\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}}\cA {U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}(t) +\d_t {U_{\varepsilon}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}} +\|\d_t {U_{\varepsilon}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}},$$ and thanks once more to , we get: $$\begin{gathered}
\|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}} \leq {\varepsilon}\|{U_{\varepsilon}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^1} \big(\max(\nu,\nu') +C\|{U_{\varepsilon}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}\big)\\
+\Big(\|U_{0,osc}\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}} +{\varepsilon}\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1} \big(\max(\nu,\nu') +C\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}\big)\Big) \exp \left(\frac{C}{2\min(\nu, \nu')}\int_0^t \|{U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2 d\tau\right).\end{gathered}$$ Thanks to we end up with: $$\begin{gathered}
\|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}} \leq \Big(\|U_{0,osc}\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}} +2{\varepsilon}\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1} \big(\max(\nu,\nu') +C\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}\big)\Big)\\
\times \exp \left(\frac{C}{\min(\nu, \nu')}\int_0^t \|{U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2 d\tau\right).
\label{estimosc-1}\end{gathered}$$ Similarly, we obtain that for all $t$: $$\begin{gathered}
\min(\nu, \nu') \int_0^t \|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2 d\tau \leq 4\Big(\|U_{0,osc}\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}} +{\varepsilon}\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1} \big(\max(\nu,\nu') +C\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}\big)\Big)^2\\
\times \exp \left(\frac{C}{\min(\nu, \nu')}\int_0^t \|{U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2 d\tau\right).
\label{estimosc0}\end{gathered}$$
Second step: Energy estimates
-----------------------------
In [@Chemin2], Chemin uses the quasi-geostrophic/oscillating orthogonal decomposition of the solution and estimates each part by energy methods applied to Systems and , combining them through: $$\|{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 \sim \|{U_{{\varepsilon},QG}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 +\|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 \sim \|{\Omega_\varepsilon}\|_{L^2}^2 +\|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 ,$$ More precisely, instead of , using the changes in the pressure term that lead to System , Chemin studied the following system (that we write here in a more accurate QG/osc decomposition): $$\begin{gathered}
\d_t {U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}+{v_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}+ \frac{1}{{\varepsilon}} \cA {U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}=({\nabla}p_{{\varepsilon}, osc}, 0) +\left(
\begin{array}{c}
[{v_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}, \d_2 {\Delta}^{-1}]\\ -[{v_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}, \d_1 {\Delta}^{-1}]\\ 0\\ -[{v_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}, \d_3 {\Delta}^{-1}]
\end{array}
\right){\Omega_\varepsilon}\\
+\left(
\begin{array}{c}
-\d_2\\ \d_1\\ 0\\ -\d_3
\end{array}
\right) \Big(-(\nu-\nu')\d_3 {\theta_{\varepsilon}}+{\Delta}^{-1} q_{\varepsilon}\Big) +(\nu-\nu')\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0\\ 0\\ 0\\ \d_3
\end{array}
\right) {\Omega_\varepsilon}.
\label{systosc2}\end{gathered}$$ In the general case where $\nu-\nu'$ is not assumed to be small, this method is bound to fail. Indeed taking the $L^2$-inner product of with ${\Omega_\varepsilon}$, we obtain: $$\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\|{\Omega_\varepsilon}\|_{L^2} +\min(\nu, \nu') \|{\nabla}{\Omega_\varepsilon}\|_{L^2} \leq (\nu-\nu')(\partial_3 {\Delta}\Theta_{{\varepsilon}, osc},{\Omega_\varepsilon})_{L^2} + (q_{\varepsilon},{\Omega_\varepsilon})_{L^2}.$$ As emphasized in [@FCpochesLp] the first term of the right-hand side features too many derivatives for us to be able to prove it is small, the best we can hope for is to bound it by $\|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^2}\|{\Omega_\varepsilon}\|_{\dot{H}^1}$ and obtain that this term is at most bounded whereas we need it to go to zero with ${\varepsilon}$.\
Any hope to neutralize this term thanks to the $\dot{H}^1$-innerproduct of by ${U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}$ is also completely out of reach as the last term in will produce the exact same term in the right-hand side of the energy estimate instead of a cancellation.
The only way to get rid of this difficulty is to go back to the original system and use *another very important feature of the quasi-geostrophic decomposition*. As was first obtained in [@FCpochesLp] (in the case $F\neq 1$, see Section 4, let us emphasize that even in this case, dispersion cannot help when it is about estimating in $L^2$), we can take advantage of Point 6 from Proposition \[propdecomposcqg\] (this property was first observed in [@FC2]) and gain important cancellations. Taking the $\dot{H}^1$-inner product of with ${U_{\varepsilon}}$, we obtain that $$\frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{dt} \|{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 -(L {U_{\varepsilon}}| {U_{\varepsilon}})_{\dot{H}^1}=-(v_{\varepsilon}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}| {U_{\varepsilon}})_{\dot{H}^1}.
\label{PSUe}$$ As before $-(L {U_{\varepsilon}}| {U_{\varepsilon}})_{\dot{H}^1} \geq \min(\nu, \nu') \|{\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2$ and thanks to the decomposition ${U_{\varepsilon}}={U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}+{U_{{\varepsilon},QG}}$ we develop the right-hand side as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
(v_{\varepsilon}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}| {U_{\varepsilon}})_{\dot{H}^1} =(v_{\varepsilon}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}| {U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}})_{\dot{H}^1} +(v_{\varepsilon}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}| {U_{{\varepsilon},QG}})_{\dot{H}^1} +(v_{{\varepsilon},osc}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon},QG}}| {U_{{\varepsilon},QG}})_{\dot{H}^1}\\
+(v_{{\varepsilon},QG}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon},QG}}| {U_{{\varepsilon},QG}})_{\dot{H}^1} \overset{def}{=} A_1+ A_2+A_3+A_4.\end{gathered}$$ Then, as emphasized in [@FCpochesLp], the last term (which is the most dangerous term as it does not involve any occurence of the evanescent oscillating part, and therefore has no reason, at first sight, to go to zero as ${\varepsilon}$ goes to zero) is *equal to zero*, this is the key property allowing us to complete the proof. To show this we simply use the following elementary computation related to the quasi-geostrophic decomposition: for any function $f$, we have (here in the particular case $F=1$): $$(f|{U_{{\varepsilon},QG}})_{\dot{H}^1} =-(f|\left(
\begin{array}{c}
-\d_2\\
\d_1\\
0\\
-\d_3
\end{array}
\right){\Omega_\varepsilon})_{L^2} =({\Omega}(f)|{\Omega_\varepsilon})_{L^2}.$$ Then, thanks to Point $6$ from Proposition \[propdecomposcqg\] and the fact that ${{\rm div}\,}v_{{\varepsilon},QG}=0$, we obtain: $$(v_{{\varepsilon},QG}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon},QG}}| {U_{{\varepsilon},QG}})_{\dot{H}^1}=({\Omega}(v_{{\varepsilon},QG}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon},QG}})| {\Omega_\varepsilon})_{L^2} =(v_{{\varepsilon},QG}\cdot {\nabla}{\Omega_\varepsilon}| {\Omega_\varepsilon})_{L^2}=0.$$ Next let us estimate the first three terms. Thanks to the Sobolev injections or product laws (see appendix), $$\begin{cases}
\vspace{0.2cm}
|A_1|\leq \|{v_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}} \|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}} \leq \|{v_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^1} \cdot \|{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^2} \cdot \|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}},\\
|A_3|\leq \|{v_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{L^2} \|{U_{{\varepsilon},QG}}\|_{\dot{H}^2} \leq \|{v_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^1} \cdot \|{\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}} \cdot \|{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^2}.
\end{cases}$$ Next using ${{\rm div}\,}{v_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}=0$ for $A_2$, $$\begin{gathered}
|A_2|=|{\displaystyle \sum}_{i=1,...,3} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \d_i (v_{{\varepsilon}, osc}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon},QG}}) \cdot \d_i {U_{{\varepsilon},QG}}dx| =|{\displaystyle \sum}_{i=1,...,3} \int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} \d_i v_{{\varepsilon}, osc}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon},QG}}\cdot \d_i {U_{{\varepsilon},QG}}dx|\\
\leq \|{\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{L^3} \cdot \|{\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon},QG}}\|_{L^6} \cdot \|{\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon},QG}}\|_{L^2} \leq \|{\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}} \cdot \|{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^2} \cdot \|{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}.\end{gathered}$$ Plugging this into and thanks to the classical estimates $2ab\leq a^2+b^2$ we get: $$\frac{d}{dt} \|{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 +\min(\nu, \nu')\|{\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 \leq \frac{C}{\min(\nu, \nu')} \|{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 \cdot \|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2,$$ and thanks to the Gronwall estimates, we end up (as announced in Remark \[controleosc\]) with for all $t<T_{\varepsilon}^*$: $$\|{U_{\varepsilon}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 +\min(\nu, \nu') \int_0^t\|{\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 d\tau \leq \|{U_{0,{\varepsilon}}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 \exp \Big(\frac{C}{\min(\nu, \nu')} \int_0^t \|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2d\tau\Big).
\label{controleoscb}$$ Consequently, if $$\int_0^t \|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2d\tau \leq \frac{\ln 2}{C} \min(\nu, \nu'),$$ then we have $$\|{U_{\varepsilon}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 +\min(\nu, \nu') \int_0^t\|{\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 d\tau \leq 2\|{U_{0,{\varepsilon}}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2,$$ and thanks to the Leray estimates together with interpolation: $$\int_0^t\|{\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2 d\tau \leq \Big( \int_0^t\|{\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 d\tau \Big)^\frac{1}{2} \Big( \int_0^t\|{\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^2}^2 d\tau \Big)^\frac{1}{2} \leq \sqrt{2} \frac{\|U_0\|_{L^2} \|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1}}{\min(\nu, \nu')},$$ which allows us to state some analoguous to Corollary $2.1$ from [@Chemin2]:
*[Let ${U_{\varepsilon}}\in \cC([0,T_{\varepsilon}^*[, \dot{H}^1) \cap L_{loc}^2([0,T_{\varepsilon}^*[, \dot{H}^2)$ be a solution of . If there exists some $T_{\varepsilon}>0$ such that $$\int_0^{T_{\varepsilon}} \|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2d\tau \leq \frac{\ln 2}{C} \min(\nu, \nu'),$$ then for all $t\leq T_{\varepsilon}$, $$\begin{cases}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\displaystyle{\|{U_{\varepsilon}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 +\min(\nu, \nu') \int_0^t\|{U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^2}^2 d\tau \leq 2\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2,}\\
\displaystyle{\int_0^t\|{\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2 d\tau \leq \sqrt{2}\frac{\|U_0\|_{L^2} \|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1}}{\min(\nu, \nu')}.}
\end{cases}
\label{estimboot}$$ ]{} \[propuosc\]*
Third step: boostrap and proof of Theorem \[Th1\]
-------------------------------------------------
From the previous estimates we will develop a boostrap argument to prove the first theorem. For ${\varepsilon}>0$ fixed (and which will be precised later), we consider the unique local strong solution ${U_{\varepsilon}}$ built in the beginning of the previous section. We recall that ${U_{\varepsilon}}\in \dot{E}_t^s$ for all $t<T_{\varepsilon}^*$ and $s\in [0,1]$ and that in addition, thanks to the Leray estimates, $\|{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{E}_t^0} \leq \|U_{0}\|_{L^2}$ for all $t<T_{\varepsilon}^*$.
Let us define: $$T_{\varepsilon}=\sup \{t\in ]0, T_{\varepsilon}^*[, \int_0^t \|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2d\tau \leq \frac{\ln 2}{C} \min(\nu, \nu') \}.$$ Obviously, $T_{\varepsilon}\in ]0, T_{\varepsilon}^*]$, and if $T_{\varepsilon}= T_{\varepsilon}^*$ then by Proposition \[propuosc\] and the blowup criterion from we immediately obtain that ${U_{\varepsilon}}$ is global and becomes valid for any time.
If not then, as $T_{\varepsilon}\in ]0, T_{\varepsilon}^*[$, it is finite and $$\int_0^{T_{\varepsilon}} \|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2d\tau =\frac{\ln 2}{C} \min(\nu, \nu').
\label{Boot}$$ Moreover for all $t\leq T_{\varepsilon}$, combining , with , we get that for all $t\leq T_{\varepsilon}$ $$\begin{gathered}
\max\left(\|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}}^2, \min(\nu, \nu') \int_0^t \|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}(\tau)\|_{L^2}^2 d\tau \right)\\
\leq 4\Big(\|U_{0,osc}\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}} +{\varepsilon}\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1} \big(\max(\nu,\nu') +C\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}\big)\Big)^2 \exp \left(C \frac{\|U_0\|_{L^2} \|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1}}{\min(\nu, \nu')^2} \right).
\label{estimosc0b}\end{gathered}$$ As ${U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}=\cP {U_{\varepsilon}}$ (with $\cP$ homogeneous Fourier multiplier of order zero), the first majoration from is also true for ${U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}$, and combining it with the previous estimates through interpolation ($3/2=(1-\theta)\cdot 0+\theta \cdot 2$ with $\theta=3/4$) we obtain: $$\begin{gathered}
\int_0^t \|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2d\tau \leq \frac{2^\frac{5}{4}\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1}^\frac{3}{2}}{\min(\nu, \nu')} \Big(\|U_{0,osc}\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}} +{\varepsilon}\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1} \big(\max(\nu,\nu') +C\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}\big)\Big)^\frac{1}{2}\\
\times \exp \left(C \frac{\|U_0\|_{L^2} \|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1}}{\min(\nu, \nu')^2} \right).\end{gathered}$$ This quantity is therefore less than $\frac{\ln 2}{2C} \min(\nu, \nu')$ as soon as $$\|U_{0,osc}\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}} +{\varepsilon}\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1} \big(\max(\nu,\nu') +C\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}\big) \leq \frac{\ln 2)^2}{C^2 2^\frac{9}{2}} \frac{\min(\nu, \nu')^4}{\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1}^3}\exp \left(\frac{C}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{\|U_0\|_{L^2} \|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1}}{\min(\nu, \nu')^2} \right),$$ which is realized when ${\varepsilon}$ and $U_{0,osc}$ satisfy and then we have proved that for any $t\leq T_{\varepsilon}$, we have in fact $$\int_0^t \|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2d\tau \leq \frac{\ln 2}{2C} \min(\nu, \nu'),$$ which contradicts and the definition of $T_{\varepsilon}$, then $T_{\varepsilon}=T_{\varepsilon}^*=\infty$ and and are valid for any time and Theorem \[Th1\] is proved $\blacksquare$.
By interpolation we deduce that for all $s\in[-1,1[$, $$\begin{gathered}
\|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{E}^s} \leq C\Big(\|U_{0,osc}\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}} +{\varepsilon}\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1} \big(\max(\nu,\nu') +C\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}\big)\Big)^\frac{1-s}{2}\\
\times \exp \left(C \frac{\|U_0\|_{L^2} \|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1}}{\min(\nu, \nu')^2} \right) \|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1}^\frac{1+s}{2}.\end{gathered}$$ As $\|U_{0,osc}\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}}$ is constant, this estimate is useless, but if we consider the initial data from Theorem \[Th2\], if $\|{U_{0,{\varepsilon}}}\|_{H^1} \leq C_0$, then $$\frac{1}{\mathbb{C}^2}\frac{\min(\nu, \nu')^4}{\|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1}^3} \exp\left(-\mathbb{C} \frac{\|U_0\|_{L^2} \|U_0\|_{\dot{H}^1}}{\min(\nu, \nu')^2}\right) \geq \frac{\min(\nu, \nu')^4}{\mathbb{C}^2 C_0^3} \exp\left(-\frac{\mathbb{C}C_0^2}{\min(\nu, \nu')^2}\right)>0,$$ which bounds $\|{U_{0,{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}}$ when ${\varepsilon}$ is small enough, thanks to the assumptions. Then there exists a positive constant $M_{0, \nu,\nu'}$ such that: $$\|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{E}^s} \leq M_{0, \nu,\nu'}\Big(\|{U_{0,{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}} +{\varepsilon}M_{0, \nu,\nu'}\Big)^\frac{1-s}{2} \underset{{\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0}{\longrightarrow} 0,$$ which ends the proof of the first half of Theorem \[Th2\].
End of the proof of Theorem \[Th2\]
===================================
Here we prove in a direct way the convergence (in [@Chemin2], $({\Omega_\varepsilon})_{0<{\varepsilon}<{\varepsilon}_1}$ was proved to be a Cauchy sequence).\
Let us emphasize that, as in Theorem \[Th2\] the sequence of initial data $({U_{0,{\varepsilon}}})_{{\varepsilon}\in]0,{\varepsilon}_0]}$ is assumed to be bounded in $L^2\cap \dot{H}^1$, then the same is true for its quasi-geostrophic part ${U_{0,{\varepsilon},QG}}$ (we recall that $\cQ$ is a homogeneous operator of order zero). Moreover as ${U_{0,{\varepsilon},QG}}$ goes to some quasi-geostrophic vector field $\tilde{U}_{0,QG}$ in $\dot{H}^1$ then we immediately obtain (thanks to the uniqueness of limits in the sense of distributions) that $\tilde{U}_{0,QG}$ in also in $L^2$. Next, we only have to use Theorem $2$ from [@FC2] claiming that System has a unique global solution $\tilde{U}_{QG} \in \dot{E}^0 \cap \dot{E}^1$ as soon as $\tilde{U}_{0,QG} \in H^1$.
Let us consider the initial data according to the assumptions of Theorem \[Th2\] and the unique global solution given by Theorem \[Th1\] for a small enough ${\varepsilon}$. In the previous section we already proved that the oscillating part goes to zero and we only have to study the convergence of the quasi-geostrophic part as ${\varepsilon}$ goes to zero. Let us define ${\delta \Omega}= {\Omega_\varepsilon}-{\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}$ where ${\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}$ is the potential vorticity of the global solution $\tilde{U}_{QG}$ of the limit system. It satisfies the following system: $$\begin{gathered}
\d_t {\delta \Omega}+v_{{\varepsilon}, QG}\cdot {\nabla}{\delta \Omega}-{\Gamma}{\delta \Omega}= {\displaystyle \sum}_{i=1,..., 4} B_i\\
=-(v_{{\varepsilon}, QG}-\tilde{v}_{QG})\cdot {\nabla}{\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}+(\nu-\nu') \d_3 {\Delta}\theta_{{\varepsilon}, osc} +{\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}-v_{{\varepsilon}, osc}\cdot {\nabla}{\Omega_\varepsilon},\end{gathered}$$ supplemented by the initial data ${\delta \Omega}(0)=\Omega({U_{0,{\varepsilon},QG}}-\tilde{U}_{0,QG})$, which goes to zero in $L^2$. Taking the $L^2$ inner product with ${\delta \Omega}$ we obtain: $$\frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{dt} \|{\delta \Omega}\|_{L^2}^2+ \min(\nu, \nu') \|{\delta \Omega}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 \leq {\displaystyle \sum}_{i=1,..., 4}|(B_i, {\delta \Omega})_{L^2}|.
\label{estimdeltOm}$$ Three terms are easily estimated: $$\begin{gathered}
|(B_1, {\delta \Omega})_{L^2}|\leq \|(v_{{\varepsilon}, QG}-\tilde{v}_{QG})\cdot {\nabla}{\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}}\|{\delta \Omega}\|_{\dot{H}^1} \leq \|v_{{\varepsilon}, QG}-\tilde{v}_{QG}\|_{\dot{H}^1} \|{\nabla}{\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}\|_{\dot{H}^{-\frac{1}{2}}}\|{\delta \Omega}\|_{\dot{H}^1}\\
\leq \|{\delta \Omega}\|_{L^2} \|{\nabla}{\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}\|_{\dot{H}^{-\frac{1}{2}}}\|{\delta \Omega}\|_{\dot{H}^1} \leq \frac{\min(\nu, \nu')}{8} \|{\delta \Omega}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 +\frac{C}{\min(\nu, \nu')} \|{\delta \Omega}\|_{L^2}^2 \|\tilde{U}_{QG}\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2.
\label{estimlim1}\end{gathered}$$ Similarly we get that: $$\begin{cases}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\displaystyle{|(B_3, {\delta \Omega})_{L^2}|\leq \frac{\min(\nu, \nu')}{8} \|{\delta \Omega}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 +\frac{C}{\min(\nu, \nu')} \|{\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{L^2}^2 \|{\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}^2,}\\
\displaystyle{|(B_4, {\delta \Omega})_{L^2}|\leq \frac{\min(\nu, \nu')}{8} \|{\delta \Omega}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 +\frac{C}{\min(\nu, \nu')} \|{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^2}^2 \|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}^2.}
\end{cases}
\label{estimlim34}$$ The last term seems more delicate at first sight, as the same problem as before appears here due to the three derivatives: we wish this term to go to zero and from the previous section ${U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}$ goes to zero but only in $\dot{E}^s$ for $s\in [-1,1[$. As we cannot transfer more than one derivative to ${\delta \Omega}$ we are stuck as ${U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}$ is only bounded in $\dot{E}^1$. To overcome this difficulty we will simply cut the low and high frequencies in order to take advantage of both and obtain two parts that will be small each for a different reason (we refer to the appendix for the definition of the operator $\dot{S}_m$): $$\begin{gathered}
|(B_2, {\delta \Omega})_{L^2}|\leq |\nu-\nu'| \left(|(\d_3 {\Delta}\theta_{{\varepsilon}, osc}, \dot{S}_m {\delta \Omega})_{L^2}| +|(\d_3 {\Delta}\theta_{{\varepsilon}, osc}, (I_d-\dot{S}_m) {\delta \Omega})_{L^2}|\right)\\
\overset{def}{=} C_5+ C_6.
\label{C56}\end{gathered}$$ For the low frequencies we take advantage of the convergence of ${U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}$ to zero: $$\begin{gathered}
C_5 \leq |\nu-\nu'|\|\d_3 {\Delta}\theta_{{\varepsilon}, osc}\|_{\dot{H}^{-\frac{3}{2}}}\|\dot{S}_m {\delta \Omega}\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}} \leq |\nu-\nu'|\|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^{\frac{3}{2}}} 2^\frac{m}{2}\|{\delta \Omega}\|_{\dot{H}^1}\\
\leq \frac{\min(\nu, \nu')}{8} \|{\delta \Omega}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 +C 2^m\frac{|\nu-\nu'|^2}{\min(\nu, \nu')} \|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2.
\label{estimlim5}
\end{gathered}$$ Estimating the low frequencies as follows, we will not rely anymore on ${U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}$, it is then about to choose $m$ large enough so that this term is small: $$\begin{gathered}
C_6 \leq |\nu-\nu'|\|\d_3 {\Delta}\theta_{{\varepsilon}, osc}\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}}\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m) {\delta \Omega}\|_{\dot{H}^1}\\
\leq |\nu-\nu'|\|{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^2} \left( \|(I_d-\dot{S}_m) {\Omega_\varepsilon}\|_{\dot{H}^1} +\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m) {\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}\right) \overset{def}{=}\|{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^2} \left(D_1+D_2\right).
\label{estimlim6}
\end{gathered}$$ The scheme of the proof will be, for some fixed $\eta>0$ small, to choose $m$ large enough so a part of the right-hand side from (after time integration) is bounded by $\frac{\eta}{2}$, then to choose ${\varepsilon}$ small enough so that the rest (which features in particular $2^m$ multiplied by functions going to zero as ${\varepsilon}$ goes to zero) is also bounded by $\frac{\eta}{2}$. In , due to $D_1$ such an $m$ *a priori depends on ${\varepsilon}$* which makes the previous argument impossible to perform, so we will try to cut the dependancy in ${\varepsilon}$ and give a majoration by an expression going to zero as $m$ goes to infinity *independantly of ${\varepsilon}$*. It is not necessary for $D_2$ but for more simplicity we use the same argument for both terms, let us begin with $D_2$ as it is simpler. Thanks to the initial regularity of $\tilde{U}_{QG}$ we will not need sharp estimates, and it will be sufficient to write that (no need to introduce commutators): $$\d_t (I_d-\dot{S}_m) {\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}-{\Gamma}(I_d-\dot{S}_m) {\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}=-(I_d-\dot{S}_m)\left(\tilde{v}_{QG}\cdot {\nabla}{\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}\right).$$ Next we compute the inner product in $L^2$ with $(I_d-\dot{S}_m) {\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}$: $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{dt} \|(I_d-\dot{S}_m) {\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}\|_{L^2}^2+ \min(\nu, \nu') \|(I_d-\dot{S}_m) {\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2\\
\leq \|(I_d-\dot{S}_m)\left(\tilde{v}_{QG}\cdot {\nabla}{\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}\right)\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}} \|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}.\end{gathered}$$ Thanks to the classical estimates $2ab\leq a^2+b^2$ and using that for all $f\in \dot{H}^{s}\cap \dot{H}^{s+\alpha}$, $$\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m)f\|_{\dot{H}^s} \leq C \left(\int_{|\xi|\geq \frac{3}{4}2^m} |\xi|^{2s} |\hat{f}(\xi)|^2 d\xi\right)^\frac{1}{2} \leq \frac{C}{2^{\alpha m}} \|f\|_{\dot{H}^{s+\alpha}},
\label{majm}$$ we get (with $s=-1$, $\alpha=\frac{1}{2}$): $$\begin{gathered}
\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}(t)\|_{L^2}^2+ \min(\nu, \nu') \int_0^t\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 d\tau\\
\leq \|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}(0)\|_{L^2}^2 +\frac{C}{2^m}\int_0^t \|\tilde{v}_{QG}\cdot {\nabla}{\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^{-\frac{1}{2}}}^2 d\tau\\
\leq \|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}(0)\|_{L^2}^2 +\frac{C}{2^m}\int_0^t \|\tilde{v}_{QG}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 \|\tilde{v}_{QG}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^2}^2 d\tau.\end{gathered}$$ Finally, thanks to the estimates provided by Theorem \[Th1\], we obtain: $$\begin{gathered}
\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}(t)\|_{L^2}^2+ \min(\nu, \nu') \int_0^t\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 d\tau\\
\leq \|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}(0)\|_{L^2}^2 +\frac{C}{2^m}\frac{\|\tilde{U}_{0,QG}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^4}{\min(\nu, \nu')}.
\label{estimlim6a}\end{gathered}$$ We do the same for the last part (i.-e. $C_6$), starting from: $$\begin{gathered}
\d_t (I_d-\dot{S}_m){\Omega_\varepsilon}-{\Gamma}(I_d-\dot{S}_m){\Omega_\varepsilon}= {\displaystyle \sum}_{i=1,2,3} E_i =\\
-(I_d-\dot{S}_m)\left({v_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}{\Omega_\varepsilon}\right) +(\nu-\nu'){\Delta}\d_3 (I_d-\dot{S}_m)\theta_{{\varepsilon}, osc}+(I_d-\dot{S}_m)\left({\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\right),\end{gathered}$$ and as before $$\begin{gathered}
\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){\Omega_\varepsilon}(t)\|_{L^2}^2+ \min(\nu, \nu') \int_0^t\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){\Omega_\varepsilon}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 d\tau\\
\leq \|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){\Omega_\varepsilon}(0)\|_{L^2}^2 +\frac{1}{\min(\nu, \nu')} \int_0^t {\displaystyle \sum}_{i=1,2,3} \|E_i(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}}^2 d\tau.\end{gathered}$$ Similarly as before (we skip details): $$\int_0^t \left(\|E_1(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}}^2 +\|E_3(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}}^2\right) d\tau \leq \frac{C}{2^m}\frac{\|{U_{0,{\varepsilon}}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^4}{\min(\nu, \nu')},$$ and for the last term, $$\int_0^t \|E_2(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^{-1}}^2 d\tau \leq \frac{|\nu-\nu'|^2}{\min(\nu, \nu')}\int_0^t \|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^2}^2 d\tau,$$ we cannot perform as for the other terms as we do not have enough regularity, instead we repeat once more the same argument of truncation: applying $(I_d-\dot{S}_m)$ to we get that: $$\d_t (I_d-\dot{S}_m){U_{\varepsilon}}-L (I_d-\dot{S}_m){U_{\varepsilon}}+\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}} \cA (I_d-\dot{S}_m){U_{\varepsilon}}=\frac{1}{{\varepsilon}} (-{\nabla}{\Phi_{\varepsilon}}, 0) -(I_d-\dot{S}_m)\left({v_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}\right),\\$$ and computing the innerproduct in $\dot{H}^1$ with $(I_d-\dot{S}_m){U_{\varepsilon}}$, we obtain (skipping details as they are close to the previous computations): $$\begin{gathered}
\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){U_{\varepsilon}}(t)\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2+ \min(\nu, \nu') \int_0^t\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){U_{\varepsilon}}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^2}^2 d\tau\\
\leq \|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){U_{0,{\varepsilon}}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 +\frac{C}{\min(\nu, \nu')} \int_0^t \|(I_d-\dot{S}_m)\left({v_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}\right)\|_{L^2}^2 d\tau\\
\leq \|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){U_{0,{\varepsilon}}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 +\frac{C}{\min(\nu, \nu')} \frac{1}{2^m}\int_0^t \|{v_{\varepsilon}}\cdot {\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}^2 d\tau\\
\leq \|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){U_{0,{\varepsilon}}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 +\frac{C}{2^m}\frac{\|{U_{0,{\varepsilon}}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^4}{\min(\nu, \nu')^2}.
\label{estimlim6b}\end{gathered}$$ Gathering , , , and and performing an integration in time, we end up for all $t$ with: $$\begin{gathered}
\|{\delta \Omega}(t)\|_{L^2}^2 +\min(\nu, \nu') \int_0^t\|({\delta \Omega}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 d\tau \leq \|{U_{0,{\varepsilon},QG}}-\tilde{U}_{0,QG}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2\\
+\frac{C}{\min(\nu, \nu')}\int_0^t \left(\|{\delta \Omega}\|_{L^2}^2 \|\tilde{U}_{QG}\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2 +\|{\nabla}{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{L^2}^2 \|{\nabla}{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}^2 +\|{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^2}^2 \|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{1}{2}}^2 \right) d\tau\\
+C 2^m \frac{|\nu-\nu'|}{\min(\nu, \nu')} \int_0^t \|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2 d\tau\\
+ |\nu-\nu'|\left(\int_0^t \|{U_{\varepsilon}}\|_{\dot{H}^2}^2 d\tau\right)^\frac{1}{2} \left( \int_0^t \Big( \|(I_d-\dot{S}_m) {\Omega_\varepsilon}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 +\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m) {\tilde{\Omega}_{QG}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 \Big) d\tau \right).\end{gathered}$$ Thanks to the Gronwall estimates (first term in the first integral of the right-hand side), using that $$\int_0^t \|\tilde{U}_{QG}\|_{\dot{H}^\frac{3}{2}}^2 d\tau \leq \frac{\|\tilde{U}_{QG}\|_{L^2}\|\tilde{U}_{QG}\|_{\dot{H}^1}}{\min(\nu, \nu')},$$ and combining it with to we obtain: $$\begin{gathered}
\|{\delta \Omega}(t)\|_{L^2}^2 +\min(\nu, \nu') \int_0^t\|({\delta \Omega}(\tau)\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2 d\tau \leq \exp\left(C\frac{\|\tilde{U}_{QG}\|_{L^2}\|\tilde{U}_{QG}\|_{\dot{H}^1}}{\min(\nu, \nu')^2}\right) \times \Bigg[ \|{U_{0,{\varepsilon},QG}}-\tilde{U}_{0,QG}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2\\
+\frac{C}{\min(\nu, \nu')^2} \|{U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{E}^\frac{1}{2}}^2 \Big(\|{U_{0,{\varepsilon}}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2+ 2^m |\nu-\nu'|^2\Big)\\
+C\frac{|\nu-\nu'|}{\min(\nu, \nu')}\|{U_{0,{\varepsilon}}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}\times \Big\{\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m)\tilde{\Omega}_{0, QG}\|_{L^2}^2 +\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){\Omega_\varepsilon}(0)\|_{L^2}^2 +\frac{|\nu-\nu'|^2}{\min(\nu, \nu')}\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){U_{0,{\varepsilon}}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2\\
+\frac{C}{2^m} \frac{1}{\min(\nu, \nu')} \Big(\|\tilde{U}_{0,QG}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^4 +(1+ \frac{|\nu-\nu'|^2}{\min(\nu, \nu')^3}) \|{U_{0,{\varepsilon}}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^4\Big) \Big\}^\frac{1}{2} \Bigg].\end{gathered}$$ We have to be careful that in the previous estimates, for any fixed ${\varepsilon}$, $\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){\Omega_\varepsilon}(0)\|_{L^2}^2$ and $\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){U_{0,{\varepsilon}}}\|_{\dot{H}^1}^2$ go to zero when $m$ goes to infinity, but nothing ensures the convergence does not depend on ${\varepsilon}$. To solve the problem, we use here the extra-regularity assumption on ${U_{0,{\varepsilon}, osc}}$ and : $$\begin{gathered}
\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){\Omega_\varepsilon}(0)\|_{L^2} \leq C\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m){U_{0,{\varepsilon}}}\|_{\dot{H}^1} \leq C\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m)\Big({U_{0,{\varepsilon}, osc}}+ ({U_{0,{\varepsilon},QG}}-\tilde{U}_{0,QG}) +\tilde{U}_{0,QG}\Big)\|_{\dot{H}^1}\\
\leq \frac{C}{2^{\delta m}} \|{U_{0,{\varepsilon}, osc}}\|_{\dot{H}^{1+\delta}} +C\|{U_{0,{\varepsilon},QG}}-\tilde{U}_{0,QG}\|_{\dot{H}^1} +C\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m)\tilde{U}_{0,QG}\|_{\dot{H}^1}\\
\leq \frac{C_0}{2^{\delta m}} +C\|{U_{0,{\varepsilon},QG}}-\tilde{U}_{0,QG}\|_{\dot{H}^1} +C\|(I_d-\dot{S}_m)\tilde{U}_{0,QG}\|_{\dot{H}^1}.\end{gathered}$$ To sum up we obtained that $$\|{\delta \Omega}\|_{\dot{E}^0} \leq (1+2^m) F({\varepsilon})+ G(m),$$ where $F({\varepsilon}) \underset{{\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0}{\longrightarrow} 0$ and $G(m) \underset{m\rightarrow \infty}{\longrightarrow} 0$. For a given $\eta>0$, let us fix $m$ large enough so that $G(m) \leq \frac{\eta}{2}$, then fix ${\varepsilon}$ small enough so that $(1+2^m) F({\varepsilon})\leq \frac{\eta}{2}$ and Theorem \[Th2\] is proved. $\blacksquare$
*[On could wonder why not using the extra regularity on ${U_{0,{\varepsilon}, osc}}$ from the beginning in $$|(B_2, {\delta \Omega})_{L^2}|\leq |\nu-\nu'| \|\d_3 {\Delta}\theta_{{\varepsilon}, osc}\|_{\dot{H}^{-1+\delta}}\|{\delta \Omega}\|_{\dot{H}^{1-\delta}}.$$ This would imply that we can prove that this additional regularity is transmitted for any time to ${U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}$, which is not clear as taking the $\dot{H}^{1+\delta}$ inner-product of with ${U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}$ we would have to deal with the term $$|\nu-\nu'|(\d_3 {\Omega_\varepsilon}, \theta_{{\varepsilon}, osc})_{\dot{H}^{1+\delta}}.$$ As $\d_3 {\Omega_\varepsilon}$ can only be estimated in $L^2$, we put $2+2\delta$ derivatives on the other term which is not possible as $\theta_{{\varepsilon}, osc}$ is at most in $\dot{H}^{2+\delta}$. So we are not able to estimate this term and propagate the extra regularity on ${U_{{\varepsilon}, osc}}$ unless we ask extra regularity also on the quasi-geostrophic part. ]{}*
Appendix: notations
===================
For $s\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $\dot{H}^s$ and $H^s$ are the classical homogeneous/inhomogeneous Sobolev spaces in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ endowed with the norms: $$\|u\|_{\dot{H}^s}^2=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} |\xi|^{2s} |\hat{u}(\xi)| d\xi, \quad \mbox{and} \quad \|u\|_{H^s}^2=\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^3} (1+|\xi|^2)^s |\hat{u}(\xi)| d\xi.$$ We also use the following notations: if $E$ is a Banach space and $T>0$, $$\cC_T{E} =\cC([0,T], E), \quad \mbox{and} \quad L_T^p{E} =L^p([0,T], E).$$ We make abundant use of the Sobolev injections, and product laws:
*[There exists a constant $C>0$ such that if $s<\frac{3}{2}$, then for any $u\in\dot{H}^s$, $u\in L^{p}({\mathbb{R}}^3)$ with $p=\frac{6}{3-2s}$ and $$\|u\|_{L^{p}}\leq C \|u\|_{\dot{H}^s}.$$]{}*
*[There exists a constant $C$ such that for any $(u,v)\in \dot{H}^s\times \dot{H}^t$, if $s,t<\frac{3}{2}$ and $s+t>0$ then $uv \in \dot{H}^{s+t-\frac{3}{2}}$ and we have: $$\|uv\|_{\dot{H}^{s+t-\frac{3}{2}}} \leq C \|u\|_{\dot{H}^s} \|v\|_{\dot{H}^t}.$$ ]{}*
Finally, we introduce the frequency truncation operator $\dot{S}^m$: consider a smooth radial function $\chi$ supported in the ball $B(0, \frac{4}{3})$, equal to $1$ in a neighborhood of $B(0, \frac{3}{4})$ and such that $r\mapsto \chi(r.e_1)$ is nonincreasing over ${\mathbb{R}}_+$. For any $u$, $$\dot{S}_m u =\chi(2^{-m}D) u \overset{def}{=} \cF^{-1}\Big(\chi(2^{-m}\xi) \hat{u}(\xi)\Big).$$ This operator smoothly cuts the frequencies of size greater than $2^m$. For more details on general dyadic decompositions and Besov spaces we refer to [@Chemin1; @Dbook].\
**Aknowledgements :** This work was supported by the ANR project INFAMIE, ANR-15-CE40-0011.
A. Babin, A. Mahalov et B. Nicolaenko, Strongly stratified limit of 3D primitive equations in an infinite layer, *Contemporary Mathematics*, **283**, 2001.
H. Bahouri, J.-Y. Chemin, R. Danchin. Fourier analysis and nonlinear partial differential equations, *Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften*, *343*, *Springer Verlag*, 2011.
T. Beale and A. Bourgeois, Validity of the quasi-geostrophic model for large scale flow in the atmosphere and ocean, *SIAM Journal of Mathematical Analysis*, **25**, 1994, p.1023-1068.
P. Bougeault and R. Sadourny, Dynamique de l’atmosphère et de l’océan, *Editions de l’Ecole polytechnique*, 2001.
F. Charve, Global well-posedness and asymptotics for a geophysical fluid system, *Communications in Partial Differential Equations*, **29 (11 & 12)**, 2004, p.1919-1940.
F. Charve, Convergence of weak solutions for the primitive system of the quasigeostrophic equations, *Asymptotic Analysis*, **42**, 2005, p.173-209.
F. Charve, Asymptotics and vortex patches for the quasigeostrophic approximation, *Journal de mathématiques pures et appliquées*, **85**, 2006, p.493-539.
F. Charve, Global well-posedness for the primitive equations with less regular initial data, *Annales de la faculté des Sciences de Toulouse*, **17** (no 2), 2008, p.221-238.
F. Charve and V-S. Ngo, Asymptotics for the primitive equations with small anisotropic viscosity, *Revista Matemática Iberoamericana*, **27** (1), (2011), p 1–38.
F. Charve, A priori estimates for the 3D quasi-geostrophic system, *J. Math. Anal. Appl*, **444** (2016), no. 2, 911-946.
F. Charve, Asymptotics and lower bound for the lifespan of solutions to the Primitive Equations, *submitted (arXiv:1411.6859).*
J.-Y. Chemin, Fluides parfaits incompressibles, *Astérisque*, **230**, 1995.
J.-Y. Chemin, A propos d’un probl[è]{}me de p[é]{}nalisation de type antisym[é]{}trique, *Journal de Math[é]{}matiques pures et appliqu[é]{}es*, **76**, 1997, p.739-755.
J.-Y. Chemin, B.Desjardins, I. Gallagher and E. Grenier, Anisotropy and dispersion in rotating fluids, *Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations and their application, Collège de France Seminar*, Studies in Mathematics and its Applications, **31**, 2002, p.171-191.
J.-Y. Chemin, B.Desjardins, I. Gallagher and E. Grenier, Fluids with anisotropic viscosity, Special issue for R. Temam’s 60th birthday, *M2AN. Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Analysis*, **34**, no. 2, 2000, p.315-335.
J.-Y. Chemin, B. Desjardins, I. Gallagher and E. Grenier, Mathematical Geophysics: An introduction to rotating fluids and to the Navier-Stokes equations, *Oxford University Press*, 2006.
B. Cushman-Roisin, Introduction to geophysical fluid dynamics, *Prentice-Hall*, 1994.
B. Desjardins and E. Grenier, Derivation of the Quasigeostrophic Potential Vorticity Equations, *Advances in Differential Equations*, **3 (5)**, 1998, p.715-752.
A.Dutrifoy, Slow convergence to vortex patches in quasigeostrophic balance, *Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.* **171**, 2004, no. 3, p.417-449.
D. Iftimie, The approximation of the quasigeostrophic system with the primitive systems, *Asymptotic Analysis*, **21**, no. 2, 1999, p.89-97.
T. Iwabuchi, A. Mahalov, R. Takada, Global solutions for the incompressible rotating stably stratified fluids, *Math. Nachr*, **290** no. 4, 2017, p. 613-631.
H. Koba, A. Mahalov, T. Yoneda, Global well-posedness for the rotating Navier-Stokes-Boussinesq equations with stratification effects. *Adv. Math. Sci. Appl.*, **22** (2012), no. 1, p. 61–90.
J. Pedlosky, Geophysical fluid dynamics, *Springer*, 1979.
S. Scrobogna, Derivation of limit equation for a perturbed 3D periodic Boussinesq system, *to appear in DCDS-A*
[^1]: Université Paris-Est Créteil, Laboratoire d’Analyse et de Mathématiques Appliquées (UMR 8050), 61 Avenue du Général de Gaulle, 94 010 Créteil Cedex (France). E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $X$ denotes a set of non-negative integers and $\cP(X)$ be its power set. An integer additive set-labeling (IASL) of a graph $G$ is an injective set-valued function $f:V(G)\to \cP(X)-\{\emptyset\}$ such that the induced function $f^+:E(G) \to \cP(X)-\{\emptyset\}$ is defined by $f^+(uv)=f(u)+f(v);\ \forall\, uv\in E(G)$, where $f(u)+f(v)$ is the sumset of $f(u)$ and $f(v)$. An IASL of a signed graph is an IASL of its underlying graph $G$ together with the signature $\s$ defined by $\s(uv)=(-1)^{|f^+(uv)|};\ \forall\, uv\in E(\S)$. In this paper, we discuss certain characteristics of the signed graphs which admits certain types of integer additive set-labelings.'
author:
- 'N. K. Sudev'
- 'P. K. Ashraf'
- 'K. A. Germina'
title: '**Some New Results on Integer Additive Set-Valued Signed Graphs**'
---
**Key words**: Signed graphs; balanced signed graphs; clustering of signed graphs; integer additive set-labeled signed graphs; arithmetic integer additive set-labeled signed graphs.
**AMS Subject Classification**: 05C78, 05C22.
Introduction
============
For all terms and definitions, not defined specifically in this paper, we refer to [@JAG; @FH; @DBW] and for the terminology and results in the theory of signed graphs, see [@AACE; @GSH; @FHS; @TZ1; @TZ2]. Unless mentioned otherwise, all graphs considered here are simple, finite and have no isolated vertices.
A set-labeling of a graph $G$ can generally be considered as an assignment of the vertices of a graph to the subsets of a non-empty set $X$ in an injective manner such that the set-labels of the edges of $G$ are obtained by taking the symmetric difference the set-labels of their end vertices. Some studies on set-labeling of signed graphs has been discussed in [@AGS1] and that of signed digraphs has been done in [@BDAS].
The [*sum set*]{} (see [@MBN]) of two sets $A$ and $B$, denoted by $A+B$, is defined as $A+B=\{a+b:a\in A, b\in B\}$. Let $\mathbb{N}_0$ be the set of all non-negative integers and let $X$ be a non-empty subset of $\N$. Using the concepts of sumsets, we have the following notions as defined in [@GS1; @GS0].
[ [@GS1; @GS0] An [*integer additive set-labeling*]{} (IASL, in short) is an injective function $f:V(G)\to \cP(X)-\{\emptyset\}$ such that the induced function $f^+:E(G)\to \cP(X)-\{\emptyset\}$ is defined by $f^+{(uv)}=f(u)+f(v)~ \forall uv\in E(G)$. A graph $G$ which admits an IASL is called an [*integer additive set-labeled graph*]{} (IASL-graph).]{}
[[@GS1; @GS0] An [*integer additive set-indexer*]{} (IASI) is an injective function $f:V(G)\to \cP(X)-\{\emptyset\}$ such that the induced function $f^+:E(G) \to \cP(X)-\{\emptyset\}$ is also injective. A graph $G$ which admits an IASI is called an [*integer additive set-indexed graph*]{} (IASI-graph).]{}
The cardinality of the set-label of an element (vertex or edge) of a graph $G$ is called the [*set-indexing number*]{} of that element.
Signed Graphs and Their IASLs
-----------------------------
A *signed graph* (see [@TZ1; @TZ2]), denoted by $\S(G,\s)$, is a graph $G(V,E)$ together with a function $\s:E(G)\to \{+,-\}$ that assigns a sign, either $+$ or $-$, to each ordinary edge in $G$. The function $\s$ is called the [*signature*]{} or [*sign function*]{} of $\S$, which is defined on all edges except half edges and is required to be positive on free loops.
An edge $e$ of a signed graph $\S$ is said to be a *positive edge* if $\s(e)=+$ and an edge $\s(e)$ of a signed graph $\S$ is said to be a *negative edge* if $\s(e)=-$.
A simple cycle (or path) of a signed graph $\S$ is said to be [*balanced*]{} (see [@AACE; @FHS]) if the product of signs of its edges is $+$. A signed graph is said to be a [*balanced signed graph*]{} if it contains no half edges and all of its simple cycles are balanced.
It is to be noted that the number of all negative signed graph is balanced if and only if it is bipartite. The notion of a signed graph that is associated to a given IASL-graph has been introduced as follows.
[ [@GS5] Let $\S$ be a signed graph, with underlying graph $G$ and signature $\s$. An injective function $f:V(\S)\to \cP(X)-\{\emptyset\}$ is said to be an *integer additive set-labeling* (IASL) of $\S$ if $f$ is an integer additive set-labeling of the underlying graph $G$ and the signature of $\S$ is defined by $\s(uv)=(-1)^{|f^+(uv)|}$. ]{}
A signed graph which admits an integer additive set-labeling is called an *integer additive set-labeled signed graph* (IASL-signed graph) and is denoted by $\S_f$. If the context is clear, we can represent an IASL-signed graph by $\S$ itself.
Some interesting studies on the signed graphs which admit different types of integer additive set-labelings have been done in [@GS5]. Motivated by the above mentioned studies, in this paper, we further study the characteristics of signed graphs which admits certain other IASLs.
Arithmetic IASL-Signed Graphs
=============================
By saying that a set is an arithmetic progression, we mean that the elements of that set is in arithmetic progression. The notion of an arithmetic integer additive set-labeling (AIASL) of a given graph was introduced in [@GS3] as given below.
[[@GS3] An *arithmetic integer additive set-labeling* of a graph $G$ is an integer additive set-indexer $f$ of $G$, with respect to which the set-labels of all vertices and edges of $G$ are arithmetic progressions. A graph that admits an AIASL is called an [*arithmetic integer additive set-labeled graph*]{}(AIASL-graph).]{}
If the context is clear, the common difference of the set-label of an element of $G$ can be called the common difference of that element. The *deterministic ratio* of an edge of $G$ is the ratio, $k\ge 1$ between the common differences of its end vertices. The following theorem is a necessary and sufficient condition for a graph $G$ to admit an arithmetic integer additive set-labeling.
\[Thm-AIASI-1\] [[@GS3]]{} A graph $G$ admits an arithmetic integer additive set-labeling $f$ if and only if for every edge of $G$, the set-labels of its end vertices are arithmetic progressions with common differences $d_u$ and $d_v$ such that $d_u\le d_v$ and its deterministic ratio $\frac{d_v}{d_u}$ is a positive integer less than or equal to $|f(u)|$.
The following theorem discussed the cardinality of the set-label of the edges of an arithmetic integer additive set-labeled graph.
[ [[@GS3]]{} Let $f$ be an integer additive set-labeling of a graph $G$. Then, the set-indexing number of any edge $uv$ of $G$, with $d_u\le d_v$, is given by $|f(u)|+\frac{d_v}{d_u}\left(|f(u)|-1\right)$. ]{}
All set-labels mentioned in this section are arithmetic progressions so that the given signed graph $\S$ admits an arithmetic integer additive set-labeling. Invoking the above results, we establish the following theorem for an edges of an AIASL-graph to be a positive edge.
\[Thm-2.1\] Let $\S$ be a signed graph which admits an AIASL $f$. Then, an edge $uv$ is a positive edge of an IASL-signed graph if and only if
1. the set-labels $f(u)$ and $f(v)$ are of different parity, provided the deterministic ratio of the edge $uv$ is odd.
2. the set-label of the end vertex, with minimum common difference, is of even parity, provided the deterministic ratio of the edge $uv$ is even.
By Theorem \[Thm-2.1\], the set-indexing number of $uv$ is given by $|f(u)|+k(|f(v)|-1)$. Note that the edge $uv$ is a positive edge of $\S$ if and only if the value of $|f(u)|+k(|f(v)|-1)$ is a positive integer.
*Case-1* Assume that the deterministic ratio of an edge $uv$ of $\S$ is $k=\frac{d_v}{d_u}$, an odd positive integer.
Let $f(u)$ and $f(v)$ be of different parity. If $f(u)$ is of even parity and $f(v)$ is of odd parity, then $|f(v)|-1$ is even and hence $k(|f(v)|-1)$ is an even integer. Therefore, $(|f(u)|+k(|f(v)|-1))$ is an even integer and hence the signature of the edge $uv$ is positive. If $f(u)$ is of odd parity and $f(v)$ is of even parity, then $|f(v)|-1$ and hence $k(|f(v)|-1)$ are odd integers. Hence, $(|f(u)|+k(|f(v)|-1))$ is even and hence $\s(uv)$ is positive.
Next, assume that $f(u)$ and $f(v)$ are of same parity. If $f(u)$ and $f(v)$ are of odd parity, then $|f(v)|-1$ is even and hence $k(|f(v)|-1)$ is also an even integer. Therefore, $(|f(u)|+k(|f(v)|-1))$ is odd and $\s(uv)$ is negative. If $f(u)$ and $f(v)$ are of even parity, then $|f(v)|-1$ and hence $k(|f(v)|-1)$ are odd integers. Therefore, $(|f(u)|+k(|f(v)|-1))$ is odd and $uv$ is a negative edge of $G$.
Hence, any edge of an AIASL-signed graph $\S$ is a positive edge if and only if the set-labels of its end vertices are of the different parity.
*Case-2*: Let the deterministic ratio $k$ of the edge $uv$ is an even. Then, $k(|f(v)|-1)$ is always even irrespective of the parity of the set-label $f(v)$. Hence, $(|f(u)|+k(|f(v)|-1))$ is even only when $|f(u)|$ is even. Therefore, $\s(uv)$ is positive if and only if $|f(u)|$ is even.
The following theorem establishes a necessary and sufficient condition for an AIASL-signed graph to a balanced signed graph.
\[Thm-2.2\] An AIASL-signed graph $\S$ is balanced if and only if its underlying graph $G$ is bipartite.
First assume that the underlying graph $G$ of a given signed graph is bipartite. Let $(V_1,V_2)$ be a bipartition of $G$. Then, label the vertices of $G$ in such a way that all vertices in the same partition have the same parity set-labels (arithmetic progressions). Here note that all edges in $\S$ now have either positive signature simultaneously or negative signature simultaneously. Since all cycles in $\S$ are even cycles, in all possible cases, the number of negative edges in each cycle will always be even. Hence, $\S$ is balanced.
Conversely, assume that the AIASL-signed graph is balanced. If possible, let the underlying graph $G$ be non-bipartite. Then, $G$ contains some odd cycles. Let $C: v_1v_2v_3\ldots v_nv_1$ be one odd cycle in $G$. Label the vertices of $G$ by certain arithmetic progressions in such a way that there exists minimum number of different parity set-labels. This can be done by labeling any two adjacent vertices by different parity sets. In this way, we can see without loss of generality that the vertices $v_1, v_3, v_5, \ldots, v_{n-2}$ have the same parity set-labels, say odd parity set-labels. Hence, the vertices $v_2, v_4, v_6, \ldots, v_{n-1}$ have even parity set-labels. If $v_n$ has an odd parity set-label, then the edge $v_nv_1$ is the one only negative edge of $G$ and if $v_n$ has an even parity set-label, then the edge $v_{n-1}v_n$ is the one only negative edge of $G$. Moreover, if the parity of any one vertex, say $v_i$ is changed, then the set-labels of vertices $v_{i-1}, v_i, v_{i+1}$ become same parity sets and hence the signature of two edges $v_{i-1}v_i$ and $v_iv_{i+1}$ become negative, keeping the number of negative edges in $\S$ odd. This is a contradiction to the hypothesis that $\S$ is balanced. Hence, $G$ must be bipartite.
AIASL of Certain Associated Signed Graphs
=========================================
An IASL of signed graph $\S$ is said to *induce* the IASL $f$ of $\S$ on its associated graphs if the following general conditions are hold.
1. the set-labels of corresponding elements of the graph and the associated graphs have the same set-labels,
2. If a new edge (which is not in $\S$) is introduced in the associated graph, then the set-label and signature of that edge is determined by corresponding rules,
3. if one edge of $\S$ is replaced by another vertex (not in $\S$) in the associated graph, then the new vertex is given the same set-label of the removed edge.
In this section, we discuss the induced characteristics of certain signed graphs associated with the AIASL-signed graphs.
[ Let $\S'$ be a signed subgraph of a balanced AIASL-signed graph $\S$ given by $\S'=\S-v$, where $v$ is an arbitrary vertex of $\S$. If $v$ is not in any cycle of $\S$, then the removal of $v$ does not affect the number negative edges in the cycles of $\S$. If $v$ is in a cycle $C$ of $\S$, then the removal of $v$ makes $C-v$ acyclic. In this case also, removal of $v$ does not affect the number negative edges in the cycles of $\S-v$. Then, $\S'$ is balanced whenever $\S$ is balanced. ]{}
A *spanned signed subgraph* $\S'$ of a signed graph $\S$ is a signed graph which preserves signature and whose underlying graph $H$ is a spanning subgraph of the underlying graph $G$ of $\S$. The following result is an obvious and immediate from the corresponding definition of the balanced signed graphs.
Let $\S'$ be a spanned signed subgraph of a balanced AIASL-signed graph $\S$. Then, $\S'$ is balanced with respect to induced labeling and signature if and only if the following conditions are hold.
1. the set $E(\S\setminus \S')$ contains even number of negative edges in $\S$, if the signed graph $\S$ is edge disjoint.
2. the set $E(\S\setminus \S')$ contains odd number of negative edges in $\S$ if some of the negative edges are common to two more cycles in $\S$.
A *subdivision signed graph* of a graph $G$ is the graph obtained by introducing a vertex to some or all edges of $G$. It is to be noted that the set-label of this newly introduced vertex is the same as that of the edge in $\S$ to which it is introduced. In view of this fact, the following theorem checks whether a signed graph obtained by subdividing some or all edges of a balanced AIASL-signed graph $\S$ to be balanced.
A signed graph $\S'$ obtained by subdividing an edge $e$ of a balanced AIASL-signed graph $\S$ is a balanced under induced set-labeling if and only if $e$ is a cut edge of $\S$.
Let $\S$ be a balanced AIASL-signed graph and let $e=uv$ be an arbitrary edge of $\S$. If $e$ is a cut edge of $\S$, then it is not contained any cycle of $\S$. Hence, the cycles in $\S'$ correspond to the same cycles in $\S$. Therefore, subdividing the edge $e$ will not affect the number of negative edges in any cycle of $\S'$. Therefore, $\S'$ is balanced.
Now assume that a signed graph $\S'$ obtained by subdividing the edge of $\S$ is balanced under induced set-labeling. If possible, let $e$ be not a cut-edge of $G$, Then it is contained in a cycle $C$ of $\S$. Now, introduce a new vertex $w$ into the edge $uv$. Then, the edge $uv$ will be removed and two edges $uw$ and $vw$ are introduced to $\S$ and the vertex $w$ has the same set-label of the edge $uv$. Here, we need to consider the following cases.
*Case-1*: Let $u$ and $v$ have the same parity set-labels. Then, the edge $uv$ has an odd parity set-label in $\S$ and hence the new vertex $w$ in $\S'$ has an odd parity set-label and negative signature. Hence, we have the following subcases.
*Subcase-1.1*: If both $u$ and $v$ have odd parity set-labels, the edges $uw$ and $vw$ are negative edges in the corresponding cycle $C'$ in $\S'$. Therefore, $C'$ contains odd number of negative edges, a contradiction to our hypothesis.
*Subcase-1.2*: If both $u$ and $v$ have odd parity set-labels, the edges $uw$ and $vw$ are positive edges in the corresponding cycle $C'$ in $\S'$. Therefore, the number of negative edges in $C'$ is one less than that of the corresponding cycle $C$ in $\S$, a contradiction to our hypothesis that $\S'$ is balanced.
*Case-2*: Let $u$ and $v$ have different parity set-labels. Then, the edge $uv$ has an even parity set-label in $\S$ and hence the new vertex $w$ in $\S'$ has an even parity set-label and positive signature. Without loss of generality, let $u$ has even parity set-label and $v$ has odd parity set label in $\S$. Then, the edges $uw$ is a negative edge and the edge $vw$ is a positive edge in $\S'$. It can be noted that the cycle $C'$ contains one negative edge more than that in the corresponding cycle $C$ in $\S$. It is also a contradiction to the hypothesis. In all possible cases, we get contradiction and hence the edge $e$ must be a cut edge of $\S$. This complete the proof.
A signed graph $\S'$ is said to be homeomorphic to another signed graph $\S$ if $\S'$ is obtained by removing a vertex $v$ with $d(v)=2$ and is not a vertex of any triangle in $\S$, and joining the two pendant vertices thus formed by a new edge. This operation is said to be an elementary transformation on $\S$. The following theorem discusses the balance of a signed graph that is homeomorphic to a given balanced AIASL-signed graph $\S$.
A signed graph obtained from a balanced AIASL-signed graph $\S$ by applying an elementary transformation on a suitable vertex $v$ of $\S$ is a balanced signed graph with respect to induced set-labeling if and only if the vertex $v$ is not in any cycle in $\S$.
Let $\S$ be a balanced AIASL-signed graph and let $v$ be any vertex of $\S$ with degree $2$ and is not in any triangle in $\S$. Also, let $\S'$ be a signed graph obtained from $\S$ by applying an elementary transformation on $v$.
Since $d(v)=2$, it is adjacent to two vertices, say $u$ and $w$ in $\S$. If $v$ is not in any cycle in $\S$, then the number of negative edges in any cycle of $\S$ and hence the number of negative edges in the corresponding cycles in $\S'$ will not be affected by the elementary transformation on $v$. Therefore, $\S'$ is balanced.
Conversely, assume that $v$ is a vertex of a cycle $C$ in $\S$. Then we need to consider the following cases.
*Case-1*: Let $u$ and $w$ have same parity set-labels. Here we have the following subcases.
*Subcase-1.1*: If the set-label of $v$ and the set-label of $u$ and $w$ are of the same parity, then the edges $uv$ and $vw$ are negative edges in $C$ of $\S$ and the edge $uw$ is a negative edge in the corresponding cycle $C'$ in $\S'$. Therefore, $C'$ contains one negative edge less than that of $C$ in $\S$. Hence, in this case, $\S'$ not balanced.
*Subcase-1.2*: If the parity of the set-label of $v$ is different from that of the set-labels of $u$ and $w$, then the edges $uv$ and $vw$ are positive edges in the cycle $C$ of $\S$. But, the edge $uw$ is a negative edge in the corresponding cycle $C'$ of $\S'$. Hence, the cycle $C'$ contains one negative cycle more than that of the corresponding cycle $C$ in $\S$. Therefore, in this case also, $\S'$ not balanced.
*Case-2*: Let $u$ and $w$ have different parity set-labels. Then, the set-label of $v$ and the set-label either $u$ or $v$ are of the same parity. Without loss of generality, let the set-labels of $u$ and $v$ be of the same parity. Then, the edge $uv$ is a negative edge and $vw$ is a positive edge in the cycle $C$ of $\S$. But, since $u$ and $v$ have different parity set-labels, the edge $uw$ is a positive edge in the corresponding cycle $C'$ of $\S'$. Hence, the cycle $C'$ contains one negative cycle less than that of the corresponding cycle $C$ in $\S$. Therefore, $\S'$ not balanced. This completes the proof.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we discussed the characteristics and properties of the signed graphs which admits arithmetic integer additive set-labeling with a prime focus on the balance of these signed graphs. There are several open problems in this area. Some of the open problems that seem to be promising for further investigations are following.
[ Discuss the $k$-clusterability of different types of IASL-signed graphs for $k>2$.]{}
[ Discuss the balance and $2$-clusterability and general $k$-clusterability of other types of signed graphs which admit different types of arithmetic IASLs.]{}
[ Discuss the balance and $2$-clusterability and general $k$-clusterability of graceful, sequential and topological IASL-signed graphs.]{}
[ Discuss the admissibility of AIASLs by the signed graphs obtained from the AIASL-signed graphs by finite number of edge contractions.]{}
[ Discuss the admissibility of AIASLs by the signed graphs whose underlying graphs are the line graphs and total graphs of the underlying graphes of certain AIASL-signed graphs.]{}
Further studies on other characteristics of signed graphs corresponding to different IASL-graphs are also interesting and challenging. All these facts highlight the scope for further studies in this area.
[20]{}
B. D. Acharya, [*Set-valuations of signed digraphs*]{}, J. Combin. Inform. System Sci., [**37**]{}(2-4)(2012), 145-167.
J Akiyama, D. Avis, V. Chavtal and H. Era, [*Balancing signed graphs*]{}, Discrete App. Math., [**3**]{}(4)(1981), 227-233., DOI: 10.1016/0166-218X(81)90001-9.
P. K. Ashraf, K. A. Germina and N. K. Sudev, [*A study on set-valuations of signed graphs*]{}, communicated.
J. A. Gallian, [*A dynamic survey of graph labeling*]{}, Electron. J. Combin., (2015), (\#DS-6).
K. A. Germina and S. Hameed, [*On signed paths, signed cycles and their energies*]{}, Appl. Math. Sci., [**4**]{}(70)(2010), 3455 – 3466.
K. A. Germina and N. K. Sudev, [*On weakly uniform integer additive set-indexers of graphs*]{}, Int. Math. Forum, [**8**]{}(37)(2013), 1827-1834. DOI: 10.12988/imf.2013.310188.
F. Harary, [**Graph theory**]{}, Addison-Wesley Publ. Co. Inc., 1969.
F. Harary, [*On the notion of balance of a signed graph*]{}, The Michigan Math. J., [**2**]{}(2)(1953), 143-146.
M. B. Nathanson, [**Additive number theory, inverse problems and geometry of sumsets**]{}, Springer, New York, 1996.
N. K. Sudev and K. A. Germina, [*On integer additive set-indexers of graphs*]{}, Int. J. Math. Sci. Engg. Appl., [**8**]{}(2)(2014), 11-22.
N. K. Sudev and K. A. Germina, [*A study on arithmetic integer additive set-indexers of graphs*]{}, Carpathian Math. Publ., 2016, to appear.
N. K. Sudev and K. A. Germina, [*On certain types of arithmetic integer additive set-indexers of graphs*]{}, Discrete Math. Algorithms Appl., [**7**]{}(1)(2015),1-15., DOI: 10.1142/S1793830915500251.
N. K. Sudev and K. A. Germina, [*A study on integer additive set-valuation of signed graphs*]{}, Carpathian Math. Publ., [**7**]{}(2)(2015), 236-246., DOI:10.15330/cmp.7.2.236-246.
D. B. West, [**Introduction to graph theory**]{}, Pearson Education Inc., 2001.
T. Zaslavsky, [*Signed graphs*]{}, Discrete Appl. Math., [**4**]{}(1)(1982), 47-74., DOI: 10.1016/0166-218X(82)90033-6.
T. Zaslavsky, [*Signed graphs and geometry*]{}, J. Combin. Inform. System Sci., [**37**]{}(2-4)(2012), 95-143.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In a recent contribution \[Phys. Rev. B 81, 165104 (2010)\] fermionic Projected Entangled-Pair States (PEPS) were used to approximate the ground state of free and interacting spinless fermion models, as well as the $t$-$J$ model. This paper revisits these three models in the presence of an additional next-nearest hopping amplitude in the Hamiltonian. First we explain how to account for next-nearest neighbor Hamiltonian terms in the context of fermionic PEPS algorithms based on simulating time evolution. Then we present benchmark calculations for the three models of fermions, and compare our results against analytical, mean-field, and variational Monte Carlo results, respectively. Consistent with previous computations restricted to nearest-neighbor Hamiltonians, we systematically obtain more accurate (or better converged) results for gapped phases than for gapless ones.'
author:
- Philippe Corboz
- Jacob Jordan
- Guifré Vidal
title: ' Simulation of fermionic lattice models in two dimensions with Projected Entangled-Pair States: Next-nearest neighbor Hamiltonians '
---
Introduction
============
Several recent papers have proposed and explored the use of tensor networks to simulate fermionic lattice models in two spatial dimensions,[@Corboz09; @Kraus09; @Pineda09; @Corboz09b; @Barthel09; @Shi09; @Corboz10b; @Pizorn10; @Gu10] including algorithms based on the Multi-scale Entanglement Renormalization Ansatz[@MERA] (MERA) and Projected Entangled-Pair States.[@PEPS2; @PEPS1; @Jordan08; @morePEPS; @morePEPS2; @Orus09] The fundamental ingredient, common to all approaches, is to incorporate fermionic statistics directly into the tensor network by regarding the tensors as linear maps of anticommuting degrees of freedom, an idea recently generalized to anyonic statistics.[@Koenig10; @Pfeifer10] The main goal of fermionic tensor network methods is to address strongly correlated fermionic models, which suffer from the negative sign problem in Quantum Monte Carlo.[@sign]
Fermionic PEPS were first proposed in Ref. and have been discussed in several other papers.[@Barthel09; @Shi09; @Corboz10b; @Pizorn10; @Gu10] In Ref. we provided a detailed account of how to adapt existing bosonic PEPS algorithms to the fermionic case, and we used the fermionic version of the infinite PEPS algorithms[@Jordan08; @Orus09] to obtain benchmark results for three models with nearest-neighbor Hamiltonian in an infinite square lattice: ($i$) a model of free spinless fermions with a pairing potential, ($ii$) a model of interacting spinless fermions with a nearest-neighbor repulsion, and ($iii$) the well-known $t$-$J$ model. In the first case, a comparison of the numerical results with the exact solution showed that fermionic PEPS could reproduce ground-state energies and short-range correlators satisfactorily, with a larger degree of accuracy in gapped phases than in gapless ones. For the model of interacting spinless fermions, PEPS yielded significantly lower variational energies than obtained by mean-field theory (restricted Hartree-Fock theory), which enabled to determine the phase diagram more accurately. For the $t$-$J$ model, PEPS energies are comparable (or even better in some cases) than variational Monte Carlo based on Gutzwiller-projected ansatz wave functions.
As with any new approach, systematic benchmarking of fermionic PEPS algorithms is important in order to establish their range of applicability. The results of Ref. , while limited to three specific models, were a first step in this direction. A key question to be addressed is how good a fermionic PEPS is in practice, as a variational ansatz, at approximately representing the ground state of fermionic models. Of course, the precise answer to this question will depend on the specific model under consideration. However, insight on how fermionic PEPS methods generally perform in certain circumstances, e.g. in a given gapped phase, may be obtained from models where an exact solution or previous numerical results by other methods are already available. Such insight is essential in order to subsequently assess the validity of fermionic PEPS results obtained in more relevant (and challenging) scenarios, such as in exploring the ground state phase diagram of the $t$-$J$ model, which was addressed in Ref. , or of the Hubbard model.
Thus, one of the main goals of this paper is to further benchmark the performance of fermionic PEPS algorithms, by considering more complex models than those addressed in Ref. . Specifically, here we will consider the effect of adding nearest-neighbor hopping terms to the three models of Ref. . Recall that in many cases of interest it is desirable to consider a model where fermion particles can hop between nearest-neighbor sites (with amplitude $t$) as well as next-nearest neighbor sites (with amplitude $t'$). For example, in effective models of high-T$_c$ superconductors (cuprates), it is estimated that the ratio $|t'/t|$ is of the order of $0.1-0.3$.[@Zhang88; @Pavarini01] A finite $t'$ can have several important effects on the system. For instance band-structure calculations[@Raimondi96; @Pavarini01] and experimental analysis[@Tanaka04] suggest that the highest $T_c$ strongly depends on $t'/t$. Previous studies of the hole-doped $t$-$t'$-$J$ model revealed that a finite $t'<0$ can suppress magnetic order [@Tohyama94; @Parcollet04; @Spanu08] and enhance or suppress pairing correlations[@Shih04; @Spanu08] (depending on the doping). It was also shown that $t'$ influences the formation of stripes.[@White99; @Himeda02] In order to explore how well fermionic PEPS can reproduce such ground states, we need to extend the fermionic PEPS algorithm of Ref. , based on simulating imaginary time evolution, to the case where the evolution is generated by a Hamiltonian that also contains next-nearest neighbor terms. Thus a second main goal of this paper is to explain how this is accomplished. The simulation of frustrated spin models with next-nearest neighbor terms with PEPS by imaginary time evolution was considered in Ref. . In contrast to Ref. , here we will explain how to generalize the so-called *simple update* scheme for time evolution to the case of next-nearest neighbor terms (in addition to accounting for the fermionic character of the PEPS).
The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. \[sec:method\] we first explain how to update the PEPS during an imaginary time evolution in the presence of next-nearest neighbor Hamiltonian terms. Then we discuss how to evaluate the expectation value of a next-nearest neighbor operator, as required e.g. in order to compute the energy of a PEPS in the case of nearest neighbor hopping $t'$. In Sec. \[sec:results\] we present a series of benchmark results for extensions, containing next-nearest neighbor hopping terms, of the three models addressed previously in Ref. , namely ($i$) an exactly solvable model of free spinless fermions with $t'\neq 0$, ($ii$) the $t$-$t'$-$V$ model,[@Woul10] and ($iii$) the $t$-$t'$-$J$ model.[@Spanu08] The accuracy and/or apparent convergence (as a function of bond dimension $D$) of ground state properties in these models are comparable to those previously obtained for the case $t'=0$. Finally, Sec. \[sec:conclusion\] summarizes our findings and conclusions. For completeness, Appendix \[app:ctm\] provides details on the two different corner-transfer-matrix (CTM) schemes used in order to evaluate expectation values from an infinite PEPS.
Method {#sec:method}
======
As in Ref. for spin systems, we use an infinite PEPS with bond dimension $D$ to approximate the ground state of a Hamiltonian defined on an infinite square lattice, by simulating an evolution in imaginary time starting from some (random) initial state.
The evolution itself is first approximated, through a Trotter-Suzuki decomposition, by a sequence of two-site gates.[@Jordan08] After applying each two-site gate, the affected bond in the PEPS has to be truncated, so that the evolved state is again represented by a PEPS with the same bond dimension $D$. This truncation implies choosing a $D$-dimensional subspace in the vector space associated to the bond index. In Ref. we distinguished between two different truncation or update schemes. The first consists of choosing the subspace that best supports the wave function. This requires taking the whole PEPS wave-function into account during the update, i.e. the *environment* has to be computed at every step in the imaginary time evolution.[@Jordan08] Alternatively, following Refs. , one can update the PEPS as in the time-evolving block decimation (TEBD) method in one dimension[@TEBD] by means of a singular value decomposition (SVD). In this second, simpler option, referred to as *simple update*, instead of considering the full environment, only local weights attached to the bonds of the PEPS are taken into account. In one dimensional systems with open boundary conditions, this choice of update is optimal, since the full environment can be encoded in the local weights. In two dimensional systems, however, the simple update is no longer optimal (a better chose of truncated space can be obtained by considering the whole environment) but it has a significantly lower computation cost as a function of bond dimension $D$, which allows to consider larger bond dimensions (in a suboptimal way) and potentially obtain more accurate results with the same computational cost.
Here we will use the simple update. In this section we first discuss the additional steps needed to apply the simple update of Ref. in the case of a two-site gate acting on next-nearest neighbor sites. Then we will also explain how to evaluate the expectation value of a next-nearest neighbor operator.
![(Color online) (a) Infinite PEPS with a four-site unit cell with tensors $A$, $B$, $C$, and $D$. (b) Representation of the same PEPS with diagonal matrices $\lambda_k$ on the bonds, which is used for the simple update. (c)-(f) Relation between the tensors in (a) and (b).[]{data-label="fig:structure"}](structure.pdf){width="8cm"}
Simple update for next-nearest neighbor terms {#sec:simpleupdate}
---------------------------------------------
In order to perform the simple update the fermionic PEPS in Fig. \[fig:structure\](a) is recast into the form shown in Fig. \[fig:structure\](b), where the diagonal matrices $\lambda_k$ live on the bonds and the tensors $\Gamma_q$ live on the sites of the network. As already explained in Appendix B in Ref. the simplified update for nearest-neighbor links consists of the three steps summarized in Fig. \[fig:nnupdate\].
![(Color online) Simple update of a nearest-neighbor link. (a) A gate $g$ is applied to a link between tensors $\Gamma_A$ and $\Gamma_B$. Contracting the diagram, including all adjacent matrices $\lambda_k$, yields tensor $\Theta$. (b) Singular value decomposition of tensor $\Theta$ leads to tensors $\tilde \Gamma_A$, $\tilde \Gamma_B$ and diagonal matrix $\tilde \lambda_1$. (c) The updated tensors $\Gamma'_A$, $\Gamma'_B$ are obtained by multiplying the corresponding unaltered inverse diagonal matrices $\lambda^{-1}_k$ to $\tilde \Gamma_A$ and $\tilde \Gamma_B$ as shown. The new diagonal matrix $\lambda'_1$ corresponds to the $D$ largest diagonal entries (singular values) of $\tilde \lambda_1$.[]{data-label="fig:nnupdate"}](nnupdate.pdf){width="7cm"}
The next-nearest neighbor update is performed in a very similar way, with the difference that three PEPS tensors and two diagonal matrices are updated at the same time, through two consecutive singular value decompositions. Figure \[fig:ADu\] illustrates the update for the link between tensors $\Gamma_A$ and $\Gamma_D$, via the tensor $\Gamma_B$ (including all adjacent diagonal matrices $\lambda_k$). Similarly one could also perform the update for the same link involving the tensor $\Gamma_C$ instead of $\Gamma_B$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:otherupdates\](a). In practice we apply the square root of the gate to both combinations of tensors, in order to make the update more symmetric. In principle it is conceivable that also the order in which the singular value decompositions are made plays a role. However, in the cases studied we have not found a significant difference when changing the order.
Figures \[fig:otherupdates\](c)-(d) show the relevant diagrams for the update of the other diagonal link in the tensor network. As usual, crossings in the network have to be replaced by swap tensors (black diamonds) in order to account for the fermionic anticommutation rules. In total there are 8 different diagonal links for the $2\times 2$ unit cell, where each link is updated in two different ways (via two different intermediate tensors).
![(Color online) Simple update of a next-nearest neighbor link. (a) A gate $g$ is applied to a link between tensors $\Gamma_A$ and $\Gamma_D$, via the tensor $\Gamma_B$. Contracting the diagram, including all adjacent matrices $\lambda_k$, yields tensor $\Theta$. (b) Singular value decomposition of tensor $\Theta$ leads to tensors $\tilde \Gamma_A$, $\Theta'$, and $\tilde \lambda_1$. (c) Tensor $\Theta''$ includes the weights $\lambda_1'$, obtained by keeping the $D$ largest diagonal entries of $\tilde \lambda_1$. Singular value decomposition of tensor $\Theta'$ leads to tensors $\tilde \Gamma_B$, $\tilde \Gamma_D$, and $\tilde \lambda_4$. (d) The updated tensors $\Gamma'_A$, $\Gamma'_B$, and $\Gamma'_D$ are obtained from $\tilde \Gamma_A$, $\tilde \Gamma_B$, and $\tilde \Gamma_D$ as shown. The new diagonal matrix $\lambda'_4$ corresponds to the $D$ largest diagonal entries of $\tilde \lambda_4$.[]{data-label="fig:ADu"}](ADu3.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
![(Color online) The remaining relevant diagrams of the next-nearest neighbor updates. The updated tensors are obtained in a similar way as explained in Fig. \[fig:ADu\]](otherupdates.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
. \[fig:otherupdates\]
We conclude this section with three remarks. Firstly, we note that the complexity of the update can be reduced by splitting off the parts of the tensors involved in the update by a singular value decomposition (see e.g. Fig. 32 in Ref. ). Secondly, the same update may of course be used also for bosonic and spin systems, with the simplification that crossings do not need to be taken into account, since bosonic and spin operators commute. Finally, note that an update for next-to-next nearest neighbor interaction can be implemented in a very similar way, since it also involves three PEPS tensors (arranged on a line). This case, not further considered in the paper, requires a larger unit cell of size $3\times 3$.
Computing expectation values of next-nearest neighbor terms {#sec:expect}
-----------------------------------------------------------
In order to compute the expectation value of a next-nearest neighbor operator, one proceeds in a similar way as explained in Sec. III B of Ref. for nearest neighbor operators. First, one has to compute the environment ${\cal E}^{[{AB\atop{CD}}]}$ for the tensors $A, B, C, D$, which accounts for the infinite lattice surrounding the $2\times2$ unit cell formed by these tensors. In Ref. this was done with the directional corner transfer matrix (CTM) method.[@Orus09] Besides this scheme, in the present work we also use another variant of the CTM approach, as discussed in Appendix \[app:ctm\]. The CTM algorithm yields the four corner tensors $C_1, C_2, C_3, C_4$ and the eight edge tensors $T_{l1}, T_{r1}, T_{u2}, T_{d2}, T_{l3}, T_{r3}, T_{u4}, T_{d4}$ shown in Fig. \[fig:ADham\], which altogether constitute the environment ${\cal E}^{[{AB\atop{CD}}]}$.
Next, one connects the four tensors $A, B, C, D$ together with their complex conjugates to the environment, and joins the physical legs to the operator accordingly, as exemplified in Fig. \[fig:ADham\] for a next-nearest neighbor operator acting between $A$ and $D$. Since the wave function encoded by the iPEPS is not normalized, the value obtained by contracting the tensor network in Fig. \[fig:ADham\] has to be divided by the norm of the iPEPS, which is simply obtained by replacing the two-site operator $o$ by the identity operator in Fig. \[fig:ADham\].
Evaluating a two-site operator $o$ linking tensors $B$, $C$ can be done in a similar way, simply by reconnecting the legs of the operator $o$ (highlighted in green in Fig. \[fig:ADham\]) to the physical legs of $B$ and $C$ accordingly. Finally, the expectation value of the remaining six next-nearest terms can be obtained analogously by first generating the environments for the plaquettes $[{BA\atop{DC}}], [{DC\atop{BA}}], [{CD\atop{AB}}]$.
{width="8.5cm"}
. \[fig:ADham\]
Benchmark results. {#sec:results}
==================
In this section we provide benchmark results for three fermionic models on an infinite square lattice with nearest neighbor and next-nearest neighbor hopping terms, with amplitudes $t$ and $t'$. Each model is an extension of an analogous model with only nearest neighbor hopping term, that is with $t'=0$, previously addressed in Ref. .
As initial condition, the tensors of the infinite PEPS are chosen randomly. In some cases we observe that the state resulting from the time evolution depends on the initial condition (seed), which might be due to the local character of the simple update (cf. Sec. \[sec:simpleupdate\]). We therefore typically run several (of the order of 10) simulations with different seeds, and pick the state with lowest energy. In some cases a good choice is to initialize a PEPS from a previously converged PEPS with smaller $D$, but this does not always lead to the state with lowest energy. A converged PEPS for a certain Hamiltonian usually provides a good initial condition for simulations with slightly different Hamiltonian parameters, provided both states are in the same phase.
Evaluating the expectation value of observables requires computing an environment, which in turn requires introducing a second bond dimension $\chi$ associated to additional truncations. [@Jordan08; @Orus09; @Corboz10b] In all present simulations the bond dimension $\chi$ of the environment has been chosen to be sufficiently large so that the expectation values of local observables do not significantly change when further increasing $\chi$. Typical values are $\chi=36$ for $D=2$, $\chi=48$ for $D=4$, and $\chi=64$ for $D=6$ and $D=8$.
Free fermions including a pairing potential {#sec:sf}
-------------------------------------------
We first consider a model of free spinless fermions given by the Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H =&& t \sum_{\langle ij \rangle} [{\hat c}_i^{\dagger}{\hat c}_j + H.c.]
- \gamma \sum_{\langle ij \rangle} [{\hat c}_{i}^{\dagger}{\hat c}_{j}^{\dagger} + H.c.] \nonumber\\
&& + \,\,\, t' \sum_{\langle \langle ij \rangle \rangle} [{\hat c}_i^{\dagger}{\hat c}_j + H.c.]
- 2\lambda \sum_i {\hat c}_{i}^{\dagger} {\hat c}_i ,
\label{eq:free}\end{aligned}$$ with $\langle ij \rangle$ and $\langle \langle ij \rangle \rangle$ denoting the sum over nearest and next-nearest neighbor pairs, respectively. In the following we fix the hopping amplitude $t$ to $1$ and the pairing potential $\gamma$ to $1$, and consider a chemical potential $\lambda$ in the range $[1,4]$. For $t'=0$ the model reduces to the one studied in Sec. IV of Ref. , and is gapped for $\lambda>2$ and critical for $\lambda \le2$. [@Li06] For $t'\neq 0$, the location of the transition $\lambda_C$ between gapped and gapless phases depends on $t'$.
![(Color online) Relative error of the ground state energy of the free spinless fermion model as a function of $\lambda$, for different values of $D$ and $t'$. Full and open symbols correspond to critical and gapped phases, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:ttp"}](ttp.pdf){width="8cm"}
Figure \[fig:ttp\] shows the relative error of the ground state energy as a function of $\lambda$ for different $D$ and $t'$. As in the case for $t'=0$ the energies are improved upon increasing $D$, and the accuracy is higher in the gapped phase (open symbols) than in the critical phase (full symbols). In general the error is larger than in the $t'=0$ case (cf. Ref. ), but still of the order of $10^{-3}$ ($10^{-5}$) in the critical (gapped) phase for $D=6$.
![(Color online) Upper panels: Correlation function $C(r)=\langle {\hat c}^\dagger_i {\hat c}_{i+r} \rangle$ as a function of distance r (in x-direction) in the gapless (left) and gapped (right) phase of the free-fermion model . Middle panels: Absolute value of $C(r)$ in semi-logarithmic scale. Lower panels: The difference between the simulation result $C(r,D)$ and the exact result $C_{ex}(r)$ for different values of $D$. []{data-label="fig:ttp_corrs"}](ttp_corrs.pdf){width="8cm"}
Figure \[fig:ttp\_corrs\] shows the two-point correlation function $$C(r) \equiv \langle {\hat c}^\dagger_i {\hat c}_{i+r} \rangle,
\label{eq:CdagC}$$ as a function of distance $r$ between the two sites (in x-direction). The numerical results are seen to approach the exact values with increasing $D$, with correlations at short distances being better reproduced than correlations at long distances (see middle panels). Also in this case, the accuracy is better in the gapped phase ($\gamma=1, \lambda=3.5, t'=0.4$) than in the critical phase ($\gamma=1, \lambda=2, t'=0.6$).
The $t$-$t'$-$V$ model
----------------------
Next we study the $t$-$t'$-$V$ spinless fermion model and compare the infinite PEPS results with the mean-field studies from Ref. , based on Hartree-Fock (HF) theory restricted to states invariant under translations by two sites. The Hamiltonian reads $$\begin{aligned}
H = &-& t \sum_{\langle ij \rangle} [{\hat c}_i^{\dagger}{\hat c}_j + H.c.] + V \sum_{\langle ij \rangle} {\hat c}_i^{\dagger}{\hat c}_i {\hat c}_j^{\dagger}{\hat c}_j \nonumber \\
&-& t' \sum_{\langle \langle ij \rangle \rangle} [{\hat c}_i^{\dagger}{\hat c}_j + H.c.] - \mu \sum_i {\hat c}_{i}^{\dagger} {\hat c}_i,
\label{eq:ttV}\end{aligned}$$ with $V$ being the nearest-neighbor interaction strength, and $\mu$ the chemical potential. As an example we study the transition between a metal phase at low electron density $n$ to a charge-density-wave (CDW) phase at half filling ($n=0.5$), for fixed parameters $t=1$, $t'=-0.4$, and $V=2$. \[A similar study was done in Ref. in the case of $t'=0$.\]
The HF study predicts a first order phase transition between the metallic phase for densities $0 <n\le 0.274(1)$ and a CDW phase, which is thermodynamically stable upon doping in the range $0.368(1)\le n \le 0.5$, as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:ttV\_pd\](a). The region in $0.274(1)<n<0.368(1)$ is unstable, corresponding to phase separation (PS) between the two states. The study was done for systems of size $100 \times 100$.
Figure \[fig:ttV\] shows a comparison of the energies in the two phases, obtained with HF and infinite PEPS. As explained in Ref. for the case $t'=0$, the crossing of the two energies is obtained by starting from a state deep in the metal (CDW) phase and then increase (decrease) $\mu$ across the transition. Similarly as for $t'=0$, PEPS energies in the gapped CDW phase (for $n=0.5$) do not differ significantly from the HF energies. However, with increasing $D=4,6,8$, PEPS energies do differ significantly from HF energies in the metal phase close to the transition. This produces a shift of transition point $\mu^*$ to larger values of $\mu$, corresponding to a larger value of the density $n$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:ttV\_pd\](b). Also, in contrast with the HF prediction, which predicts a stable doped CDW phase, we do not find a stable doped CDW phase for $D \ge 4$, i.e states in the doped CDW phase obtained by our PEPS computation exhibit a higher energy than states in the metal phase or in the CDW phase at half filling. Thus, we only find a stable CDW phase at exactly half filling (for the model parameters under consideration).
![(Color online) (a) Mean-field phase diagram for fixed parameters $V=2$ and $t'=-0.4$ as a function of particle density $n$, obtained by Hartree-Fock (HF) restricted to states invariant under translations by two sites.[@Woul10] The charge-density-wave (CDW) phase is separated from the metal by a region of phase separation (PS). The CDW phase is stable upon doping. b) Phase diagram obtained with iPEPS for different bond dimensions $D$ for the same parameters as in a). A stable CDW phase is only found at half filling. The phase boundary to the PS region is shifted towards higher values of $n$ with increasing $D$.[]{data-label="fig:ttV_pd"}](ttV_pd.pdf){width="8cm"}
![(Color online) Upper panel: Energy per site of the $t$-$t'$-$V$ model as a function of chemical potential $\mu$ for $V=2$ and $t'=-0.4$, obtained with (restricted) Hartree-Fock (HF)[@Woul10] and infinite PEPS. The first order phase transition between the metal phase and the charge-density wave (CDW) phase occurs at a value $\mu^*$ where the two corresponding energies cross. Middle panel: Particle density $n$ as a function of chemical potential in the two phases. At the first order phase transition point $\mu^*$, $n$ jumps from a certain value $n^*$ in the metal phase to $n=0.5$ in the CDW phase. For densities in between $n^*$ and $n=0.5$ the system exhibits phase separation. In contrast to the HF study, infinite PEPS simulations do not yield a stable doped CDW phase for $D\ge 4$. Lower panel: Entanglement entropy of a $2\times2$ block in the two phases, illustrating that there is substantially more entanglement in the metal phase than in the CDW phase.[]{data-label="fig:ttV"}](ttV_EE.pdf){width="8cm"}
The amount of entanglement in the gapped CDW phase is relatively low, as can be seen in the lower panel in Fig. \[fig:ttV\], showing the entanglement entropy of a $2\times2$ block in the system. Therefore, a PEPS with small bond dimension is already sufficient in order to obtain an accurate description of the ground state. In the metal phase, however, the entanglement entropy is considerably higher. The energies have not yet converged as a function of the bond dimension $D$ for $D=8$, and thus further corrections to the energy can be expected for larger values of $D$. This phase appears to be particularly difficult to represent by the PEPS. This is not surprising. In the presence of a 1D Fermi surface the entanglement entropy exhibits a logarithmic multiplicative correction to the area law, as shown in the case of free fermions.[@Li06; @LOGCORR] A PEPS representation, however, can only reproduce an strict area law of the entanglement entropy, [@PEPS2] and therefore it is unclear that the ansatz can offer an accurate approximation of the ground state of a metallic phase. Nevertheless, our results also show that, with increasing bond dimension $D$, the PEPS can still be used to obtain a systematic improvement over HF results. Since the phase boundary does not change much when comparing the $D=6$ with the $D=8$ simulations, it seems likely that the $D=8$ result is already close to the exact one.
We conclude this section with two remarks. Firstly, we observed states in the metal phase close to the transition that exhibit a slight density modulation between sublattices $A$ and $B$ in the lattice, similarly as in the CDW phase. However, this modulation becomes weaker with increasing $D$, which strongly suggests that this symmetry breaking of translation invariance is a numerical artifact due to small $D$ rather than a real physical feature.
Secondly, it is conceivable that the $t$-$t'$-$V$ model exhibits also CDW phases other than the checkerboard-ordered phase at half filling, i.e. with a period larger than 2. Indeed, in some simulations we observed states where the density of e.g. sublattice $A$ oscillates as a function of the CTM steps, which could be an indication for a CDW phase with a period larger than 2. However, in order to represent such states accurately by a PEPS, either a rather large bond dimension or a larger unit cell than the ones employed in this work would be required. We therefore point out that the final phase diagram is likely to be different than the one presented in Fig \[fig:ttV\_pd\].
$t$-$t'$-$J$ model
------------------
Finally, we present benchmark results for the energy of the $t$-$t'$-$J$ model, given by the Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
H=\! &-& \! t \sum_{\langle ij \rangle \sigma} [ \tilde{c}_{i \sigma}^{\dagger}\tilde{c}_{j\sigma} + H.c.] + J\sum_{\langle ij \rangle} ( \hat S_i \hat S_j - \frac{1}{4} \hat n_i \hat n_j) \\
\!&-& \! t' \sum_{\langle \langle ij \rangle \rangle \sigma} [ \tilde{c}_{i \sigma}^{\dagger}\tilde{c}_{j\sigma} + H.c.] - \mu \sum_{i} \hat n_i
\end{aligned}$$ with $\sigma=\{\uparrow,\downarrow\}$ the spin index, $\hat n_i=\sum_\sigma {\hat c}^\dagger_{i \sigma} {\hat c}_{i \sigma}$ the electron density and $\hat S_i$ the spin $1/2$ operator on site $i$, and $\tilde{c}_{i\sigma}={\hat c}_{i\sigma} ( 1 - {\hat c}^\dagger_{i \bar \sigma} {\hat c}_{i \bar \sigma})$.
Here we compare our results of the energy with variational Monte Carlo (VMC) and fixed-node Monte Carlo (FNMC) results from Ref. , which are based on Gutzwiller-projected ansatz wave functions including spin and density Jastrow factors.
Figure \[fig:ttJ\] shows the energy as a function of particle density $n$ for $J/t=0.4$ and $t'/t=-0.2$. Similarly as in the case $t'=0$ of Ref. , the results for $D<8$ have a higher energy than VMC, but for $D=8$ the energies are comparable or even lower than VMC. Thus, the additional $t'$ does not seem to change the accuracy of the ansatz significantly (compared to Fig. 26 in Ref. ). The FNMC results, however, are still considerably lower than the $D=8$ results. Note that the Monte Carlo energies are for a finite lattice size (with 98 and 162 sites), and that the energy increases with increasing system size. Thus, the FNMC energy in the thermodynamic limit is slightly higher than shown in the plot. Finally we point out that for $D=8$ the maximal dimension $\chi$ we used is 64. It is conceivable that the energies still change slightly when increasing $\chi$ further, but we do not expect a significant change.
![(Color online) Energy per site (with the chemical potential term subtracted) as a function of particle density $n$ of the $t$-$t'$-$J$ model, with $J/t=0.4$ and $t'/t=-0.2$. The best iPEPS results for $D=8$ lie in between the VMC and the FNMC results. []{data-label="fig:ttJ"}](ttJ.pdf){width="7.8cm"}
Discussion and conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
=========================
In this paper we have explained how to extend the fermionic PEPS algorithm for infinite lattices presented in Ref. to models including next-nearest neighbor terms in the Hamiltonian. This opens the possibility to study a much larger variety of models, which are relevant e.g for high-temperature superconductivity.[@Zhang88] The benchmark results in Sec. \[sec:results\], involving three different models, indicate that the accuracy of the ground state energy is comparable to the case where only nearest-neighbor terms are present in the Hamiltonian. The present results are compatible with, and provide additional evidence in favor of, the conclusions of Ref. , where it was indicated that a fermionic PEPS seems to offer a more accurate description of fermionic for gapped phases than for critical phases, among which two types (I and II) need to be distinguished.
*Gapped phases*.–Our simulations produced high accuracies (or better convergence as a function of bond dimension $D$) for ground state energies for gapped systems, such as the free spinless fermion model for large $\lambda$ and the interacting spinless fermion model at half filling. The corresponding ground states exhibit a comparatively small amount of entanglement and can therefore be approximated accurately by a PEPS with small bond dimension $D$.
*Gapless phases of type I*.–Gapless systems with a finite number of zero modes in their spectrum (that is, without a 1D Fermi surface) are in general more entangled than gapped systems, but they are believed to still obey the area law of the entanglement entropy, which a PEPS is known to be able to reproduce. [@PEPS2] Therefore, a PEPS is still expected to offer an accurate description of the ground state, provided certain bond dimension $D$, in general larger than in the gapped case, is used. This category of states includes, for the free spinless fermion model , the gapless p-wave paired phase corresponding to small $\lambda$; and, for the $t$-$t'$-$J$ model, both the antiferromagnetic phase at half-filling and the (expected) d-wave paired phase in the doped case. A remarkable achievement of fermionic PEPS simulations is that they yield better or comparable energies than the usual Gutzwiller projected ansatz wave functions for the doped $t$-$t'$-$J$ model for $D=8$. However, a larger bond dimension $D$ would be needed to attempt to match the energies of state-of-the-art fixed-node Monte Carlo (FNMC).[@Spanu08] We note that even if the energy in such gapless phases is obtained with a few digits of accuracy (of the order of $0.1\%$ for the model with $D=6$), it is still unclear whether the PEPS reproduces other relevant properties of the ground state accurately. Here we found that the correlation function for the free fermion model is satisfactorily reproduced for short-range distances. However, there are other known cases, e.g. the Heisenberg antiferromagnet model, where the accuracy of the order parameter is two orders of magnitude worse than the accuracy of the energy for a $D=5$ PEPS on an infinite lattice.[@Bauer09] Therefore, the reliability of PEPS results must be carefully checked on a case by case basis. Nevertheless, and taking into account that there are no exact methods available to address systems of strongly correlated fermions, we believe that fermionic PEPS and, more generally, fermionic tensor networks, offer a useful approach to such systems that complements other approaches such as fixed-node Monte Carlo,[@FNMC] diagrammatic Monte Carlo,[@Prokofev98] cluster dynamical mean-field theory,[@Maier05] or Gaussian Monte Carlo.[@GQMC]
*Gapless phases of type II*.–Gapless systems with a 1D Fermi surface, such as the metal phase of the interacting spinless fermion model , are known to display logarithmic multiplicative corrections to the area law of the entanglement entropy. This logarithmic violation can not be reproduced with a PEPS, and it is therefore unclear that fermionic PEPS methods will be able to accurately describe the ground state of such massively entangled phases. Nonetheless, our results for the metal phase of the interacting spinless fermion model show that, even in this case, PEPS with increasing values of the bond dimension $D$ can be used to obtain systematic improvements on mean-field energies, which in turn question the validity of the mean-field phase diagram.
It might well be, however, that a proper characterization of the ground state of gapless phases with a 1D Fermi surface is simply beyond the reach of fermionic PEPS. In this case other techniques, such as one of the many methods which work particularly well in Fermi-liquid type phases at weak coupling (e.g. Refs. ), or a specialized tensor network approach,[@Evenbly10] should be used instead.
We conclude by noticing that a larger bond dimension $D$, and therefore more accurate PEPS results, may be within reach in subsequent studies. This larger values of $D$ could be accessed e.g. by using more computer resources (possibly in a parallel architecture), by exploiting internal the symmetries of the the fermionic models[@Singh09] (e.g. particle conservation) and/or by employing Monte Carlo sampling techniques.[@Sandvik07] We also point out that with the same values of $D=2-8$ used in this paper, more accurate results may be obtained by employing the *standard update* instead of the *simple update* in the simulations, which, however, comes with a larger computational cost (cf. Ref. ).
[*Acknowledgements.-*]{} We thank J. de Woul, E. Langmann, and F. Becca for inspiring discussions and for providing their data from Refs. and . Valuable conversations with R. Orús, B. Bauer, and L. Tagliacozzo, and support from the Australian Research Council (FF0668731, DP0878830, DP1092513) are acknowledged.
![(Color online) Left-right renormalization step of the anisotropic CTMRG method. (a) Tensor network of the reduced tensors $a$,$b$,$c$, and $d$ embedded in the environment. Cutting the lines as marked in the figure leads to tensors $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ shown in (b). (b) A singular value decomposition of the tensors $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ is performed, and only the $\chi$ largest singular values are kept. (c) Tensor network obtained by inserting two extra rows of tensors in the middle of the tensor network of (a), and by introducing an approximate resolution of the identity ${\mathbb I} \approx U_1^\dagger U_1$ in (each of the the two copies of) cut 1, and similarly for cut 2. \[One could also use $W_1$ instead of $U_1$\]. The cuts 3 and 4 define tensors $Q_3$ and $Q_4$, and a singular value decomposition of these tensors is performed, similarly as in (b), yielding tensors $U_3$ and $U_4$. (d) Renormalized corner and edge tensors. Note that the top and bottom edge tensors have to be swapped after the update, i.e. $T_{l1}'= T_{r1}$, $T_{r1}'= T_{l1}$, $T_{l3}'= T_{r3}$, $T_{r3}'= T_{l3}$.[]{data-label="fig:NCTM"}](NCTM2.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
Variant of the corner transfer matrix method {#app:ctm}
============================================
The evaluation of the expectation value of a local observable from a PEPS requires the computation of the so-called *environment*,[@Jordan08; @Orus09; @Corboz10b] which accounts locally for the ground state wave function on the rest of the system, as explained in Sec. \[sec:expect\]. In an infinite system, corner transfer matrix (CTM) methods, originally introduced by Baxter,[@BaxterCTM] can be used to approximately compute this environment. In this case, the environment is approximated by four corner tensors $C_1$, $C_2$, $C_3$ and $C_4$ and eight edge tensors (or half-row transfer matrices) $T_{l1}$, $T_{r1}$, $T_{u2}$, $T_{d2}$, $T_{l3}$, $T_{r3}$, $T_{u4}$, and $T_{d4}$, as shown in Fig. \[fig:ADham\].
In the present work we applied two different CTM schemes: The first is the directional CTM method,[@Orus09] already used in our previous work;[@Corboz10b] the second scheme essentially corresponds to the CTM renormalization group (CTMRG) method from Ref. adapted to the anisotropic case and to a $2\times2$ unit cell, with subsequent coarse-graining moves in horizontal and vertical direction as in the directional CTM method. The main difference is that in the former scheme the four corners in the lattice are renormalized individually (see Refs. for details), whereas in the CTMRG approach the full environment is taken into account in each renormalization step. Figure \[fig:NCTM\] illustrates the left-right coarse-graining move, i.e. where the system size is increased by two lattice sites in the horizontal direction. In a similar way a top-bottom move is performed, which increases the system by two lattice sites in the vertical direction. These two moves are iterated until convergence is reached. Including more tensors in each renormalization step helps to better determine the relevant subspace to be kept during truncation, since more information about the system is taken into account.[^1] The disadvantage is that this scheme is more strongly limited by the machine precision of the computer. This can be understood by considering the isotropic case: In the directional CTM of Ref. the spectrum of a single corner matrix $C$ is computed, whereas in the present scheme, which involves multiplying all four corner matrices, yields the fourth power of the same spectrum, with singular values (in this case, eigenvalues) expanding many more orders of magnitudes, and therefore more vulnerable to errors due to finite machine precision.
We observed that the CTMRG scheme converges better in the case of highly-entangled systems, as for example in the metal phase of the model close to the phase transition. In gapped systems both methods seem to converge equally well, with the directional CTM yielding slightly better accuracies than the present scheme. We used the former to address the gapped phase of the model , and the latter in all other simulations.
[99]{} P. Corboz, G. Evenbly, F. Verstraete, and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. A 81, 010303(R) (2010). C. V. Kraus, N. Schuch, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, arXiv:0904.4667. C. Pineda, T. Barthel, and J. Eisert, Phys. Rev. A 81, 050303(R) (2010). P. Corboz and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. B 80, 165129 (2009). T. Barthel, C. Pineda, and J. Eisert, Phys. Rev. A 80, 042333 (2009). Q.-Q. Shi, S.-H. Li, J.-H. Zhao, and H.-Q. Zhou, arXiv:0907.5520. S.-H. Li, Q.-Q. Shi, H.-Q. Zhou, arXiv:1001.3343. P. Corboz, R. Orús, B. Bauer, and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. B 81, 165104 (2010). I. Pizorn and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. B 81 245110 (2010). Z.-C. Gu, F. Verstraete, X.-G. Wen. arXiv:1004.2563.
G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 220405 (2007); G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 110501 (2008); L. Cincio, J. Dziarmaga, and M. M. Rams Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 240603 (2008); G. Evenbly and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 180406 (2009); G. Evenbly and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. B 79, 144108 (2009).
F. Verstraete and J. I. Cirac, cond-mat/0407066; V. Murg, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 75, 033605 (2007). G. Sierra and M. A. Mart[í]{}n-Delgado, arXiv:cond-mat/9811170; T. Nishino and K. Okunishi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn 67 3066 (1998); Y. Nishio, N. Maeshima, A. Gendiar, and T. Nishino, cond-mat/0401115. J. Jordan, R. Orús, G. Vidal, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 250602 (2008). Z.-C. Gu, M. Levin, and X.-G. Wen, Phys. Rev. B 78, 205116 (2008). H. C. Jiang, Z. Y. Weng, and T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 090603 (2008); Z. Y. Xie, H. C. Jiang, Q. N. Chen, Z. Y. Weng, and T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 160601 (2009); P.-C. Chen, C.-Y. Lai, and M.-F. Yang, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. (2009) P10001. R. Orús and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. B 80, 094403 (2009). R. Koenig and E. Bilgin, arXiv:1006.2478. R. N. C. Pfeifer, P. Corboz, O. Buerschaper, M. Aguado, M. Troyer, and G. Vidal, arXiv:1006.3532. M. Troyer and U.-J. Wiese, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 170201 (2005). F. C. Zhang and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B 37, 3759 (1988). E. Pavarini, I. Dasgupta, T. Saha-Dasgupta, O. Jepsen, and O. K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 047003 (2001). L. F. Feiner, J. H. Jefferson, and R. Raimondi, Phys. Rev. B 53, 8774 (1996); Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4939 (1996). K. Tanaka, T. Yoshida, A. Fujimori et al., Phys. Rev. B 70, 092503 (2004). O. Parcollet, G. Biroli, and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 226402 (2004). T. Tohyama and S. Maekawa, Phys. Rev. B 49, 3596 (1994). L. Spanu, M. Lugas, F. Becca, and S. Sorella. Phys. Rev. B 77, 024510 (2008). C. T. Shih, Y. C. Chen, C. P. Chou, and T. K. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 70, 220502(R) (2004). A. Himeda, T. Kato, and M. Ogata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 117001 (2002). S. R. White and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. B 60 R753 (1999). V. Murg, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. B 79, 195119 (2009). J. de Woul and E. Langmann, J. Stat. Phys. 139, 1033 (2010).
G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 147902 (2003). G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040502 (2004). R. Orús and G. Vidal, Phys. Rev. B 78, 155117 (2008).
W. Li, L. Ding, R. Yu, T. Roscilde, and S. Haas, Phys. Rev. B 74, 073103 (2006). M. M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010404 (2006); D. Gioev and I. Klich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 100503 (2006); T. Barthel, M.-C. Chung, and U. Schollwock, Phys. Rev. A 74, 022329 (2006). B. Bauer, G. Vidal, and M. Troyer, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. (2009) P09006.
D. F. B. ten Haaf, H. J. M. van Bemmel, J. M. J. van Leeuwen, W. van Saarloos, and D. M. Ceperley, Phys. Rev. B 51, 13039 (1995); M. Lugas, L. Spanu, F. Becca, and S. Sorella. Phys. Rev. B 74, 165122 (2006). N.V. Prokof’ev and B.V. Svistunov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2514 (1998). T. Maier, M. Jarell, T. Pruschke, and M. H. Hettler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1027 (2005). J. F. Corney and P. D. Drummond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 260401 (2004); F. F. Assaad, P. Werner, P. Corboz, E. Gull, and M. Troyer, Phys. Rev. B 72, 224518 (2005). G. Evenbly, G. Vidal, *in preparation*. S. Singh, R. Pfeifer, and G. Vidal, arXiv:0907.2994. N. Schuch, M. M. Wolf, F. Verstraete, and J. I. Cirac. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 040501 (2008); A. W. Sandvik and G. Vidal. Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 220602 (2007); F. Mezzacapo, N. Schuch, M. Boninsegni, J. I. Cirac, New J. Phys. 11, 083026 (2009). R. J. Baxter, J. Math. Phys. 9, 650 (1968); J. Stat. Phys. 19, 461 (1978); Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics (Academic Press, London, 1982). T. Nishino and K. Okunishi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 65, 891 (1996). Z. Y. Xie, H. C. Jiang, Q. N. Chen, Z. Y. Weng, and T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 160601 (2009).
[^1]: A similar idea is pursued in the second renormalization group method.[@Xie09]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We prepare a maximally entangled state of two ions and couple both ions to the mode of an optical cavity. The phase of the entangled state determines the collective interaction of the ions with the cavity mode, that is, whether the emission of a single photon into the cavity is suppressed or enhanced. By adjusting this phase, we tune the ion–cavity system from sub- to superradiance. We then encode a single qubit in the two-ion superradiant state and show that this encoding enhances the transfer of quantum information onto a photon.'
author:
- 'B. Casabone'
- 'K. Friebe'
- 'B. Brandst[ä]{}tter'
- 'K. Sch[ü]{}ppert'
- 'R. Blatt'
- 'T. E. Northup'
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
- 'misc\_arxiv.bib'
nocite: '[@Nielsen2000; @Efron93; @Tan99]'
title: 'Enhanced Quantum Interface with Collective Ion-Cavity Coupling'
---
Sub- and superradiance are fundamental effects in quantum optics arising in systems that are symmetric under the interchange of any pair of particles [@Dicke54; @Gross82; @Garraway11]. Superradiance has been widely studied in many-atom systems, in which effects such as a phase transition [@Baumann10; @Baden14] and narrow-linewidth lasing [@Bohnet12] have recently been observed. For few-atom systems, each atom’s state and position can be precisely controlled, and thus collective emission effects such as Rydberg blockade [@Lukin01] and the Lamb shift [@Meir13] can be tailored. In a pioneering experiment using two trapped ions, variation of the ions’ separation allowed both sub- and superradiance to be observed, with the excited-state lifetime extended or reduced by up to 1.5% [@DeVoe1996]. The contrast was limited because spontaneous emission from the ions was not indistinguishable, as the ions’ separation was on the order of the wavelength of the emitted radiation. [This limitation can be overcome by observing preferential emission into a single mode, such as the mode defined by incident radiation [@Dicke54] or by an optical cavity. In a cavity setting, indistinguishability is guaranteed]{} when the emitters are equally coupled to the mode, even if they are spatially separated. Subradiance corresponds to a suppressed interaction of the joint state of the emitters with the cavity mode, while for the superradiant state, the interaction is enhanced.
In the context of quantum networks [@Kimble08a; @Duan10], superradiance can improve a [ quantum interface when one logical qubit is encoded across $N$ physical qubits. In the DLCZ protocol for heralded remote entanglement, efficient retrieval of stored photons is based on superradiance [@Duan01; @Oliveira14]. Superradiance can also improve the performance of a deterministic, cavity-based interface, which enables the direct transmission of quantum information between network nodes [@Cirac97]. If a qubit is encoded in the state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_i^N|\downarrow_1...\uparrow_i...\downarrow_N\rangle$, the coupling rate to the cavity is enhanced from the single-qubit rate $g$ to the effective rate $g \sqrt{N}$, relaxing the technical requirements for strong coupling between light and matter [@Lamata11]. This state corresponds to the first step in the superradiant cascade described by Dicke [@Dicke54]. In contrast, subradiant states are antisymmetrized, resulting in suppressed emission. From a quantum-information perspective, subradiant states are interesting because they span a decoherence-free subspace [@Plenio99; @Beige00; @Lidar03].]{} A subradiant state of two superconducting qubits coupled to a cavity has recently been prepared [@Filipp11].
![(a) Two [\^[40]{}\^[+]{} $^{40}$Ca$^{+}$ ]{}ions in a linear Paul trap couple with equal strength to the mode of a high-finesse optical cavity. A magnetic field orthogonal to the cavity axis defines the quantization axis. Quantum information stored in the ions is manipulated using two 729 nm beams: the global beam couples to both ions, while the addressing beam is focused onto one ion. A 393 nm laser beam drives a cavity-mediated Raman transition, generating a single photon in the cavity. At the cavity output, two wave plates ($\lambda/2$, $\lambda/4$) select the basis in which photon polarization is analyzed. Two avalanche photodiodes (APD1 and APD2) detect the horizontally (H) or vertically (V) polarized photons at the output of a polarizing beamsplitter (PBS). (b) Populations of the states ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ (red diamonds), ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ (blue circles), and $ {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ or ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ (green triangles) as a function of the M[ø]{}lmer–S[ø]{}rensen gate duration. After 55 $\mu$s (dashed vertical line) a maximally entangled state is generated. Solid lines indicate the ideal time evolution of the gate [operation [@Benhelm08]. (c) Oscillations in the parity of the ion populations as a function of the phase of a $\pi$/2 pulse on the ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} \leftrightarrow {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ transition, following entanglement. The dashed vertical line at phase $1.2\,\pi$ corresponds to ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi^+\rangle}}$. ]{} Error bars represent projection noise.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.pdf){width="47.50000%"}
Here, we generate collective states of two ions coupled to an optical cavity and use a state [ that maximizes the coupling rate]{} to improve ion–photon quantum information transfer. Our system is described by the Tavis–Cummings Hamiltonian [@Tavis68], the interaction term of which is $$\label{TCH}
H_\text{int} = \hbar g \left( \sigma^{(1)}_{-} + e^{i\zeta} \sigma^{(2)}_{-}\right)a^{\dagger} + \text{h.~c.},$$ where $\sigma^{(j)}_{-}$ is the lowering operator for the $j$th ion, $\zeta$ represents a relative phase [@SM], and $a^\dagger$ is the creation operator of a photon in the cavity mode. We prepare a maximally entangled two-ion state and tune its emission properties between sub- and superradiance, that is, between a dark state ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_\text{sub}\rangle}}$ and a state ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_\text{super}\rangle}}$ that couples with enhanced strength $g \sqrt{2}$ to the cavity. Furthermore, we transfer quantum information from a state with enhanced emission probability onto a single photon and show that the process fidelity and efficiency are higher than for a single-ion qubit.
In these experiments, two ${\ifmmode ^{40}\text{Ca}^{+} \else $^{40}$Ca$^{+}$~\fi}$ [ separated by $5.6~\mu$m]{} are confined along the axis of a linear Paul trap and coupled to an optical cavity in an intermediate coupling regime [@SM]. We position the ions so that $g_1 \approx g_2 $, where $g_j$ represents the coupling strength of the $j$th ion to the cavity [@Casabone13]. In a cavity-mediated Raman process, each ion prepared in a state from the $4^2S_{1/2}$ manifold produces a single cavity photon [@Barros09]. The process is driven both by a laser at $393$ nm detuned from the $4^2S_{1/2}-4^2P_{3/2}$ transition and by the cavity, whose detuning from the 854 nm $4^2P_{3/2}-3^2D_{5/2}$ transition satisfies a Raman resonance condition [@Stute12a]. Together, laser and cavity provide the interaction term of Eq. (\[TCH\]), in which the relative phase $\zeta$ between the ions’ coupling arises from the angle between the Raman beam and the ion-trap axis [@SM]. Photons leave the cavity preferentially through one mirror and are detected on photodiodes (Fig. \[fig1\]a).
Entanglement between the ions is generated using a ‘global’ 729 nm laser beam (Fig. \[fig1\]a) that couples with equal strength to both ions on the $4^2S_{1/2}-3^2 D_{5/2}$ quadrupole transition. The target state $${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi^+\rangle}} \equiv \left({\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}+{\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}\right)/\sqrt{2}$$ is prepared via a M[ø]{}lmer–S[ø]{}rensen gate operation followed by a $\pi / 2 $ rotation, where ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} \equiv {\ensuremath{\,|4^2S_{1/2}, m_j=-1/2\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} \equiv {\ensuremath{\,|3^2D_{5/2}, m_j=-1/2\rangle}}$. [ In the M[ø]{}lmer–S[ø]{}rensen gate, a bichromatic field that drives blue and red motional sidebands generates a spin-dependent force, coupling the ion’s motion and internal state [@Sorensen99].]{} Fig. \[fig1\]b shows the evolution of the two-ion state populations during application of the gate. [ A maximally entangled state ${\ensuremath{\,|\Phi\rangle}}= \big ({\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} +i{\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}\big )/\sqrt{2}$ is generated for a gate duration of 55 $\mu$s. Subsequently, a $\pi / 2 $ rotation maps ${\ensuremath{\,|\Phi\rangle}}$ to ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi^+\rangle}}$. A lower bound of 95(2)% on the state fidelity with respect to ${\ensuremath{\,|\Phi\rangle}}$ is determined by varying the phase of the $\pi / 2 $ rotation and measuring the parity of the ions’ populations, which oscillates as a function of phase (Fig. \[fig1\]c) [@Sackett00]. ]{}
![ (a) The two ions are prepared in either a separable state ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_1\rangle}}$ or ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_2\rangle}}$ or an entangled state ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi (\varphi)\rangle}}$ for various values of $\varphi$. The global beam then drives a Raman transition between ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$, generating a single cavity photon for each ion in ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$. Since ${\ensuremath{\,|D'\rangle}}$ is decoupled from the cavity interaction, both ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_2\rangle}}$ represent a single ion interacting with the cavity. (b) Ratio $r(\varphi)$ of the probability to detect a photon for ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi (\varphi)\rangle}}$ to that of ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_1\rangle}}$ as a function of the phase $\varphi$ for the first 6 $\mu$s of the Raman process. The reference single-ion case is shown as a dashed horizontal line. (c) Temporal shape of the photon at the cavity output as a function of detection time $t$, for the entangled states ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{super}}\rangle}}$ (circles) and ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{sub}}\rangle}}$ (diamonds) and the single-ion cases ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_2\rangle}}$ (up and down triangles, respectively). The temporal photon shapes are calculated by normalizing the detected photon counts [ per 1 $\mu$s time bin]{} by the number of photon generation attempts. Data are shown until 20 $\mu$s, the time scale for which enhancement and suppression are most prominent. Lines are simulations. The shaded area represents the time window used in Fig. \[fig2\]b. Error bars represent Poissonian statistics and are mostly smaller than the plot symbols. []{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.pdf){width="47.50000%"}
A second, ‘addressing’ 729 nm beam with a waist smaller than the ion–ion separation couples to just one ion. When detuned, this beam induces AC-Stark shifts in the addressed ion, which contribute a phase $\varphi$ to the entangled state [@schindler13]: $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\,|\Psi (\varphi)\rangle}} \equiv \left({\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} + e^{i\varphi} {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}\right)/\sqrt{2}.
\label{eq_Psi}
\end{aligned}$$ By adjusting the length of the Stark-shift pulse, we shift this phase, which determines the effective coupling $g_\text{eff}$ of ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi (\varphi)\rangle}}$ to the cavity mode under the action of $H_\text{int}$. Specifically, the superradiant and subradiant states are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq_super}
&{\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{super}}\rangle}} \equiv {\ensuremath{\,|\Psi (\varphi= -\zeta)\rangle}} \\
&{\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{sub}}\rangle}} \equiv {\ensuremath{\,|\Psi (\varphi= -\zeta+\pi)\rangle}}. \notag\end{aligned}$$ Note that if $\zeta$ were zero, ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{super}}\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{sub}}\rangle}}$ would be the Bell states ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi^+\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi^-\rangle}}$, respectively.
The Raman process between ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} $ generates a single cavity photon from ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi (\varphi)\rangle}}$, as only one ion is in ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$. This photon has a temporal shape initially determined by $g_\text{eff}$ between the two-ion state and the cavity mode. For later times, the shape is determined by the rates of both cavity decay and off-resonant scattering. Varying $g_\text{eff}$ by changing the phase $\varphi$ of ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi (\varphi)\rangle}}$ thus modifies the temporal shape, that is, the probability to generate the photon early in the Raman process. Ideally, in the absence of scattering, the coupling of ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{sub}}\rangle}}$ to the cavity vanishes ($g_\text{eff}=0$) so that no photon is generated. For ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{super}}\rangle}}$, in contrast, the coupling is maximized such that $g_\text{eff}=g\sqrt{2} $. [ Thus, the probability to generate and detect a photon from ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{super}}\rangle}}$ early in the process is expected to be twice that of one ion. For time scales much shorter than $1/g$, a photon generated in the cavity has not yet been reabsorbed, and therefore, cavity back-action does not play a role. ]{}
We now determine this probability for a range of phases $\varphi$. The experimental sequence starts with 1 ms of Doppler cooling. The ions are then optically pumped to ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$, followed by 1.3 ms of sideband cooling on the axial center-of-mass mode [@Wineland98]. Next, global and addressing 729 nm pulses generate the state ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi (\varphi)\rangle}}$. In the last step, the cavity-mediated Raman transition is driven for 55 $\mu$s and photons are detected (Fig. \[fig2\]a).
In order to determine whether we achieve enhancement and suppression of the cavity coupling with respect to the single-ion rate $g$, we carry out a reference measurement. For this single-ion case, one of the two ions is hidden in a state ${\ensuremath{\,|D'\rangle}} \equiv {\ensuremath{\,|3^2D_{5/2}, m_j=3/2\rangle}}$ that is decoupled from the Raman process. Thus, the initial state is ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_{1}\rangle}} \equiv {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|D'\rangle}}$ or ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_{2}\rangle}} \equiv {\ensuremath{\,|D'\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$.
For the states ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi(\varphi)\rangle}}$, we calculate $\eta(\varphi)$, the probability to detect a photon in the first 6 $\mu$s of the Raman process, an interval in which the effective coupling rate determines the initial slope. For the single-ion cases, we calculate $\eta_{\psi}$, the average value of the photon detection probability for ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_2\rangle}}$ in the same time window. Fig. \[fig2\]b shows the ratio $r(\varphi)=\eta(\varphi)/\eta_{\psi}$ as the phase $\varphi$ is varied. For $\varphi = 0.68 \, \pi$, the experimentally determined minimum, the ratio is 0.22(9): photon generation is strongly suppressed. We therefore identify ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi({\varphi = 0.68\,\pi})\rangle}}$ with ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{sub}}\rangle}}$. As $\varphi$ is increased, the ratio approaches one, then enters the superradiant regime. A maximum value of $r(\varphi)$ is found for $\varphi = 1.58\, \pi$. For the corresponding state, identified with ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{super}}\rangle}}$, the probability to detect a photon is 1.84(4), [ close to its maximum value of two]{}, thus demonstrating strong enhancement in photon generation.
For these states ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{sub}}\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{super}}\rangle}}$, we now analyze the temporal photon shapes at the detector (Fig. \[fig2\]c). The temporal shapes corresponding to ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_2\rangle}}$ are considered as a reference; from their overlap, we find the coupling strengths of the two ions, $g_1$ and $g_2$, to be within 10% of one another. Photons generated from ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{super}}\rangle}}$ exhibit a steeper initial slope than the single-ion case, while ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{sub}}\rangle}}$ has a flatter slope. The photon shapes are consistent with enhanced and suppressed coupling to the cavity and are in good agreement with simulations. The simulations are based on numerical integration of the master equation and include imperfect preparation of the initial state, which together with off-resonant scattering accounts for the small but nonzero probability to generate photons from ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{sub}}\rangle}}$. For ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{super}}\rangle}}$, these effects reduce the photon generation probability by about 10% for the first 6 $\mu$s of the process [@SM].
We now describe the implementation of a quantum interface that exploits the enhanced coupling of the superradiant state to the cavity [@Lamata11]. The state ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi({\varphi})\rangle}}$ as defined in Eq. \[eq\_Psi\] contains two contributions: one from the ground state ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ and the other from ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$. We extend this definition so that the ground-state component can be stored in either of two states, that is, in ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ or in ${\ensuremath{\,|S'\rangle}} \equiv {\ensuremath{\,|4^2S_{1/2}, m_j=+1/2\rangle}}$. A logical qubit is encoded in these two states, and this qubit is mapped onto the polarization state of a single cavity photon. To perform the mapping process, we use a phase-stable bichromatic Raman transition that coherently transfers ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ to ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$, producing a horizontally polarized photon ${\ensuremath{\,|H\rangle}}$, and ${\ensuremath{\,|S'\rangle}}$ to ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$, producing a vertically polarized photon ${\ensuremath{\,|V\rangle}}$ [@Stute13] (Fig. \[fig3\]a). Defining a superposition state $${\ensuremath{\,|\alpha,\beta\rangle}} \equiv \cos \alpha {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} + e^{i\beta} \sin \alpha {\ensuremath{\,|S'\rangle}},$$ the mapping process can be represented by $$\begin{aligned}
&\left({\ensuremath{\,|\alpha,\beta\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} + e^{i\varphi} {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|\alpha,\beta\rangle}}\right) {\ensuremath{\,|0\rangle}} /\sqrt{2} \nonumber \\
&\quad\mapsto {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} \left(\cos \alpha {\ensuremath{\,|H\rangle}} + e^{i\beta} \sin \alpha {\ensuremath{\,|V\rangle}}\right) ,
\label{mapping} \end{aligned}$$ where ${\ensuremath{\,|0\rangle}}$ stands for the cavity vacuum and the phase is set to $\varphi = 1.58\pi$, corresponding to ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_{\text{super}}\rangle}}$.
![(a) A bichromatic Raman transition maps a superposition of ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|S'\rangle}}$ onto a superposition of single-photon polarization states ${\ensuremath{\,|H\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|V\rangle}}$. The superposition is encoded either in two entangled ions or in a single ion, with the other ion decoupled in ${\ensuremath{\,|D'\rangle}}$. (b) Process fidelity for ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_\text{super}\rangle}}$ (filled blue circles) and ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_{1}\rangle}}$ (open black circles) as a function of the photon detection time window. Lines are simulations (continuous line: two entangled ions; dashed line: single-ion case). Inset: absolute value of the process matrix $\chi_{ij}$ for ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_\text{super}\rangle}}$ reconstructed from photons detected between 2 and 4 $\mu$s, yielding the maximum process fidelity $|\chi_{00}| = 96.0(3)\%$. Error bars are derived from non-parametric bootstrapping. (c) Cumulative process efficiency for ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_\text{super}\rangle}}$ (filled blue circles) and ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_{1}\rangle}}$ (open black circles) as a function of the photon detection time window. Error bars represent Poissonian statistics and are smaller than the plot symbols. []{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.pdf){width="47.50000%"}
In order to characterize the mapping, we extract the process matrix $\chi$, which describes the transformation from the input to the output density matrix: $\rho_\text{out} = \sum_{i,j} \chi_{ij} \, \sigma_i \, \rho_\mathrm{in} \, \sigma_j$, where $\sigma_i \in \{\mathbb{1}, \sigma_x, \sigma_y, \sigma_z \}$ are the Pauli operators [@Chuang97]. Following Doppler cooling, optical pumping, and sideband cooling as above, the two ions are prepared in ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_\text{super}\rangle}}$. Next, two global 729 nm pulses prepare one of the four orthogonal input states ${\ensuremath{\,|\alpha, \beta\rangle}}$, with $(\alpha, \beta) \in \{(\pi /2, 0), (0, 0), (\pi /4 ,0), (\pi/4, \pi/2)\}$. Finally, the Raman transition is driven and the photon is detected in one of three orthogonal polarization bases [@James01]. This set of measurements allows $\chi$ to be reconstructed via the maximum likelihood method. As the target mapping corresponds to the identity operation, the process fidelity is given by the matrix entry $\chi_{00}$.
For comparison, we carry out reference measurements in which enhancement is not present, for which the ions are prepared in ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_1\rangle}}$. The mapping process is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\,|\alpha,\beta\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|D'\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|0\rangle}} \mapsto {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|D'\rangle}} \left(\cos \alpha {\ensuremath{\,|H\rangle}} + e^{i\beta} \sin \alpha {\ensuremath{\,|V\rangle}}\right).
\label{mapping} \end{aligned}$$
Fig. \[fig3\]b shows the process fidelities $\chi_{00}$ for ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_\text{super}\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_1\rangle}}$ as a function of the photon detection time window. Not only is the fidelity of the superradiant case higher for all data points, but also the improvement over the single-ion case increases with the length of the detection window. For a detection time window of 6 $\mu$s, the fidelity is 93.3(3)% for ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_\text{super}\rangle}}$ and 90.9(5)% for ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_1\rangle}}$, indicating that in both cases the logical qubit is correctly mapped onto photon polarization with very high probability. A maximum value of 96.0(3)% is found for ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_\text{super}\rangle}}$ for photons detected between 2 and 4 $\mu$s. As the detection window length is increased, $\chi_{00}$ decreases for both cases because the probability for off-resonant excitation to the $4^2P_{3/2}$-manifold increases with time. If such an event happens during the Raman process, the initial state ${\ensuremath{\,|\alpha, \beta\rangle}}$ is randomly projected onto ${\ensuremath{\,|0,0\rangle}}={\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ or ${\ensuremath{\,|\pi/2,0\rangle}}={\ensuremath{\,|S'\rangle}}$, and the qubit is then mapped onto either ${\ensuremath{\,|H\rangle}}$ or ${\ensuremath{\,|V\rangle}}$, regardless of the information in the initial superposition [@Stute13]. However, while the probability for scattering is the same for both states, photons are produced earlier from ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_\text{super}\rangle}}$ because of the enhanced effective coupling. Thus, the improvement in the fidelity stems from an increased probability to generate a photon before scattering occurs. After $55~\mu$s, we find $\chi_{00}=73.4(3)$% for ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_\text{super}\rangle}}$ in comparison with 68.7(2)% for ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_1\rangle}}$. Simulations that take into account detector dark counts, imperfect state initialization, [ different coupling strengths of the ions to the cavity, ]{} and magnetic field fluctuations are in good agreement with the data. We also investigate the cumulative process efficiency $\varepsilon(t)$, defined as the probability to detect a photon before time $t$ (Fig. \[fig3\]c). For $t=6~\mu$s, the process efficiency for ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi_\text{super}\rangle}}$ is $\varepsilon_\text{s}(t) = 0.33(1)$%, while for ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_1\rangle}}$, it is $\varepsilon_1 (t) = 0.17(1) $%, corresponding to a ratio $\varepsilon_\text{s}/\varepsilon_1$ of 1.94(13). The ratio decreases monotonically with $t$, and by $t=55~\mu$s, it is 1.34(5). While the enhanced coupling modifies the temporal shape of the photons early in the process, for longer times its effect on the cumulative process efficiency is small, such that the ratio is expected to approach one. A single photon generated in the cavity is detected with an efficiency of [ 8(1)%]{}, due to losses in the cavity mirrors, optical path losses and the detection efficiency of the avalanche photodiodes. [ The enhanced fidelity and efficiency of quantum state transfer in the superradiant regime can be understood in terms of a stronger effective ion–cavity coupling. Further improvements are thus expected by encoding the logical qubit across more physical qubits, as in a planar microfabricated trap [@Cetina13]. Maximum enhancement would be achieved by encoding not just one but $N/2$ excitations in a symmetrized $N$-ion state. The cooperative emission rate would then be $g\sqrt{\frac{N}{2}\left(\frac{N}{2}+1\right)}$, which scales with $N$ for large $N$, as observed in atomic ensembles [@Baumann10; @Baden14; @Bohnet12]. However, it remains an open question how to transfer quantum information between such states and single photons, as required for a quantum transducer [@Lamata11]. Finally, we emphasize two advantages of ions as qubits in these experiments: first, that the coupling strength of each ion to the cavity can be precisely controlled, and second, that a universal set of gate operations [@Haeffner08] allows preparation of a range of states, from sub- to superradiant. By tuning over this range, one could selectively turn off and on the coupling of logical qubits to the cavity. This technique would provide a versatile tool for addressable read–write operations in a quantum register. ]{}
We thank L. Lamata and F. Ong for helpful discussions and A. Stute for early contributions to the experiment design. We gratefully acknowledge support from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): Project. Nos. F4003 and F4019, the European Commission via the Atomic QUantum TEchnologies (AQUTE) Integrating Project, and the Institut für Quanteninformation GmbH. [ While preparing this manuscript, we learned of related work with two neutral atoms coupled to a cavity [@Reimann14].]{}
Appendix
========
System parameters
=================
Two ${\ifmmode ^{40}\text{Ca}^{+} \else $^{40}$Ca$^{+}$~\fi}$ ions are confined in a linear Paul trap and coupled to an optical cavity. The cavity decay rate is $\kappa = 2\pi \times 50$ kHz, and the atomic decay rate is $\gamma = 2\pi \times 11.5$ MHz, which is the sum of the decay channels from $\mathbb{P}$ to $ \mathbb D$ and from $\mathbb P$ to $ \mathbb S$, where the manifolds are defined as $\mathbb P \equiv 4^2P_{3/2} $, $ \mathbb D\equiv 3^2D_{5/2}$, and $\mathbb S\equiv 4^2S_{1/2}$. The coupling strength of a single ion to the cavity mode on the $\mathbb {P - D}$ transition is $g^{\,}_{PD} = 2 \pi \times 1$ MHz. A Raman beam with Rabi frequency $\Omega$ is used to drive the $\mathbb {S - P}$ transitions. The cavity parameters are described in further detail in Ref. [@Casabone13Sup].
The three-level system $\mathbb S$-$\mathbb P$-$\mathbb D$ can be mapped onto an effective two-level system $\mathbb S$-$\mathbb D$ if a Raman resonance condition is met, i.e., when both Raman beam and cavity resonance have the same detuning from $\mathbb P$ [@Stute12a]. During a cavity-mediated process, the electronic population of the ion is coherently transferred from a state in $\mathbb S$ to a state in $\mathbb D$, generating a cavity photon. For sufficiently large $\Delta$, negligible population is transferred to $\mathbb P$. The rates of the effective two-level system are [$g =\frac{\xi_{SD} \, \Omega \, g^{\,}_{PD} }{2 \Delta}$]{} and $\gamma_{\text{eff}}=\gamma \left(\frac{\Omega}{2 \Delta}\right)^2$. Here, $\Delta\sim 400$ MHz [and $\xi_{SD}$ is a geometric factor that takes into account both the projection of the vacuum-mode polarization onto the atomic dipole moment and the Clebsch-Gordon coefficients of the $\mathbb {S - P}$ and $\mathbb {D - P}$ transitions [@Stute12a].]{}
Ten individual Raman transitions between $\mathbb S$ and $\mathbb D$ can be identified when all Zeeman sublevels are considered. A magnetic field of $B=4.5$ G, orthogonal to both the cavity axis and the wavevector of the Raman beam, lifts the degeneracy of the Zeeman sublevels such that each transition can be individually addressed [@Stute12a]. The strength of the magnetic field is determined via spectroscopy of the $\mathbb S-\mathbb D$ transitions.
In the main text, two experiments are presented. In the first experiment, we examine the probability to generate a photon as a function of the phase of the two-ion entangled state. To perform the experiment, a Raman beam with Rabi frequency [$\Omega=19$ MHz]{} drives the ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} \equiv {\ensuremath{\,|\mathbb S, m_j=-1/2\rangle}}$ to ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} \equiv {\ensuremath{\,|\mathbb D, m_j=-1/2\rangle}}$ transition. [For $\Omega=19$ MHz, the rates of the effective two-level system are $\gamma_{\text{eff}}=2\pi \times 6$ kHz and $g_{\text{eff}}=2\pi \times 18$ kHz. The cavity decay rate $\kappa = 2\pi \times 50$ kHz is the fastest of the three, placing the system in the bad cavity regime.]{} In the second experiment, we use a superradiant state to enhance the performance of a cavity-based quantum interface. In this case, a bichromatic Raman beam with Rabi frequencies [$19$ and $9.5$ MHz]{} drives the ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ to $ {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|S'\rangle}} \equiv {\ensuremath{\,|\mathbb S, m_j=1/2\rangle}}$ to ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ transitions. [These transitions do not have equal transition probabilities and additionally, the orthogonally polarized photons couple differently to the cavity because of the orientation of the cavity with respect to the magnetic field [@Stute13]. By choosing the Rabi frequency for the ${\ensuremath{\,|S'\rangle}}$ to ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ transition to have twice the value of the ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ to ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ transition, these differences are balanced and both transitions are driven with equal strength. ]{} In both experiments, the Rabi frequencies are first determined experimentally via Stark-shift measurements with an uncertainty on the order of [10%]{}. Next, in simulations of single-photon generation, we adjust the Rabi frequencies within the experimental uncertainty range and find values for which the temporal photon shapes have the best agreement with data.
Relative Raman phase
====================
In the first experiment, the part of the Hamiltonian that describes the interactions of the Raman laser and the cavity with the ion is $$\begin{aligned}
H_\text{int} = & g^{\,}_{PD} \, \big (\sigma_{PD}^{(1)} - \sigma^{(2)}_{PD} \big )a^\dagger + \nonumber \\
& \Omega \, \big( e^{i\phi_{R_1}}\sigma^{(1)}_{SP} + e^{i\phi_{R_2}}\sigma^{(2)}_{SP} \big) + \text{h.c.},
\label{H_int}
\tag{sm 1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma^{(i)}_{PD} \equiv {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\langle P|\,}}$, $\sigma^{(i)}_{SP} \equiv {\ensuremath{\,|P\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\langle S|\,}}$, $a^{\dagger}$ is the photon creation operator, and $\phi_{R_i}$ is the optical phase of the Raman beam when interacting with the $i$th ion. Here, the rotating wave approximation has been used and an appropriate transformation to the interaction picture has been applied such that the Hamiltonian is time-independent. In this model, both ions are coupled to the cavity with the same strength, and the minus sign between the first and the second terms of Eq. (\[H\_int\]) accounts for the fact that in our cavity system the two ions are located in adjacent antinodes [@Casabone13].
When the Raman resonance condition is met, Eq. (\[H\_int\]) can be rewritten as Eq. (1), identifying $\zeta = (\phi_{R_1} - \phi_{R_2})$ and $\sigma_-={\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\langle S|\,}}$. The relative phase $\zeta$ is given by $\zeta=2 \pi\, d \, \sin\theta / \lambda$, where $d$ is the ions’ separation, $\theta \approx 45^\circ$ is the angle between trap axis and Raman beam, and $\lambda = 393$ nm is the wavelength of the Raman beam.
Initial state preparation
=========================
To generate ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi(\phi)\rangle}} = \left({\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} + e^{i\phi} {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}\right)/\sqrt{2}$, we first produce a maximally entangled state [${\ensuremath{\,|\Phi\rangle}}= \big ({\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} +i{\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}\big )/\sqrt{2}$]{} by means of a M[ø]{}lmer–S[ø]{}rensen gate[-operation]{} [@Sorensen99]. To perform the gate, we off-resonantly drive the blue and red sidebands of the axial center-of-mass motion of the ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} \leftrightarrow {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ transition with a detuning $\delta$. The ions are initialized in ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$. After a time $T=1/\delta=55~\mu$s, with a detuning $\delta=18.2$ kHz, the two ions are prepared in the entangled state [${\ensuremath{\,|\Phi\rangle}}$]{} (see Fig. (1b)). For comparison, the coherence time for information stored in the $\mathbb {S-D}$ qubit is 475 $\mu$s. We calculate the fidelity [$F_{\Phi}$]{} of the experimental state with respect to [${\ensuremath{\,|\Phi\rangle}}$ ]{} in the following way [@Benhelm08]. After [${\ensuremath{\,|\Phi\rangle}}$ ]{}is created, we apply an ‘analysis’ $\pi/2$ pulse on the ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} \leftrightarrow {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ transition with a variable phase with respect to the previous entangling pulse. Subsequently, the parity operator $P=p_{SS} + p_{DD} - p_{SD,DS}$ is calculated from fluorescence measurements of the ion populations, where $p_{SS}$ and $p_{DD}$ are the probabilities to find both ions in ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$, respectively, and $p_{SD,DS}$ is the probability to find one ion in ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ and the other in ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$. Fig. (1c) shows the parity $P$ as function of the phase of the analysis pulse. If $A$ is the amplitude of the parity oscillation, then the fidelity [$F_{\Phi}$]{} is bound from above via [$F_{\Phi}\ge A$]{}. From a fit to the data of Fig (2a), we calculate that [${\ensuremath{\,|\Phi\rangle}}$]{} is created with a fidelity of at least 95(2)%. After the state [${\ensuremath{\,|\Phi\rangle}}$]{} is generated, a $\pi/2$-pulse on the ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} \leftrightarrow {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ transition rotates the state to $({\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}+{\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}})/\sqrt{2}$, identified in Fig. (1c). Finally, to convert $({\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} +{\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}})/\sqrt{2}$ to ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi(\phi)\rangle}}$, we perform a single-ion rotation, introducing AC-Stark shifts to one ion using the addressing beam [@schindler13]. The phase $\phi$ of ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi(\phi)\rangle}}$ is proportional to the duration $\tau$ of the Stark-shift pulse, where the proportionality constant depends on the Rabi frequency of the addressing beam, $\Omega_{\text{AC}}$, and the detuning of the laser from the ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} \leftrightarrow {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ transition, $\delta_\text{AC}$. We choose $\delta_\text{AC}=10$ MHz and $\Omega_\text{AC}=8.6$ MHz for a rotation that has a period of $5.3~ \mu$s.
The implementation of the Stark-shift gate is demonstrated via the generation of the state ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$. After optical pumping of both ions to ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$, we apply a $\pi/2$ rotation on the ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} \leftrightarrow {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ transition using the global beam. Next, the Stark-shift gate is applied to one ion for a time $\tau$. Subsequently, another global $\pi/2$ rotation on the ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} \leftrightarrow {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ transition is applied with the same phase as the first $\pi/2$ rotation. Finally, ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$, ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ populations are extracted via fluorescence detection. The results are shown in Fig (\[fig4\]) as a function of $\tau$. After $2.6~\mu$s, [the ions are in a state with a fidelity of 91(4)% with respect to ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$.]{}
[There are at least two other methods by which one could tune the phase $\phi$ in the experiment. First, the angle of the Raman beam could be changed. Second, the ion–ion separation could be changed by means of the voltages that determine the trap potential. Both methods would shift the relative phase seen by each ion. In initial experiments, we used the second method; however, when the ion–ion separation is adjusted to correspond to a desired phase, both ions must also remain equally and near-maximally coupled to the cavity [@Casabone13], and it is not straightforward to satisfy both conditions simultaneously. In practice, we found the Stark-shift gate described above to be the most precise and reproducible approach. ]{}
To generate the single ion cases ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_1\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_2\rangle}}$, we use the addressing beam. In this case, the frequency of the addressing beam is set to drive the ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} \leftrightarrow {\ensuremath{\,|D'\rangle}}\equiv {\ensuremath{\,|\mathbb D, m_j=3/2\rangle}}$ transition on resonance. As the addressing beam interacts with the second ion, a $\pi$-pulse transfers the state ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ to ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_1\rangle}} = {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|D'\rangle}}$. To generate ${\ensuremath{\,|\psi_2\rangle}} = {\ensuremath{\,|D'\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$, we subsequently apply a $\pi$-rotation on the ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} \leftrightarrow {\ensuremath{\,|D'\rangle}}$ transition to both ions, such that ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|D'\rangle}}$ is rotated to ${\ensuremath{\,|D'\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$. The single-ion cases are prepared with a fidelity of 95(3)%.
![Populations of the states ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ (red diamonds), ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ (blue circles) and ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ (green triangles) as function of the duration of the AC-Stark shift pulse. After $2.6~\mu$s, state ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ is generated with a fidelity of 91(4)%. Error bars represent projection noise.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.pdf){width="47.50000%"}
Two-ion crystal as a single–photon source
=========================================
We have previously demonstrated that one ion in $\mathbb S$ produces a single photon when a Raman transition between $\mathbb S$ and $\mathbb D$ is driven [@Barros09]. In the experiments presented in the main text, we consider two ions in the entangled state ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi(\phi)\rangle}}$, in which the probability to find one ion in ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ is one. When a Raman transition is driven between ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$, the entangled state ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi(\phi)\rangle}}$ is transferred to ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ and a single photon is expected. However, imperfect preparation of ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi(\phi)\rangle}}$ leaves some population in ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$, resulting in the generation of two photons. In order to estimate the number of two-photon detection events, we consider detector dark counts and imperfect preparation of the ions’ state. The following four events are relevant and contribute to two-photon detections:
1. State ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ is generated; two photons are produced and detected.
2. State ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ is generated; two photons are produced, one is lost and the other is detected together with a dark count.
3. State ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi (\phi)\rangle}}$ is generated; one photon is produced and is detected together with a dark count.
4. Two darks count are detected.
State tomography reveals that in 3(2)% of attempts to generate ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi(\phi)\rangle}}$, the state ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ is prepared instead. The probability to detect one photon during the $55~\mu$s duration of the Raman process is 5.4(3)%, which is mainly limited by cavity absorption and detector efficiencies [@Stute12a]. Detector dark count rates are 3.2(1) s$^{-1}$ and 3.8(1) s$^{-1}$ for the two avalanche photodiodes. With these values, we expect one two-photon event in $8.2(8) \times 10^3$ attempts to generate a single photon.
To measure two-photon events, we generate $\big ({\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} + {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} \big ) / \sqrt{2}$ and $\big ({\ensuremath{\,|S'\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} + {\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}} {\ensuremath{\,|S'\rangle}} \big ) / \sqrt{2}$ and drive a cavity-mediated Raman transition such that a horizontally or a vertically polarized photon is generated. Photons leaving the cavity cross a half-wave plate aligned such that 50% of the light is reflected and 50% transmitted by a polarizing beam splitter. Photons are detected by the two avalanche photodiodes at each beam-splitter output and the second-order correlation function $g^{(2)}(0)$ is calculated. After 223,106 attempts to generate photons, 28 two–photon events were measured, and 27(3) two–photon events were expected from the considerations above. The observed number of two-photon detection events are thus consistent with single-photon generation.
Process fidelity
================
Tomography of the state-mapping process consists of state tomography of the photonic output qubit for four orthogonal input states. Measurements in the three bases of horizontal/vertical, diagonal/antidiagonal and right/left circular polarization constitute state tomography of the photonic qubit [@Nielsen2000]. Each basis is measured a second time with the APDs swapped by rotating the $\lambda/2$- and $\lambda/4$-waveplates. Analysis is done with the sum of the two measurements to compensate for the different detection efficiencies of the two APDs.
Process matrices $\chi_{ij}$ are reconstructed using a maximum-likelihood method. The process fidelity $\chi_{00}$ is given by the overlap of the reconstructed process matrix with the target process (i.e., the identity operation). Uncertainties in the process fidelities are given as one standard deviation, derived from non-parametric bootstrapping assuming a multinomial distribution [@Efron93].
Simulations
===========
Numerical simulations are based on the Quantum Optics and Computation Toolbox for MATLAB [@Tan99] via integration of the master equation. We simulate two ${\ifmmode ^{40}\text{Ca}^{+} \else $^{40}$Ca$^{+}$~\fi}$ ions interacting with an optical cavity and a Raman beam. For each ion, we consider six levels: ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$, ${\ensuremath{\,|S'\rangle}}$, ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$, ${\ensuremath{\,|D'\rangle}}$, ${\ensuremath{\,|\mathbb P, m_j=-1/2\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|\mathbb P, m_j=1/2\rangle}}$. For the optical cavity, we consider two orthogonal modes $a $ and $ b$ with the Fock state basis truncated at 2 for each mode. Additional input parameters for the simulations are the cavity parameters $g, \kappa$, and $\gamma$; the magnetic field amplitude $B$, the Rabi frequency $\Omega$ of the Raman laser, the Raman laser linewidth, and the output path losses. The laser linewidth, atomic decay, and cavity decay are introduced in the Lindblad form. The Raman laser linewidth is set to the measured value of $30$ kHz.
For the simulation of the first experiment, the initial density matrix $\rho_0$ is assigned [5%]{} of populations equally distributed between ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$, and the coherence terms between ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ are set to zero, consistent with measurements. The rest of the population is distributed between ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|D\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$, preserving the coherences such that $\rho_0$ has an overlap of [95%]{} with ${\ensuremath{\,|\Psi (\varphi)\rangle}}$. In the case of the second experiment, the superposition state $${\ensuremath{\,|\alpha,\beta\rangle}} \equiv \cos \alpha {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} + e^{i\beta} \sin \alpha {\ensuremath{\,|S'\rangle}},$$ is introduced via an operator $\hat M$ that performs the mapping $${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} \to \cos \alpha {\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}} + e^{i\beta} \sin \alpha {\ensuremath{\,|S'\rangle}}$$ for each ion. This operator $\hat M$ is applied to $\rho_0$.
From the integration of the master equation up to a time $t$, we obtain the time-dependent density matrix $\rho(t)$. The mean photon numbers of the cavity modes are calculated via the expectation values $\langle a^\dagger a (t)\rangle$ and $\langle b^\dagger b (t) \rangle$. Contributions of the detector dark counts are added to the mean photon number. Errors in the generation of the superposition state and magnetic field fluctuations are introduced by scaling the off-diagonal terms of $\rho(t)$ by a factor of 0.96 and by the exponential $e^{(2t/\tau)^2}$ respectively, where $\tau=190~\mu$s is the coherence time of the qubit stored in ${\ensuremath{\,|S\rangle}}$ and ${\ensuremath{\,|S'\rangle}}$. [Finally, the coupling of one of the ions to the cavity mode is reduced to 90% of it maximum value. This reduction is based on measured drifts over the course of the experiment.]{} Fig. (2c) shows the simulated and experimental temporal photon shapes as function of detection time. In order to have good agreement between the experimental data and simulations, we adjusted the Rabi frequency $\Omega$ within the experimental uncertainty range (see the “System Parameters" section).
In the main text, we note that scattering and imperfect state preparation reduce the photon generation probability of the entangled state during the first 6 $\mu$s of the Raman process. In order to quantify this effect, we simulate the temporal photon shape as a function of detection time for the superradiant state, for the case of perfect state initialization and no scattering from $\mathbb P$ to $\mathbb S$ and $\mathbb D$. Comparing the area under this curve to that from the simulation in Fig. (2c), which takes both imperfect state initialization and scattering into account, we extract a reduction of 9.1%.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Wave propagations in the presence of black holes is a significant problem both in theoretical and observational aspects, especially after the discovery of gravitational wave and confirmation of black holes. We study the scattering of massless scalar field by a charged dilatonic black hole in frame of full wave theory. We apply partial wave method to obtain the scattering cross sections of the scalar field, and investigate how the black hole charge affects the scalar scattering cross sections. Furthermore, we investigate the Regge pole approach of the scattering cross section of the dilatonic black hole. We find that in order to obtain results at the same precision, we need more Regge poles as the black hole charge increasing. We compare the results in the full wave theory and results in the classical geodesic scattering and the semi-classical glory approximations, and demonstrate the improvements and power of our approach.'
author:
- Yang Huang $^1$
- 'Hongsheng Zhang $^{1,2}$'
bibliography:
- 'crosssection.bib'
title: Scattering of massless scalar field by charged dilatonic black holes
---
Introduction
============
Black holes are among the most striking predictions in modern physics. Black hole, as a mathematical solution of the field equation in General Relativity (GR) or alternative theories of gravity, has been studied many year. In fact, black hole may be the most thoroughly studied object before its discovery. For years the astrophysical black hole is carefully called black hole candidate, or more directly X-ray source. Things changed in 2016 because of the discovery of gravitational wave from binary black hole [@Abbott:2016blz]. After that several gravitational wave events have been reported [@GraceDB], the observation from event horizon telescope (EHT) presents the second clear-cut evidence for the existence of black hole [@EHT].
Among several aspects of investigations of black hole, scattering and absorption from black holes takes a fundamental status, which has been studied more than $50$ years [@doi:10.1063/1.1664470]. This subject attracts increasing attentions due to its relevance with many interesting phenomena, such as glory, rainbow and superradiant scatterings [@futterman_handler_matzner_1988; @PhysRevD.31.1869; @PhysRevD.22.2331]. The scattering of scalar ($s=0$), Dirac ($s=1/2$), electromagnetic ($s=1$) and gravitational ($s=2$) waves by black holes in GR have been thoroughly explored [@PhysRevD.100.084025; @PhysRevD.10.1059; @Glampedakis:2001cx; @PhysRevD.18.1798; @PhysRevD.74.064005; @PhysRevLett.102.231103; @Dolan:2008kf; @Leite:2019eis; @Cotaescu:2014jca]. These studies have been extended to scattering of plane waves by black holes beyond GR [@PhysRevD.92.024012; @deOliveira:2018kcq; @Huang:2014nka; @Gussmann:2016mkp; @Lin:2020rvv] and ultra-compact objects [@OuldElHadj:2019kji; @Stratton:2019deq; @Dolan:2017rtj; @Cotaescu:2018etx; @Tominaga:1999iy; @Tominaga:2000cs].
In the previous studies of the scattering of waves by black holes, the most frequently approach is based on the partial wave expansion. This method is natural and straightforward, but it suffers from divergence for small scattering angles due to the Coulomb characteristic of the potential. This problem can be handled by the series reduction method ([@PhysRev.95.500], see also [@PhysRevD.74.064005; @Leite:2019eis]) or by the Complex Angular Momentum (CAM) techniques, which is first applied to the black hole scattering problem by Andersson and Thylwe [@Andersson_1994; @Andersson_1994_]. Recently, the CAM theory has been successfully applied to the scattering of fundamental fields by black holes and ultra-compact objects [@OuldElHadj:2019kji; @Folacci:2019cmc].
In this paper, we study the scattering of massless scalar field by the Gibbons-Maeda-Garfinkle-Horowitz-Strominger (GMGHS) black hole, a spherically charged dilatonic solution of the low energy limit of heterotic string theory in four dimensions, which was first found by Gibbons and Maeda in [@Gibbons:1987ps] and independently obtained by Garfinkle, Horowitz, and Strominger in [@Garfinkle:1990qj] a few years later.
GMGHS black hole has been investigated in theoretical and observational aspects. Particle trajectory around GMGHS black hole were investigated in [@Blaga:2014spa]. Hawking radiation of black holes with such a singular horizon was seriously studied in [@Zhang:2017zba]. Strong gravitational lensing by GMGHS black hole was explored in [@Bhadra:2003zs], which showed that there are few observational differences between Schwarzchild and GMGHS black holes for strong lensing. Accretion disks around GMGHS black hole was studied in [@Karimov:2018whx]. Last but not least, the (in)stability under charged scalar perturbations and the existence of scalar clouds of the GMGHS black hole were studied in [@Li:2013jna; @Li:2014xxa; @Huang:2017whw; @Bernard:2017rcw; @Bernard:2016wqo; @PhysRevD.92.064022; @Siahaan:2015xna].
In Einstein frame, the line element of the GMGHS solution is given by $$ds^2=-F(r)dt^2+F(r)^{-1}dr^2+r^2G(r)\left(d\vartheta^2+\sin^2\vartheta d\varphi^2\right),$$ with $$F(r)=1-\frac{2M}{r},\;\text{and}\;G(r)=1-\frac{Q^2}{Mr},$$ where $M$ and $Q$ are the mass and charge of the black hole respectively. The Maxwell field and dilaton field read, $$F_M=Q\sin\vartheta d\vartheta\wedge d\phi,$$ and, $$e^{-2\phi}=e^{-2\phi_0}\left(1-\frac{Q^2}{Mr}\right),$$ respectively. $\phi_0$ denotes the value of the dilaton $\phi$ at spacelike infinity. $\phi_0=0$ implies an asymptotic flat manifold.
The event horizon is located at $r=2M$. The area of the sphere goes to zero when $r=Q^2/M$ and the surface is singular. For $Q<Q_{\mathrm{max}}\equiv\sqrt{2}M$, the singularity is enclosed by the event horizon. In the extremal case $Q=Q_{\mathrm{max}}$, and the singularity coincides with the horizon. It is convenient to introduce the normalized charge $q=Q/Q_{\mathrm{max}}$.
The reminder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[Sec: geodesic\] the geodesic scattering in the GMGHS spacetime is analyzed, from which we compute the classical scattering cross sections and glory parameters. In Sec. \[Sec: wave src\], we describe the scattering of massless scalar field by the GMGHS black hole, focusing on computing the scattering cross sections via the partial wave method and the Regge pole approximation. Our numerical results are presented in Sec. \[Sec: results\] and we conclude the paper in Sec. \[Sec: conclusion\].
Classical and semi-classical scattering {#Sec: geodesic}
=======================================
Geodesic scattering
-------------------
Under the condition of short wavelength approximation, classical geodesic scattering provides acceptable results of the differential scattering cross section [@Collins:1973xf; @PhysRevD.92.024012]. In this subsection, as the first step, we investigate the geodesic scattering in the GMGHS spacetime. The Lagrangian associated to the null geodesics is given by $$\label{Eq: Lagrangian geodesic}
\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}\dot{x}^\mu\dot{x}^\nu=0,$$ where $\dot{x}^\mu=dx^\mu/d\lambda$, and $\lambda$ is the affine parameter. Since the background spacetime is spherically symmetric, we shall only consider geodesics on the equatorial plane without loss of generality. Substituting the GMGHS metric into Eq.(\[Eq: Lagrangian geodesic\]), we obtain the orbit equation
\[Eq: orbit eq\]
[align]{} ()\^2&=(u),\[Eq: orbit eq1\]\
(u)&=(1-ur\_-)\^2,\[Eq: orbit eq2\]
where $u=1/r$, $r_+=2M$, $r_-=2Mq^2$, and $b$ is the impact parameter.
From Eq.(\[Eq: orbit eq1\]) one sees $\mathcal{U}(u)\geq0$ along the orbit. There is a critical value of the impact parameter $b=b_c$, by which the geodesic may be deflected at any angle. The critical impact parameter can be obtained by solving equations $\mathcal{U}(u)=0$ and $\mathcal{U}'(u)=0$. The result is: $$\label{Eq: critical impact param}
\frac{b_c}{M}=\sqrt{\frac{27-q^4-18 q^2+\left(9-q^2\right)\sqrt{\left(1-q^2\right)\left(9-q^2\right)}}{2}}.$$ For $b<b_c$, $\mathcal{U}(u)$ is always positive outside the black hole, and a photon coming from infinity (i.e., $u=0$ initially) will finally be absorbed by the black hole. In the scattering scenario $b>b_c$, the photon will not be absorbed by the black hole, but will back to infinity after crossing the turning point $u=u_0$, at which $\mathcal{U}(u_0)=0$. In this case, the deflection angle of the geodesic is given by $$\label{Eq: deflection ag}
\Theta(b)=2\int_{0}^{u_0}\frac{du}{\sqrt{\mathcal{U}(u)}}-\pi.$$ We apply the numerical integration to obtain the deflection angle. In the weak-field limit ($b\gg M$), it is possible to find the analytic expression of $\Theta$, i.e., $$\label{Eq: deflection ag weak-field}
\Theta\approx\frac{4M}{b}+\frac{3\pi}{4}\left(5-4q^2-\frac{4}{3}q^4\right)\frac{M^2}{b^2}.$$ Note that this equation is slightly different from that of the Reissner-Nordström black hole [@PhysRevD.79.064022], and the first term is the term of a typical strong lensing.
Given the relation between $b$ and the deflection angle, the classical differential scattering cross section is presented by $$\label{Eq: classical src}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}=\frac{b}{\sin\theta}\bigg|\frac{db}{d\theta}\bigg|.$$ The effects of $q$ on the classical scattering cross section is exhibited in Fig.\[Fig: classical src\]. This figure shows that for moderate angles, the classical scattering cross section decreases as the black hole charge $q$ increases. But this effect is not obvious for small values of $\theta$. The interpretation of this result is as follows: combining Eqs.(\[Eq: deflection ag weak-field\]) and (\[Eq: classical src\]), we obtain $$\label{Eq: classical src small th}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\approx\frac{16M^2}{\theta^4}+\frac{3\pi M^2}{4\theta^3}\left(5-4q^2-\frac{4}{3}q^4\right).$$ This equation shows clearly that the black hole charge $q$ does not contribute to the dominant term of the classical scattering cross section for small values of $\theta$.
![Classical scattering cross section of GMGHS black holes, with $q=0,\;0.5$ and $0.9$. The black solid line is given by Eq.(\[Eq: classical src small th\]), with $q=0$.[]{data-label="Fig: classical src"}](Classical_src.eps){width="42.00000%" height="29.00000%"}
Glory scattering
----------------
The glory approximation of the scalar scattering cross sections is [@PhysRevD.31.1869] $$\label{Eq: glory}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}=2\pi\omega b^2_g\bigg|\frac{db}{d\theta}\bigg|_{\theta=\pi}J^2_{0}(\omega b_g\sin\theta),$$ where $J_{0}(x)$ is the Bessel function of the first kind, and $b_g$ is the impact parameter of backscattered geodesics ($\theta=\pi$). There are multiple values of $b_g$ corresponding to the multiple values of the deflection angle, i.e., $\theta=\pi+2n\pi$ (with $n=0,1,2,\cdots$ the number of times that the null geodesic rotates around the black hole), but the major contribution to the differential scattering cross section comes from the $n=0$ case [@PhysRevD.92.024012]. Although the semi-classical glory approximation (\[Eq: glory\]) is expected to be valid at high frequencies ($\omega M\gg1$), it is still in good agreement with the numerical results for intermediate frequencies, i.e., $\omega M\sim1$ [@PhysRevD.79.064022].
According to Eq.(\[Eq: glory\]), we need to determine $b_g$ and $|db/d\theta|_{\theta=\pi}$ in order to obtain the glory scattering cross section. Given a $q$, we obtain $b_g$ by numerically solving the equation $\Theta(b)=\pi$, where $\Theta(b)$ is given in Eq.(\[Eq: deflection ag\]). Then, it is straightforward to obtain $|db/d\theta|_{\theta=\pi}$ via the finite difference formula. Numerical results of $b_g$ and $b^2_g|db/d\theta|_{\theta=\pi}$ are presented in Fig.\[Fig: glory param\]. As is shown in the plot, both $b_g$ and $b^2_g|db/d\theta|_{\theta=\pi}$ decrease monotonically as the black hole charge $q$ increases. These results indicate that with the increase of $q$, (i) interference fringes get wider, since the interference fringe width is inversely proportional to $b_g$; (ii) the backscattered flux intensity decreases.
![Glory scattering parameters as functions of $q$.[]{data-label="Fig: glory param"}](glory_param.eps){width="42.00000%" height="29.00000%"}
Wave scattering {#Sec: wave src}
===============
Massless scalar field in the GMGHS spacetime
--------------------------------------------
We consider a massless scalar field propagating in a GMGHS spacetime, which obeys the Klein-Gordon equation $$\label{Eq: KG eq}
\nabla_\mu\nabla^\mu\Phi=0.$$ The background spacetime is stationary and spherically symmetric. Thus, we write $\Phi=R_{\omega l}(r)Y_{lm}(\vartheta,\varphi)e^{-i\omega t}$, where $Y_{lm}(\vartheta,\varphi)$ are the scalar spherical harmonics. The radial function $R_{\omega l}(r)$ obeys the radial equation $$\label{Eq: the radial eq}
\Delta\frac{d}{dr}\left(\Delta\frac{dR_{\omega l}}{dr}\right)+\left[G(r)^2\omega^2r^4-\Delta l(l+1)\right]R_{\omega l}=0,$$ where we have introduced a new function $\Delta=(r-r_+)(r-r_-)$. By introducing $\psi_{\omega l}(r)=R_{\omega l}(r)/r$, we can rewrite the radial equation in the following form $$\label{Eq: the radial eq psi}
\frac{d^2}{dr^2_*}\psi_{\omega l}(r)+\left[G(r)^2\omega^2-V_l(r)\right]\psi_{\omega l}(r)=0,$$ where the tortoise coordinate is defined by $dr_*=f(r)^{-1}dr$, and $f(r)=\Delta/r^2$, while the potential is given by $$V_l(r)=f(r)\left[\frac{f'(r)}{r}+\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}\right].$$
At the event horizon $r=2M$, the purely ingoing wave solution of the radial equation is $$\label{Eq: bcs horizon}
\psi(r)\sim e^{-i\kappa\omega r_*},$$ where $\kappa=1-Q^2/2M^2$. At spatial infinity $r\rightarrow\infty$, the radial solution behaves as $$\label{Eq: bcs infty}
\psi(r)\sim A^{(-)}_{l}(\omega)e^{-i\omega r_*}+A^{(+)}_{l}(\omega)e^{i\omega r_*}.$$ Here the coefficients $A^{(-)}_{l}(\omega)$ and $A^{(+)}_{l}(\omega)$ are complex amplitudes of the ingoing and outgoing waves, respectively. Given these amplitudes, the S-matrix elements $S_{l}(\omega)$ is given by $$S_{l}(\omega)=e^{i(l+1)\pi}\frac{A^{(+)}_{l}(\omega)}{A^{(-)}_{l}(\omega)}.$$ There are two types of poles of $S_l(\omega)$: (i) for $l\in\mathbb{N}$, the poles of $S_{l}(\omega)$ in the complex plane of $\omega$ give the quasinormal frequencies, and they are associated to the dynamics of scalar perturbations around the GMGHS black hole; (ii) Regge poles are the poles of[^1] $S_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)$ in the first and third quadrants of the complex plane of $\lambda=l+1/2$ for $\omega\in\mathbb{R}$, and they can be expressed as $\lambda=\lambda_{n}(\omega)$ with $n=1,2,3,\cdots$.
Scattering cross section
------------------------
The differential scattering cross section is given by $$\label{Eq: scalar scattering cross section}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}=|f(\omega,\theta)|^2.$$ where $f(\omega,\theta)$ the scattering amplitude, which is expressed by the following partial wave series $$\label{Eq: partial wave expansion}
f(\omega,\theta)=\frac{1}{2i\omega}\sum_{l=0}^{\infty}(2l+1)\left[S_{l}(\omega)-1\right]P_l(\cos\theta).$$
In order to derive the scattering cross section via the partial wave series, we need to compute $S_{l}(\omega)$ by solving the radial equation (\[Eq: the radial eq psi\]) (or equivalently Eq.(\[Eq: the radial eq\])) with respect to the boundary conditions given in Eqs.(\[Eq: bcs horizon\]) and (\[Eq: bcs infty\]). We apply the Runge-Kutta method to solve this problem numerically. Note that the sum in Eq.(\[Eq: partial wave expansion\]) does not convergent very quickly for small values of $\theta$. Thus, we employ the method developed in [@PhysRev.95.500], and first applied to the black hole scattering problem in [@PhysRevD.74.064005], to improve the convergence of the sum.
Regge pole approximation
------------------------
According to the CAM theory, the scattering amplitude can be split into a background integral and a sum over Regge poles [@Andersson_1994_; @Andersson_1994] $$\label{Eq: Regge pole approx}
f_{\text{P}}(\omega,\theta)=-\frac{i\pi}{\omega}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\lambda_{n}(\omega)r_n(\omega)}{\cos\left[\pi\lambda_{n}(\omega)\right]}P_{\lambda_{n}(\omega)-1/2}(-\cos\theta),$$ where $P_{\lambda-1/2}(x)$ denotes the analytic extension of the Legendre polynomials $P_{l}(x)$, and $r_{n}(\omega)$ are the residues of the matrix $S_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)$ at $\lambda=\lambda_{n}(\omega)$, they are given by $$r_{n}(\omega)=e^{i\pi\left[\lambda_{n}(\omega)-1/2\right]}\left[\frac{A^{(+)}_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)}{\frac{d}{d\lambda}A^{(-)}_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)}\right]_{\lambda=\lambda_{n}(\omega)},$$ where the complex amplitudes $A^{(-)}_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)$ and $A^{(-)}_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)$ are defined from the analytic extension of Eq.(\[Eq: bcs infty\]). It was shown that the contribution from the background integral is negligible for high frequencies (typically for $\omega M\gtrsim1$) [@Folacci:2019cmc]. Hence, the sum over Regge poles (\[Eq: Regge pole approx\]) provides a good approximation of the scalar differential cross section.
Here, we aim to construct the Regge pole approximation of the scalar scattering cross section of the GMGHS black hole. To this end, it is necessary to determine the Regge poles $\lambda_{n}(\omega)$ and the corresponding residues $r_{n}(\omega)$ (see Eq.(\[Eq: Regge pole approx\])). We apply the continued fraction method to determine the Regge poles. By definition, Regge poles are zeros of $A^{(-)}_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)$ in the complex $\lambda$ plane, they can be obtained by numerically solving the following equation $$0=\beta_{0}-\frac{\alpha_0\gamma_1}{\beta_1-}\frac{\alpha_1\gamma_2}{\beta_2-}\frac{\alpha_2\gamma_3}{\beta_3-}\cdots,$$ or alternatively, by solving the $n$-th inversion of this equation. Here $\alpha_{n},\;\beta_{n}$ and $\gamma_{n}$ are functions of $(\omega,\lambda)$, and they are given in Eqs.(11)-(13) of Ref.[@PhysRevD.92.064022]. Figure.\[Fig: regge poles vs q\] shows the real and imaginary parts of the first five Regge poles as functions of $q$. We see that both real and imaginary parts of $\lambda_n$ decrease monotonically with the increase of $q$.
![Real and imaginary parts of the first five Regge poles (with $\omega M=3.0$) as functions of $q$.[]{data-label="Fig: regge poles vs q"}](lamr_vs_q.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%" height="29.00000%"} ![Real and imaginary parts of the first five Regge poles (with $\omega M=3.0$) as functions of $q$.[]{data-label="Fig: regge poles vs q"}](lami_vs_q.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%" height="29.00000%"}
To get the residues, we apply a method that has been used in Ref.[@PhysRevD.88.044018] to compute the quasinormal mode excitation factors. This method is based on the formalism developed by Mano, Suzuki, and Takasugi (MST) [@Mano:1996vt], see also [@Mano:1996gn; @Mano:1996mf; @Sasaki:2003xr]. First we compute $A^{(+)}_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)$ and $A^{(-)}_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)$ at $\lambda=\lambda_{n}(\omega)$. Then, we consider $\lambda=\lambda_{n}(\omega)+\delta$ and compute $A^{(-)}_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)$ at the new value of $\lambda$. Finally, the derivative of $A^{(-)}_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)$ with respect to $\lambda$ is given by $$\frac{d}{d\lambda}A^{(-)}_{\lambda-1/2}=\frac{A^{(-)}_{\lambda_n+\delta-1/2}-A^{(-)}_{\lambda_n-1/2}}{\delta}.$$ In our calculation we choose $\delta=10^{-7}$, i.e., we differentiate along the real axis; as a check, we also differentiate along the pure-imaginary axis and find that they are consistent in high precision. In Appendix. \[Appendex: MST\], we present the details of how to solve Eq.(\[Eq: the radial eq\]) and compute amplitudes $A^{(+)}_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)$ and $A^{(-)}_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)$ via the MST method.
In Fig. \[Fig: res\], we present the path followed by the real and imaginary parts of the first two residues $r_n(\omega)$, as $q$ varies in the range $0\leq q\leq 0.999$. Once we have obtained $\lambda_n(\omega)$ and $r_n(\omega)$, we can build up the Regge pole approximation of the scattering amplitude from Eq.(\[Eq: Regge pole approx\]).
Results {#Sec: results}
=======
In this section, we present a selection of the numerical results for the differential scattering cross sections of the GMGHS black hole.
Figure \[Fig: srcs\] shows comparisons of the numerical scalar scattering cross sections of the GMGHS black holes with the classical and semi-classical glory approximations (see Eqs.(\[Eq: classical src\]) and (\[Eq: glory\])). We observe that the glory approximation fits well with the numerical results for large angles ($\theta\gtrsim 160^{\circ}$), while the classical approximation fits well the small angle region ($\theta\lesssim20^{\circ}$). In the intermediate range, only full wave scattering treatment yields accurate result.
![Comparison of scattering cross sections with the geodesic and glory approximations for $q=0.3$ (top), $0.6$ (middle), and $0.3$ (bottom). We set $\omega M=3.0$.[]{data-label="Fig: srcs"}](class_gloryq3.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%" height="22.00000%"} ![Comparison of scattering cross sections with the geodesic and glory approximations for $q=0.3$ (top), $0.6$ (middle), and $0.3$ (bottom). We set $\omega M=3.0$.[]{data-label="Fig: srcs"}](class_gloryq6.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%" height="22.00000%"} ![Comparison of scattering cross sections with the geodesic and glory approximations for $q=0.3$ (top), $0.6$ (middle), and $0.3$ (bottom). We set $\omega M=3.0$.[]{data-label="Fig: srcs"}](class_gloryq9.eps "fig:"){width="42.00000%" height="22.00000%"}
In Fig.\[Fig: src for dif q\], we compare the scattering cross sections for different values of the black hole charge ($q=0.3,0.6,0.9$) with $\omega M=1.0$ (top), $2.0$ (middle), and $3.0$ (bottom). For comparison, we also plot the Schwarzschild ($q=0$) case in each subplots of this figure. From the plots in Fig.\[Fig: src for dif q\], we find that (i) the effect of $q$ on the scattering cross section at small angles is negligible, and (ii) the interference fringe width increases with the increase of the black hole charge $q$ for given values of $\omega M$, or with the decrease of $\omega M$ for given values of $q$. These results can be understood as follows: (i) From Eq.(\[Eq: classical src small th\]), we see that for small angles, the scattering cross section is dominated by the term $16M^2/\theta^4$, the black hole charge $q$ only affects the cross section in the subdominant term proportional to $M^2/\theta^3$; (ii) The glory approximation given in Eq.(\[Eq: glory\]) implies that for large angles ($\theta\approx180^{\circ}$), the interference fringe width is proportional to $1/(b_g\omega)$. In addition, from Fig.\[Fig: glory param\] we see that $b_g$ decreases monotonically with the increase of $q$.
![Comparison of scattering cross sections with $\omega M=1.0$ (top), $2.0$ (middle), and $3.0$ (bottom), for different values of the black hole charge.[]{data-label="Fig: src for dif q"}](src_for_difqw1.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%" height="29.00000%"} ![Comparison of scattering cross sections with $\omega M=1.0$ (top), $2.0$ (middle), and $3.0$ (bottom), for different values of the black hole charge.[]{data-label="Fig: src for dif q"}](src_for_difqw2.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%" height="29.00000%"} ![Comparison of scattering cross sections with $\omega M=1.0$ (top), $2.0$ (middle), and $3.0$ (bottom), for different values of the black hole charge.[]{data-label="Fig: src for dif q"}](src_for_difqw3.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%" height="29.00000%"}
Although the glory approximation fits the scattering cross section remarkably well for large angles, there is a quantitative difference between the amplitudes of the backscattered wave ($\theta=180^{\circ}$) obtained via the partial wave method and the glory approximation [@PhysRevD.79.064022; @PhysRevD.92.024012]. In Fig.\[Fig: bcs\], we compare the amplitudes of the backscattered wave obtained via the glory approximation and the partial wave method. We see that the results obtained via partial wave method oscillate around the semi-classical glory result.
![Amplitudes of the backscattered waves ($\theta=180^{\circ}$) as functions of $q$ for different values of $\omega M$. The solid green line is given by the glory approximation.[]{data-label="Fig: bcs"}](bs.eps){width="45.00000%" height="32.00000%"}
Figure \[Fig: src regge\] compares the scattering cross sections obtained by the partial wave method and the Regge pole approximation for $q=0.3$. The frequency is $\omega M=3.0$. We see that the Regge pole approximation (with only $5$ Regge poles) is very close to the result obtained via partial wave method for a wide range of angles ($\theta\gtrsim120^{\circ}$), and the Regge pole approximation can be improved by taking into account more Regge poles in the sum (\[Eq: Regge pole approx\]); By summing over $50$ Regge poles, we get the result that is indistinguishable from the partial wave result for $\theta\gtrsim20^{\circ}$.
In Fig.\[Fig: src regge\_q999\], we compare the Regge pole approximation with the partial wave result of the scattering cross section of a near extremal GMGHS black hole ($q=0.999$). Again, the Regge pole approximations fit the partial wave result well for large angles. However, we find that with the increase of $q$, more Regge poles should be taken into account in order to obtain results at the same precision. As is shown Fig.\[Fig: src regge\_q999\], summing over $50$ Regge poles yields the result in good agreement with the partial wave method for $\theta\gtrsim80^{\circ}$.
![Comparison of the scattering cross sections obtained via the partial wave method and the Regge pole approximations. The black hole charge is $q=0.3$.[]{data-label="Fig: src regge"}](sum_reggepoles.eps){width="45.00000%" height="32.00000%"}
![Comparison of the scattering cross sections obtained via the partial wave method and the Regge pole approximations. The black hole charge is $q=0.999$.[]{data-label="Fig: src regge_q999"}](sum_reggepoles_q999.eps){width="45.00000%" height="32.00000%"}
Figure \[Fig: intensity\] compares the amplitudes of the backscattered wave obtained via the partial wave method and Regge pole approximation for $\omega M=3.0$. The plot shows that summing over a few Regge poles captures most of the features of the the backscattered wave. With only $4$ Regge poles, the agreement is excellent for $q\lesssim0.7$. When $q$ increases, more Regge poles should be included to describe the backscattered waves. This is consistent with the result in Fig.\[Fig: src regge\_q999\].
![Comparison of the amplitudes of the backscattered waves obtained by the partial wave method and the sum over Regge poles.[]{data-label="Fig: intensity"}](intensity.eps){width="45.00000%" height="32.00000%"}
Conclusion {#Sec: conclusion}
==========
Scattering from black holes is a fundamental and important problem in astrophysics and theoretical physics. Because of its ultrastrong attractive interaction, black holes stimulate several novel phenomena which are never seen in scattering experiment in lab, for example black hole shadow, glory etc. Some objects, for example the gravitational wave, neutrino and the expected dark matter particles, only have extremely weak interaction with ordinary matters. Thus it is difficult to observe their scattering phenomena with ordinary matters. On the contrary, they strongly interact with black holes and yield conspicuous phenomena [@Lin:2019qyx; @Hongsheng:2018ibg]. To study the scattering from black holes is very helpful to explore the elusive objects, including gravitational wave, neutrino and dark matters.
In this paper we discuss the scattering of a massless scalar field by the GMGHS black hole. Using the partial wave method, we numerically computed the scalar scattering cross sections, and compared the numerical results with the geodesic and glory approximations. We summarize the main results as follows:
First, the scattering cross section is well approximated by the classical results obtained via the geodesic analysis for small angles, and the effects of the black hole charge is negligible in this case (see Eq.(\[Eq: classical src\])).
Second, for large scattering angles, the black hole charge has a significant effect on the scattering cross section, which is well described by the glory approximation. We showed that the interference fringe width increases with the increase of the black hole charge, which is predicted by the glory approximation. However, the amplitude of the backscattered wave is not equal to the glory amplitude. We showed that the numerical result oscillates around the glory amplitude when $q$ increases, see Fig.\[Fig: bcs\].
We also construct the scattering cross sections of the GMGHS black holes by sum over Regge poles. We find elegant agreement of the Regge pole analysis and the partial wave results, especially for intermediate and large angles. Finally, we show that when $q$ increases, it is necessary to include more Regge poles to derive the scattering cross section.
Y. Huang wishes to thank Yuan-Xing Gao for helpful discussions. This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under grant Nos.11805166 and 11575083, as well as Shandong Province Natural Science Foundation under grant No. ZR201709220395.
Computing $A^{(+)}_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)$ and $A^{(-)}_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)$ {#Appendex: MST}
=============================================================================
In this appendix, we present the details of how to solve the radial equation (\[Eq: the radial eq\]) and compute amplitudes $A^{(+)}_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)$ and $A^{(-)}_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)$ via the MST method [@Mano:1996mf; @Mano:1996vt; @Mano:1996gn].
Near horizon solution in series of hypergeometric functions {#Subsec: near horizon}
-----------------------------------------------------------
It is convenient to express the radial equation in terms of the dimensionless variables $$\label{Eq: x, kappa and eps}
x=-\frac{r-r_+}{\kappa r_+};\;\;\;\kappa=1-\frac{Q^2}{2M^2};\;\;\;\epsilon=2M\omega,$$ where $r_+=2M$. Then, the radial equation (\[Eq: the radial eq\]) becomes $$\label{Eq: the radial eq to x}
x(1-x)\frac{d^2R}{dx^2}+(1-2x)\frac{dR}{dx}+U R=0,$$ where $$U=\frac{\epsilon^2}{x}+l(l+1)-\left(1+2\kappa\right)\epsilon^2+\left(2+\kappa\right)\kappa\epsilon^2 x-\kappa^2\epsilon^2 x^2.$$ For simplicity, we have omitted the subscripts “$\omega l$” of the radial function. The ingoing-wave radial solution has the following form $$\label{Eq: ingoing soln}
R^{\text{in}}(x)=e^{i\kappa\epsilon x}(-x)^{-i\epsilon}p_{\text{in}}(x).$$ Substituting Eq.(\[Eq: ingoing soln\]) into Eq.(\[Eq: the radial eq to x\]), one finds the differential equation of $p_{\text{in}}(x)$
$$\label{Eq: eq of p(x)}
x(1-x)p_{\text{in}}''+\left[1-2i\epsilon-(2-2i\epsilon)x\right]p_{\text{in}}'+\left[l(l+1)+i\epsilon(1-i\epsilon)\right]p_{\text{in}}=2i\kappa\epsilon\left[xp_{\text{in}}-x(1-x)p_{\text{in}}'\right]+\epsilon(\epsilon-i\kappa)p_{\text{in}},$$
where a prime denotes $d/dx$. The left-hand side of Eq.(\[Eq: eq of p(x)\]) is in the form of a hypergeometric equation. In the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow0$, a solution of Eq.(\[Eq: eq of p(x)\]) that is finite at $x=0$ is given by $$p_{\text{in}}(\epsilon\rightarrow 0)=F(-l,l+1;1;x).$$ For a general value of $\epsilon$, the solution of Eq.(\[Eq: eq of p(x)\]) may be expanded in a series of hypergeometric functions with $\epsilon$ being a kind of expansion parameter. The essential point of the MST formalism is to introduce the so-called renormalized angular momentum $\nu$. By adding the term $\left[\nu(\nu+1)-l(l+1)\right]p_{\text{in}}$ to both sides of Eq.(\[Eq: eq of p(x)\]), one obtains $$\label{Eq: eq of p(x) nu}
\begin{aligned}
x(1-x)p_{\text{in}}''+\left[1-2i\epsilon-(2-2i\epsilon)x\right]p_{\text{in}}'+&\left[\nu(\nu+1)+i\epsilon(1-i\epsilon)\right]p_{\text{in}}\\&=2i\kappa\epsilon\left[xp_{\text{in}}-x(1-x)p_{\text{in}}'\right]+\left[\nu(\nu+1)-l(l+1)+\epsilon(\epsilon-i\kappa)\right]p_{\text{in}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, for arbitrary value of $\nu$, the above equation is equivalent to Eq.(\[Eq: eq of p(x)\]). The trick is to consider the right-hand side of Eq.(\[Eq: eq of p(x) nu\]) as a perturbation, and look for a formal solution specified by the index $\nu$ in a series expansion form $$\label{Eq: series Hyper}
p^{\nu}_{\text{in}}(x)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}a_{n}^{\;\nu}p_{n+\nu}(x),$$ where $$p_{n+\nu}(x)=F(n+\nu+1-i\epsilon,-n-\nu-i\epsilon;1-2i\epsilon;x).$$ Then, we look for the eigenvalue of $\nu$ such that the series expansion is convergent. We also require that in the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow0$, the generalized angular momentum tends to $l$. This eigenvalue problem could be solved via the continued fraction method. It is easy to show that the hypergeometric functions $p_{n+\nu}(x)$ satisfy the recurrence relations $$\begin{aligned}
xp_{n+\nu}=&-\frac{(\alpha+n)(n+\gamma-\beta)}{(\alpha-\beta+2n)(\alpha-\beta+2n+1)}p_{n+\nu+1}+\frac{2(\alpha+n)(n-\beta)+(\alpha+\beta-1)\gamma}{(\alpha-\beta+2n-1)(\alpha-\beta+2n+1)}p_{n+\nu}
\\&-\frac{(n-\beta)(\alpha-\gamma+n)}{(\alpha-\beta+2n-1)(\alpha-\beta+2n)}p_{n+\nu-1},
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
x(1-x)p_{n+\nu}'=&\frac{(\alpha+n)(n-\beta)(n+\gamma-\beta)}{(\alpha-\beta+2n)(\alpha-\beta+2n+1)}p_{n+\nu+1}+\frac{(\alpha+n)(n-\beta)(\alpha+\beta-2\gamma+1)}{(\alpha-\beta+2n-1)(\alpha-\beta+2n+1)}p_{n+\nu}
\\&-\frac{(\alpha+n)(n-\beta)(\alpha-\gamma+n)}{(\alpha-\beta+2n-1)(\alpha-\beta+2n)}p_{n+\nu-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha=\nu+1-i\epsilon$, $\beta=-\nu-i\epsilon$ and $\gamma=1-2i\epsilon$. Substituting Eq.(\[Eq: series Hyper\]) into Eq.(\[Eq: eq of p(x) nu\]) and using the above recurrence relations, we obtain a three-term recurrence relation among the expansion coefficients $a_{n}^{\;\nu}$ $$\label{Eq: recurrence an}
\alpha_{n}^{\;\nu}a_{n+1}^{\;\nu}+\beta_{n}^{\;\nu}a_{n}^{\;\nu}+\gamma_{n}^{\;\nu}a_{n-1}^{\;\nu}=0,$$ where
\[Eq: alpha\_n\]
[align]{} &\_[n]{}\^=,\
&\_[n]{}\^=(n+)(n++1)-l(l+1)+\^2(+1)+,\
&\_[n]{}\^=-.
It is useful to introduce $$R_{n}(\nu)\equiv\frac{a_{n}^{\;\nu}}{a_{n-1}^{\;\nu}}\;\;\text{and}\;\;L_{n}(\nu)\equiv\frac{a_{n}^{\;\nu}}{a_{n+1}^{\;\nu}},$$ they could also be expressed by continued fractions
[align]{} &R\_n()=-=- ,\
&L\_n()=-=- .
The solution of the three-term recurrence relation is “minimal” (i.e., the series expansion in Eq.(\[Eq: series Hyper\]) is convergent) if and only if the renormalized angular momentum $\nu$ satisfies $$\label{Eq: root of nu}
\beta_{n}^{\;\nu}+\alpha_{n}^{\;\nu}R_{n+1}(\nu)+\gamma_{n}^{\;\nu}L_{n-1}(\nu)=0.$$ Note that the value of $n$ of this equation is arbitrary, it is convenient to set $n=0$ to solve for $\nu$. Note also that Eq.(\[Eq: root of nu\]) contains an infinite number of roots: (i) if $\nu$ is a solution of Eq.(\[Eq: root of nu\]), $\nu\pm1$ is also a solution; (ii) if $\nu$ is a solution, $-\nu-1$ is also a solution. However, not all of these solutions can be used to build up the radial solution we want. By definition, we must have $\nu\rightarrow l$ (or $\nu\rightarrow-l-1$) in the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow0$. Thus, we choose $\nu$ such that it approaches to $l$ as $\epsilon\rightarrow0$.
Given the eigenvalue of $\nu$, it is straightforward to compute the series coefficients $a_{n}^{\;\nu}$ from the three-term recurrence relation (\[Eq: series Hyper\]). From Eqs.(\[Eq: alpha\_n\]), one finds $\alpha_{-n}^{-\nu-1}=\gamma_{n}^{\;\nu}$ and $\gamma_{-n}^{-\nu-1}=\alpha_{n}^{\;\nu}$ so that $a_{-n}^{-\nu-1}$ obeys the same recursion relation as $a_{n}^{\;\nu}$ does. This implies that if we take $a_0^{\;\nu}=a_0^{-\nu-1}=1$, we have $a_{n}^{\;\nu}=a_{-n}^{-\nu-1}$. From Eq.(\[Eq: root of nu\]), we have $$\label{Eq: large n of an}
\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}n\frac{a_{n}^{\;\nu}}{a_{n-1}^{\;\nu}}
=-\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow-\infty}n\frac{a_{n}^{\;\nu}}{a_{n+1}^{\;\nu}}
=\frac{i\kappa\epsilon}{2}.$$ Combining the large $n$ behavior of hypergeometric functions, one finds $$\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{na_{n}^{\;\nu}p_{n+\nu}}{a_{n-1}^{\;\nu}p_{n+\nu-1}}
=-\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow-\infty}\frac{na_{n}^{\;\nu}p_{n+\nu}}{a_{n+1}^{\;\nu}p_{n+\nu+1}}
=\frac{i\kappa\epsilon}{2}\left[1-2x+\left((1-2x)^2-1\right)^{1/2}\right].$$ This implies that the series of hypergeometric functions (\[Eq: series Hyper\]) converges in all over the complex plane of $x$ except for $|x|=\infty$. Thus, we have obtained the ingoing-wave radial solution which is valid for $|x|<\infty$. We note a property of the hypergeometric function $$F(a,b;c;x)=\frac{\Gamma(c)\Gamma(b-a)}{\Gamma(c-a)\Gamma(b)}(1-x)^{-a}F\left(a,c-b;a+1-b;\frac{1}{1-x}\right)
+\left(a\leftrightarrow b\right).$$ This enables us to express the radial solution as $$\label{Eq: near horizon solution}
R^{\text{in}}=R_0^{\;\nu}+R_0^{-\nu-1},$$ where $$R_0^{\;\nu}=e^{i\kappa\epsilon x}(-x)^{-i\epsilon}(1-x)^{i\epsilon+\nu}
\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}a_{n}^{\;\nu}\frac{\Gamma(1-2i\epsilon)\Gamma(2n+2\nu+1)}{\Gamma(n+\nu+1-i\epsilon)^2}
(1-x)^n F\left(-n-\nu-i\epsilon,-n-\nu-i\epsilon;-2n-2\nu;\frac{1}{1-x}\right).$$ Here, we have used the property $a_{n}^{\;\nu}=a_{-n}^{-\nu-1}$. Clearly, Eq.(\[Eq: near horizon solution\]) explicitly exhibits the symmetry of $R^{\text{in}}$ under the interchange $\nu\leftrightarrow-\nu-1$.
Far region solution in series of Coulomb wave functions
-------------------------------------------------------
The solution in the form of series of hypergeometric functions discussed in Appendix \[Subsec: near horizon\] is convergent at any finite value of $r$. However, it does not converge at infinity. The analytic solution convergent at infinity was obtained by Leaver as a series of Coulomb functions [@PhysRevD.34.384]. Here, we follow the procedure in Ref.[@Mano:1996mf] to obtain the radial solution of Eq.(\[Eq: the radial eq\]) that is convergent at infinity.
First, we define a variable $z=\omega\left(r-Q^2/M\right)=\kappa\epsilon(1-x)$, and introduce the following form $$\label{Eq: sol at inf}
R_C=z^{-1}\left(1-\frac{\kappa\epsilon}{z}\right)^{-i\epsilon}f(z).$$ Then the radial equation (\[Eq: the radial eq\]) becomes $$\label{Eq: eq of f(x) nu}
z^2f''+\left[z^2+2\epsilon z-\nu(\nu+1)\right]f=\kappa\epsilon z\left(f''+f\right)+\kappa\epsilon(1-2i\epsilon)f'+\left[l(l+1)-\nu(\nu+1)-\epsilon^2\right]f,$$ where a prime denote $d/dz$. As in Eq.(\[Eq: eq of p(x) nu\]), we have introduced the renormalized angular momentum $\nu$ in this equation. We denote the solution specified by the index $\nu$ as $f_{\nu}(z)$, and expand it in terms of Coulomb wave functions as $$\label{Eq: series Coulomb}
f_{\nu}(z)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}b_{n}^{\;\nu}F_{n+\nu}(z),$$ where the Coulomb wave function is given by $$\label{Eq: Coulomb}
F_{n+\nu}(z)=e^{-iz}(2z)^{n+\nu}z\frac{\Gamma(n+\nu+1+i\epsilon)}{\Gamma(2n+2\nu+2)}\Phi(n+\nu+1+i\epsilon,2n+2\nu+2;2iz),$$ and $\Phi$ denotes the regular confluent hypergeometric function. It can be shown that the Coulomb wave functions given in Eq.(\[Eq: Coulomb\]) satisfy the following recurrence relations $$\frac{1}{z}F_{n+\nu}=\frac{n-\tilde{a}+2\tilde{b}}{(\tilde{b}+n) (2\tilde{b}+2n-1)}F_{n+\nu+1}
+\frac{i (\tilde{b}-\tilde{a})}{(\tilde{b}+n-1) (\tilde{b}+n)}F_{n+\nu}
+\frac{\tilde{a}+n-1}{(\tilde{b}+n-1) (2 \tilde{b}+2 n-1)}F_{n+\nu-1},$$ $$F_{n+\nu}'=\frac{(\tilde{b}+n-1) (\tilde{a}-2 \tilde{b}-n)}{(\tilde{b}+n) (2\tilde{b}+2 n-1)}F_{n+\nu+1}
+\frac{i (\tilde{b}-\tilde{a})}{(\tilde{b}+n-1) (\tilde{b}+n)}F_{n+\nu}
+\frac{(\tilde{a}+n-1) (\tilde{b}+n)}{(\tilde{b}+n-1) (2 \tilde{b}+2 n-1)}F_{n+\nu-1},$$ where $\tilde{a}=\nu+1+i\epsilon$ and $\tilde{b}=\nu+1$. Substituting Eq.(\[Eq: series Coulomb\]) into Eq.(\[Eq: eq of f(x) nu\]) and using the above recurrence relations, one finds a three-term recurrence relation among the expansion coefficients $b_{n}^{\;\nu}$ $$\label{Eq: recurrence bn}
\tilde{\alpha}_{n}^{\;\nu}b_{n+1}^{\;\nu}+\tilde{\beta}_{n}^{\;\nu}b_{n}^{\;\nu}+\tilde{\gamma}_{n}^{\;\nu}b_{n-1}^{\;\nu}=0,$$ with
\[Eq: tidal alpha\_n\]
[align]{} &\_[n]{}\^=i\_[n]{}\^,\
&\_[n]{}\^=\_[n]{}\^,\
&\_[n]{}\^=-i\_[n]{}\^,
where $\alpha_{n}^{\;\nu}$, $\beta_{n}^{\;\nu}$ and $\gamma_{n}^{\;\nu}$ are defined in Eqs.(\[Eq: alpha\_n\]). Clearly, the recurrence relation (\[Eq: recurrence bn\]) is transformed to the one in Eq.(\[Eq: recurrence an\]) if we redefine the coefficients as $$\label{Eq: an to bn}
b_{n}^{\;\nu}=(-i)^n\frac{\left(\nu+1-i\epsilon\right)_n}{(\nu+1+i\epsilon)_n}a_{n}^{\;\nu},$$ where $(x)_n\equiv\Gamma(x+n)/\Gamma(x)$. Since the recurrence relation obtained for the Coulomb expansion case is identical to the one for the hypergeometric case, the renormalized angular momentum $\nu$ from both solutions are the same. This is crucial in matching these two solutions which we will discuss later. From Eqs.(\[Eq: large n of an\]) and (\[Eq: an to bn\]), we find $$\label{Eq: large n of nn}
\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}n\frac{b_{n}^{\;\nu}}{b_{n-1}^{\;\nu}}
=\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow-\infty}n\frac{b_{n}^{\;\nu}}{b_{n+1}^{\;\nu}}
=\frac{\kappa\epsilon}{2}.$$ By combing the large $n$ behavior of the Coulomb wave functions, we have $$\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{b_{n}^{\;\nu}F_{n+\nu}}{b_{n-1}^{\;\nu}F_{n+\nu-1}}
=\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow-\infty}\frac{b_{n}^{\;\nu}F_{n+\nu}}{b_{n+1}^{\;\nu}F_{n+\nu+1}}
=\frac{\kappa\epsilon}{z}.$$ This implies that the series of Coulomb wave functions (\[Eq: series Coulomb\]) converges at $z>\kappa\epsilon$ or equivalently $r>r_+$. By using the formula $$\Phi(a,c;z)=\frac{\Gamma(c)}{\Gamma(c-a)}e^{ia\pi}\Psi(a,c;z)+\frac{\Gamma(c)}{\Gamma(a)}e^{i\pi(a-c)}e^{x}\Psi(c-a,c;-z),$$ and Eq.(\[Eq: an to bn\]), we can rewrite Eq.(\[Eq: sol at inf\]) as $$R_{C}^{\nu}=R_{C\;\text{in}}^{\nu}+R_{C\;\text{out}}^{\nu},$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
R_{C\;\text{in}}^{\nu}=&2^{\nu}e^{i\pi(\nu+1+i\epsilon)}
\frac{\Gamma (\nu +1 -i \epsilon)}{\Gamma (\nu +1 +i \epsilon)}
e^{-i z}z^{\nu+i\epsilon}(z-\kappa \epsilon )^{-i \epsilon }\sum _{n=-\infty }^{\infty } i^n a_n^{\;\nu}(2 z)^n \Psi (n+\nu+1+i \epsilon,2n+2\nu+2;2 i z),
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
R_{C\;\text{out}}^{\nu}=&2^{\nu}e^{-i\pi(\nu+1-i\epsilon)}
e^{i z}z^{\nu+i\epsilon}(z-\kappa \epsilon )^{-i \epsilon }\sum _{n=-\infty }^{\infty } i^n\frac{\left(\nu+1-i\epsilon\right)_n}{(\nu+1+i\epsilon)_n} a_n^{\;\nu}(2 z)^n \Psi (n+\nu+1-i \epsilon,2n+2\nu+2;-2 i z),
\end{aligned}$$ where $R_{C\;\text{in}}^{\nu}$ and $R_{C\;\text{out}}^{\nu}$ are the ingoing wave and outgoing wave solutions at infinity, respectively. And $\Psi$ is the irregular confluent hypergeometric function. At large $|z|$, $\Psi$ has the following asymptotic behavior $$\Psi(a,c;z)\rightarrow z^{-a}\;\;\;\text{as}\;|z|\rightarrow\infty.$$ Thus, at infinity, $R_{C\;\text{in}}^{\nu}$ and $R_{C\;\text{out}}^{\nu}$ behave as $$R_{C\;\text{in}}^{\nu}=A^{\nu}_{\text{in}}z^{-1}e^{-i(z+\epsilon\ln z)},$$ $$R_{C\;\text{out}}^{\nu}=A^{\nu}_{\text{out}}z^{-1}e^{i(z+\epsilon\ln z)},$$ where $$A^{\nu}_{\text{in}}=2^{-1-i\epsilon}e^{i\frac{\pi}{2}(\nu+1+i\epsilon)}\frac{\Gamma(1+\nu-i\epsilon)}{\Gamma(1+\nu+i\epsilon)}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}a_{n}^{\;\nu},$$ $$A^{\nu}_{\text{out}}=2^{-1+i\epsilon}e^{-i\frac{\pi}{2}(\nu+1-i\epsilon)}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}(-1)^n\frac{\left(\nu+1-i\epsilon\right)_n}{(\nu+1+i\epsilon)_n}a_n^{\;\nu},$$ Note that there exist another independent solution which is obtained by replacing $\nu$ with $-\nu-1$. It is given by $$R_{C}^{-\nu-1}=-ie^{-i\pi\nu}\frac{\sin\pi(\nu+i\epsilon)}{\sin\pi(\nu-i\epsilon)}R_{C\;\text{in}}^{\nu}+ie^{i\pi\nu}R_{C\;\text{out}}^{\nu}.$$
Matching of the two solutions
-----------------------------
We have obtained two types of solutions $R_0^{\;\nu}$ and $R_C^{\;\nu}$ of Eq.(\[Eq: the radial eq\]). Note that both of them could be expressed in terms of $z=\kappa\epsilon(1-x)$, and they are convergent for a wide range of $z$, i.e., $\kappa\epsilon<z<\infty$. Using the large $z$ behavior of the (confluent) hypergeometric functions, one finds that $R_0^{\;\nu}$ must be proportional to $R_C^{\;\nu}$, i.e., $$R_0^{\;\nu}=K_{\nu}R_C^{\;\nu}.$$ The constant factor $K_{\nu}$ is obtained by comparing the asymptotic behavior of $R_0^{\;\nu}$ and $R_C^{\;\nu}$. It is given by $$\begin{aligned}
K_{\nu}=&e^{i\kappa\epsilon}(2\kappa\epsilon)^{-\nu-p}i^p\frac{\Gamma(1-2i\epsilon)\Gamma(p+2\nu+2)}{\Gamma(p+\nu+1+i\epsilon)^3}
\times\left(\sum_{n=p}^{\infty}(-1)^n\frac{\Gamma(n+p+2\nu+1)}{(n-p)!}\frac{\Gamma(n+\nu+1+i\epsilon)^2}{\Gamma(n+\nu+1-i\epsilon)^2}a_n^{\;\nu}\right)\\
&\times\left(\sum_{n=-\infty}^{p}\frac{(-1)^n}{(p+2\nu+2)_n(p-n)!}\frac{\left(\nu+1-i\epsilon\right)_n}{(\nu+1+i\epsilon)_n}a_n^{\;\nu}\right)^{-1},
\end{aligned}$$ where $p$ is an arbitrary integer and $K_{\nu}$ is independent of the choice of $p$. This can be used as a check of the calculation. Thus, the ingoing wave solution (\[Eq: ingoing soln\]) could also be expressed the Coulomb functions, i.e., $$\label{Eq: sol via MST}
R^{\text{in}}=K_{\nu}R_C^{\;\nu}+K_{-\nu-1}R_C^{\;-\nu-1}
=\left(K_{\nu}-ie^{-i\pi\nu}\frac{\sin\pi(\nu+i\epsilon)}{\sin\pi(\nu-i\epsilon)}K_{-\nu-1}\right)R_{C\;\text{in}}^{\nu}
+\left(K_{\nu}+ie^{i\pi\nu}K_{-\nu-1}\right)R_{C\;\text{out}}^{\nu}.$$ From Eq.(\[Eq: bcs infty\]), the radial function has the form $$R(r)\sim A^{(-)}_{\lambda-1/2}\left(\frac{r}{2M}\right)^{-1-i2M\omega}e^{-i\omega r}+A^{(+)}_{\lambda-1/2}\times(\omega\rightarrow-\omega)$$ as $r\rightarrow\infty$. Here, we have used $l=\lambda-1/2$. Finally, comparing this equation with Eq.(\[Eq: sol via MST\]) and using $z=\omega(r-Q^2/M)$, we obtain $$A^{(-)}_{\lambda-1/2}=\epsilon^{-1}e^{-i\epsilon\ln\epsilon}\left(K_{\nu}-ie^{-i\pi\nu}\frac{\sin\pi(\nu+i\epsilon)}{\sin\pi(\nu-i\epsilon)}K_{-\nu-1}\right)A_{\text{in}}^{\nu},$$ $$A^{(+)}_{\lambda-1/2}=\epsilon^{-1}e^{i\epsilon\ln\epsilon}\left(K_{\nu}+ie^{i\pi\nu}K_{-\nu-1}\right)A_{\text{out}}^{\nu}.$$
[^1]: Here $S_{\lambda-1/2}(\omega)$ denotes the analytic extension of $S_{l}(\omega)$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Multiple planet systems provide an ideal laboratory for probing exoplanet composition, formation history and potential habitability. For the TRAPPIST-1 planets, the planetary radii are well established from transits [@Gill16; @Gill17], with reasonable mass estimates coming from transit timing variations [@Gill17; @Wang17] and dynamical modeling [@Quar17]. The low bulk densities of the TRAPPIST-1 planets demand significant volatile content. Here we show using mass-radius-composition models, that f and g likely contain substantial ($\geq50$ wt%) water/ice, with b and c being significantly drier ($\leq15$ wt%). We propose this gradient of water mass fractions implies planets f and g formed outside the primordial snow line whereas b and c formed inside. We find that compared to planets in our solar system that also formed within the snow line, TRAPPIST-1b and c contain hundreds more oceans worth of water. We demonstrate the extent and timescale of migration in the system depends on how rapidly the planets formed and the relative location of the primordial snow line. This work provides a framework for understanding the differences between the protoplanetary disks of our solar system versus M dwarfs. Our results provide key insights into the volatile budgets, timescales of planet formation, and migration history of likely the most common planetary host in the Galaxy.'
author:
- 'Cayman T. Unterborn$^{1,3}$, Steven J. Desch$^{1}$, Natalie R. Hinkel$^{2}$, Alejandro Lorenzo$^{1}$'
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: 'Inward Migration of the TRAPPIST-1 Planets as Inferred From Their Water-Rich Compositions'
---
School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235, USA
[email protected]
The derivation of a planetary composition from only its mass and radius is a notoriously difficult exercise because of the many degeneracies that exist. The geophysical and geochemical behavior of a planet is extremely sensitive to such factors as the size of the iron core, the mantle mineralogy, and the location of phase boundaries within any rock and ice layers [@Dorn15; @Unte16]. For astrobiological applications it is crucial to constrain the exact amount of surficial water a planet contains. Yet current models assume only pure iron cores and an Earth-like composition for the mantles, and often assume [*either*]{} an iron core plus silicate mantle [*or*]{} a silicate planet plus ice mantle [@Zeng16]. While useful for broadly constraining rocky versus volatile-rich composition, current mass-radius constraints often fail to meaningfully quantify the specific planetary composition [@Dorn15; @Unte16]. For example, [@Quar17] constrained the masses of the planets using dynamical stability arguments, and found they were compatible with compositions between 0% and 100% water ice. The mass-radius fitting of [@Gill17] and [@Wang17] provided similar, but still uncertain, constraints. We argue that simultaneous mass-radius-composition fitting of all the TRAPPIST-1 planets, using the context from the planetary system as a whole, allows better quantification of the allowable structures and mineralogies given the mass-radius measurements and their uncertainties. We, therefore, analyzed the interior structures and mineralogies of the the six best-constrained planets (b-g) using the ExoPlex code (Methods). ExoPlex computes the mass of planet given the input radius with the assumed composition. The identity of the less-dense component of each of the planets is almost certainly either ${\rm H}_{2}{\rm O}$ liquid/ice (because of its cosmochemical abundance) or a gaseous envelope [@Gill17]. On large planets with radius greater than $1.6 \, R_{\oplus}$ radii, extended H$_2$ atmospheres significantly lower the bulk density of the planet [@Weis14; @Roge15], but we consider this unlikely for any of the planets (Methods). Ruling out an atmosphere entirely is nearly impossible, but we proceed under the assumption that the planets all lack extended atmospheres and that the transit radii measure their solid surfaces and the volatile component of each planet is liquid water and/or water-ice. For each modeled planet, we adopt a bulk Fe/Mg and Si/Mg ratio, ${\rm H}_{2}{\rm O}$ mass fraction and total radius (see Methods for details).
![Modeled $\chi^{2}$ goodness-of-fit for the planets as a function of the relative fraction in weight percent added to the system. Lighter bands represent those models with 0.5 $<$ Fe/Mg $<$ 1.3 (a proxy for the relative size of a planet’s core and mantle) while the darker bands are those models with 0.55 $<$ Fe/Mg $<$ 0.9 (Thick dashed lines represent Fe/Mg = 1.3). This subsample are those stars with compositions within 1$\sigma$ of the average Fe/Mg for 930 FGK stars from the Hypatia Catalog[@Hink14] (see Methods) within the reported metallicity range of range -0.04 $\leq$ \[Fe/H\] $\leq$ 0.12 [@Gill16]. For those modeled planets with Fe/Mg = 1.3, no solution for core-mantle-ice shell size was found to suffice compositional and water mass fraction constraints. These areas are left blank.[]{data-label="fig:chi"}](Chi_squared.pdf){width="12cm"}
We explored the phase space of potential composition by calculating $\chi^2$ in mass for each planet (Figure 1) as a function of water mass fractions of $f_{\rm H2O}$ from 0 - 55 wt% (note: the value is $< 0.1$wt% for Earth [@Mott07]) and across an Fe/Mg range characteristic of stars of similar metallicity (Figure 1; Methods and Supplementary Figures 2 and 3). A planet’s Fe/Mg is roughly a measure of the relative ratio of core to mantle [@Dorn15; @Unte16; @Unte17]. For each planet, the modeled mass, $M_{\rm mod}$, is compared to the observed mass, $M_{\rm obs}$, and a goodness-of-fit parameter: $\chi^2 \equiv (M_{\rm mod} - M_{\rm obs})^2 / \sigma_{\rm M}^2$, is found. Here, $\sigma_{\rm M}$ is the observational uncertainty in the mass. Uncertainties in radius are also considered by increasing or decreasing the input total radius of the modeled planet accordingly. We adopt the $M_{\rm obs}$ and $\sigma_{\rm M}$ data of [@Wang17] for this study. These masses are consistent with the dynamical orbital stability studies [@Quar17].
To fit b at the $1\sigma$ level requires $7\leq f_{\rm H2O}\leq$ 12 wt%. In contrast, c is fit at the $1\sigma$ level by $f_{\rm H2O}$ [*less than*]{} 10 wt% for the same Fe/Mg range. Planets d and e are equally well fit ($\chi^2 \geq 1$) by all considered compositions due to their high uncertainties in mass, however, $\chi^2$ for planet d begins to rise above 1 as $f_{\rm H2O}$ increases above 50 wt%. Compared to the inner planets, f and g are much more water-rich and are best fit only with water fractions greater than $\leq50$ wt% water, regardless of Fe/Mg. If we assume that water fractions increase with orbital radius as observed in our solar system, we can use the composition of planet c to constrain that of planet b, such that both planets likely have between 7 and 10 wt% water. Assuming c and f are 1$\sigma$ larger and smaller in radius, respectively, only represents a 5 wt% increase and decrease in best-fit water fraction, increasing our calculated upper-limit water fraction for b and c to 15 wt% . Thus, within the current uncertainties, our model result that the system contains relatively “dry” inner planets and wet outer planets is robust and is consistent with the findings of [@Gill17]. While the reported masses of the planets may be revised with longer-time TTV data, our conclusion of a relatively “dry” inner and “wet” outer system is consistent with the previous mass estimates of [@Gill17]. Furthermore, this result and line of reasoning is independent of how the planets acquired their water, be it from formation beyond the snow line or due to late delivery via giant impacts [@Raym04].
![The orbital radius of our modeled water snow line as a function of time of planet formation. Blue lines represent the minimum pre-migration orbital radius of d for various migration distance factors. If d formed at $>$ 0.15 AU, it would have to have formed in $<$ 5 million years.[]{data-label="fig:snowline"}](SNOW.pdf){width=".6\linewidth"}
All of the planets currently orbit well inside the primordial snow line of their protoplanetary disk and thus are unlikely to have formed in-situ as in [@Quar17] (Methods). Indeed, radial migration of planets is commonly inferred in planetary systems [@Liss11; @Fabr14; @Stef15], including the system (Methods). From our modeled gradient of water fraction in the disk, we infer then the innermost planets (b and c) formed inside a snow line and the outermost planets (f, g, and h) formed outside it and migrated to their current location (Methods). Due to the current uncertanties in the mass of planets d and e, our mass-radius-composition results are consistent with the primordial snow line being anywhere between the orbits of planets c and f. For convenience and demonstration purposes, we proceed assuming the primordial snow line was present at the pre-migration orbital radius of planet d. We calculate the position of the snow line, the location in the disk where the temperature is such that ${\rm H}_{2}{\rm O}$ condenses as ice or remains as vapor. We calculate this temperature to be $T = 212$ K, which which is greater than that of the solar nebula (170 K) due to the greater surface density of M-dwarf disks compared to the solar nebula (Methods). We calculate the radial location of the snow line by assuming a passively heated, flared disk as modeled by [@Chia97]. We calculate location of $r_{snow}$ to be: $$r_{\rm snow} \approx 0.06 \, \left( \frac{ M_{\star} }{ 0.08 \, M_{\odot} } \right)^{-1/3} \,
\left( \frac{ L_{\star} }{ 0.01 \, L_{\odot} } \right)^{2/3} \, {\rm AU},
\label{eq:rsnow}$$ where $M_{\star}$, $M_{\odot}$, $L_{\star}$, and $L_{\odot}$ are the mass and luminosity of the star and Sun, respectively (see Methods). While the stellar mass is fixed, the stellar luminosity of an M dwarf decreases steadily throughout the $\sim 10 - 30$ Myr typical lifetime of its protoplanetary disk [@Bara02]. We use the stellar evolution models of [@Bara02] to estimate the luminosity of at various epochs. At age 10 Myr where $L_{\star} \approx 1 \times 10^{-2} \, L_{\odot}$, $r_{\rm snow} \approx 0.06 \, {\rm AU}$; however $r_{\rm snow}$ moves inward as $L_{\star}$ decreases over time (Figure 2). During the first 10 Myr of the evolution of the protoplanetary disk, the snow line was outside the present orbital radius of all the planets, including h. Unless the disk persisted for substantially longer than 50 Myr, the snow line was always beyond the current orbital radius of d. Inclusion of accretional heating in the disk would move the snow line even further out, requiring even greater migration than proposed here. The compositional arguments for migration reinforce strong evidence from the large masses and orbital resonances of the TRAPPIST-1 planets (Methods) that they underwent considerable inward migration. The degree of inward migration is uncertain because planet accretion timescales in M dwarf disks are unknown.
If the planets formed within 10 Myr in their protoplanetary disk, from a mix of rock (inside the snow line) or rock and ice (outside the snow line), then their orbital radii must have decreased due to later migration by a factor $\sim3$ assuming the primordial snow line was present at the orbit of d (Figure 2). In this scenario, if the planets formed more rapidly, within 3 Myr of the disk’s lifetime, and if they reflect the composition of the disk at that time, then their orbital radii must have decreased by a factor of $\sim6$. Only if the planets took $\gg 20$ Myr to form could we infer that they migrated by less than a factor of two of their current orbits. Theoretical work[@Lee16] has suggested that that the planets formed as late as $\sim$40 Myr if there is enough gas drag to prevent planetesimal growth until the gas begins to disperse. If planet formation took this long, and if TRAPPIST-1f formed just outside the snow line, it is possible to reconcile the planet compositions without any migration. We view this as highly unlikely, though, in light of the very rapid formation of planets in the solar system, our inference of faster planet growth in the system (Figure 2), and the other arguments in favor of migration (Methods). At any rate, our modeling provides an outline for constraining the degree of migration as the planet masses are better constrained, particularly those of planets d and e.
![Phase diagram with depth as modeled with the ExoPlex mass-radius-composition calculator for the best-fit interiors of f (Fe/Mg = 0.8, Mg/Si = 1 and 50 wt% ; See Methods). Density as a function of depth is shown as a dashed line. Adiabatic temperatures at the bottom each major boundary layer are included for reference assuming thermal boundary layers at the water-mantle and core-mantle boundary (See Methods). Note that due to the increased pressure at the water-mantle boundary ($\sim$25 GPa), no upper mantle and transition zone mineral phases are present in g. Due its the lower mass (and thus central pressure), no post-perovskite is present as well.[]{data-label="fig:Mineralogy"}](trap_f.pdf){width="0.6\linewidth"}
Here we provide a theoretical framework of self-consistent mass-radius-composition calculations and astrophysical modeling for characterizing volatile-rich, multiple planet systems. Applying this framework to the system, if planet d formed at or near the snow line, it must have migrated inward by a factor $\sim 2-4$, with the exact value depending on when the planets formed. Even this crude estimate of this value allows us to estimate of the surface density in ’s protoplanetary disk. We find it must have been similar to the “minimum-mass solar nebula” model of the average of M stars in the [*Kepler*]{} database [@Gaid17], and much higher than in the solar nebula (Methods). As a consequence, planet formation and migration in all M dwarf disks is most likely more rapid than in our own Solar System’s protoplanetary disk. The lower but still high value of $f_{\rm H2O}$ in planets b and/or c suggests that the snow line was not a sharp boundary, and/or that planets accreted substantial material from beyond the snow line after formation. Planets within M-dwarf systems, then, are likely to contain significantly more water than the Earth, or any planetary body in our solar system. Liquid water may exist below a high pressure ice layer[@Noac16] or tidal heating may cause temperatures to be above that of ice[@Barr18]. Even if planets are warm enough to contain no ice, given enough surface water the overbearing pressure will enough to suppress decompression mantle melting [@Kite09] and transition directly to a mineralogy where only lower-mantle minerals are stable below the water-mantle boundary (Figure 3). Given these factors, rocky planets with water fractions greater than Earth may not behave geochemically and geophysically similar manners as the Earth. Furthermore, continental crust is unlikely to reach above the water layer. With no exposed land, key geochemical cycles including the draw down of carbon and phosphorus into oceanic reservoirs from continental weathering will be muted, thus limiting the size of the biosphere. As such, while these planets may be habitable in the classical definition, any biosignature observed from these planets system may not be fully distinguishable from abiotic, purely geochemical sources. Thus, while M-dwarfs may be the most common habitable planet-host in our Galaxy, they may be the toughest on which to detect life.
Methods
=======
Retention of Atmospheres
------------------------
We consider the presence of significant atmospheres as unlikely for any of the planets for a variety of reasons. First, even a small amount of H$_2$/He would have very noticeable effects. Namely, in an atmosphere of mass $\sim10^{-6} \, M_{\oplus}$ ($\sim1$ bar surface pressure for an “Earth-like” planet), the 1 microbar level, or the effective planetary photosphere[@Lope12] would lie at an altitude $\sim 4400$ km. An atmosphere such as this would significantly increase the radius of any of the planets. If the planets had accreted and retained extended atmospheres, at least some of them might be expected to have densities $<$1 g cm$^{-3}$, similar to Kepler 11f [@Bede17]. The H$_2$/He mass would have to be implausibly fine-tuned across the entire system to lower the bulk densities to even a small extent. Second, the H$_2$/He atmospheres accreted by planets as small as the planets are easily lost. The X-ray/ultraviolet (XUV) irradiation from will cause $\sim10^{-4} \, M_{\oplus}$ of atmospheric mass loss on each planet. The proto-atmosphere accretion simulations of [@Stoe15] show that only planets $> 1 M_{\oplus}$ accrete atmospheres this massive. We find that planet c alone might have accreted an atmosphere more massive than might be lost by XUV irradiation; but c is also the densest planet and the one that shows the least evidence for retention of an atmosphere. Third, observations of other exoplanets strongly suggest a threshold radius $\approx 1.6 \, R_{\oplus}$ for significant reduction of inferred bulk density [@Weis14; @Roge15], and the planets, all with radii $< 1.1 R_{\oplus}$, are well below the threshold. It also is likely all the planets could easily replenish water vapor atmospheres. H$_2$O atmospheres, however, will have a smaller scale height compared to H$_2$/He, and thus the presence of such atmospheres would not change the inferred radii substantially.
### H$_2$/He Atmosphere
Whether any of the planets can retain an extended H$_2$/He atmosphere that changes its inferred radius depends on how much atmosphere it can accrete from its disk, and how much atmosphere is lost over time by heating by XUV heating. We calculate the erosion of planetary atmospheres by XUV heating from the central star using the formalism of [@Lope12]. The energy-limited mass loss rate is $$\dot{M} \approx \frac{ \epsilon \, \pi \, F_{\rm XUV} \, R_{\rm XUV}^3 }{ G M_{\rm p} \, K_{\rm tide} } \, ,$$ where $F_{\rm XUV}$ is the flux of XUV photons, $R_{\rm XUV} \approx R_{\rm p}$ is the radius at which the atmosphere becomes optically thick to XUV photons [@Wats81; @Erka07], the efficiency with which XUV energy is converted into atmospheric loss is $\epsilon \approx 0.1$ [@Lope12], and $K_{\rm tide} \approx 1$ is a small correction to account for the fact that gas must escape only to the Hill sphere to be lost. Other studies[@Whea17], using a similar treatment, calculated the mass of atmosphere that could be lost if the mass loss was energy-limited and the efficiency by which absorbed XUV energy was converted into atmospheric escape was 10%, using XMM-Newton measurements of the XUV fluxes from . We update their calculations, scaling to an age of 8 Gyr [@Burg17], and using the mass and radius for each planet as reported by [@Wang17]. We find the following atmosphere mass losses over 8 Gyr for the planets: 0.050, 0.013, 0.022, 0.021, 0.010, 0.005, and 0.011 Earth masses, for planets b through h, respectively. In other words, atmospheres less massive than about 0.005-0.05 Earth masses are easily lost due to X-ray/UV irradiation over the age of the system.
These are to be compared to the masses of hydrogen each planet might have accreted. According to the proto-atmosphere accretion models[@Stoe15], planets $< 0.5 M_{\oplus}$ accrete $\ll 10^{-4} \, M_{\oplus}$ of gas. Only b, c and g need be considered. Without loss, planets b and g would today have an atmosphere $< 1 \times 10^{-5} \, M_{\oplus}$, so no extended atmosphere can be expected to remain on either planet. Planet c, however, might accrete an atmosphere $\sim 3 \times 10^{-4} \, M_{\oplus}$, marginally greater than the amount that can be lost. Because of its greater mass, planet c is the only planet in the system that could retain a portion of an H$_2$/He proto-atmosphere accreted from its disk. But planet c is actually the densest of the planets, and the one that shows the least evidence for retention of an H$_2$/He atmosphere. It seems unlikely that the planets could retain H$_2$/He atmospheres. This is consistent with the finding that planets with radii $< 1.6$ R$_\oplus$ generally do not show evidence for inflation by H$_2$/He atmospheres.
### H$_2$O Atmosphere
It is likely all the planets contain could easily replenish water vapor atmospheres. However, H$_2$O atmospheres will have a smaller scale height compared to H$_2$/He atmospheres, and thus the presence of such atmospheres would not change the inferred radii substantially. Depending on the temperature, the maximum pressure at the base of an atmosphere can be estimated at 1-100 bar (at higher pressures the vapor condenses). The upper level of the atmosphere (from a transit perspective) is about 1 microbar [@Lope12]. Therefore, the maximum thickness of an H$_2$O atmosphere is 14-18 scale heights. Assuming $H = k T / (m g)$, imposing $T = 300$ K, we calculate $H$ = 31.5 km for g, meaning that the radius of g is inflated by no more than 580 km, or 0.09 R$_\oplus$. Even with a maximal H$_2$O vapor atmosphere, g has a radius of at least 1.04 R$_\oplus$, and a density half of Earth’s. Thus, planet g is still ice-rich. Similar (but less precise) results are obtained for planet f. If planets b and c possessed substantial H$_2$O atmospheres, they would likely have lower ice fractions and our results again represent an upper limit. Therefore we consider it a robust conclusion that even with H$_2$O atmospheres that b and c are relatively ice-poor and g (and f) are relatively ice-rich.
The ExoPlex code iteratively solves for a planet’s density, pressure, gravity and adiabatic temperature profiles that are consistent with the pressures derived from hydrostatic equilibrium, the mass within a sphere, and the equation of state (EOS) of constituent minerals. We adopt models of $\sim$1000 shells in a spherically symmetric planet. We partition each modeled planet into a metal core composed of pure liquid-Fe, a rocky mantle composed of ${\rm MgO}$ and ${\rm SiO}_2$ compounds, and an outer water/ice layer. ExoPlex determines the mineralogy and density as determined by the EOS at each depth in the rocky mantle using the PerPlex Gibbs free energy minimizer package [@Conn09]. We adopt the thermally dependent EOS of liquid water of [@Stix90], and for the ice layer, we have implemented an approximate equation of state including liquid water, ice I, ice VI and ice VII.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Phase diagrams with depth for the modeled best-fit interiors of c and f with Fe/Mg = 0.8, Mg/Si = 1 and 8 and 50 wt% , respectively. Density as a function of depth is shown as a dashed line. Temperatures at the bottom each major boundary layer are included for reference. Note that due to the increased pressure at the water-mantle boundary ($\sim$25 GPa), no upper mantle phases are present in g while due to the lower mass (and thus central pressure), no post-perovskite is present. []{data-label="fig:phases"}](trap_c.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
![Phase diagrams with depth for the modeled best-fit interiors of c and f with Fe/Mg = 0.8, Mg/Si = 1 and 8 and 50 wt% , respectively. Density as a function of depth is shown as a dashed line. Temperatures at the bottom each major boundary layer are included for reference. Note that due to the increased pressure at the water-mantle boundary ($\sim$25 GPa), no upper mantle phases are present in g while due to the lower mass (and thus central pressure), no post-perovskite is present. []{data-label="fig:phases"}](trap_f.pdf "fig:"){width="7.5cm"}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The refractory element composition of a terrestrial exoplanet composition is, to first-order, roughly that of its host star [@Bond10; @Dorn15; @Thia15; @Unte16; @Unte17]. The chemical composition of is unknown, outside of its iron content: \[Fe/H\] = 0.04 $\pm$ 0.08 [@Gill16]. For these models then, we fixed the Mg/Si molar ratio to 1 and varied $0.5 < {\rm Fe}/{\rm Mg} < 1.3$ (note: the bulk Earth value is Fe/Mg = 0.9)[@McD03]. By varying Fe/Mg, we are effectively changing the core-to-mantle ratio of our modeled planet, whereas Mg/Si varies only the relative molar proportions of SiO$_2$, MgO and MgSiO$_3$ in the bulk of the mantle [@Unte16]. While a planet’s Ca/Mg and Al/Mg ratios may play an important role in melting processes, mantle viscoelastic properties and phase equilibria, the mass-radius relation of a planet is relatively insensitive to their exact values [@Dorn15; @Unte16]. We find that the Ca/Mg and Al/Mg ratios typically found in main sequence stars [@Hink14] change our calculated mass-radius relationships by less than a percent and thus we neglect these elements in our model for simplicity.
While we neglect light elements in the core, the change to the mass-radius relation is only a few percent at Earth-like light element mass fractions ($\geq 10\%$[@Unte16]). Both water and light elements being present in the core lower the bulk density of a planet, and as such our proposed water fractions should be considered upper limits. The inclusion of core light elements into our model would cause us to infer the planets are drier than we report here, but our overall result of an increasing *gradient* of water content with orbital distance is robust. Furthermore, this gradient is still present in our models when the uncertainties in the measured planet radius are included. ExoPlex follows the same iterative procedure seen in other papers [@Zapo69; @Seag07; @Unte16]. Given shells of fixed mass $d$ at various radii, $r$, ExoPlex calculates the gravity field, $g(r)$, and pressure gradient, $P(r)$, by integrating equation of hydrostatic equilibrium: $$\frac{dP}{dr} = -\rho(r) \, g(r)$$ where $\rho(r)$ is the density of the layer. $\rho(r)$ is then calculated using the equation of state of the stable constituent minerals within the layer as determined by PerPlex [@Conn09]. The positions $r$ of the shells is then recalculated using the volume calculated from the new density at depth and shell mass. This process is then iterated until convergence, which we define as the change in density in every shell between iterations does not change by one part in 10$^{-6}$. Because the rock relatively incompressible, this procedure converges within 20 iterations. ExoPlex is able to self-consistently calculate phase equilibria across a wide range of P-T space for a given change in bulk composition, rather than ad-hoc dictating the mineralogy as in previous studies (e.g. [@Zeng13; @Unte16]). Thus it is more akin to the models developed in [@Dorn15]. We adopt the thermally dependent EOS formalisms of [@Stix05] for the mantle, [@Ander94] for the liquid Fe-core and The International Association for the Properties of Water and Steam (IAPWS) formalism for determining water/ice phase equilibria. We self-consistently calculate adiabatic geotherms starting with a potential temperature of 300 K for the water layer, mantle potential temperature of 1700 K, and core temperature of 2000 K greater than the mantle-core boundary temperature. ExoPlex output calculations for the mineralogy, density and temperature of c and f with 8 and 50 wt% water, respectively, with Fe/Mg = 0.8 and Si/Mg = 1 are shown in Supplementary Figure 1. Due to the lack of Ca and Al in our model, no garnet phases are present, which leads to the formation of stishovite and wadsleyite in the upper-mantles of c despite Mg/Si = 1.
Hypatia Catalog
---------------
![Range of Fe/Mg with respect to Solar normalized \[Fe/H\] for the full Hypatia Catalog sample. The dashed lines show the stellar compositions within 1$\sigma$ of the reported metallicity \[2\] and the Fe/Mg used in this analysis. Each star is color-coded to show distance from the Sun and the respective error (namely, the average of the error as reported by each Hypatia data set that measured that element \[5\]) is given in the top right corner of the plot. []{data-label="fig:stars"}](stars.pdf){width=".75\linewidth"}
![Histogram of Fe/Mg for a subsample of the Hypatia catalog with -0.04 $\leq$ \[Fe/H\] $\leq$ 0.12 \[2\] and C/O $\leq$ 0.8. The best fit gaussian distribution of Fe/Mg = 0.75 $\pm$ 0.2 is shown as a red dashed line. The Sun and Earth’s Fe/Mg are shown as a blue line (Fe/Mg $\approx$ 0.9) \[42,34\]. []{data-label="fig:histogram"}](histo.pdf){width=".75\linewidth"}
The Hypatia Catalog [@Hink14; @Hink16; @Hink17] is an amalgamate dataset composed of stellar abundance measurements from $\sim$200 literature sources. Hypatia currently has $\sim$65 elements as found in $\sim$6000 FGK-type stars all found within 150 pc of the Sun. In order to put all of the abundance determinations on the baseline, all of the measurements were renormalized to the same solar abundance scale, namely [@Ande89] where log $\epsilon$(Fe) = 7.50. This solar normalization is the same that was used for by [@Gill16]. The standard range of Fe/Mg found within Hypatia for well agreed upon, thin disk stars [@Hink16] are shown in Supplementary Figure 2, where the dashed lines show the compositions used within this analysis. Supplementary Figure 3 shows the Fe/Mg distribution of stars within 1$\sigma$ of the measured metallicity of [@Gill17]. We therefore adopt this range of compositions for our interior models: 0.5$leq$Fe/Mg $leq$1.3. The Sun and Earth’s Fe/Mg is approximately 0.9 [@Ande89; @McD03]. The Hypatia Catalog can be found online at www.hypatiacatalog.com.
Snow lines in M dwarf disks
---------------------------
The position of the snow line in a protoplanetary disk depends on how the disk intercepts and reradiates stellar radiation, which means it depends on disk structure as well as stellar luminosity. Because of the disk’s shielding ability, temperatures at a given radius in a protoplanetary disk are generally much lower than the temperatures of blackbodies in free space at the same radius. However, especially for M stars, stellar luminosity is much greater during the disk lifetime than several Gyr later. To compute where the snow line should be, we assume a passively heated (non-accreting) disk and calculate the temperature where the temperature is approximately that of the sublimation temperature of water ice. For the solar nebula, this temperature is, $T = 170 \, {\rm K}$. Given the larger surface density in an M-dwarf disk, however, this temperature will be higher than in the solar nebula. Using the equations found in [@Maue03], we find that for a surface density of $1.2\times10^{5}$ g cm$^{-2}$, the vapor pressure of (half the) water at 0.24 AU is about 1 Pa, and the sublimation temperature is $\sim$212 K. Following [@Kenn08], we use the formulation of CG97[@Chia97], but we do not assume parameters relevant to G stars. CG97 assume a disk in hydrostatic equilibrium whose radiating surface lies at height $$H = 4 \, \frac{C}{\Omega} = 4 \, \left( \frac{k T}{\bar{m}} \right)^{1/2} \,
\left( \frac{G M_{\star}}{r^3} \right)^{-1/2}
\label{eq:height}$$ above the midplane, $C$ being the sound speed and $\Omega$ the Keplerian orbital frequency at a distance $r$ from the star of mass $M_{\star}$. Other variables have their usual meanings. Starlight impinges on the surface at a glancing angle $\alpha$, where: $$\alpha = \frac{d H}{dr} - \frac{H}{r} = r \, \frac{d}{dr} \left( \frac{H}{r} \right).$$ The disk temperature at radius $r$ is easily found by balancing absorption of starlight against disk emission, to find $$T(r) = T_{\star} \, \alpha^{1/4} \, \left( \frac{r}{R_{\star}} \right)^{-1/2},
\label{eq:temp}$$ where the star has temperature $T_{\star}$ and radius $R_{\star}$, and therefore luminosity $L_{\star} = 4\pi R_{\star}^2 \, \sigma T_{\star}^4$. Note that Equation 1 of CG97 incorrectly divides $\alpha$ by a factor of 2, reducing the temperature by about 20%. By combining these equations, it is straightforward to show that $$T(r) = T_{\star} \,
\left[ \frac{8}{7} \, \left( \frac{k T_{\star} R_{\star}}{G M_{\star} \bar{m}} \right)^{1/2} \right]^{2/7} \,
\left( \frac{ r }{1 \, {\rm AU}} \right)^{-3/7}.$$ For we assume $M_{\star} = 0.08 \, M_{\odot}$ and therefore $T_{\star} = 3000 \, {\rm K}$ throughout its descent onto the main sequence [@Bara02]. At 10 Myr, its luminosity is $L_{\star} \approx 0.01 \, L_{\odot}$, corresponding to a radius $R_{\star} = 0.37 \, R_{\odot}$, yielding $$T(r) = 62.6 \, \left( \frac{ L_{\star} }{ 0.01 \, L_{\odot} } \right)^{2/7} \,
\left( \frac{ M_{\star} }{ 0.08 \, M_{\odot} } \right)^{-1/7} \,
\left( \frac{ r }{ 1 \, {\rm AU} } \right)^{-3/7} \, {\rm K}.
\label{eq:temptwo}$$ The location where $T = T_{\rm snow} = 170 \, {\rm K}$ for the solar nebula, however due to the higher surface density is therefore $$r_{\rm snow} \approx 0.06 \, \left( \frac{ M_{\star} }{ 0.08 \, M_{\odot} } \right)^{-1/3} \,
\left( \frac{ L_{\star} }{ 0.01 \, L_{\odot} } \right)^{2/3} \, {\rm AU}.
\label{eq:rsnow2}$$ Note that the stellar temperature and radius enter only through the stellar luminosity, so this formula is generally applicable, and would predict $r_{\rm snow} \approx 0.14 \, {\rm AU}$ in the Kepler-32 system at 10 Myr, and $r_{\rm snow} \approx 0.9 \, {\rm AU}$ around the Sun at about 2 Myr, when $L \approx 1 \, L_{\odot}$ and $T_{snow} = 170 K$[@Bara02]. For the system, it is clear that even at $t = 10 \, {\rm Myr}$ the snow line was well outside the current positions of the planets. It is important to note too that the inclusion of accretional heating in the disk would move the snow line even further out, requiring more migration than proposed here. If disk accretion were a significant source of heating, then the snow line would lie even farther from the star, strengthening the conclusion that the planets are currently well inside the snow line of the disk they formed from, and almost certainly migrated inward.
Migration in M Dwarf disks
--------------------------
[@Swift13] argued for migration in the Kepler-32 system, an M dwarf star with 5 known transiting planets. The Kepler-32 planets far exceed the isolation masses of any reasonable disk at their present locations, are in coupled mean-motion resonances and also have significant volatile content despite being well inside the predicted locations of the water snow line (and in some cases even the silicate sublimation radius). Likewise, the planets are in a remarkable resonant chain, with the period ratios all within 1%, but all slightly larger than, integer ratios [@Gill17; @Wang17]. They have large combined mass, $\sim4 \, M_{\oplus}$, mostly of rock. Applying a rock-to-gas ratio 0.005 [@Lodd03] yields a mass of gas $\sim0.0025 \, M_{\odot}$, about 3% of the mass of itself. This implies that the planets comprise most of the mass of the protoplanetary disk, not just the portion inside 0.06 AU. In fact, the implied surface density of gas in the disk between 0.013 AU and 0.018 AU (the annulus associated with c) is $\sim 1.8 \times 10^7 \, {\rm g} \, {\rm cm}^{-2}$, which if the disk temperature is $T \approx 200$ K at 0.015 AU, suggests a Toomre parameter $Q \approx 0.7$. This Toomre parameter is below the threshold of $Q \approx 0.9$ for gravitational instability in M dwarf disks [@Back16]. As such, if the planets formed in situ as in [@Quar17], rather than migrated after formation, gas-rich Jupiter-like planets would be expected. Hence, the formation of the in place is unlikely as this scenario would produce a gravitationally unstable disk and inconsistent with the observed masses and compositions of the planets themselves. Dynamical rearrangement in these systems may be possible, however given the circular orbits, very low mutual inclinations and period ratios slightly larger than 3:2 are highly suggestive that the system did not undergo any such rearrangement. As our water mass fraction results are dependent on only mass and radius measurements, and thus dynamical history does not change our inferred compositions of the system.
The discovery of multi-planet systems allows for the construction of minimum-mass solar nebula models for protoplanetary disks [@Kuch04; @Gaid17]. Similar to those constructed for the solar nebula [@Desc07], one must account for migration and consider the starting locations of the planets to estimate the disk surface density. If the planets formed within $\sim$ 10 Myr, each of the planets’ orbits must have decreased a factor of $\sim$4. Then, we may estimate the surface density in the disk as: $\Sigma \sim (4 \, M_{\oplus}) (0.005)^{-1} / [ \pi (4 * 0.06 \, {\rm AU})^2 ]$, or $\Sigma \sim 1.2 \times 10^5 \, {\rm g} \, {\rm cm}^{-2}$ inside $\sim$0.24 AU. This surface density is orders of magnitude lower than the surface density estimated assuming c formed in place, but it is still much higher than the surface densities inferred by similar reasoning for the solar nebula ($< 10^4 \, {\rm g} \, {\rm cm}^{-2}$). Even if the planets formed within 3 Myr, so that the snow line at the time of their formation was $\sim8$ times farther from the star than d’s current orbit, the inferred surface densities still exceed those in the solar nebula.
It is encouraging and interesting that a similar conclusion was recently reached by [@Gaid17], who constructed an average “minimum-mass solar nebula” estimate of $\Sigma$ in the protoplanetary disks that gave rise to [*Kepler*]{}-observed systems around M dwarfs. The models of [@Gaid17] include cases in which inward migration of planets is assumed, but with ad hoc assumptions about the starting locations of the planets. By identifying the break between less-icy and more-icy planets and comparing to the location of the snow line, we avoid relying on assumptions about the initial orbits of the planets. Nevertheless, the surface densities we infer for are nearly identical to those they derived assuming migration. Despite its lower mass, ’s disk appears to have had surface densities comparable to those in other M dwarf disks, and higher than the solar nebula. We expect planet formation in M dwarf disks to proceed rapidly, perhaps forming planetary embryos directly as proposed by [@Chia13] and [@Gaid17].
Surface density also plays a role in migration rate. Type I migration of $\sim1 \, M_{\oplus}$ planets, like those in the system, leads to a change in semi-major axis at a rate $\dot{a} \approx -5 \, r \, \Omega \, (M_{\rm p} / M_*) \, ( \Sigma \, r^2 / M_*) \, (h / r)^{-2}$, where $h$ is the scale-height of the disk, $M_{\rm p}$ and $r$ the mass and location of the planet, and the orbital frequency, $\Omega$ [@Tana02]. The factor $(\Sigma r^2 / M_{\star})$ appears to have been an order of magnitude greater in the disk than in the solar nebula, and the factor $(h/r)^{-2}$, scaling with disk temperature, also is greater. We expect type I orbital migration to operate more than an order of magnitude faster in M dwarf disks. Type I migration may have played a limited role in the formation of the Solar System (as in the Grand Tack model[@Wals11]), but it seems to have played a significant role in the disks of , Kepler-32, and potentially other M dwarf systems.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We develop a constructive method to derive exactly solvable quantum mechanical models of rational (Calogero) and trigonometric (Sutherland) type. This method starts from a linear algebra problem: finding eigenvectors of triangular finite matrices. These eigenvectors are transcribed into eigenfunctions of a selfadjoint Schrödinger operator. We prove the feasibility of our method by constructing an “$AG_3$ model” of trigonometric type (the rational case was known before from Wolfes 1975). Applying a Coxeter group analysis we prove its equivalence with the $B_3$ model. In order to better understand features of our construction we exhibit the $F_4$ rational model with our method.'
---
\
= cmr5 = cmr5 at 7pt = cmr5 at 10pt = cmss10 = cmss10 at 5pt = cmss10 at 6pt = cmss10 at 7pt = cmss10 at 9pt ===
[**Is it possible to construct exactly solvable models?**]{}\
\
Department of Physics, University of Kaiserslautern, P.O.Box 3049\
67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany\
[*Dedicated to Professor Jan Lopuszański on the occasion of his 75-th birthday*]{}
Introduction
============
The completely integrable models are traditionally characterized by their relation with simple Lie algebras $A_n, \, B_n, \, C_n, \, D_n, \, G_2, \, F_4, \, E_6, \,
E_7, \, E_8$. This relation is the starting point of the Hamiltonian reduction method exploited by Olshanetsky and Perelomov [@1]. These models possess as limiting cases the trigonometric (Sutherland) and rational (Calogero) models that are exactly soluble, i.e. their eigenvalues and eigenvectors can be derived by elementary methods.
This exact solvability has been shown to follow from the fact that the Schrödinger operators can, after a “gauge transformation”, be rewritten as a quadratic form of Lie algebra operators. These Lie algebra operators are represented as differential operators acting on polynomial spaces. This program was formulated in [@2] and successfully applied first to the $A_n$ series in [@3]. Then it was carried over to the other sequences $B_n, \, C_n, \,
D_n$ and $G_2$ and even to corresponding supersymmetric models [@4; @5].
Our aim was to turn the arguments around and to develop an algorithm which may allow us to construct new exactly soluble models. First investigations were presented in [@6]. The program contains two major and separate issues, to render a second order differential operator curvature free and to find a first order differential operator satisfying an integrability constraint. In this paper we present our algorithm in the following version. We start from a standard flat Laplacian and introduce Coxeter (or Weyl) group invariants as new coordinates. If the Coxeter group contains a symmetric group as subgroup, these invariants are built from elementary symmetric polynomials. The second order differential operators obtained this way are curvature free by construction, and act on polynomial spaces of these Coxeter invariants that form a flag. This flag is defined by means of a characteristic vector ($\vec{p}$-vector).
Then we solve the integrability constraints by constructing “prepotentials” with a fixed algorithm. These prepotentials define the gauge transformation alluded to above which renders the differential operator the form of a standard Schrödinger operator of $N$ particles in 1-dimensional space with a potential. Each prepotential contributes an additive term to this potential with a free (real) coupling constant. Finally the prepotentials define the ground state wave function of the Schrödinger operator which originates from the trivial polynomial in the flag and thus contains no further information. Except a possible oscillator prepotential in the translation invariant cases, the prepotentials are in one-to-one relation with the orbits of the Coxeter group.
We show that all known exactly soluble models can be obtained this way (at present we have to make an exemption with respect to $E_6, \, E_7, \, E_8$, but this will soon be overcome). Applying the method of constructing the Coxeter invariants of $A_2$ [@4] to $A_3$, we obtain an “$AG_3$ model”. Its Coxeter diagram is that of the affine Coxeter group $\hat{B}_3$, which possesses the same invariants as the Coxeter group $B_3$. This leads to an explicit proof of the equivalence of the $AG_3$ model with the $B_3$ model. Thus a translation invariant four–particle model after separation of the c.m. motion is shown to be equivalent with a translation non–invariant three-particle model. In this paper we also discuss $F_4$ from the view point of our algorithm. The Schrödinger operator obtained (only the rational case) deviates slightly from the one given in [@1] (probably due to a simple printing error in [@1]).
Thus our method shifts the centre of interest from the simple Lie algebras and their homogeneous spaces to the corresponding Weyl groups and by generalization to the Coxeter groups. On the other hand, the differential operators acting on polynomial spaces of Coxeter invariants define Lie algebras of their own, but at present these algebras are only of marginal interest.
The constructive program
========================
We are interested here in the bound state spectrum of Schrödinger operators. The whole analysis is therefore performed in real spaces. Consider a flag of polynomial spaces $V_N(\vec{p}), \, N \in \bbbz_{\ge}$, $\vec{p} \in \bbbn^n$ $$\begin{aligned}
& V_N(\vec{p}) = {\rm span} \left\{ z^{r_1}_1 z^{r_2}_2 ... z^{r_n}_n | r_1p_1 + r_2p_2 + ... + r_np_n \le N \right\} &\label{1} \\
&(p_i \in \bbbn)& \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We consider differential operators of first order $$D^{(1)}_{[\vec{\alpha};a]} = z^{[\vec{\alpha}]} \frac{\partial}{\partial z_a} \label{2}$$ ($\vec{\alpha}$ a multi-exponent)\
and of second order $$D^{(2)}_{[\vec{\alpha};a,b]} = z^{[\vec{\alpha}]} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial z_a \partial z_b}
\label{3}$$ that leave each space $V_N(\vec{p})$ invariant. If $$\vec{p} = (1,1,...,1)
\label{4}$$ then the operators (\[2\]) generate the full linear (inhomogeneous) group of $\bbbr_n$ and the operators of second order (\[3\]) can be obtained as products from the first order operators, i.e. in (\[2\]) $$\vec{\alpha} = e^{(c)}, \; e^{(c)}_b = \delta^c_b \quad \rm{ or } \quad \vec{\alpha} = 0
\label{5}$$ and in (\[3\]) $$\vec{\alpha} = e^{(c)} + e^{(d)} \quad \rm{ or } \quad \vec{\alpha} = e^{(c)} \quad \rm{ or } \quad \vec{\alpha} = 0
\label{6}$$
Now we consider a candidate for a future Schrödinger operator $$\begin{aligned}
D &=& - \sum_{\vec{\alpha},a,b} g_{[\vec{\alpha};a,b]} D^{(2)}_{[\vec{\alpha};a,b]} \nonumber \\
&+& \sum_{\vec{\beta},c} h_{[\vec{\beta};c]} D^{(1)}_{[\vec{\beta};c]}
\label{2.7}\end{aligned}$$ The eigenvectors and values of $D$ in $V_N$ can be calculated easily by finite linear algebra methods. Let $$\begin{aligned}
U_N=V_N/V_{N-1} \label{2.8}\end{aligned}$$ and the diagonal part of $D$ on $U_N$ be defined as $D_N$ $$\begin{aligned}
D_N U_N = D U_N \cap U_N \label{2.9}\end{aligned}$$ If the eigenvalues of $D_N$ are all different, the number of eigenvectors equals dim$U_N$. But if some eigenvalues coincide (this is true in the generic case!) the number of eigenvectors is smaller. Then the Hilbert space on which the final selfadjoint Schrödinger operator is acting is not an $L^2$ -space. The missing eigenfunctions can be described. For more details see [@6].
If we want completely integrable models we must make sure that a complete set of involutive differential operators exists. For this task Lie algebraic methods may be very helpful.
Given a differential operator (\[2.7\]) one can characterize the vector $\vec{p}$ in (\[1\]) by inequalities $$\begin{aligned}
g_{[\vec{\alpha};a,b]} \neq 0 & \Rightarrow & \vec{p} \vec{\alpha} -p_a -p_b \leq 0 \label{2.10} \\
h_{[\vec{\beta};c]} \neq 0 & \Rightarrow & \vec{p} \vec{\beta} -p_c \leq 0 \label{2.11}\end{aligned}$$ There should be enough equality signs in (\[2.10\]),(\[2.11\]) for a chosen $\vec{p}$ so that $D_N \neq 0$. It turns out that there exists a minimal $\vec{p}$-vector $\vec{p}_{\textrm{min}}$ so that the $V_N(\vec{p}_{\textrm{min}})$ spaces are maximal: For each $N,\vec{p}$ there is $N'$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
V_N(\vec{p}) \subset V_{N'}(\vec{p}_{\textrm{min}}) \label{2.12}\end{aligned}$$ It is convenient to work only with this minimal $\vec{p}$-vector.
The first step in transforming $D$ into a Schrödinger operator is to write it symmetrically $$D = - \sum_{a,b} \frac{\partial}{\partial z_a} g^{-1}_{ab} (z) \frac{\partial}{\partial z_b} +
\sum_a r_a(z) \frac{\partial}{\partial z_a}
\label{8}$$ where $$g^{-1}_{ab} = \sum_{\vec{\alpha}} g_{[\vec{\alpha};a,b]} z^{[\vec{\alpha}]}
\label{9}$$ We write $g^{-1}_{ab}$ because this is the inverse of a Riemann tensor. The Riemann tensor $g_{ab}$ is assumed to be curvature free. The task to make it so will not arise in this work. But we mention that we developed a minimal algorithm to solve this issue.
Following the notations of [@6] we “gauge” the polynomial eigenfunctions $\varphi$ of $D$ by $$\psi(z) = e^{-\chi(z)} \varphi(z)
\label{10}$$ so that $$e^{-\chi} D e^{+\chi} = - \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}} \sum_{a,b} \frac{\partial}{\partial z_a}
(\sqrt{g} g^{-1}_{ab}) \frac{\partial}{\partial z_b} + W(z)
\label{11}$$ $(g = (\det g^{-1})^{-1})$.\
This is possible if and only if $$\sum_b g^{-1}_{ab} (z) \frac{\partial}{\partial z_b} [ 2 \chi - \ln \sqrt{g} ] = r_a(z)
\label{12}$$ which implies integrability constraints on the functions $\{r_a(z)\}$. If they are fulfilled we obtain a “prepotential” $$\rho = \ln P
\label{13}$$ so that $$\rho = 2 \chi - \ln \sqrt{g}
\label{14}$$
In most cases studied, we found solutions for $\rho$ as follows. Let $$\det g^{-1}(z) = \prod^r_{i=1} P_i(z)
\label{15}$$ where $\{P_i(z)\}$ are different real polynomials. Then $$\rho(z) = \sum^r_{i=1} \gamma_i \ln P_i(z)
\label{16}$$ with free parameters $\gamma_i$ solves the requirement that $\{r_a(z)\}$ (\[12\]) belong to differential operators leaving each $V_N$ invariant. In particular $$r_a^{(i)}(z) = \frac{1}{P_i(z)} \sum_b g^{-1}_{ab}(z) \frac{\partial P_i}{\partial z_b}
\label{17}$$ are polynomials. Inserting (\[15\]), (\[16\]) in (\[14\]) we obtain finally
$$\chi = \frac12 \sum^r_{i=1} (\gamma_i - \frac12) \ln P_i
\label{18}$$
We will later see that in the case of the models of Calogero type a term $$\gamma_0 \ln P_0
\label{19}$$ can be added to $\rho$, where $$P_0(z) = e^{z_1}
\label{20}$$ is not contained in $\det g^{-1}$ as a factor. This prepotential gives rise to the oscillator potential.
Finally we mention that $e^{-\chi}$ is the ground state wave function of the Schrödinger operator, as follows from (\[10\]).
The expression [@6], (6.17) for the potential $W(z)$ contains a term linear in $\chi$ $$- \sum_{a,b} \frac{\partial}{\partial z_a} \left( g^{-1}_{ab} \frac{\partial \chi}
{\partial z_b} \right) =
- \frac12 \sum^r_{i=1} (\gamma_i - \frac12) \sum_a \frac{\partial}{\partial z_a} r^{(i)}_a
\label{21}$$ Each divergence $$\sum_a \frac{\partial}{\partial z_a} r^{(i)}_a (z) = C^{(i)}
\label{22}$$ ought to be a constant. From now on we shall dismiss all constant terms in $W(z)$.
We can then write the potential as $$W(z) = \sum_{i,j} \gamma_{ij} R_{ij}(z)
\label{23}$$ $$R_{ij} = \sum_{a,b} g^{-1}_{ab} \frac{\partial \ln P_i}{\partial z_a} \frac
{\partial \ln P_j}{\partial z_b}
\label{24}$$ $$\gamma_{ij} = \frac14 (\gamma_i\gamma_j - \frac14) \quad (i,j \not= 0).
\label{25}$$ In the cases of this article $$R_{ij} = {\rm const~if}\, i \not= j
\label{26}$$ If we then set $$\gamma_i = - \nu_i + \frac12 \quad (i \not= 0)
\label{27}$$ we obtain $$W(z) = \sum^r_{i=1} \gamma_{ii}R_{ii}(z)
\label{28}$$ with $$\gamma_{ii} = \frac14 \nu_i (\nu_i-1)
\label{29}$$ As stated in the Introduction the variables $\{z_i\}$ appearing in this section are identified with Coxeter invariants formed from root space coordinates $\{x_n\}$ or $\{y_n\}$. These invariants are either polynomial or trigonometric. Finally we return from the invariant coordinates $\{z_i\}$ to the root space coordinates $\{x_n\}$ in the Schrödinger operator (\[11\]). Each contribution $$\begin{aligned}
R_{ii}=\frac{Q_{ii}}{P_{i}} \label{2.36}\end{aligned}$$ admits a partial fraction decomposition due to the factorization of the prepotentials $P_i$ (Section 5). The label $i=1$ is always reserved to a “Vandermonde prepotential”, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
P_1 \sim \prod_{i<j} (x_i-x_j)^2 \quad \textrm{or} \quad \prod_{i<j} (\sin(x_i-x_j))^2 \label{2.37}\end{aligned}$$ or alike.
Translation invariant models
============================
Relative coordinates
--------------------
The Laplacian for an Euclidean space $\bbbr_N$ $$\Delta = \sum^N_{i=1} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2_i}
\label{3.1}$$ is translation invariant. We introduce relative coordinates by $$\begin{aligned}
y_i &=& x_i - \frac 1N X \\ \label{3.2}
X &=& \sum^N_{i=1} x_i
\label{3.3}\end{aligned}$$ They separate the Laplacian such that $$\Delta = N \frac{\partial^2}{\partial X^2} + \sum^N_{i=1} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2_i} -
\frac 1N \left( \sum^N_{i=1} \frac{\partial}{\partial y_i} \right)^2
\label{3.4}$$ We use all $\{y_i\}^N_{i=1}$ as coordinates on the plane $$\sum^N_{i=1} y_i = 0
\label{3.5}$$ in order to maintain permutation symmetry.
Elementary symmetric polynomials
--------------------------------
Elementary symmetric polynomials of $N$ variables $\{ q_i\}^N_{i=1}$ are defined by a generating function $$\sum^N_{n=0} p_n(q)t^n = \prod^N_{i=1} (1 + q_it)
\label{3.6}$$ They are invariant under the symmetric group $S_N$. For each $g \in S_N$ we have a sector (simplex) $E_g \subset \bbbr_N$ $$E_g = \{ q_{i_1} < q_{i_2} < \ldots < q_{i_N}; \quad i_n = g(n) \}
\label{3.7}$$ so that $$\bbbr_N = \bigcup_{g \in S_N} \bar{E}_g
\label{3.8}$$ Inside $E_g$ we can use the $\{ p_n\}^N_{n=1}$ as coordinates since $${\cal M}_{ni} = \frac{\partial p_n}{\partial q_i}
\label{3.9}$$ $$\det {\cal M} = (-1)^{[\frac N2]} V(q_1,q_2,...q_N)
\label{3.10}$$ where $V$ is the Vandermonde determinant.
The $A_{N-1}$ series
--------------------
The root system of $A_{N-1}$ and the corresponding Weyl group possess elementary symmetric polynomials as invariants. We express the Laplacian in each sector $E_g$ (\[3.7\]) intersected with the plane (\[3.5\]) in terms of these polynomials $$\tau_n(y_1,...,y_N) = p_n(q)|_{q_i = y_i \, {\rm all} \, i}
\label{3.11}$$ The dynamics will be bounded to such sectors by corresponding potential walls automatically.
Then (see \[3\]) it results $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^N_{i=1} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2_i} - \frac 1N \left( \sum^N_{i=1} \frac{\partial}
{\partial y_i} \right)^2 \nonumber \\
= \sum^N_{n,m=2} g^{-1}_{nm} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \tau_n \partial \tau_m} +
\sum^N_{n=2} h_n \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau_n}
\label{3.12}\end{aligned}$$ with $$g^{-1}_{nm}(\tau) = \frac 1N (m-1)(N-n+1)\tau_n\tau_m - T_{n-1,m-1}(\tau)
\label{3.13}$$ and $$T_{nm}(\tau) = \sum_{l \ge 1} (2l+n-m)\tau_{n+l} \tau_{m-l}
\label{3.14}$$ Here it is understood that $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_0 &=& 1 \nonumber \\
\tau_1 &=& 0 \nonumber \\
\tau_n &=& 0 \; {\rm for} \; n < 0, \, n > N
\label{3.15}\end{aligned}$$ In this case $\det g^{-1}$ is indecomposable as a polynomial, so we set $$\begin{aligned}
P_0 &=& e^{\omega\tau_2} \\ \label{3.16}
P_1 &=& \det g^{-1} = C_N V(y_1,...,y_N)^2
\label{3.17}\end{aligned}$$ The resulting vectors $\{r_a\}^N_2$ are $$r^{(0)} = (-2\tau_2, - 3 \tau_3, ..., -N\tau_N)
\label{3.18}$$ $$r^{(1)} : \, \mbox{explicit formulas known only for} \, N \le 4
\label{3.19}$$ and the potential is $$\frac 12 W(x) = \frac 12 \omega^2 \sum^N_{i=1} x^2_i + g \sum_{1 \le i<j\le N} (x_i-x_j)^{-2}
\label{3.20}$$
The corresponding Sutherland models are obtained as follows. We use as coordinates a system $\{ \sigma_n\}^N_{n=2}$ defined by (these differ from those in \[3\]) $$\sigma_0 = \prod^N_{i=1} \cos y_i
\label{3.21}$$ and $$\sigma_n = \sigma_0 \cdot p_n(q)|_{q_i = \tan y_i}
\label{3.22}$$ The identity $$\begin{aligned}
1 &=& \exp \left( i \sum^N_{j=1} y_j \right) \nonumber \\
&=& \prod^N_{j=1} (\cos y_j + i \sin y_j) \nonumber \\
&=& \sum^N_{n=0} i^n \sigma_n(y)
\label{3.23}\end{aligned}$$ allows us to eliminate $\sigma_0$ and $\sigma_1$ in terms of the remaining $\{ \sigma_n\}^N
_{n=2}$ so that polynomials go into polynomials.
The Laplacian is expressed correspondingly as $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^N_{i=1} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2_1} - \frac 1N \left( \sum^N_{i=1} \frac{\partial}
{\partial y_i} \right)^2 = \nonumber \\
= \sum^N_{n,m=2} g^{-1}_{nm} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \sigma_n \partial \sigma_m} +
\sum^N_{n=2} h_n \frac{\partial}{\partial \sigma_n}
\label{3.24}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
g^{-1}_{nm}(\sigma) &=& - T_{n+1,m+1}(\sigma) -T_{n+1,m-1}(\sigma) \nonumber \\
& & - T_{n-1,m+1}(\sigma) - T_{n-1,m-1}(\sigma) \nonumber \\
& & + \frac 1N [(m+1)\sigma_{m+1} + (m-1) \sigma_{m-1} ] \nonumber \\
& & \times [(N-n-1) \sigma_{n+1} + (N-n+1)\sigma_{n-1}]
\label{3.25}\end{aligned}$$ with $T_{nm}$ as in (\[3.14\]).
Once again $\det g^{-1}$ is indecomposable, so we set $$P_1 = \det g^{-1} = C^\prime_N \tilde{V} (y_1,...,y_N)^2
\label{3.26}$$ where $$\tilde{V} (y_1,...,y_N) = \prod_{i < j} \sin (y_i-y_j)
\label{3.27}$$ has the symmetry of the Vandermonde determinant (translations and permutations). The vector $r^{(1)}$ is known only up to $N = 4$. Finally we obtain as potential $$\frac 12 W(x) = g \sum_{1 \le i<j \le N} \sin (x_i-x_j)^{-2}
\label{3.28}$$ In each case $A_{N-1}$ the minimal $p$-vector is $(1,1,...,1) \in \bbbn^{N-1}$.
The $G_2$ and $AG_3$ models
---------------------------
The models $G_2$ and $AG_3$ belong also to the domain of translation invariant models [@4]. For $G_2$ we start from $A_2$ and extend its Weyl group by a $\bbbz_2$ group $$y_i \to - y_i$$ As invariant variables we use [@4] $$\lambda_2 = \tau_2
\label{3.29}$$ $$\lambda_3 = \tau^2_3
\label{3.30}$$ In these variables $$\begin{aligned}
\sum^3_{i=1} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2_i} - \frac 13 \left( \sum^3_{i=1}
\frac{\partial}{\partial y_i} \right)^2 = \nonumber \\
= \sum^3_{a,b=2} g^{-1}_{ab} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \lambda_a \partial \lambda_b}
+ \sum^3_{a=2} h_a \frac{\partial}{\partial\lambda_a}
\label{3.31}\end{aligned}$$ We find $$g^{-1}(\lambda) = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
- 2 \lambda_2, & -6\lambda_3 \\
- 6 \lambda_3, & + \frac 83 \lambda^2_2 \lambda_3 \end{array} \right)
\label{3.32}$$ so that $$\det g^{-1} = - \frac 43 \lambda_3 (4 \lambda^3_2 + 27 \lambda_3)
\label{3.33}$$ Thus as ansatz for the prepotentials we use $$\begin{aligned}
P_0 &=& e^{\omega\lambda_2} \\ \label{3.34}
P_1 &=& 4 \lambda^3_2 + 27 \lambda_3 \\ \label{3.35}
P_2 &=& \lambda_3
\label{3.36}\end{aligned}$$ The $r$-vectors (justifying this ansatz) are $$\begin{aligned}
r^{(0)} &=& (-2\lambda_2, - 6 \lambda_3) \\ \label{3.37}
r^{(1)} &=& (-6,0) \\ \label{3.38}
r^{(2)} &=& (-6, + \frac 83 \lambda_2^2)
\label{3.39}\end{aligned}$$ The minimal $\vec{p}$-vector is $$\vec{p} = (1,2)
\label{3.40}$$ The potential is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac 12 W(x) &=& \frac 12 \omega^2 \sum^3_{i=1} x ^2_i \\ \nonumber
& & + g_1 \sum_{1 \le i<j \le 3} (x_i-x_j)^{-2} + g_2 \sum_{i<j,k \notin (i,j)}
(x_i+x_j-2x_k)^{-2}
\label{3.41}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
g_1 &=& \nu_1(\nu_1-1) \nonumber \\
g_2 &=& 3\nu_2(\nu_2-1)
\label{3.42}\end{aligned}$$ If $$\nu_2 = 0 \; {\rm or} \; \nu_2 = 1
\label{3.43}$$ we return to the $A_2$ model.
In the Sutherland case we use as variables $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_2 &=& \sigma_2 \\ \label{3.44}
\mu_3 &=& \sigma^2_3
\label{3.45}\end{aligned}$$ leading to the inverse Riemann tensor $$g^{-1} = \left( \begin{array}{ll}
- 2 \mu_2 - 2 \mu^2_2 + \frac 23 \mu_3, & - \mu_3(6 + \frac{16}{3} \mu_2) \\
- \mu_3(6 + \frac{16}{3} \mu_2), & \frac 83 \mu^2_2 \mu_3 - 8 \mu^2_3
\end{array} \right)
\label{3.46}$$ Now $\det g^{-1}$ is decomposable with $$\det g^{-1} = - \frac 43 \mu_3 P_1(\mu)
\label{3.47}$$ and $$P_1(\mu) = 4\mu^2_3 + \mu_3(8\mu^2_2 + 36\mu_2 + 27) + 4 \mu^3_2 (1 + \mu_2)
\label{3.48}$$ $$P_2(\mu) = \mu_3
\label{3.49}$$ The $r$-vectors are $$\begin{aligned}
r^{(1)} &=& (-6-8\mu_2, - 16 \mu_3) \\ \label{3.50}
r^{(2)} &=& (-6 - \frac{16}{3} \mu_2, \frac 83 \mu^2_2 - 16 \mu_3)
\label{3.51}\end{aligned}$$ The resulting potential is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac 12 W(x) &=& g_1 \sum_{1 \le i < j \le 3} \sin (x_i-x_j)^{-2} \nonumber \\
& & + \frac 19 g_2 \sum_{i<j,k\notin (i,j)} \sin \frac13 (x_i+x_j-2x_k)^{-2}
\label{3.52}\end{aligned}$$
In the case of the $A_2$ models the spaces $V_N$ decompose into even and odd subspaces in $\tau_3$ (or $\sigma_3$) which are left invariant separately under action of the Laplacian. In the case of the odd spaces we can factor $\tau_3 (\sigma_3)$ and leave an even space as well. In each case we obtain a polynomial space in the variables $\lambda_2, \lambda_3 = \tau^2_3 \, (\mu_2,\mu_3 = \sigma^2_3)$. Thus starting from such polynomial space and multiplying with $\tau_3^{\nu_2} \, (\sigma_3^{\nu_2})$ we obtain the $A_2$ model if $\nu_2=0$ or $\nu_2 =1$ but a new potential in all other cases.
It is plausible that a similar procedure works for $A_3$ but not for $A_{N-1}, \, N \ge 5$. In the latter models we have two or more odd variables $\tau_3, \tau_5,... (\sigma_3,
\sigma_5,...)$ and there is no factorization of the odd invariant subspaces. Let us sketch the $A_3$ model whose extension leads to the $AG_3$ model [@8].
In this case the variables are chosen as in (3.29), (3.30), (3.44), (3.45) $$\lambda_2 = \tau_2, \; \lambda_3 = \tau^2_3, \; \lambda_4 = \tau_4
\label{3.53}$$ The inverse Riemann tensor is $$g^{-1} = \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
- 2 \lambda_2, & - 6 \lambda_3, & - 4 \lambda_4 \\
- 6 \lambda_3, & 4 \lambda_3(\lambda^2_2 - 4 \lambda_4), & \lambda_2 \lambda_3 \\
- 4 \lambda_4, & + \lambda_2 \lambda_3, & -2 \lambda_2 \lambda_4 + \frac34 \lambda_3
\end{array} \right)
\label{3.54}$$ The determinant is decomposable as $$\det g^{-1} = \lambda_3 P_1(\lambda)
\label{3.55}$$ and the ansatz for the prepotentials is $$\begin{aligned}
P_0(\lambda) &=& e^{\omega \lambda_2} \\ \label{3.56}
P_1(\lambda) &=& 27 \lambda^2_3 - 256 \lambda^3_4 + 128 \lambda^2_2 \lambda^2_4 \\ \nonumber
& & - 16 \lambda^4_2 \lambda_4 + 4 \lambda^3_2 \lambda_3 - 144 \lambda_2 \lambda_3 \lambda_4 \\ \label{3.57}
P_2(\lambda) &=& \lambda_3
\label{3.58}\end{aligned}$$ The $r$-vectors come out as $$\begin{aligned}
r^{(0)} &=& (-2 \lambda_2, - 6 \lambda_3, - 4 \lambda_4) \\ \label{3.59}
r^{(1)} &=& (-12, 0, - 2 \lambda_2) \\ \label{3.60}
r^{(2)} &=& (-6, 4(\lambda^2_2 - 4 \lambda_4), \lambda_2) \label{3.61}\end{aligned}$$ The potential for this Calogero type model is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac 12 W(x) &=& \frac12 \omega^2 \sum^4_{i=1} x^2_i \\ \nonumber
& & + g_1 \sum_{1 \le i < j \le 4} (x_i-x_j)^{-2} + g_2 \sum_{\rm 3 \, terms}
(x_i+x_j-x_k-x_l)^{-2}
\label{3.62}\end{aligned}$$ with $$g_1 =\nu_1(\nu_1-1), \; g_2 = 2\nu_2(\nu_2-1)
\label{3.63}$$ It was discovered first by Wolfes, [@7].
The Sutherland model is obtained in the same fashion. With $$\mu_2 = \sigma_2, \; \mu_3 = \sigma^2_3, \; \mu_4 = \sigma_4
\label{3.64}$$ the inverse Riemann tensor is $$\begin{aligned}
g^{-1}_{22} &=& - 2 \mu_2 - 2\mu^2_2 - 8 \mu_4 + 2 \mu_3 + 8 \mu_2\mu_4 + 8 \mu^2_4 \\ \label{3.65}
g^{-1}_{23} &=& - 6 \mu_3 - 4\mu_2 \mu_3 \\ \label{3.66}
g^{-1}_{24} &=& - 4 \mu_4 - 6\mu_2 \mu_4 + \mu_3 + 4 \mu^2_4 \\ \label{3.67}
g^{-1}_{33} &=& 4 \mu_3 [ - 4\mu_4 + \mu^2_2 - 4 \mu_2\mu_4 + 4 \mu^2_4- 2 \mu_3] \\ \label{3.68}
g^{-1}_{34} &=& \mu_2\mu_3 - 6 \mu_3\mu_4 \\ \label{3.69}
g^{-1}_{44} &=& - 2 \mu_2 \mu_4 + \frac 34 \mu_3 \label{3.70}\end{aligned}$$ Its determinant decomposes $$\det g^{-1} = - \mu_3 P_1(\mu)
\label{3.71}$$ $$P_1(\mu) = 256 \mu^6_4 + 32 \; \mbox{further terms}
\label{3.72}$$ $$\mbox{ (equ. (A.2) from \cite{8})}$$ $$P_2(\mu) = \mu_3
\label{3.73}$$ and the $r$-vectors are $$r^{(1)} = (- 16\mu_2-12, - 24\mu_3, - 12 \mu_4-2\mu_2)
\label{3.74}$$ $$r^{(2)} = (- 4 \mu_2-8, 16 \mu^2_4 - 16\mu_4\mu_2+4\mu^2_2 - 8 \mu_3 - 16 \mu_4, -6 \mu_4+\mu_2)
\label{3.75}$$ The factorization of $\sigma_3$ which is necessary in this case is $$\sigma_3 = - \prod_{1 \le i<j \le 3} \sin (y_i+y_j)
\label{3.76}$$ implying $$\frac{Q_{22}}{P_2} = 4 \sum_{1 \le i<j \le 3} (\sin (y_i+y_j))^{-2}
\label{3.77}$$ This gives the potential $$\begin{aligned}
\frac 12 W(x) &=& g_1 \sum_{1 \le i<j \le 4} (\sin (x_i-x_j))^{-2} \nonumber \\
& & + \frac14 g_2 \sum_{3 \, {\rm cases}} (\sin \frac12 (x_i+x_j-x_k-x_l))^{-2}
\label{3.78}\end{aligned}$$ The discussion of this $AG_3$ model is resumed in Section 5.
Translation non-invariant models
================================
The $BC_N$ and $D_N$ models
---------------------------
As we shall see there is only one series with two (Calogero) and three (Sutherland) independent coupling constants. For any such model we use as Cartesian coordinates $\{x_i\}^N_{i=1}$ and require permutation symmetry $S_N$ and reflection symmetry $(\bbbz_2)^N$ $x_i \to - x_i$ for each $i$ separately. Then the natural coordinates invariant under these group actions are [@5] $$\lambda_n(x) = p_n(q)|_{q_i=x^2_i, \, {\rm all} \, i}
\label{4.1}$$ There is a bilinear relation with the $\{ p_n(x)\}^N_{n=1}$ $$\lambda_n(x) = \sum^{2n}_{k=0} (-1)^{n-k} p_{2n-k} (x) p_k(x)
\label{4.2}$$ The inverse Riemann tensor for the full Laplacian (\[3.1\]) is then $$g^{-1}_{nm}(\lambda) = 4 M_{nm}(\lambda)
\label{4.3}$$ where we introduce the shorthand $$M_{nm}(\lambda) = \sum_{l \ge 0} (2l+n-m+1) \lambda_{n+l} \lambda_{m-1-l}
\label{4.4}$$ Its determinant factorizes $$\det g^{-1} = (-1)^{\left[ \frac N2 \right]} 4^N \lambda_N P_1(\lambda)
\label{4.5}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
P_1(\lambda) &=& N^N \lambda_N^{N-1} + ... \\ \nonumber
&=& D_N V(x_1^2,x_2^2,...x^2_N)^2
\label{4.6}\end{aligned}$$ and $$P_2(\lambda) = \lambda_N
\label{4.7}$$ Both functions $P_1, P_2$ factorize in a trivial way. In the general case there is no explicit expression for $r^{(1)}$ but $$r_a^{(2)} = 4(N-a+1) \lambda_{a-1}
\label{4.8}$$ If follows $$R_{22} = 4 \frac{\lambda_{N-1}}{\lambda_N} = 4 \sum^4_{i=1} x^{-2}_i
\label{4.9}$$ The resulting potential is, including an oscillator potential $$\begin{aligned}
\frac 12 W(x) &=& \frac 12 \omega^2 \sum^{N}_{i=1} x^2_i + g_1 \sum_{1 \le i<j \le N} [(x_i-x_j)^{-2} + (x_i+x_j)^{-2}] \nonumber \\
& & + g_2 \sum^{N}_{i=1} x_i^{-2} \\ \label{4.10}
g_1 &=& \nu_1(\nu_1-1) \label{4.11} \\
g_2 &=& \frac 12 \nu_2(\nu_2 -1)
\label{4.12}\end{aligned}$$
In the Sutherland case we use coordinates $$\mu_0 = \prod^N_{i=1} \cos^2 x_i
\label{4.13}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_n(x) &=& \mu_0(x) p_n(q)|_{q_i = \tan^2x_i, \; {\rm all} \, i} \\ \nonumber
& & n \in \{ 1,2,...N\}
\label{4.14}\end{aligned}$$ From the identity $$\begin{aligned}
1 &=& \prod^N_{i=1} (\cos^2x_i + \sin^2x_i) \nonumber \\
&=& \sum^N_{n=0} \mu_n(x)
\label{4.15}\end{aligned}$$ we learn how to eliminate $\mu_0$ in facour of $\{\mu_n\}^N_{n_1}$ so that a polynomial of $\{ \mu_n \}^N_{n=0}$ remains a polynomial.
In this case the inverse Riemannian is $$\begin{aligned}
g^{-1}_{nm} &=& 4 \big\{ M_{n+1,m+1}(\mu) + M_{n,m}(\mu) \nonumber \\
& & - M_{n,m+1}(\mu) - M_{n+1,m}(\mu) \big\}
\label{4.16}\end{aligned}$$ and the determinant decomposes as $$\det g^{-1} = 4^N (-1)^{\left[ \frac N2 \right]} \mu_0 \mu_N P_1(\mu)
\label{4.17}$$ Now the factorization of $P_1(\mu)$ is $$P_1(\mu) = D^\prime_N \prod_{1 \le i<j \le N} (\cos^2 x_i \sin^2x_j - \sin^2x_i \cos^2x_j)^2
\label{4.18}$$ and we choose $$\begin{aligned}
P_2(\mu) &=& \mu_N \\ \label{4.19}
P_3(\mu) &=& \mu_0 \label{4.20}\end{aligned}$$ Again we have no general explicit expression for $r^{(1)}$ but $$\begin{aligned}
r_a^{(2)} &=& 4[(N-a+1) \mu_{a-1} - (N-a) \mu_a ] \\ \label{4.21}
r_a^{(3)} &=& 4[(a+1) \mu_{a+1} - a \mu_a ] \label{4.22}\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
R_{22} &=& \frac{\mu_{N-1}}{\mu_N} = 4 \sum^N_{i=1} \cot^2 x_i \\ \label{4.23}
R_{33} &=& \frac{\mu_1}{\mu_0} = 4 \sum^N_{i=1} \tan^2 x_i \label{4.24}\end{aligned}$$ Thus we end up with a potential $$\begin{aligned}
\frac 12 W(x) &=& g_1 \sum_{1\le i<j \le N} [(\sin (x_i-x_j))^{-2} + (\sin (x_i+x_j))^{-2} ] \nonumber \\
& & + g_2 \sum^N_{i=1} (\sin x_i)^{-2} \nonumber \\
& & + g_3 \sum^N_{i=1} (\cos x_i)^{-2}
\label{4.25}\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{1,2}$ are as in (\[4.11\]),(\[4.12\]) and $$\begin{aligned}
g_3=\frac 12 \nu_3 (\nu_3-1) \label{4.25a}\end{aligned}$$ An alternative form of the potential is obtained from $$\frac{g_2}{\sin^2 x} + \frac{g_3}{\cos^2x} = \frac{g_2-g_3}{\sin^2x} +
\frac{4g_3}{\sin^2 2x}
\label{4.26}$$ If we set $g_2=g_3$ or $g_3=0$ we obtain different samples of the $BC_N$ or $D_N$ series. We mention finally that the minimal $p$-vector is in all cases $$\vec{p} = (1,1,...1) \in \bbbn^N
\label{4.27}$$
The $F_4$ model
---------------
The $F_4$ model belongs also to the translation noninvariant class. The Weyl group of $F_4$ possesses four basic polynomial invariants $$I_1(x), \, I_3(x), \, I_4(x), I_6(x)
\label{4.28}$$ ($I_n$ of degree $2n$) which can be expressed as polynomials in the $\{\lambda_n \}^4_{n=1}$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
I_1 &=& \lambda_1 \\ \label{4.29}
I_3 &=& \lambda_3 - \frac16 \lambda_1 \lambda_2 \\ \label{4.30}
I_4 &=& \lambda_4 - \frac14 \lambda_1 \lambda_3 + \frac{1}{12} \lambda^2_2 \\ \label{4.31}
I_6 &=& \lambda_4 \lambda_2 - \frac{1}{36} \lambda^3_2 + \frac{1}{24} \lambda^2_2 \lambda^2_1
- \frac{1}{64} \lambda_2 \lambda^4_1
\label{4.32}\end{aligned}$$ In these coordinates the inverse Riemannian can be given as $$\begin{aligned}
g^{-1}_{1m} &=& 4 m I_m \\ \label{4.33}
g^{-1}_{33} &=& \frac{20}{3} I_4 I_1 - \frac23 I_3 I^2_1 \\ \label{4.34}
g^{-1}_{34} &=& 8I_6 - 3 I^2_3 - \frac{13}{3} I_4I^2_1 - \frac{3}{4} I_3I^3_1
\\ \label{4.35}
g^{-1}_{36} &=& 16I_4^2 + I_6I^2_1 + 14 I_4I_3I_1 + \frac 52 I_3^2I^2_1
- \frac{1}{4} I_4I^4_1 - \frac{5}{32} I_3I^5_1
\\ \label{4.36}
g^{-1}_{44} &=& -4I_4I_3 - 2 I_6I_1 + \frac{3}{4} I_4I^3_1
+ \frac{3}{4} I^2_3I_1 + \frac{3}{16} I_3I^4_1
\\ \label{4.37}
g^{-1}_{46} &=& 8I^2_4I_1 + 2 I_4I_3I^2_1 - \frac{1}{8} I_4I^5_1 \\ \label{4.38}
g^{-1}_{66} &=& 30 I_6I_4I_1 + \frac{21}{2} I_6I_3I^2_1 - \frac{3}{32} I_6I^5_1
+ 12 I^2_4I_3 + 6 I_4I^2_3I_1 \nonumber \\
& & - \frac{3}{8} I_4I_3I^4_1 + \frac{3}{4} I_3^3I^2_1
+ \frac{3}{1024} I_3I^8_1 - \frac{3}{32} I^2_3I^5_1 \label{4.39}\end{aligned}$$ The determinant decomposes into two factors $$\det g^{-1} = \frac{1}{3072} P_1(I) P_2(I)
\label{4.40}$$ where $P_1(I)$ is connected with the Vandermonde determinant squared as usual $$\begin{aligned}
P_1(I) &=& - 4096 I^3_4 + 432 I^4_3 + 3072 I^2_6 - 2304 I_6I_4I^2_1 \nonumber \\
& & - 576 I_6 I_3 I^3_1 + 864 I_4I^2_3I^2_1 + 216 I_4 I_3 I^5_1 \nonumber \\
& & + 432 I^2_4 I^4_1 + 27 I^2_3 I^6_1 - 2304 I_6 I^2_3 + 216 I^3_3 I^3_1
\label{4.41}\end{aligned}$$ or in factorized form $$P_1(I) = - 16 \prod_{1 \le i<j \le 4} (x^2_i-x^2_j)^2
\label{4.42}$$ and $P_2(I)$ $$\begin{aligned}
P_2(I) &=& 36864 I^2_6 - 18432 I_6I_4I^2_1 - 4608 I_6I_3I^3_1 + 32 I_6I^6_1 \nonumber \\
& & - 49152 I^3_4 - 36864 I^2_4I_3I_1 + 1536 I^2_4 I^4_1 \nonumber \\
& & + 768 I_4I_3I^5_1 - 12 I_4I^8_1 - 9216 I_4I^2_3I^2_1 \nonumber \\
& & - 768 I^3_3 I^3_1 + 96 I^2_3I^6_1 - 3I_3I^9_1
\label{4.43}\end{aligned}$$ which factorizes as $$\begin{aligned}
P_2(I) &=& - 12\lambda_4 (64 \lambda_4-16\lambda^2_2 + 8\lambda_2\lambda^2_1 - \lambda^4_1)^2
\nonumber \\
&=& - 12 x^2_1x^2_2x^2_3x^2_4 \prod_{\nu_2,\nu_3\nu_4 \in \{1,0\}} (x_1 - \sum^4_{i=2}
(-1)^{\nu_i}x_i)^2
\label{4.44}\end{aligned}$$ The $r$-vectors are $$\begin{aligned}
r^{(1)} = (48, - 2 I^2_1, 0, 36I_4I_1 + 12I_3I^2_1 - \frac{3}{16} I^5_1) \\ \label{4.45}
r^{(2)} = (48, - 4 I^2_1, - 12I_3, 24 I_4I_1 + 6 I^2_1I_3 - \frac{3}{8} I^5_1)
\label{4.46}\end{aligned}$$ The potential resulting is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac 12 W(x) &=& \frac12 \omega^2 \sum_{1 \leq i \leq 4} x^2_i + g_1 \sum_{1 \le i < j \le 4} [(x_i-x_j)^{-2} + (x_i+x_j)^{-2}] \nonumber \\
& & + g_2 \big\{ \sum_{\begin{array}{c} {\scriptstyle
\nu_2, \nu_3, \nu_4} \\ {\scriptstyle \in \{ +1,0\}} \end{array}}
4 \left( x_1 - \sum^4_{i=2} \nu_i x_i \right)^{-2} + \sum^4_{i=1} x^{-2}_i \big\}
\label{4.47}\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{1,2}$ are as in (\[4.11\]),(\[4.12\]). The minimal $p$-vector is $$\vec{p} = (1,2,3,5)
\label{4.49}$$
Coxeter groups, orbits and prepotentials
========================================
The prepotentials used in the empirical constructions of sections 3 and 4 necessitate a mathematical interpretation. Let $W$ be a Coxeter group generated by the reflections $$\{s_{\alpha}\}$$ where $\alpha$ are roots running over a set $$\Phi = \{\alpha\}_1^M$$ The roots span an Euclidian space $V$. In this space the reflections $\{s_{\alpha}\}$ act by $$\begin{aligned}
x \in V: s_{\alpha} x = x - 2 \frac{(\alpha,x)}{(\alpha,\alpha)} \alpha\end{aligned}$$ If the Coxeter group $W$ is “crystallographic”, it is a Weyl group (for more details see [@9]).
We denote a set of basic polynomial invariants of $W$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\{z_1(x), \ldots, z_n(x)\}, \quad n=\dim V\end{aligned}$$ Invariance means $$\begin{aligned}
z_i(w^{-1}x) & = & z_i(x) \nonumber \\
& = & wz_i(x)\end{aligned}$$ for all $w\in W$. The Jacobian for the transition $\{x_j\} \rightarrow \{z_i\}$ $$\begin{aligned}
J = \det \left \{ \frac{\partial z_i}{\partial x_j} \right \}\end{aligned}$$ can be factorized as follows ([@9], Proposition 3.13).
Each reflection $s_{\alpha}$ leaves a hyperplane $H_{\alpha}$ in $V$ pointwise fixed, let $H_{\alpha}$ be given by a linear function $l_{\alpha}$ $$l_{\alpha}(x) = 0 \label{5.7}$$ Then due to the proposition $$J = C \prod_{\alpha \in \Phi^{+}} l_{\alpha}(x)$$ with $\Phi^{+}$ the set of positive roots. The proof of this proposition is rather elementary.
For any inverse Riemann tensor $\{ g^{-1} \}$ of Sections 3 and 4 we obtain this way $$\det{g^{-1}_{ab}} = C^2 \prod_{\alpha \in \Phi^{+}} l_{\alpha}(x)^2 \label{5.9}$$ If $\Phi$ decomposes into orbits under $W$ $$\Phi = \bigcup_i \Phi_i$$ then $$P_i = \prod_{\alpha \in \Phi^{+}_i} l_{\alpha}(x)^2 \label{5.11}$$ is an invariant polynomial under action of $W$ and therefore a polynomial in the basic invariants $$P_i = P_i(z_1, \ldots , z_n)$$ These polynomials are the prepotentials constructed in Sections 3 and 4. The factorization of these prepotentials as quoted at the end of Section 2 (eqns. (\[2.36\]),(\[2.37\])) and used throughout in Sections 3 and 4 is based on (\[5.11\]).
We emphasize that our empirical results of Sections 3 and 4 indicate the validity of further mathematical propositions which could not be traced in the literature:
1. an analogous factorization theorem for the trigonometric invariants;
2. the polynomial properties (“integrability”) of the functions $r^{(i)}(z)$ (\[17\]).
Now we return to the $AG_3$ model of Section 3. We identify the roots involved in a model using (\[5.7\]),(\[5.9\]) $$\begin{aligned}
l_{\alpha}(x) & = & (\alpha^{\vee},x) \nonumber \\
(\alpha^{\vee} & = & \frac{2 \alpha}{(\alpha,\alpha)}, \textrm{ the "dual" of } \alpha ) \label{5.13}\end{aligned}$$ and the Sutherland version whose potential is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac12 W(x) = \sum_{\begin{array}{c} \textrm{\footnotesize{orbits }} i \end{array}} g_i \sum_{\alpha \in \Phi^{+}_i} [\sin l_{\alpha}(x)]^{-2} \label{5.14} \end{aligned}$$ Thus the simple roots of $A_3$ $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_1 & = & e_1 - e_2 \nonumber \\
\alpha_2 & = & e_2 - e_3 \label{5.15} \\
\alpha_3 & = & e_3 - e_4 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ are completed by a fourth root in $AG_3$ $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_4 & = & e_3 + e_4 - e_1 - e_2 \label{5.16}\end{aligned}$$ The corresponding Coxeter-diagram is shown in Fig. 1.
\[fig:coc\_b3\_hut\]
It belongs to the affine Coxeter group $\hat{B}_3$ ([@9], Figure 1 in Section 2.4).
The coordinates of the $\hat{B}_3$ root space with respect to the standard basis $\{f_i\}_{i=1}^3$ are denoted $\{\xi_i\}_{i=1}^3$, those of $AG_3$ with respect to the standard basis $\{e_i\}_{i=1}^4$ by $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^4$ as before. The simple roots of $B_3$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_1 = f_1 - f_2, \quad \beta_1 = f_2 - f_3, \quad \beta_3 = f_3 \label{5.17}\end{aligned}$$ and $\hat{B}_3$ is obtained by adjoining $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_4 = - f_1 - f_2 \label{5.18}\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
s_4 \left( \begin{array}{c} \xi_1 \\ \xi_2 \\ \xi_3 \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{c} -\xi_2 \\ -\xi_1 \\ \xi_3 \end{array} \right) \label{5.19}\end{aligned}$$ leaves the Coxeter invariants of $B_3$ $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_1(\xi) & = & \sum_{1 \leq i \leq 3} \xi_i^2 \label{5.20} \\
\lambda_2(\xi) & = & \sum_{1 \leq i < j \leq 3} \xi_i^2 \xi_j^2 \label{5.21} \\
\lambda_3(\xi) & = & \xi_1^2 \xi_2^2 \xi_3^2 \label{5.22} \end{aligned}$$ invariant, too. This suggests the equivalence of the $AG_3$ and the $B_3$ models.
An explicit identification of the simple roots $$\begin{aligned}
f_1 & = & \frac12 (e_1 - e_2 - e_3 +e_4) \label{5.23} \\
f_2 & = & \frac12 (- e_1 + e_2 - e_3 +e_4) \label{5.24} \\
f_3 & = & \frac12 (- e_1 - e_2 + e_3 +e_4) \label{5.25} \end{aligned}$$ gives ($i,j \in \{1,2,3\}$) $$\begin{aligned}
x_i-x_j & = & \xi_i - \xi_j \label{5.26} \\
x_4 - x_j & = & \sum_{i (\neq j)} \xi_i \label{5.27}\end{aligned}$$ It follows $$\begin{aligned}
& & g_1 \sum_{1 \le i<j \le 4} [\sin (x_i-x_j)]^{-2} + \frac14 g_2 \sum_{3 \, {\rm cases}} [\sin \frac12 (x_i+x_j-x_k-x_l)]^{-2} \nonumber \\
&=& g_1 \sum_{1\le i<j \le 3} \{ [\sin (\xi_i-\xi_j)]^{-2} + [\sin (\xi_i+\xi_j)]^{-2} \} + \frac14 g_2 \sum^3_{i=1} [\sin \xi_i]^{-2} \nonumber \\ \label{5.28}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover the rational invariants (\[3.64\]) can be identified with the invariants (\[5.20\])–(\[5.22\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\mu_2(x) & = & - \frac12 \lambda_1(\xi) \label{5.29} \\
\mu_3(x) & = & + \frac14 \lambda_3(\xi) \label{5.30} \\
\mu_4(x) & = & - \frac14 \lambda_2(\xi) +\frac{1}{16} \lambda_1(\xi)^2 \label{5.31} \end{aligned}$$ This establishes the equivalence between the two models.
Our method involves a reduction of the affine Coxeter group $\hat{B}_3$ to the Coxeter group $B_3$ having the same invariants. It may therefore be of interest that the construction performed in [@4] is analogous (see Fig. 2).
\[fig:coxag2\_a\]
[99]{} M.A: Olshanetsky and A.M. Perelomov, Lett. Math. Phys. 2 (1977) 7-13, and Phys. Reports 94 (1983) 313. A.V. Turbiner, “Lie algebras and linear operators with invariant subspace”, in “Lie algebras, cohomologies and new findings in quantum mechanics” (N. Kamran and P.J. Olver eds.) AMS, Vol 160, pp. 263-310, 1994;\
“Lie-algebras and quasi-exactly-solvable differential equations”, Vol 3: New Trends in Theoretical Developments and Computational Methods, Chapter 12, CRC Press (N. Ibragimov ed.) pp. 331-366, 1995 (hep-th 9409068). W. Rühl and A. Turbiner, Mod. Phys. Letters A10 (1995) 2213\
(hep-th 9506105). M. Rosenbaum, A. Turbiner, A. Capella, Solvability of the $G_2$ Integrable System; (sol-int 9707005). L. Brink, A. Turbiner, N. Wyllard, J. Math. Phys. 39 (1998) 1285. O. Haschke, W. Rühl, Exactly solvable dynamical systems in the neighborhood of the Calogero model, to appear (hep-th 9803169); in eq. (7.14) $a_7$ should read $a_7-3$. J. Wolfes, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 85 (1974) 454. O. Haschke, W. Rühl, Construction of exactly solvable quantum models of Calogero and Sutherland type with translation invariant four-particle interactions, (hep-th 9807194) J.E. Humphreys, Reflection groups and Coxeter groups, Cambridge University Press 1990
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- '[^1] [^2]'
- '[^3]'
title: Satisfying positivity requirement in the Beyond Complex Langevin approach
---
Introduction {#sec-1}
============
Our goal is to represent integrals of complex densities over a real measure by integrals of real, positive probability distributions over a complex measure. Complex Langevin method [@parisi; @klauder] has become a popular, and in many cases successful [@weingarten; @salcedo; @18; @20], approach to perform this task. However, in some situations problems with its convergence were observed [@6; @8; @sinclair], so this topic attracted further investigation [@10; @11; @13; @14; @seilerproc] and also other methods were developed. The aim of this paper is analysis of a one-dimensional problem [@wosiek; @seilerwosiek; @wosiekproc; @ruba] to find a positive and normalizable probability distribution $P(x,y)$ such that: $$\int f(x)\rho(x)\ dx=\iint f(x+iy)P(x,y)\ dx dy
\label{1}$$ for a given complex function $\rho(x)$ and every $f(x)$. This approach to the sign problem, although related to the Complex Langevin method [@parisi; @klauder], does not require introduction of the corresponding stochastic process. Instead, this method focuses only on satisfying the so-called matching conditions which follow from eq. (\[1\]). Writing eq. (\[1\]) for the moments, one obtains the following set of conditions: $$\int x^r\rho(x)\ dx\equiv M_r=\iint (x+iy)^rP(x,y)\ dxdy\ .
\label{2}$$ A proposal how this infinite set of integral equations can be solved is presented in Section \[sec-2\]. In particular, a simple trick to satisfy positivity of $P(x,y)$ and numerical methods to solve resulting sets of polynomial equations are proposed. In Section \[sec-3\], the numerical results for Gaussian and quartic actions are presented. The summary is provided in Section \[sec-4\].
Matching conditions {#sec-2}
===================
Satisfying positivity {#sec-21}
---------------------
In order to satisfy positivity of the probability distribution, one assumes that $P(x,y)=|\psi(x,y)|^2$. Then: $$M_r=\iint\psi(x,y)^*(x+iy)^r\psi(x,y)\ dxdy=\braket{\psi|(x+iy)^r|\psi},
\label{3}$$ where we employ the Dirac notation and think of $\psi(x,y)$ as a wavefunction of some quantum system in two dimensions. After expanding $\ket{\psi}$ in a basis: $$\psi(x,y)=\sum_{m, n=0}^\infty c_{mn}\psi_m(x)\psi_n(y),
\label{4}$$ e.g. the basis of two non-interacting harmonic oscillators, one obtains the following set of matching conditions: $$M_r=\sum_{m'n'mn}c_{m'n'}c_{mn}\braket{\psi_{m'n'}|(x+iy)^r|\psi_{mn}},
\label{5}$$ where $c_{mn}\in\mathbb{R}$ is assumed for simplicity. Using the properties of the harmonic oscillator basis, one can evaluate $\braket{\psi_{m'n'}|(x+iy)^r|\psi_{mn}}$, so these equations are second degree polynomials in coefficients $c_{mn}$. A few lowest-order equations are: $$\begin{gathered}
1=\sum_{mn}c_{mn}^2,\quad \text{Re }M_1=\sqrt{2}\sum_{mn}\sqrt{m+1}c_{m+1,n}c_{mn},\quad \text{Im }M_1=\sqrt{2}\sum_{mn}\sqrt{n+1}c_{m,n+1}c_{mn}\\
\text{Re }M_2=\sum_{mn}\left[(m-n)c_{mn}+\sqrt{(m+1)(m+2)}c_{m+2,n}-\sqrt{(n+1)(n+2)}c_{m,n+2}\right]c_{mn},\qquad \text{etc.}
\label{6}\end{gathered}$$ The quantity of interest in this approach is the probability distribution $|\psi(x,y)|^2$, not the “wavefunction” $\psi(x,t)$ itself. An interesting side remark is that it bears resemblance to the Nelson approach to quantum mechanics [@nelson]. This similarity is interesting from theoretical point of view and may be of profit for the numerical analysis of the problem, when searching for efficient tools to solve it.
Gröbner basis method {#sec-2extra}
--------------------
Each of equations in the set (\[5\]) includes infinitely many $c_{mn}$’s. Approximate solutions to such a set of equations can be found by introducing a cutoff on $(m,n)$. That is one leaves only a finite number of variables $c_{mn}$ (e.g. such that $m+n\leq N$) and an equal number of equations. Thus, the initial problem can be reduced to solving finite sets of second degree polynomial equations. The most general approach to such a problem is Gröbner basis method (see e.g. [@groebner]), which provides an algorithm to find common roots of any set of polynomial equations. Finding a Gröbner basis of a given set of equations can be used to simplify it to the form where the variables are succesively eliminated, i.e. such that variables $x_1,..., x_{i-1}$ do not appear in the $i$-th equation.\
For a brief introduction to Gröbner bases one needs to define a few concepts. First, a *monomial ordering* must be specified, which is a non-unique task for multivariate polynomials. The most elementary and very useful choice is *lexicographic* order: $$x^\alpha>x^\beta\quad:\Leftrightarrow\quad\text{leftmost, nonzero entry in the vector }(\alpha-\beta)\text{ is positive},
\label{x1}$$ where $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,...,\alpha_n)$ is a vector composed of the exponents of the first monomial and $x^\alpha$ is a shortcut for $x_1^{\alpha_1}x_2^{\alpha_2}...x_n^{\alpha_n}$. *Multidegree* of a multivariate polynomial $f$ is defined as the vector $\alpha\in\mathbb{Z}_0^n$ corresponding to the largest monomial which appears in $f$ with a non-zero coefficient. The *leading monomial* is $\text{LM}(f)=x^{\text{multideg}(f)}$, and the *leading term* $\text{LT}(f)$ is the leading monomial together with its numerical coefficient. Clearly, all these quantities depend on the choice of ordering.\
One also needs to define the division algorithm for multivariate polynomials [@groebner]:\
**Theorem** Let us fix a monomial ordering. Given a multivariate polynomial $f\in K[x_1, ..., x_n]$ and a set of multivariate polynomials $F=\{f_1, ..., f_s\}\in K[x_1, ..., x_n]^s$, there exists a representation: $$f=a_1f_1+a_2f_2+...+a_sf_s+r
\label{y1}$$ of the following properties:
- $a_1, ..., a_s, r\in K[x_1, ..., x_n]$;
- none of the monomials in $r$ is divisible by any of $\text{LT}(f_i)$;
- $\text{multideg}(f)\geq\text{multideg}(a_if_i)$ for all non-zero $a_if_i$.
$r$ is called the remainder of $f$ on division by $F$. For example, since: $$x^2y+xy^2+y^2=(x+y)(xy-1)+1\cdot(y^2-1)+x+y+1,
\label{y2}$$ the remainder of $f=x^2y+xy^2+y^2$ on division by $F=\{xy-1, y^2-1\}$ is $r=x+y+1$.\
The definition of a Gröbner basis if following:\
**Def.** Given a set of polynomials $F=(f_1, f_2, ..., f_s)\in K[x_1, ..., x_n]^s$, a set $G=(g_1, g_2,..., g_t)\in K[x_1, ..., x_n]^t$ is its Gröbner basis if and only if all leading monomials of linear combinations of polynomials in $F$: $$\sum_{i=1}^s h_if_i\qquad ;\ h_1, h_2,..., h_s\in K[x_1,...,x_n]
\label{x2}$$ are divisible by at least one of $LM(g_i)$.\
Notice, that in this context, a *linear combination* is the sum of *polynomial* multiples of the elements of $F$. The most common procedure to find a Gröbner basis is the Buchberger’s algorithm. An important auxillary quantity in this algorithm is $S$*-polynomial*: $$S(f,g)=\frac{x^\gamma}{LT(f)}\cdot f-\frac{x^\gamma}{LT(g)}\cdot g,
\label{x3}$$ where $x^\gamma$ is the least common multiple of leading monomials in $f$ and $g$. S-polynomials are constructed so that the leading terms of the two polynomials cancel each other out.\
In the first step of the Buchberger’s algorithm, one takes the Gröbner basis candidate to be equal to the initial set of polynomials $F=(f_1, ..., f_s)$: $$G:=F.
\label{x4}$$ In the next step, for every two polynomials $p$ and $q$ in $G$, the remainder of $S(p,q)$ on division by $G$ is calculated: $$S:=\overline{S(p,q)}^G.
\label{x5}$$ If this quantity is non-zero, i.e. if $S(p,q)$ is not divisible by the set $G$, $S$ is added to the Gröbner basis candidate $G$. This procedure is repeated until $S(p,q)$ is divisible by $G$ for every $p, q\in G$. It can be summarized as follows [@groebner]:\
`Input: `$F=(f_1, ..., f_s)$\
`Output: a Gröbner basis `$G=\{g_1, ...,g_t\}$, $F\subset G$\
$G:=F$\
`REPEAT`\
$G':=G$\
`FOR each pair `$\{p,q\}$, $p\neq q$ in $G'$` DO`\
$S:=\overline{S(p,q)}^{G'}$\
`IF `$S\neq0$` THEN `$G:=G\cup S$\
`UNTIL `$G=G'$.\
Example:\
The Gröbner basis method can be used to solve the set of equations: $$\begin{cases}
f_1=x^2y+y=0\\
f_2=xy^2+x=0
\end{cases}.
\label{x6}$$ Following the notation used in this section, $F=\{x^2y+y,xy^2+x\}$ and the initial Gröbner basis cadidate is $G=\{g_1,g_2\}=\{x^2y+y,xy^2+x\}$. In the first step, one obtains $S(g_1,g_2)=x^2-y^2$, which is not further divisible by $G'$, so $\overline{S(g_1,g_2)}^{G'}=x^2-y^2$ and $G$ must be expanded by $g_3=x^2-y^2$. Similarly in the next step of the algorithm, $S(g_1,g_3)=\overline{S(g_1,g_3)}^{G'}=-y-y^3$ and $S(g_2,g_3)=-x^2-y^4=-g_3-y^2-y^4$, thus $\overline{S(g_2,g_3)}^{G'}=-y^2-y^4$. Hence, $G:=G\cup\{g_4,g_5\}=G\cup\{-y-y^3,-y^2-y^4\}$. One can check that after this extension $\overline{S(g_i,g_j)}^{G}=0$ for all elements of $G$. Therefore, the polynomials in the initial set of equations (\[x6\]) can be replaced by the polynomials of the Gröbner basis: $$\begin{cases}
g_1=x^2y+y=0\\
g_2=xy^2+x=0\\
g_3=x^2-y^2=0\\
g_4=-y-y^3=0\\
g_5=-y^2-y^4=0
\end{cases}.
\label{x7}$$ $g_1=yg_3-g_4$ and $g_5=yg_4$, so the first and the fifth equations are redundant, because they are satisfied due to the remaining ones. Also the Gröbner basis can be reduced to $G=\{g_2,g_3,g_4\}$, since $g_1$ and $g_5$ are generated by $g_3$ and $g_4$. The fourth equation involves only $y$ and can be easily solved, $y\in\{0,i,-i\}$. After substituting these values to the second and third equations, one finally finds all solutions, $(x,y)\in\{(0,0),(i,i),(i,-i),(-i,i),(-i,-i)\}$.
Solving matching conditions {#sec-22}
---------------------------
The facts, that Gröbner basis method allows to find entire sets of solutions and it is exact, are its largest advantages. On the other hand, the main drawback is that the numerical complexity increases rapidly with the number of equations and variables [@dube]. We have therefore applied another, approximate procedure for larger sets of equations. The approximate algorithm used in this paper is a numerical search for the local minima of the sum: $$\sum_i\left(LHS_i-RHS_i\right)^2
\label{7}$$ with respect to the parameters $c_{00}, c_{01}, c_{10}, ..., c_{\text{cutoff}}$. $LHS_i$ and $RHS_i$ are the left and the right hand side of $i$-th equation of a given set of polynomial equations. The starting point of the minimization procedure is chosen randomly in $k$-dimensional space ($k$ is the number of variables). If the minimization procedure leads to a point $(c_{00}, c_{01}, c_{10}, ..., c_{\text{cutoff}})$ for which the goal function (\[7\]) equals zero, this solution is also a solution to the set of polynomial equations. Then, this procedure is repeated for a large enough number of starting points to obtain all solutions of the problem.
Results {#sec-3}
=======
Gaussian case {#sec-31}
-------------
The two methods proposed in the previous section were used to find a positive probability distribution $P(x,y)$ in the Gaussian case: $$\rho(x)=\sqrt{\frac{\sigma}{2\pi}}\text{e}^{-\sigma x^2/2}.
\label{8}$$ For numerical calculations Wolfram Mathematica 10 is used (procedures `GroebnerBasis[]` and `FindMinimum[]`). Our results were compared with the exact solution, which in this case reads [@ambjornyang; @wosiek]: $$P_g(x,y)=\frac{\sigma_R\sqrt{1+r^2}}{\pi}\exp\left(-\sigma_R(x^2+2rxy+(1+2r^2)y^2)\right),
\label{9}$$ where $\sigma_R=\text{Re }\sigma$, $\sigma_I=\text{Im }\sigma$ and $r=\sigma_R/\sigma_I$.\
We introduce a cutoff $m+n\leq 4$, neglect $c_{mn}$ for odd $m+n$ and take the following symmetry assumptions: $c_{20}=-c_{02}$, $c_{40}=c_{04}$ and $c_{31}=-c_{13}$. Such a choice of symmeties is dictated by the behaviour of the coefficients $c_{mn}$ for the exact solution (\[9\]). One obtains a system of 6 second degree equations for 6 variables: $$\begin{cases}
1=c_{00}^2+2c_{02}^2+c_{11}^2+2c_{04}^2+2c_{13}^2+c_{22}^2\\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}=-2\sqrt{2}c_{00}c_{02}-2\sqrt{6}c_{11}c_{13}-4\sqrt{3}c_{02}c_{04}+2\sqrt{2}c_{02}c_{22}\\
-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}=2c_{00}c_{11}+4c_{11}c_{22}+4\sqrt{3}c_{02}c_{13}\\
0=12c_{02}^2-6c_{11}^2+36c_{04}^2-6c_{00}c_{22}-18c_{22}^2+2\sqrt{6}c_{00}c_{04}-12\sqrt{6}c_{04}c_{22}\\
-3=-4\sqrt{6}c_{00}c_{13}-72c_{04}c_{13}-12\sqrt{2}c_{02}c_{11}-12\sqrt{6}c_{22}c_{13}\\
-\sqrt{2}=8\sqrt{6}c_{11}c_{13}-8\sqrt{3}c_{02}c_{04}+12\sqrt{2}c_{02}c_{22}
\end{cases},
\label{10}$$ where, on the left hand sides, the moments $M_r=\int x^r\rho(x)\ dx$ are calculated for $\sigma=(1+i)/\sqrt{2}$. There are 12 solutions of this system of equations. The results provided by Gröbner basis method are presented and compared to the exact solution (\[9\]) in Tab. \[tab1\]. Corresponding contour plots of $P(x,y)$ are depicted in Fig. \[fig1\].
$c_{00}$ $c_{02}$ $c_{11}$ $c_{04}$ $c_{13}$ $c_{22}$
------------------ ----------- ------------ ------------ ---------- ---------- ----------
a **0.827** **-0.154** **-0.217** -0.00815 0.332 -0.00665
b 0.520 -0.404 -0.572 -0.129 0.126 -0.105
c 0.855 -0.101 -0.382 0.0608 0.215 -0.0627
d 0.738 -0.0817 -0.587 0.145 0.150 -0.104
e -0.811 0.339 0.114 0.00705 -0.190 -0.166
f -0.431 0.523 0.376 -0.145 0.0145 -0.290
from eq. (\[9\]) **0.910** **-0.189** **-0.267** 0.0478 0.0956 0.0390
: Solutions of the system of equations (\[10\]) (remaining 6 solutions are minus these ones).
\[tab1\]
![Contour plots of the probability distribution $P(x,y)$ corresponding to the different solutions of the system of equations (\[10\]). []{data-label="fig1"}](1.PNG){width="10cm"}
![Dependence of solutions in the Gaussian case on the cutoff. The rows are numbered with the number of matching conditions and the solutions are arranged according to their respective proximity. []{data-label="fig2"}](2.PNG){width="13cm"}
The most important observation from these calculations is high non-uniqueness of the problem. Both Gröbner method and minimization method lead to a large number of solutions which increases with the number of matching conditions. Nevertheless, the solutions can be classified according to their stability with increasing the cutoff as shown in Fig. \[fig2\], where for every cutoff, the solutions are arranged into classes of solutions which are close to each other. A measure of distance used to determine proximity of solutions was: $$||P_1-P_2||_2=\int_{-\infty}^\infty\int_{-\infty}^\infty \left(P_1(x,y)-P_2(x,y)\right)^2\ dxdy.
\label{a1}$$ In particular, there exists a stable solution present in all steps of the algorithm and other, unstable solutions.
Quartic case {#sec-32}
------------
The same method can be applied to any other function $\rho(x)$. The only difference will be the values of the moments on the RHS of eq. (\[5\]). Therefore, one can study the case of a quartic action: $$\rho(x)=\frac{(8\lambda)^{1/4}}{\Gamma(1/4)}e^{-\lambda x^4/2}.
\label{11}$$ For numerical calculations, we have taken $\lambda=(1+i)/\sqrt{2}$. Similarly to the previous case, Gröbner basis method is efficient for no more than 6-8 variables, while for larger systems of equations the minimization method was used. The resulting positive distributions $P(x,y)$ and classification of those solutions are presented in Fig. \[fig3\]. Again, a class of solutions which are present independently of the cutoff is observed (the first column in Fig. \[fig3\]). Other solutions repeat for different cutoffs or appear only for a particular number of matching conditions, but are not totally cutoff-independent. A reasonable conjecture is that this class remains stable also for larger number of equations and these solutions approximate an exact solution to the full set of equations (\[5\]).
![Classification of solutions for quartic action.[]{data-label="fig3"}](3.PNG){width="13cm"}
Summary {#sec-4}
=======
In order to enforce positivity of the probability distribution it is assumed that $P(x,y)=|\psi(x,y)|^2$. This approach requires solving sets of second degree polynomial equations, which can be done with Gröbner bases method. In this method, one obtains exact solutions of the matching conditions and with this approach all solutions are found. There are also other methods to approach this problem, for which satisfying positivity is not so simple, but which are linear and thus their mathematical treatment is much more successful (see e.g. [@ruba]).\
Gröbner bases method and the minimization method are used to find solutions for Gaussian and quartic actions. Non-uniqueness of the problem is directly observed in both cases. In Gaussian case, the known, exact solution is observed with the methods proposed in this paper. For both Gaussian and quartic actions, approximate solutions are found and classified according to their respective proximity. There are stable solutions which appear for every cutoff, as well as unstable ones. The next important challenge would be finding more efficient algorithms to obtain Gröbner bases, since the numerical complexity increases rapidly with the number of equations.
[22]{} G. Parisi, Phys. Lett. **131B**, 393 (1983) J.R. Klauder, Phys. Rev. **A29**, 2036 (1984) D. Weingarten, Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 240201 (2002) L.L. Salcedo, J. Math. Phys. **38**, 1710 (1997) L.L. Salcedo, J. Phys. **A40**, 9399 (2007) L.L. Salcedo, Phys. Rev. **D94**, 074503 (2016) J. Ambjorn, M. Flensburg, C. Peterson, Nucl. Phys. **B275**, 375 (1986) R.W. Haymaker, J. Wosiek, Phys. Rev. **D37**, 969 (1988) D. Sinclair, *Complex Langevin Simulations of QCD at Finite Density – Progress Report*, in *Proceedings, 35th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice2017): Granada, Spain*, to appear in EPJ Web Conf. L.L. Salcedo, Phys. Lett. **B305**, 125 (1993) G. Aarts, F.A. James, E. Seiler, I.O. Stamatescu, Eur. Phys. J. **C71**, 1756 (2011) L.L. Salcedo, Phys. Rev. **D94**, 114505 (2016) E. Seiler, D. Sexty, I.O. Stamatescu, Phys. Lett. **B723**, 213 (2013) E. Seiler, *Status of the Complex Langevin Method*, in *Proceedings, 35th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice2017): Granada, Spain*, to appear in EPJ Web Conf. J. Wosiek, JHEP **04**, 146 (2016) E. Seiler, J. Wosiek (2017), `arXiv:1702.06012` J. Wosiek, *Positive Representations of a Class of Complex, Periodic Measures*, in *Proceedings, 35th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice2017): Granada, Spain*, to appear in EPJ Web Conf. B. Ruba, *Explicit positive representation for complex weights on* $\mathbb{R}^d$, in *Proceedings, 35th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory (Lattice2017): Granada, Spain*, to appear in EPJ Web Conf. E. Nelson, Phys. Rev. **150**, 1079 (1966) D. Cox, J. Little, D. O’Shea, Ideals, Varieties and Algorithms, 3rd edn. (Springer, 2006) T.W. Dubé, SIAM Journal on Computing 19 (4), 750 (1990) J. Ambjorn, S.K. Yang, Phys. Lett. **165B**, 140 (1985)
[^1]: Speaker,
[^2]: Acknowledges financial support by the NCN grant: UMO-2016/21/B/ST2/01492.
[^3]: Acknowledges financial support by the NCN grant: UMO-2016/21/B/ST2/01492.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this article, we calculate the $B\rightarrow a_1(1260)$ form-factors $V_1(q^2)$, $V_2(q^2)$, $V_3(q^2)$ and $A(q^2)$ with the $B$-meson light-cone QCD sum rules. Those form-factors are basic parameters in studying the exclusive non-leptonic two-body decays $B\to AP$ and semi-leptonic decays $B\to A l \nu_l$, $B\to A \bar{l}l$. Our numerical results are consistent with the values from the (light-cone) QCD sum rules. The main uncertainty comes from the parameter $\omega_0$ (or $\lambda_B$), which determines the shapes of the two-particle and three-particle light-cone distribution amplitudes of the $B$-meson, it is of great importance to refine this parameter.'
---
\
Zhi-Gang Wang [^1]\
Department of Physics, North China Electric Power University, Baoding 071003, P. R. China
PACS numbers: 12.38.Lg; 13.20.He
[**[Key Words:]{}**]{} $B$ meson, Light-cone QCD sum rules
Introduction
============
The weak $B\to P,V,A$ form-factors with $P=\pi,K$, $V=\rho,K^*$ and $A=a_1,K_1$ final states are basic input parameters in studying the exclusive semi-leptonic decays $B\to P(V,A) l \nu_l$, $B\to P(V,A) \bar{l}l$ and radiative decays $B\to V(A) \gamma $, they also determine the factorizable amplitudes in the non-leptonic charmless two-body decays $B \to PP(AP,PV,VV)$. Those decays can be used to determine the CKM matrix elements and to test the standard model, however, it is a great challenge to pin down the uncertainties of the form-factors to obtain more precise results. The exclusive semi-leptonic decays $B\to P(V) l \nu_l$, $B\to P(V) \bar{l}l$ and radiative decays $B\to V \gamma $ and hadronic two-body decays $B
\to PP(PV,VV)$ have been studied extensively [@Form1; @Form2; @Form3; @Form4; @Form5; @Form6; @Form7], while the decays $B \to AP,VA$ have been calculated with the QCD factorization approach [@Yang0705; @LCSR07; @Pham06], generalized factorization approach [@Wei05; @Calderon07], etc. It is more easy to deal with the exclusive semi-leptonic precesses than the non-leptonic precesses, and there have been many works on the relevant form-factors $B \to \pi $, $B\to \rho $ in determining the CKM matrix element $V_{ub}$ [@B-PV1; @B-PV2; @B-PV3; @B-PV4]. The $B \to
a_1(1260) $ form-factors have been studied with the covariant light-front approach [@CLF04], ISGW2 quark model [@Isgur95], quark-meson model [@QM99], QCD sum rules [@Aliev99], light-cone QCD sum rules [@LCSR07] and perturbative QCD [@Lu07] . However, the values from different theoretical approaches differ greatly from each other.
The BaBar Collaboration and Belle Collaboration have measured the charmless hadronic decays $B^0\to a_1^\pm\pi^\mp$ [@BaBarAp1; @BelleAp1]. Moreover, the BaBar Collaboration has measured the time-dependent CP asymmetries in the decays $B^0\to a_1^\pm\pi^\mp$ with $a_1^{\mp}\to \pi^{\mp}\pi^{\pm}\pi^{\mp}$, from the measured CP parameters, we can determine the decay rates of $a_1^+\pi^-$ and $a_1^-\pi^+$ respectively [@BaBarAp1time]. Recently, the BaBar Collaboration has reported the observation of the decays $B^{\pm}\to
a_1^0\pi^{\pm},a_1^{\pm}\pi^0$, $ B^+\to a_1^+K^0$ and $B^0\to a_1^-
K^+$ [@BaBarAp107; @BaBarAp1K]. So it is interesting to re-analyze the $B \to a_1$ form-factors with the $B$-meson light-cone QCD sum rules [@KhodjamirianB07].
In Ref.[@KhodjamirianB07], the authors obtain new sum rules for the $B\to \pi,K , \rho,K^*$ form-factors from the correlation functions expanded near the light-cone in terms of the $B$-meson distribution amplitudes, and suggest QCD sum rules motivated models for the three-particle $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes, which satisfy the relations given in Ref.[@Qiao2001]. In Ref.[@Qiao2001], the authors derive exact relations between the two-particle and three-particle $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes from the QCD equations of motion and heavy-quark symmetry. The two-particle $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes have been studied with the QCD sum rules and renormalization group equation [@Grozin1997; @Qiao2003; @Lange2003; @Braun2004; @Grozin05; @Khodjamirian05; @Lee05]. Although the QCD sum rules can’t be used for a direct calculation of the distribution amplitudes, it can provide constraints which have to be implemented within the QCD motivated models (or parameterizations) [@Braun2004].
The $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes play an important role in the exclusive $B$-decays, the inverse moment of the two-particle light-cone distribution amplitude $\phi_+(\omega)$ enters many factorization formulas (for example, see Refs.[@Form3; @Form4]). However, the light-cone distribution amplitudes of the $B$-meson are received relatively little attention comparing with the ones of the light pseudoscalar mesons and vector mesons, our knowledge about the nonperturbative parameters which determine those light-cone distribution amplitudes is limited and an additional application (or estimation) based on QCD is useful.
In this article, we use the $B$-meson light-cone QCD sum rules to study the $B \to a_1$ form-factors. The semi-leptonic decays $B\to
A l \nu_l$ can be observed at the LHCb, where the $b\bar{b}$ pairs will be copiously produced with the cross section about $500 \,\mu
b$.
We can also study the form-factors with the light-cone QCD sum rules using the light-cone distribution amplitudes of the axial-vector mesons. Recently, the twist-2 and twist-3 light-cone distribution amplitudes of the axial-vector mesons have been calculated with the QCD sum rules [@Yang0705LC].
The $B$-meson light-cone QCD sum rules have given reasonable values for the $B\to \pi,K , \rho,K^*$ form-factors [@KhodjamirianB07], so it is interesting to study the $B\to a_1$ form-factors and cross-check the properties of the $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes. Furthermore, it is necessary to investigate the form-factors with different approaches and compare the predictions of different approaches.
The article is arranged as: in Section 2, we derive the $B\rightarrow a_1(1260)$ form-factors with the light-cone QCD sum rules; in Section 3, the numerical result and discussion; and Section 4 is reserved for conclusion.
$B\rightarrow a_1(1260)$ form-factors with light-cone QCD sum rules
===================================================================
In the following, we write down the definitions for the weak form-factors $V_1(q^2)$, $V_2(q^2)$, $V_3(q^2)$, $V_0(q^2)$ and $A(q^2)$ [@CLF04], $$\begin{aligned}
\langle a_1(p)|J_\mu (0)|B(P)\rangle&=&i\left\{
(M_B-M_a)\epsilon_\mu^*V_1(q^2)-\frac{\epsilon^* \cdot
P}{M_B-M_a}(P+p)_\mu V_2(q^2) \right. \nonumber\\
&&\left.-2M_a\frac{\epsilon^* \cdot P}{q^2}q_\mu[V_3(q^2)-V_0(q^2)]
\right\} \, ,\\
\langle a_1(p)|J^A_\mu(0)|B(P)\rangle&=& \frac{1}{M_B-M_a}
\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\epsilon_\nu^* (P+p)_\alpha q_\beta
A(q^2) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
V_3(q^2)&=&\frac{M_B-M_a}{2M_a}V_1(q^2)-\frac{M_B+M_a}{2M_a}V_2(q^2)
\, , \nonumber \\
J_\mu(x)&=&\bar{d}(x)\gamma_\mu b(x)\, , \nonumber \\
J^A_\mu(x)&=&\bar{d}(x)\gamma_\mu \gamma_5 b(x)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ $V_0(0)=V_3(0)$, and the $\epsilon_\mu$ is the polarization vector of the axial-vector meson $a_1(1260)$. We study the weak form-factors $V_1(q^2)$, $V_2(q^2)$, $V_3(q^2)$, $V_0(q^2)$ and $A(q^2)$ with the two-point correlation functions $\Pi^i_{\mu}(p,q)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^i_{\mu\nu}(p,q)&=&i \int d^4x \, e^{i p \cdot x}
\langle 0 |T\left\{J^a_\mu(x) J^i_{\mu}(0)\right\}|B(P)\rangle \, ,\nonumber \\
J^a_\mu(x)&=&\bar {u}(x)\gamma_\mu \gamma_5 d(x)\, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $J^i_\mu(x)=J_\mu(x)$ and $J^A_\mu(x)$ respectively, and the axial-vector current $J^a_\mu(x)$ interpolates the axial-vector meson $a_1(1260)$. The correlation functions $\Pi^i_{\mu}(p,q)$ can be decomposed as $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^1_{\mu}(p,q)&=&\Pi_{A}g_{\mu\nu}+\Pi_{B}q_\mu p_\nu+\Pi_{C}p_\mu
q_\nu +\Pi_{D}q_\mu q_\nu+\Pi_{D}p_\mu p_\nu\,, \nonumber \\
\Pi^2_{\mu}(p,q)&=&\Pi_{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^\alpha
q^\beta+\cdots\end{aligned}$$ due to Lorentz covariance. In this article, we derive the sum rules with the tensor structures $g_{\mu\nu}$, $q_\mu p_\nu$ and $\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^\alpha q^\beta$ respectively to avoid contaminations from the $\pi$ meson.
According to the basic assumption of current-hadron duality in the QCD sum rules approach [@SVZ79; @Reinders85], we can insert a complete series of intermediate states with the same quantum numbers as the current operator $J^a_\mu(x)$ into the correlation functions $\Pi^i_{\mu}(p,q) $ to obtain the hadronic representation. After isolating the ground state contributions from the pole terms of the meson $a_1(1260)$, the correlation functions $\Pi^i_{\mu\nu}(p,q)$ can be expressed in the following form, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^1_{\mu\nu}(p,q) &=&-\frac{if_{a}M_a(M_B-M_a)V_1(q^2)}
{M_{a}^2-p^2}g_{\mu\nu} +\nonumber \\
&&\frac{2 if_{a}M_aV_2(q^2)}
{(M_B-M_a)(M_{a}^2-p^2)}q_\mu p_\nu + \cdots \, , \\
\Pi^2_{\mu\nu}(p,q) &=&\frac{2 f_{a}M_a A(q^2)}
{(M_B-M_a)(M_{a}^2-p^2)} \epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}p^\alpha q^\beta + \cdots\, ,
\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the standard definition for the decay constant $f_a$, $\langle0|J^a_{\mu}(0)|a_1(p)\rangle= f_{a}M_a
\epsilon_\mu$.
In the following, we briefly outline the operator product expansion for the correlation functions $\Pi^i_\mu(p,q)$ in perturbative QCD theory. The calculations are performed at the large space-like momentum region $p^2\ll 0$ and $0
\leq q^2< m_b^2+m_b p^2/\bar{\Lambda}$, where $M_B=m_b+\bar{\Lambda}$ in the heavy quark limit. We write down the propagator of a massless quark in the external gluon field in the Fock-Schwinger gauge and the light-cone distribution amplitudes of the $B$ meson firstly [@Belyaev94], $$\begin{aligned}
\langle 0 | T \{q_i(x_1)\, \bar{q}_j(x_2)\}| 0 \rangle &=&
i \int\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4}e^{-ik(x_1-x_2)}\nonumber\\
&&\left\{
\frac{\not\!k }{k^2} \delta_{ij} -\int\limits_0^1 dv
G^{ij}_{\mu\nu}(vx_1+(1-v)x_2)
\right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. \left[ \frac12 \frac {\not\!k }{k^4}\sigma^{\mu\nu} -
\frac{1}{k^2}v(x_1-x_2)^\mu
\gamma^\nu \right]\right\}\, , \nonumber\\
\langle 0|\bar{q}_{\alpha}(x)
h_{v\beta}(0) |B(v)\rangle &=& -\frac{if_B m_B}{4}\int\limits
_0^\infty d\omega e^{-i\omega v\cdot
x} \nonumber\\
&& \left \{(1 +\not\!v) \left [ \phi_+(\omega) -
\frac{\phi_+(\omega) -\phi_-(\omega)}{2 v\cdot x}\not\! x \right
]\gamma_5\right\}_{\beta\alpha} \, , \nonumber\\
\langle 0|\bar{q}_\alpha(x) G_{\lambda\rho}(ux)
h_{v\beta}(0)|B(v)\rangle &=& \frac{f_Bm_B}{4}\int\limits_0^\infty
d\omega \int\limits_0^\infty d\xi e^{-i(\omega+u\xi) v\cdot x}
\nonumber \\
&& \left\{(1 + \not\!v) \left[
(v_\lambda\gamma_\rho-v_\rho\gamma_\lambda)
\Big(\Psi_A(\omega,\xi)-\Psi_V(\omega,\xi)\Big)
\right.\right.\nonumber\\
&&-i\sigma_{\lambda\rho}\Psi_V(\omega,\xi)-\frac{x_\lambda
v_\rho-x_\rho v_\lambda}{v\cdot x}X_A(\omega,\xi)\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left. +\frac{x_\lambda \gamma_\rho-x_\rho
\gamma_\lambda}{v\cdot
x}Y_A(\omega,\xi)\right]\gamma_5\right\}_{\beta\alpha}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_+(\omega)&=&
\frac{\omega}{\omega_0^2}e^{-\frac{\omega}{\omega_0}} \, ,\,\,\,
\phi_-(\omega)= \frac{1}{\omega_0}e^{-\frac{\omega}{\omega_0}} \, ,\nonumber\\
\Psi_A(\omega,\xi)& =& \Psi_V(\omega,\xi) = \frac{\lambda_E^2
}{6\omega_0^4}\xi^2 e^{-\frac{\omega+\xi}{\omega_0}} \, ,\nonumber\\
X_A(\omega,\xi)& = & \frac{\lambda_E^2 }{6\omega_0^4}\xi(2\omega-\xi)e^{-\frac{\omega+\xi}{\omega_0}}\,,\nonumber\\
Y_A(\omega,\xi)& =& -\dfrac{\lambda_E^2 }{24\omega_0^4}
\xi(7\omega_0-13\omega+3\xi)e^{-\frac{\omega+\xi}{\omega_0}}\,,\end{aligned}$$ the $\omega_0$ and $\lambda^2_E$ are some parameters of the $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes.
Substituting the $d$ quark propagator and the corresponding $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes into the correlation functions $\Pi^i_\mu(p,q)$, and completing the integrals over the variables $x$ and $k$, finally we obtain the representation at the level of quark-gluon degrees of freedom. In this article, we take the three-particle $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes suggested in Ref.[@KhodjamirianB07], they obey the powerful constraints derived in Ref.[@Qiao2001] and the relations between the matrix elements of the local operators and the moments of the light-cone distribution amplitudes, if the conditions $
\omega_0=\frac{2}{3} \bar{\Lambda}$ and $\lambda_E^2=\lambda_H^2=\frac{3}{2}\omega_0^2= \frac{2}{3}
\bar{\Lambda}^2$ are satisfied [@Grozin1997].
In the region of small $\omega$, the exponential form of distribution amplitude $\phi_+(\omega)$ is numerically close to the more elaborated model (or the BIK distribution amplitude (BIK DA)) suggested in Ref.[@Braun2004], $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_+(\omega, \mu=1 \mbox{GeV}) =\frac{4\omega}{\pi
\lambda_B(1+\omega^2)} \left[\frac{1}{1+\omega^2}-2
\frac{\sigma_B-1}{\pi^2} \ln\omega\right]\, ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\omega_0=\lambda_B$. The parameters $\lambda_B$ and $\sigma_B$ are determined from the heavy quark effective theory QCD sum rules including the radiative and nonperturbative corrections. There are other phenomenological models for the two-particle $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes, for example, the $k_T$ factorization formalism [@Bdis1; @Bdis2], in this article, we use the QCD sum rules motivated models.
After matching with the hadronic representation below the continuum threshold $s_0$, we obtain the following three sum rules for the weak form-factors $V_1(q^2)$ , $V_2(q^2)$ and $A(q^2)$ respectively, $$\begin{aligned}
V_1(q^2) &=& \frac{1}{f_a M_a(M_B-M_a)}e^{\frac{M_a^2}{M^2}}\left\{-
\frac{1}{2}f_BM_BM^2\int_{0}^{\sigma_0}d\sigma
\phi_+(\omega')\frac{d}{d\sigma}e^{-\frac{s}{M^2}} \right.\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{f_BM_B}{2}\int_{0}^{\sigma_0}d\sigma \int_0^{\sigma
M_B}d\omega \int_{\sigma M_B-\omega}^\infty
\frac{d\xi}{\xi}[\Psi_A(\omega,\xi)-\Psi_V(\omega,\xi)]\frac{d}{d\sigma}
\frac{1}{\bar{\sigma}}e^{-\frac{s}{M^2}} \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{f_BM_B^2}{M^2}\int_{0}^{\sigma_0}d\sigma \int_0^{\sigma
M_B}d\omega \int_{\sigma M_B-\omega}^\infty\frac{d\xi}{\xi}
\frac{(1-2u)[3\widetilde{X}_A(\omega,\xi)-2\widetilde{Y}_A(\omega,\xi)]}
{\bar{\sigma}^2}e^{-\frac{s}{M^2}} \nonumber \\
&&-f_B\int_{0}^{\sigma_0}d\sigma \int_0^{\sigma M_B}d\omega
\int_{\sigma M_B-\omega}^\infty\frac{d\xi}{\xi}
\frac{(1-2u)\widetilde{X}_A(\omega,\xi)}
{\bar{\sigma}^3}e^{-\frac{s}{M^2}} \nonumber \\
&&\left.\left[\frac{\widetilde{M}_B^4-4sM_B^2}{2M^4}-2\frac{\widetilde{M}_B^2-2M_B^2}{M^2}+1
\right] \right\} \, ,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
V_2(q^2) &=& \frac{M_B-M_a}{2f_a M_a}
e^{\frac{M_a^2}{M^2}}\left\{f_BM_B\int_{0}^{\sigma_0}d\sigma \left[
\phi_+(\omega')\frac{1-2\sigma}{\bar{\sigma} } +\right. \right.\nonumber \\
&&\left.\frac{2M_B}{M^2}
[\widetilde{\phi}_+(\omega')-\widetilde{\phi}_-(\omega')]\frac{\sigma}{\bar{\sigma}}\right]e^{-\frac{s}{M^2}}\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{f_BM_B}{M^2}\int_{0}^{\sigma_0}d\sigma \int_0^{\sigma
M_B}d\omega \int_{\sigma M_B-\omega}^\infty\frac{d\xi}{\xi}
\frac{(2\sigma-3)[\Psi_A(\omega,\xi)-\Psi_V(\omega,\xi)]}
{\bar{\sigma}^2}e^{-\frac{s}{M^2}} \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{f_B}{M^2}\int_{0}^{\sigma_0}d\sigma \int_0^{\sigma
M_B}d\omega \int_{\sigma M_B-\omega}^\infty\frac{d\xi}{\xi}
(1-2u)\widetilde{X}_A(\omega,\xi)(6+\frac{d}{d\sigma})\frac{1}
{\bar{\sigma}^2}e^{-\frac{s}{M^2}} \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{4f_BM_B^2}{M^4}\int_{0}^{\sigma_0}d\sigma \int_0^{\sigma
M_B}d\omega \int_{\sigma M_B-\omega}^\infty\frac{d\xi}{\xi}
(1-2u)\widetilde{Y}_A(\omega,\xi)\frac{\sigma}
{\bar{\sigma}^2}e^{-\frac{s}{M^2}} \nonumber \\
&&-\frac{4f_B}{M^2}\int_{0}^{\sigma_0}d\sigma \int_0^{\sigma
M_B}d\omega \int_{\sigma M_B-\omega}^\infty\frac{d\xi}{\xi}
\frac{(1-2u)\widetilde{X}_A(\omega,\xi)}{\bar{\sigma}^3}\nonumber\\
&&\left.\left[2-\sigma-\frac{2s-\sigma
\widetilde{M}_B^2}{2M^2}\right]e^{-\frac{s}{M^2}} \right\}\, ,\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
A(q^2)&=&\frac{M_B-M_a}{2f_a M_a} e^{\frac{M_a^2}{M^2}}\left\{ f_B M_B
\int_{0}^{\sigma_0}d\sigma
\frac{\phi_+(\omega')}{\bar{\sigma}}e^{-\frac{s}{M^2}} \right.\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{f_BM_B}{M^2}\int_{0}^{\sigma_0}d\sigma \int_0^{\sigma
M_B}d\omega \int_{\sigma M_B-\omega}^\infty\frac{d\xi}{\xi}
\frac{[\Psi_A(\omega,\xi)-\Psi_V(\omega,\xi)]}
{\bar{\sigma}^2}e^{-\frac{s}{M^2}} \nonumber \\
&&\left.+\frac{f_B}{M^2}\int_{0}^{\sigma_0}d\sigma \int_0^{\sigma
M_B}d\omega \int_{\sigma M_B-\omega}^\infty\frac{d\xi}{\xi}
(1-2u)\widetilde{X}_A(\omega,\xi)\frac{d}{d\sigma}\frac{1}
{\bar{\sigma}^2}e^{-\frac{s}{M^2}} \right\}\, ,\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
s &=& M_B^2 \sigma-\frac{\sigma}{\bar{\sigma}}q^2\, , \,\,\,\omega'=\sigma M_B \,, \, \, \,\bar{\sigma}=1-\sigma \, ,\nonumber\\
\sigma_0&=&\frac{s_0+M_B^2-q^2-\sqrt{(s_0+M_B^2-q^2)^2-4s_0M_B^2}}{2M_B^2} \, ,\nonumber\\
u&=&\frac{\sigma M_B-\omega}{\xi} \, ,\,\,\,\widetilde{M}_B^2=M_B^2(1+\sigma)-\frac{1}{\bar{\sigma}}q^2\, ,\nonumber\\
\widetilde{X}_A(\omega,\xi)&=&\int_0^\omega d\lambda
X_A(\lambda,\xi) \, ,\,\,\,\widetilde{Y}_A(\omega,\xi)=\int_0^\omega
d\lambda
Y_A(\lambda,\xi) \, ,\nonumber\\
\widetilde{\phi}_\pm(\omega)&=&\int_0^\omega d\lambda
\phi_\pm(\lambda) \, .\end{aligned}$$
In Ref.[@Lange2003], Lange and Neubert observe that the evolution effects drive the light-cone distribution amplitude $\phi_+(\omega)$ toward a linear growth at the origin and generate a radiative tail that falls off slower than $\frac{1}{\omega}$, even if the initial function has an arbitrarily rapid falloff, which implies the normalization integral of the $\phi_{+}(\omega)$ is ultraviolet divergent. In this article, we derive the sum rules without the radiative $\mathcal {O}(\alpha_s)$ corrections, the ultraviolet behavior of the $\phi_+(\omega)$ plays no role at the leading order ($\mathcal {O}(1)$). Furthermore, the duality thresholds in the sum rules are well below the region where the effect of the tail becomes noticeable. The nontrivial renormalization of the $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitude is so far known only for the $\phi_{+}(\omega)$, we use the light-cone distribution amplitudes of order $\mathcal {O}(1)$, which satisfy all QCD constraints.
Numerical result and discussion
===============================
The input parameters are taken as $\omega_0=\lambda_B(\mu)=(0.46\pm0.11)\,\rm{GeV}$, $\mu=1\,\rm{GeV}$ [@Braun2004], $\lambda_E^2=(0.11\pm0.06)\,\rm{GeV}^2$ [@Grozin1997], $M_a=(1.23\pm0.06)\,\rm{GeV}$, $f_a=(0.238\pm0.010)\,\rm{GeV}$, $s_0=(2.55\pm0.15)\,\rm{GeV}^2$ [@Yang0705LC], $M_B=5.279 \,\rm{GeV}$, $f_B=(0.18 \pm
0.02)\,\rm{GeV}$ [@LCSRreview; @WangNPA].
The Borel parameters in the three sum rules are taken as $M^2=(1.1-1.5) \,\rm{GeV}^2$, in this region, the values of the weak form-factors $V_1(q^2)$, $V_2(q^2)$ and $A(q^2)$ are stable enough.
{width="7cm"} {width="7cm"} {width="7cm"}
theoretical approaches $V_0(0)$
----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Covariant light front approach [@CLF04] $0.13$
ISGW2 quark model [@Isgur95] $1.01$
quark-meson model [@QM99] $1.20$
QCD sum rules [@Aliev99] $0.23\pm0.05$
perturbative QCD [@Lu07] $0.34^{+0.07+0.08}_{-0.06-0.08}$
light-cone sum rules [@LCSR07] $0.30\pm0.05$
This work (light-cone sum rules) $0.29^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$
: The form-factor $V_0(0)$ from different theoretical approaches. I know the updated value $0.30\pm0.05$ from private communication with Prof. H.Y.Cheng, their work is still in progress.
theoretical approaches $A(0)$
----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
Covariant light front approach [@CLF04] $0.25$
quark-meson model [@QM99] $0.09$
QCD sum rules [@Aliev99] $0.42\pm0.06$
perturbative QCD [@Lu07] $0.26^{+0.06+0.03}_{-0.05-0.03}$
This work (light-cone sum rules) $0.41^{+0.20}_{-0.13}$
: The form-factor $A(0)$ from different theoretical approaches.
$a_F$ $b_F$
------------ ---------- ---------
$V_1(q^2)$ $-0.518$ $0.159$
$V_2(q^2)$ $-1.330$ $0.532$
$A(q^2)$ $-1.649$ $0.561$
: The parameters for the fitted form-factors.
Taking into account all the uncertainties, we obtain the numerical values of the weak form-factors $V_1(q^2)$, $V_2(q^2)$ and $A(q^2)$, which are shown in Fig.1, at zero momentum transfer, $$\begin{aligned}
V_1(0) &=&0.67^{+0.33}_{-0.21} \, , \nonumber \\
V_2(0) &=&0.31^{+0.18}_{-0.11} \, , \nonumber \\
V_3(0) &=&0.29^{+0.07}_{-0.06} \, , \nonumber \\
V_0(0) &=&0.29^{+0.07}_{-0.06} \, , \nonumber \\
A(0) &=&0.41^{+0.20}_{-0.13} \, .
\end{aligned}$$ The form-factors can be parameterized in the double-pole form, $$\begin{aligned}
F_i(q^2)&=&\frac{F_i(0)}{1+a_Fq^2/M_b^2+b_Fq^4/M_B^4} \, ,
\end{aligned}$$ where we use the notation $F_i(q^2)$ to denote the $V_1(q^2)$, $V_2(q^2)$ and $A(q^2)$, the $a_F$ and $b_F$ are the corresponding coefficients and their values are presented in Table 3.
In calculation, we observe the dominating contributions in the three sum rules come from the two-particle $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes, the contributions from the three-particle $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitudes are of minor importance, about $1\%$, and can be neglected safely. It is not un-expected that the main uncertainty comes from the parameter $\omega_0$ (or $\lambda_B$), which determines the shapes of the two-particle and three-particle light-cone distribution amplitudes of the $B$ meson. From Fig.1, we can see that the uncertainty of the parameter $\lambda_B$ almost saturates the total uncertainties, it is of great importance to refine this parameter. In this article, we take the value from the QCD sum rules in Ref.[@Braun2004], where the $B$-meson light-cone distribution amplitude $\phi_+$ is parameterized by the matrix element of the bilocal operator at imaginary light-cone separation.
In the region of small $\omega$, the exponential (Gaussian) form of distribution amplitude $\phi_+(\omega)$ is numerically close to the BIK DA suggested in Ref.[@Braun2004]. In Fig.1, we also present the numerical results with the BIK DA for the central values of the input parameters $\lambda_B$ and $\sigma_B$, the Gaussian distribution amplitude and the BIK DA lead to almost the same values.
From Table 1, we can see that the values of the $V_0(0)$ from the covariant light-front approach, ISGW2 quark model and quark-meson model differ greatly from the corresponding ones from the (light-cone) QCD sum rules, while the values from the (light-cone) QCD sum rules and perturbative QCD are consistent with each other. From Table 2, we observe that the values of the $A(0)$ from the covariant light-front approach, quark-meson model and perturbative QCD differ greatly from the corresponding ones from the (light-cone) QCD sum rules, while the values of the form-factors from the (light-cone) QCD sum rules are consistent with each other.
Conclusion
==========
In this article, we calculate the weak form-factors $V_1(q^2)$, $V_2(q^2)$, $V_3(q^2)$ and $A(q^2)$ with the $B$-meson light-cone QCD sum rules. The form-factors are basic parameters in studying the exclusive hadronic two-body decays $B\to AP$ and semi-leptonic decays $B\to A l \nu_l$, $B\to A \bar{l}l$. Our numerical values are consistent with the values from the (light-cone) QCD sum rules. The main uncertainty comes from the parameter $\omega_0$ (or $\lambda_B$), which determines the shapes of the two-particle and three-particle light-cone distribution amplitudes of the $B$ meson, it is of great importance to refine this parameter. However, it is a difficult work, as we cannot extract the values of the basic parameter $\lambda_B$ directly from the experimental data on the semi-leptonic decays $B\to A l \nu_l$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation, Grant Number 10775051, and Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University, Grant Number NCET-07-0282.
[99]{}
M. Wirbel, B. Stech and M. Bauer, Z. Phys. [**C29**]{} (1985) 637.
M. Bauer, B. Stech and M. Wirbel, Z. Phys. [**C34**]{} (1987) 103.
M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. [**B606**]{} (2001) 245.
M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. [**B591**]{} (2000) 313.
Y. Y. Keum, H. N. Li and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. [**D63**]{} (2001) 054008.
A. Ali, P. Ball, L. T. Handoko and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. [**D61**]{} (2000) 074024.
A. Ali, G. Kramer and C. D. Lu, Phys. Rev. [**D58**]{} (1998) 094009.
K. C. Yang, Phys. Rev. [**D76**]{} (2007) 094002.
H. Y. Cheng and K. C. Yang, Phys. Rev. [**D76**]{} (2007) 114020.
V. Laporta, G. Nardulli and T. N. Pham, Phys. Rev. [**D74**]{} (2006) 054035.
C. H. Chen, C. Q. Geng, Y. K. Hsiao and Z. T. Wei, Phys. Rev. [**D72**]{} (2005) 054011.
G. Calderon, J. H. Munoz and C. E. Vera, Phys. Rev. [**D76**]{} (2007) 094019.
P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. [**D71**]{} (2005) 014029.
P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. [**D71**]{} (2005) 014015.
A. Khodjamirian, R. Ruckl, S. Weinzierl, C. W. Winhart and O. I. Yakovlev, Phys. Rev. [**D62**]{} (2000) 114002.
Z. G. Wang, M. Z. Zhou and T. Huang, Phys. Rev. [**D67**]{} (2003) 094006.
H. Y. Cheng, C. K. Chua and C. W. Hwang, Phys. Rev. [**D69**]{} (2004) 074025.
D. Scora and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. [**D52**]{} (1995) 2783.
A. Deandrea, R. Gatto, G. Nardulli and A. D. Polosa, Phys. Rev. [**D59**]{} (1999) 074012.
T. M. Aliev and M. Savci, Phys. Lett. [**B456**]{} (1999) 256.
W. Wang, R. H. Li and C. D. Lu, arXiv:0711.0432.
B. Aubert et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{} (2006) 051802.
K. Abe et al, arXiv:0706.3279.
B. Aubert et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{} (2007) 181803.
B. Aubert et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **99**]{} (2007) 261801.
B. Aubert et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{} (2008) 051803.
A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel and N. Offen, Phys. Rev. [**D75**]{} (2007) 054013.
H. Kawamura, J. Kodaira, C. F. Qiao and K. Tanaka, Phys. Lett. [**B523**]{} (2001) 111.
A. G. Grozin and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. [**D55**]{} (1997) 272.
H. Kawamura, J. Kodaira, C. F. Qiao and K. Tanaka, Mod. Phys. Lett. [**A18**]{} (2003) 799.
B. O. Lange and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{} (2003) 102001.
V. M. Braun, D. Yu. Ivanov and G. P. Korchemsky, Phys. Rev. [**D69**]{} (2004) 034014.
A. G. Grozin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A20**]{} (2005) 7451.
A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel and N. Offen, Phys. Lett. [**B620**]{} (2005) 52.
S. J. Lee and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. [**D72**]{} (2005) 094028.
K. C. Yang, Nucl. Phys. [**B776**]{} (2007) 187.
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.
V. M. Belyaev, V. M. Braun, A. Khodjamirian and R. Rückl, Phys. Rev. [**D51**]{} (1995) 6177.
H. n. Li and H. S. Liao, Phys. Rev. [**D70**]{} (2004) 074030.
T. Huang, C. F. Qiao and X. G. Wu, Phys. Rev. [**D73**]{} (2006) 074004.
P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, hep-ph/0010175.
Z. G. Wang, W. M. Yang and S. L. Wan, Nucl. Phys. [**A744**]{} (2004) 156.
[^1]: E-mail,[email protected].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
The synchrotron-emitting nebulae formed by energetic winds from young pulsars provide information on a wide range phenomena that contribute to their structure. High resolution X-ray observations reveal jets and toroidal structures in many systems, along with knot-like structures whose emission is observed to be time-variable. Large-scale filaments seen in optical and radio images mark instability regions where the expanding nebulae interact with the surrounding ejecta, and spectral studies reveal the presence of these ejecta in the form of thermal X-ray emission. Infrared studies probe the frequency region where evolutionary and magnetic field effects conspire to change the broadband synchrotron spectrum dramatically, and studies of the innermost regions of the nebulae provide constraints on the spectra of particles entering the nebula. At the highest energies, TeV gamma-ray observations provide a probe of the spectral region that, for low magnetic fields, corresponds to particles with energies just below the X-ray-emitting regime.
Here I summarize the structure of pulsar wind nebulae and review several new observations that have helped drive a recent resurgence in theoretical modeling of these systems.
author:
- Patrick Slane
title: |
Recent Progress in Studies\
of Pulsar Wind Nebulae
---
[ address=[Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics]{} ]{}
Introduction
============
It has long been known that the Crab Nebula is produced by the wind from a young, energetic pulsar whose spin-down power manifests itself as a synchrotron-emitting bubble of energetic particles. Optical observations reveal toroidal wisps and jet-like outflows near the pulsar. Faint portions of a ring are observed, marking the region where the pulsar wind undergoes a shock upon entering the surrounding nebula, the outer portions of which are rich in filamentary structure from swept-up ejecta. Though clearly formed in a supernova (SN) event in 1054 CE, the Crab shows no trace of an associated supernova remnant (SNR), presumably indicating that the SN blast wave is propagating through a very low density medium; the nebula results entirely from the pulsar input (and its confinement by surrounding material – in this case, stellar ejecta) and is the prototypical example of a pulsar wind nebula (PWN).
The diagram shown in Figure 1 illustrates the main points of the most basic picture for a PWN: in an inner zone the wind flows away from the neutron star (NS) with Lorentz factor $\gamma \sim 10^6$; at a distance $R_w$ from the NS the wind passes through a termination shock, decelerating the flow while boosting particle energies by another factor of $\ga 10^3$; and beyond $R_w$ energetic electrons in the wind radiate synchrotron emission in the wound-up toroidal magnetic field to form the PWN which is confined at a radius $R_{PWN}$ by the inertia of the SN ejecta or the pressure of the interior of a surrounding SNR. A detailed theoretical framework, incorporating particle injection and diffusion, magnetic field evolution and radiative and adiabatic losses, has been constructed within this picture, allowing us to successfully predict and explain some basic PWN properties (Reynolds & Chevalier 1984; Kennel & Coroniti 1984). For a more detailed review on the structure and evolution of PWNe, see Gaensler & Slane (2006).
![ Schematic diagram of a PWN within an SNR (see text for description). [[*Chandra*]{}]{} images of the Crab Nebula, PSR B1509$-$58, and Vela are shown in the left panels. On the right are corresponding images of the jets in these nebula, with indications of the relative sizes. Here and throughout, north is up and east is to the left. ](f1.ps){width="\textwidth"}
Most models of PWNe have been built and tailored to explain the properties of the Crab, but questions have lingered as to whether or not other PWNe were really well-described by this “prototype.” Recent observations, particularly with high resolution X-ray telescopes, have now shown that despite considerable differences in age, environmental conditions, and pulsar properties, a large number of PWNe share many of the Crab’s traits. In particular, it has become startlingly apparent that pulsars release their energy not in an isotropic fashion, but rather in equatorial winds and polar outflows defined by the spin axis of the system. In Figure 1 (left panels) we show [[*Chandra*]{}]{} images of the Crab Nebula (Weisskopf et al. 2000), PSR B1509$-$58 (Gaensler et al. 2002), and the inner nebula around the Vela pulsar (Helfand et al. 2001). Each shows a well-defined axis of symmetry associated with the spin axis of the pulsar, along with arc-like structures in the equatorial plane. Similar structures have now been identified around a large number of young pulsars. The symmetry extends to large scales as well, with enhanced confinement by the toroidal field producing nebulae whose extent along the spin axis is larger than at the equator (see Figure 2). In the extended nebulae, particles suffer synchrotron losses which gradually steepen the spectra with radius, as the higher energy particles are burned off as they diffuse toward the outer boundary – an effect readily observed in X-ray spectra of PWNe (e.g. Slane et al. 2001, Slane et al. 2004) that directly probes the efficiency of the synchrotron cooling (Chevalier 2000).
Jet/Torus Structure in PWNe
===========================
As indicated above, when the free-flowing equatorial wind from the pulsar encounters the more slowly-expanding nebula, a termination shock is formed at the radius, $R_w$, at which the ram pressure of the wind is balanced by the internal pressure of the PWN: $$R_w = \sqrt{\dot E/(4 \pi \omega c \mathcal{P}_{\rm PWN})},
\label{eqn_ts}$$ where $\omega$ is the equivalent filling factor for an isotropic wind, and $\mathcal{P}_{\rm PWN}$ is the total pressure in the shocked nebular interior. Upstream of the termination shock, the particles do not radiate, but flow relativistically along with the frozen-in magnetic field. At the shock, particles are thermalized and re-accelerated, forming a toroidal emission region in the downstream flow. Emission from the termination shock region and the downstream torus is seen clearly in the Crab Nebula (see upper left in Figure 1); the geometry implied by the X-ray morphology is a tilted torus, with a jet of material that flows along the toroid axis, extending nearly 0.4 pc from the pulsar (see upper right in Figure 1). A faint counter-jet accompanies the structure, and the X-ray emission is significantly enhanced along one edge of the torus. Both effects are presumably the result of Doppler beaming of the outflowing material, whereby the X-ray intensity varies with viewing angle. Estimates of the nebular pressure are in good agreement with the observed termination shock position based on the measured $\dot E$ (see Eq. 1).
Similar geometric structures have now been observed in a number of PWNe. [[*Chandra*]{}]{} observations of G54.1+0.3 (Figure 3), for example, reveal a central point-like source surrounded by an X-ray ring whose geometry suggests an inclination angle of about $45^\circ$ (Lu et al. 2002). The X-ray emission is brightest along the eastern limb of the ring. If interpreted as the result of Doppler boosting, this implies a post-shock flow velocity of $\sim
0.4c$. The ring is accompanied by faint bipolar elongations aligned with the projected axis of the ring, consistent with the notion that these are jets along the pulsar rotation axis.
The formation of these jet/torus structures can be understood as follows (see Lyubarsky 2002). Outside the pulsar magnetosphere, the particle flow is radial. The rotation of the pulsar forms an expanding toroidal magnetic field for which the Poynting flux decreases with increasing latitude. Conservation of energy flux along flow lines thus results in a variation of the wind magnetization parameter, $\sigma$ (the ratio of Poynting flux energy density to that in particles), and this anisotropy results in the toroidal structure of the downstream wind. Modeling of the flow conditions across the shock shows that magnetic collimation produces jet-like flows along the rotation axis (Komissarov & Lyubarsky 2004). This collimation is highly dependent on the magnetization of the wind. At high latitudes $\sigma$ is large, resulting in a small termination shock radius and strong collimation, while close to the equator $\sigma$ is much smaller and the termination shock extends to larger radii.
The jets observed in PWNe differ considerably from source to source, spanning a large range in size (see right panels in Figure 1) and in luminosity (relative to both that of the nebula and to the available spin-down power of the pulsar). At present, the connection between the observed structure and the properties of the pulsar and its environment is not well understood. The jets shown in Figure 1 all exhibit some amount of curvature, and this is typical of most pulsar jets (e.g., that in 3C 58 – see Figure 4). The hoop stresses thought to confine the jets are subject to kink instabilities, which can result in deflections of the flow, possibly explaining the observed structures. The morphology of the Vela pulsar jet, shown in Figure 1, is observed to change rapidly with time, consistent with the presence of such instabilities.
![ [[*Chandra*]{}]{} image of 3C 58, from co-added images in the 0.5-1.0 keV (red), 1.0-1.5 keV (green), and 1.5-10 keV (blue) bands. The PWN is elongated in the E-W direction, along spin axis defined by the jet direction. A shell of soft (red) thermal emission is evident, as is a complex of synchrotron loops and filaments. ](f2.ps){width="90.00000%"}
![Left: [[*Chandra*]{}]{} image of G54.1+0.3 revealing a ring-like structure surrounding the pulsar as well as jet-like outflows extending into a diffuse nebula. Right: Composite showing [[*Chandra*]{}]{} image (blue) and [[*Spitzer*]{}]{}image (MIPS 24 $\mu$m). The IR observations reveal a shell in which the PWN is embedded. ](f3a.ps "fig:"){height=".28\textheight"} ![Left: [[*Chandra*]{}]{} image of G54.1+0.3 revealing a ring-like structure surrounding the pulsar as well as jet-like outflows extending into a diffuse nebula. Right: Composite showing [[*Chandra*]{}]{} image (blue) and [[*Spitzer*]{}]{}image (MIPS 24 $\mu$m). The IR observations reveal a shell in which the PWN is embedded. ](f3b.eps "fig:"){height=".28\textheight"}
PWN Environments
================
While the SNR shell for the Crab Nebula has yet to be identified, there is ample evidence for ejecta from its progenitor in the form of Rayleigh-Taylor filaments formed as the relativistic gas in the nebula expands into the slower-moving, denser ejecta. These are clearly seen in optical and infrared line maps of the Crab, and also in radio observations where the synchrotron emission is enhanced along the filaments due to compression of the magnetic field. There appears to be little dust in the Crab’s environment, however; [[*Spitzer*]{}]{} observations indicate a total dust mass of $< 1$ M$_\odot$, with virtually no emission from small grains (Temim et al. 2006). Searches for an SNR shell continue, for the Crab and other young PWNe, because of the considerable information such a detection would provide, in particular on the composition and density profile of the ejecta through which the young nebulae are expanding.
Optical studies of 3C 58 reveal filamentary structures associated with ejecta (van den Bergh 1978; Rudie & Fesen 2007), and X-ray observations reveal a shell of shock-heated material with enhanced abundances, suggesting an ejecta origin (Bocchino et al. 2001, Slane et al. 2004, Gotthelf et al. 2006). This is illustrated in Figure 2 where we show a [[*Chandra*]{}]{} image that reveals extended low energy emission enriched in Ne (shown in red) in the outer regions of the PWN. The total mass of this material, along with the size of the nebula, suggest an age of several thousand years (Chevalier 2005), calling into question the often-assumed historical association of 3C 58 with SN 1181.
In addition to the soft X-ray shell, the [[*Chandra*]{}]{} observations of 3C 58 reveal a network of synchrotron loops and filaments spread throughout the nebula whose nature is currently unknown. Unlike the radio filaments seen in the Crab, these structures do not seem to correspond well with the optical filaments in 3C 58. Kink instabilities can lead to loops of magnetic flux being torn from the pulsar jet regions, and these could manifest themselves as regions of enhanced synchrotron emission, but more studies are required to determine whether these structures are unique to 3C 58.
The outer regions of the diffuse X-ray emission in G54.1+0.3 show a softer spectrum than the interior regions, but there is no evidence for a thermal X-ray component associated with shock-heated ejecta or ISM. [*IRAS*]{} observations reveal excess infrared emission above the extrapolated synchrotron spectrum, however. Recent [[*Spitzer*]{}]{} observations (Slane et al., in preparation) reveal a shell of emission that may be associated with the swept-up ejecta or shocked dust (Figure 3, right). Of particular interest is a complex of infrared knots in the western portion of the shell, directly in line with the termination of the jet-like outflow seen in X-rays (Figure 3, left). Further IR spectroscopy is required to determine the nature of the shell and its association with G54.1+0.3.
Broadband Spectra of PWNe
=========================
The broadband spectrum of a pulsar wind nebula (PWN) is determined by the input spectrum from the pulsar, as modified at the termination shock where the pulsar wind joins the flow in the nebula, incorporating the evolution of the nebula magnetic field strength as the nebula expands into the ambient medium. For a power-law injection of particles from the pulsar, a constant magnetic field in the nebula yields a power law synchrotron spectrum with a break at a frequency $$\nu_b \approx 10^{21} B_{\mu \rm G}^{-3} t_3^{-2}{\rm\ Hz}$$ (where $B_{\mu \rm G}$ is the magnetic field strength, in $\mu$G, and $t_3$ is the age in units of $10^3$ yr) above which the synchrotron cooling time of the radiating particles is less than the age of the nebula. Additional contributions to the spectral structure in PWNe include the effects of any time-dependent input from the pulsar, of the interaction of SNR reverse shock with the PWN, and of any features in the injection spectrum itself.
![Left: [[*Chandra*]{}]{} image of the pulsar, torus, and jet in 3C 58. Center: [[*Spitzer*]{}]{} image (IRAC 8 $\mu$m) revealing the 3C 58 torus. Right: Broadband spectrum for 3C 58 and its torus, indicating that a broken spectrum is injected into the nebula from the termination shock region.](f4.eps){width="\textwidth"}
Typically, PWN spectra are characterized by a flat power law index at radio frequencies ($\alpha \approx -0.3$, where $S_\nu \propto
\nu^\alpha$) and a considerably steeper index in X-rays ($\alpha
\sim -1$). The Crab Nebula has a spectral break at $\sim 10^{13}$ Hz, interpreted as a cooling break from a $\sim 300 \mu$G field, as well as breaks at $\sim 3 \times 10^{14}$ Hz and $\sim 40$ keV. There is a class of PWNe with breaks at much lower frequencies, however; 3C 58, for example, has a break at $\sim 50$ GHz which, if interpreted as a cooling break would imply a magnetic field well in excess of $1$ mG – an unreasonably high field for a PWN, and one inconsistent with the fact that the X-ray emission from 3C 58 extends all the way to the radio edge of the nebula, indicating that no synchrotron loss breaks occur far below the X-ray band.
[[*Spitzer*]{}]{} observations of 3C 58 (Slane et al. - in preparation) show that the mid-IR emission from this PWN is consistent with extrapolation of the X-ray spectrum. Of particular interest, though, is that that pulsar torus is also detected in [[*Spitzer*]{}]{} observations (Figure 4). The resulting spectrum requires at least one spectral break, implying that the particle spectrum injected into the nebula is not a single power law. Further characterization of the emission in this region is of considerable importance for proper modeling of the evolved nebular spectrum.
High Energy Emission from PWNe
==============================
Recent discoveries of very high energy $\gamma$-ray emission associated with PWNe have opened a new channel for investigations of the structure and evolution of these objects. Of particular interest is Vela X, the large wind nebula associated with the Vela pulsar. It is located to the south of the pulsar, but this offset position cannot be attributed to the pulsar velocity because the direction of the pulsar motion, known from radio VLBI observations, is not directed away from the center of the nebula. Blondin et al. (2001) explained Vela X as a PWN that has been crushed and pushed off-center by an asymmetric reverse shock wave that resulted from the supernova interaction with an asymmetric surrounding medium. [*ROSAT*]{} observations of the Vela SNR revealed a hard emission component extending southward from the pulsar, into the Vela X region (Markwardt & Ögelman 1995) and a filamentary radio structure extends alongside the same region. HESS observations reveal an extended region of TeV emission that follows this same structure (Aharonian et al. 2006), presumably tracing filamentary structure produced by the interaction of the PWN with the reverse shock.
This emission in the TeV band probably originates from inverse-Compton scattering of ambient soft photons with energetic electrons in the nebula (Aharonian et al. 2006), although models have been considered in which the emission is associated with the decay of neutral pions produced in collisions of energetic ions with ambient hadronic material (Horns et al. 2006). If correct, the latter interpretation would be of particular importance because it would demonstrate the presence of ions in the pulsar wind. Enhanced pion production from such a wind may result from the mixing of ejecta material into the PWN through instabilities produced by the reverse shock interaction. Indeed, X-ray observations indicate the presence of shocked ejecta material within the Vela X region (LaMassa, Slane, & de Jager, in preparation), strengthening the case for the reverse-shock interaction scenario and potentially providing hadronic material with which an ionic wind might interact to produce pions. However, further observations of the high energy spectrum are required to differentiate between the two emission scenarios.
Several recently-discovered HESS sources in the Galactic plane also seem likely to be associated with PWNe. They are extended, have spectra consistent with other PWNe, and have young radio pulsars nearby. Examples include HESS J1804-216, HESS J1825-137, and HESS J1718-385 (Aharonian et al. 2005, Aharonian et al. 2007). For each of these sources, the young pulsars suggested as the engines for these nebulae are distinctly separated from the TeV centroids, possibly suggesting that the PWNe have been disturbed by an asymmetric reverse shock interaction as proposed for Vela X. In most cases, however, the surrounding SNRs have yet to be identified.
In addition to the nature of the curious morphology for these sources, a more vexing question centers on their very large sizes. Several of these sources are observed to be extended on scales as large as 15-30 arcmin or more. Using the dispersion-measure distances of the pulsars which are suspected to have created the nebulae, the physical sizes are in excess of 15 pc – much larger than any known PWNe observed in the radio or X-ray bands. Diffusion of low energy particles to distances far from the pulsar has been suggested as an explanation for this large size, However, detailed modeling of the environment that would lead to such a nebula, in the context of the reverse shock interaction scenario, has yet to be carried out. The results from these and other TeV observations are thus driving new investigations of PWN structure and evolution.
Summary
=======
Recent advances in observations of PWNe have uncovered a wealth of information regarding the axisymmetric nature of the wind and the large- and small-scale structure of the nebulae. It is now clear that the Crab Nebula is indeed the prototypical member of this class – albeit a particularly bright and energetic example; the elongated nebula, swept-up ejecta, toroidal structure, and jets that characterize the Crab are now being found in a multitude of PWNe. Observations across the electromagnetic spectrum are helping to characterize the evolution of PWNe, and opening new questions regarding the nature of the wind and its interactions with its environs. These, in turn, have stimulated new theoretical work on relativistic flows, shocks, and jets with application to a broad range of topics in high energy astrophysics.
I would like to thank the conference organizers for the opportunity to present this work, and also Bryan Gaensler, Jack Hughes, David Helfand, Steve Reynolds, and my many other colleagues with whom I have worked on studies of pulsar winds.
[9]{}
F. Aharonian, et al., *Science* **307**, 1938 (2005).
F. Aharonian, et al., *A&A* **448**, L43 (2006).
F. Aharonian, et al., *A&A* **472**, 489 (2007).
J. M. Blondin, R. A. Chevalier, and D. M. Frierson, *ApJ* **563**, 806 (2001).
F. Bocchino et al., *A&A* **369**, 1078 (2001).
R. A. Chevalier, *MmSAI* **69**, 977 (1998).
R. A. Chevalier, *ApJ* **619**, 839 (2005).
B. M. Gaensler et al., *ApJ* **569**, 878 (2002).
B. M. Gaensler and P. O. Slane, *ARA&A* **44**, 17 (2006).
E. V. Gotthelf et al., *ApJ* **654**, 267 (2007).
D. J. Helfand et al., *ApJ* **556**, 380 (2001).
D. Horns et al., *A&A* **451**, L51 (2006).
C. F. Kennel and F. V. Coroniti, *ApJ* **283**, 694 (1984).
S. Komissarov and Y. E. Lyubarsky, *Ap&SS* **293**, 107 (2004).
F. J. Lu et al., *ApJ* **568**, L49 (2002).
Y. E. Lyubarsky, *MNRAS* **329**, L34 (2002).
C. Markwardt and H. Ögelman, *Nature* **375**, 40 (1995).
S. P. Reynolds, and R. A. Chevalier, *ApJ* **278**, 630 (1984).
G. C. Rudie and R. A. Fesen, *RMxAC* **30**, 90 (2007).
P. Slane et al., *ApJ* **533**, L29 (2000).
P. Slane et al., *ApJ* **616**, 403 (2004).
T. Temim et al., *ApJ* **132**, 1610 (2006).
S. van den Bergh, *ApJ* **220**, L9 (1978).
M. C. Weisskopf et al., *ApJ* **536**, L81 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We provide a detailed derivation of the mode-coupling equations for a colloidal liquid confined by two parallel smooth walls. We introduce irreducible memory kernels for the different relaxation channels thereby extending the projection operator technique to colloidal liquids in slit geometry. Investigating both the collective dynamics as well as the tagged-particle motion, we prove that the mode-coupling functional assumes the same form as in the Newtonian case corroborating the universality of the glass-transition singularity with respect to the microscopic dynamics.'
author:
-
title: 'Mode-coupling theory of the glass transition for colloidal liquids in slit geometry'
---
Statistical mechanics; glass transition; colloids; confinement; mode-coupling theory
Introduction
============
Confined liquids are intermediate between a three-dimensional (3D) bulk and a quasi-two-dimensional (2D) system, thereby introducing a competition between the near-range local ordering and the constraints imposed by the boundary. The confinement, in the simplest case a slit geometry of two parallel smooth walls, introduces a new control parameter into the problem giving rise to plethora of new structural and dynamic phenomena [@Loewen:JPCM:2001; @Alba:JoP:2006; @Varnik:JP:2016], including the layering of the average density [@Nugent:PRL:2007], complex intermediate phases due to stacking [@Schmidt:PRL:1996; @Schmidt:PRE:1997], and a shift in the glass transition [@Nugent:PRL:2007; @Eral:PRE:2009; @Edmond:Eur:2010; @Ingebrigsten_PRL:2013]. The slit geometry then permits to study the dimensional crossover as the plate separation becomes small and only recently the decoupling of the in-plane degrees of freedom from the transverse ones has been unravelled to make systematic expansion for the structural properties [@Franosch:PRL:2012; @Lang:JCP:2014] as well as for the dynamics [@Schilling:PRE:2016; @Mandal:PRL:2017; @Mandal:EPJST:2017].
A striking empirical observation is that diffusion correlates with purely thermodynamic quantities such as the excess entropy and the average fluid density [@Rosenfeld:PRA:1977; @Dzugutov:Nature:1996; @Rosenfeld:JPCM:1999]. This correlation even extends to confined liquids [@Mittal:PRL:2006; @Mittal:PRL:2008; @Goel:PRL:2008; @Goel:JStatMech:2009; @Bollinger:JCP:2015] which suggests that microscopic details enter transport properties only indirectly via structural quantities, corroborating an engineer’s or biologist’s paradigm: structure determines function, where function in this context means dynamic behaviour.
In a related spirit the microscopic approach as formulated in the mode-coupling theory of the glass transition (MCT) [@Goetze:Complex_Dynamics] derives a closed set of equations of motion for time-dependent correlation functions such that only measurable structural information is required as input. The theory makes a series of non-trivial predictions for the universality of the glass transition which have been tested successfully in numerous experiments and computer simulations for bulk systems [@Goetze:Complex_Dynamics; @Janssen:FiP:2018]. For confined systems a symmetry-adapted MCT has been elaborated more recently [@Lang:PRL:2010; @Lang:PRE_90:2014; @Lang:PRE_89:2014; @Lang:PRE:2012] for Newtonian dynamics. In particular, this theory predicts a reentrant scenario for the glass-transition line which has been corroborated also in event-driven molecular dynamics simulations [@Mandal:NatComm:2014; @Mandal:SoftMatter:2017]. An interesting variant of MCT for confinement on a hypersphere to elucidate the role of curvature and frustration has also been investigated recently [@Vest:JCP_143:2015; @Vest:JCP_138:2018; @Turci:PRL_118:2017].
Experimentally the slit geometry is difficult to realize for molecular liquids since the confining walls will display a roughness on the molecular scale. Yet, for colloidal systems the separation of length scales allows to use glass plates which appear smooth on the scale of the colloid diameters. The structural properties of such confined colloidal systems have been explored experimentally by X-ray scattering [@Nygard:PRL:2012; @Nygard:JCP:2013], clearly demonstrating the anisotropies and layering induced by the walls. Moreover, the changes in the short-time dynamics as manifested by the de Gennes narrowing have become experimentally accessible by scattering techniques [@Nygard:PRL:2016]. The ramification of confinement on colloidal diffusion have only recently become a focus of experimental investigations, see Ref. [@Nygard:PCCP:2017] for a review.
Changing the microscopic dynamics from Newtonian to Brownian does not change the glassy dynamics for bulk systems as predicted by MCT [@Szamel:PRA:1991; @Goetze:Complex_Dynamics; @Franosch:JNCS:1998; @Mandal:SoftMatter:2018]. For the case of confinement the universality of the glassy dynamics has been anticipated implicitly by comparing the non-equilibrium state diagram of the MCT with Newtonian dynamics [@Lang:PRL:2010] to experiments on colloidal systems [@Mittal:PRL:2008]. Furthermore, the equations of motion for the colloidal case have been conjectured [@Lang:JStatMech:2013] in analogy to the bulk system, yet a microscopic derivation is still missing.
The goal of this work is to provide a step-by-step derivation of the MCT equations in confinement for the colloidal case. We shall demonstrate that the Zwanzig-Mori projection operator scheme can be adapted such that the force correlation kernels of a Newtonian fluid are replaced by suitable irreducible memory kernels also for the natural splitting of relaxation modes. These formally exact representations of the new memory kernel then provides the starting point for the mode-coupling approximation. Using the standard techniques, we show that the MCT memory kernels assume the same form as in the Newtonian case corroborating the universality of glassy dynamics also in confinement.
Dynamics in confinement
=======================
For the dynamic properties of a confined colloidal liquid we first recall the basic formalism of time-dependent correlation functions in equilibrium driven by Brownian dynamics. Then we introduce the observables of fundamental interest and use the symmetries of the confinement geometry to obtain a proper mode decomposition. As a result, all quantities of interest can be expressed in terms of suitably generalized matrix-valued intermediate scattering functions.
Model and general formalism
---------------------------
We consider a simple colloidal liquid comprised of $N$ identical spherical particles in suspension. It is enclosed between two flat, hard and parallel walls of area $A$ such that the centres of the particles are confined to $|z|\le L/2$. The liquid is considered to be in thermal equilibrium at temperature $T$. The thermodynamic limit $N\to\infty, A\to \infty$ is anticipated throughout such that the area density $n_0=N/A$ remains constant. The set-up includes the case of hard exclusion interactions between the particles and the walls, then the physical separation of the plates is $H= L +\sigma$, where $\sigma$ is the diameter of the hard spheres.
The in-plane or lateral coordinates are denoted by $\vec{r}=(x,y)$, the perpendicular or transversal ones by $z$, together we use the short-hand notation $\vec{x} = (\vec{r}, z)$ for a position in the slit. The collection of the positions of the centres of the particles $\Gamma = (\vec{x}_1,\ldots , \vec{x}_N)$ defines a point in $3N$-dimensional configuration space. The dynamics of the colloidal suspension will be treated as overdamped and hydrodynamic interaction will be ignored. Then the dynamics of the conditional probability density $\Psi(\Gamma, t| \Gamma', 0)$ to find the system in a configuration $\Gamma$ at time $t$ provided it started from configuration $\Gamma'$ at initial time $t^\prime=0$ is driven by the Smoluchowski equation [@Dhont:Introduction_to_Dynamics_of_Colloids; @Doi:Oxford:1999] $$\label{eq:Smoluchowski}
\partial_t\Psi=\Omega\Psi,$$ with the Smoluchowski operator $$\Omega = \Omega(\Gamma) = D_0\sum_{n=1}^N\vec{\nabla}_n\cdot \left(\vec{\nabla}_n+\frac{1}{k_B T}\vec{\nabla}_n U\right),$$ acting on the configuration $\Gamma$. Here $D_0$ denotes the bare diffusion coefficient, $k_B T$ is the thermal energy, and the potential energy $U = U(\Gamma)$ includes the interactions among the colloids as well as the interaction with the walls. The equilibrium distribution is then provided by the canonical ensemble $$\label{eq:equilibrium_distribution}
\psi_{\text{eq}} (\Gamma) = Z^{-1} \exp[ - U(\Gamma )/k_B T],$$ which fulfils $\Omega \psi_{\text{eq}} = 0$.
General time-dependent correlation functions between observables $A=A(\Gamma), B= B(\Gamma)$ are defined by [@Dhont:Introduction_to_Dynamics_of_Colloids] $$C_{AB}(t) := \int {\mathrm{d}}\Gamma {\mathrm{d}}\Gamma' A(\Gamma)^* \Psi(\Gamma, t| \Gamma', 0) B(\Gamma') \psi_{\text{eq}}(\Gamma'),$$ where the integrals are over the initial and final configuration space. This definition reflects directly the experimental protocol of correlating the observables at different instances of time, in particular it reduces to canonical equal-time averages for $t=0$. The formal solution of the Smoluchowski equation, Eq. , $\Psi(\Gamma, t| \Gamma', 0) = \exp( \Omega t) \delta(\Gamma,\Gamma')$ can be used to map the time dependence from the probabilities (Schrödinger picture) to the observables (Heisenberg picture) $$C_{AB}(t) = \int {\mathrm{d}}\Gamma \left[ e^{\Omega^\dagger t} A(\Gamma) \right]^* B(\Gamma) \psi_{\text{eq}}(\Gamma),$$ where the adjoint Smoluchowski operator reads $$\label{eq:Smoluchowski_adjoint}
\Omega^\dagger=D_0\sum_{n=1}^N (\vec{\nabla}_n-\frac{1}{k_B T}\vec{\nabla}_n U) \cdot \vec{\nabla}_n.$$ Then it is natural to define time-dependent observables $$A(t) \equiv A(\Gamma,t) := \mathcal{R}(t) A(\Gamma) ,$$ with the time-evolution operator $ \mathcal{R}(t)=\exp{\left(\Omega^\dagger t\right)}$, as well as the Kubo scalar product [@Goetze:Complex_Dynamics] $$\label{eq:Kubo_scalar}
\langle A | B \rangle := \int {\mathrm{d}}\Gamma\, \delta A(\Gamma)^* \delta B(\Gamma) \psi_{\text{eq}}(\Gamma),$$ in the Hilbert space of (fluctuating) observables $\delta A := A - \langle A \rangle$. Accordingly the dynamic correlation function $$\begin{aligned}
C_{AB}(t)
=\braket{A(t)|B}=\braket{A|\mathcal{R}(t)|B},\end{aligned}$$ is merely the matrix element of the time-evolution operator with respect to the bra- $\langle A |$ and ket-state $| B \rangle$. The bra-ket notation for the Hilbert space structure will be the starting point for the projection operator technique by Zwanzig and Mori [@Hansen:Theory_of_Simple_Liquids; @Goetze:Complex_Dynamics] to derive formally exact equations of motion for the dynamic correlation functions in terms of memory kernels.
For a set of observables $A_i$, the time-dependent matrix $\langle A_i(t) | A_j \rangle$ fulfils the general properties of matrix-valued autocorrelation functions [@Feller:Probability; @Gesztesy:Math:2000; @Lang:JStatMech:2013]. In particular, for any set of complex numbers $y_i$ the contraction $\sum_{ij} y_i^* \langle A_i(t) | A_j \rangle y_j$ is the autocorrelation function of the variable $A(t) = \sum_i y_i A_i(t)$. By the spectral representation theorem [@Feller:Probability] it corresponds to the characteristic function $\int e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\omega t} R({\mathrm{d}}\omega)$ of a finite (symmetric) Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure $R(\omega)$.
For the case of Brownian motion even stronger statements can be made. One readily checks that the adjoint Smoluchowski operator is hermitian with respect to the Kubo scalar product $\langle A | \Omega^\dagger B \rangle = \langle \Omega^\dagger A | B \rangle$ and that $\langle A | \Omega^\dagger A \rangle \leq 0$. Therefore the spectrum of $-\Omega^\dagger$ is real and non-negative. Then the time-evolution operator admits a representation as ${\cal R}(t) = \int_0^\infty e^{-\gamma t} {\mathrm{d}}E(\gamma) $ with a projection-valued measure $E({\mathrm{d}}\gamma)$. This implies that autocorrelation functions are expressed as Laplace transforms $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Bernstein}
C_{AA}(t) = \langle A(t)| A \rangle = \int_0^\infty e^{-\gamma t} a({\mathrm{d}}\gamma),\end{aligned}$$ of a finite Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure $a({\mathrm{d}}\gamma) := \langle A | E({\mathrm{d}}\gamma) A \rangle$. In particular, this implies that autocorrelation functions are *completely monotone*, i.e. they change sign upon taking subsequent time-derivatives $ [-\partial_t]^\ell C_{AA}(t) \geq 0, \ell \in \mathbb{N}$. By Bernstein’s theorem [@Feller:Probability] this condition is equivalent to the representation in Eq. . Especially, completely monotone functions are a subclass of the class of correlation functions. Generalizations to the matrix-valued case are straightforward by taking the contractions $\sum_{ij} y_i^* \langle A_i(t) | A_j \rangle y_j$ as above.
Correlation functions in confinement
------------------------------------
The following subsection follows mainly the presentation of Ref. [@Lang:PRE:2012] and serves to fix the notation adapted to the case of Brownian dynamics and to make the paper self-contained.
The simplest observable characterizing the fluid is the local fluctuating density, defined microscopically by $$\rho(\vec{r},z)=\sum_{n=1}^N\delta[\vec{r}-\vec{r}_n]\delta[z-z_n].$$ Due to translational symmetry parallel to the confining, the equilibrium density $n(z)$ only depends on the perpendicular coordinate $z$ $$n(z) = \braket{\rho(\vec{r},z)},$$ where $\braket{\dots}$ describes canonical averaging. We introduce fluctuations $$\delta\rho(\vec{r},z) \coloneqq \rho(\vec{r},z) - n(z),$$ and define the time-dependent density-density correlation function corresponding to the Van Hove function [@Hansen:Theory_of_Simple_Liquids; @Henderson:Fundamentals_of_inhomogeneous_fluids] $$G(|\vec{r}-\vec{r}^{\,\prime}|,z,z^\prime,t) \coloneqq \frac{1}{n_0}\braket{ \delta
\rho(\vec{r},z,t) \delta\rho(\vec{r}^{\,\prime},z^\prime) }.$$ Due to translational symmetry parallel to the planes and rotational symmetry around an axis perpendicular to the plane, the Van Hove function only depends on the magnitude of the relative lateral positions $|\vec{r}-\vec{r}^{\,\prime}|$ and explicitly on both transversal positions $z,z'$. For our case the walls are symmetric, such that a simultaneous sign change of the transversal coordinates, $z \mapsto - z, z' \mapsto -z'$, does not change the Van Hove function.
We expand the dependence on the transversal positions in all quantities in terms of discrete Fourier modes $\exp{\left({\mathrm{i}}Q_\mu z\right)}$ in $z-$direction ($Q_\mu=2\pi\mu/L, \mu\in\mathbb{Z}$). In contrast, the spatial dependence parallel to the surface is decomposed into ordinary plane waves $\exp(-{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r})$ with $\vec{q}=(q_x,q_y)$. These wave vectors are taken as discrete initially $(q_x, q_y) \in (2\pi/\sqrt{A}) \mathbb{Z}^2$, however, in the thermodynamic limit they become continuous variables, such that sums are replaced by integrals $(1/A) \sum_{\vec{q}} \ldots \mapsto (2\pi)^{-2} \int {\mathrm{d}}^2 q \ldots$ as usual. Then the following orthogonality and completeness relations hold $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{A}\int_A \mathrm{d}\vec{r} e^{{\mathrm{i}}(\vec{q}-\vec{q}^{\,\prime})\cdot\vec{r}} =
\delta_{\vec{q},\vec{q}^{\,\prime}}, \\
&\frac{1}{A}\sum_{\vec{q}}e^{{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot(\vec{r}-\vec{r}^{\,\prime})} =
\delta(\vec{r}-\vec{r}^{\,\prime}), \\
&\frac{1}{L}\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\mathrm{d}z \exp{\left[{\mathrm{i}}(Q_\mu-Q_{\mu^\prime})z\right]} =
\delta_{\mu\mu^\prime}, \\
&\frac{1}{L}\sum_\mu\exp{\left[{\mathrm{i}}Q_\mu (z-z^\prime)\right]} =
\delta(z-z^\prime).\end{aligned}$$ In particular, the equilibrium density profile is expanded in discrete modes $$\begin{aligned}
n(z)=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{\mu}n_{\mu}\exp{(-{\mathrm{i}}Q_{\mu}z)},\end{aligned}$$ with corresponding Fourier coefficients $$\begin{aligned}
n_{\mu}=\int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\mathrm{d}z n(z)\exp{({\mathrm{i}}Q_{\mu}z)}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $n(z)$ is real, the Fourier coefficients fulfil $n_{\mu}=n_{-\mu}^*$. For the case under consideration, the density profile is also symmetric $n(z) = n(-z)$ which implies $n_\mu \in \mathbb{R}$ is real. We shall also use the local specific volume defined by $v(z)\coloneqq1/n(z)$. Using the convolution theorem the Fourier coefficients fulfil $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\kappa}n_{\mu-\kappa}v_{\kappa-\nu}=\sum_{\kappa}n_{\mu-\kappa}^*v_{\kappa-\nu}^*=L^2\delta_{\mu\nu}.\end{aligned}$$ The mode decomposition of the microscopic density is now $$\rho(\vec{r},z)=\frac{1}{A}\sum_{\vec{q}}\frac{1}{L}\sum_\mu \rho_\mu(\vec{q})
\exp{\left(-{\mathrm{i}}Q_\mu z\right)}e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}},$$ where the expansion coefficients $$\rho_\mu(\vec{q}) = \sum_{n=1}^N \exp{\left[{\mathrm{i}}Q_\mu z_n\right]}
e^{{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_n},$$ are treated as the fundamental quantities. We shall be interested in dynamic correlation functions of the fluctuations $\delta \rho_\mu(\vec{q}) \coloneqq \rho_\mu(\vec{q})-\langle \rho_\mu(\vec{q}) \rangle$. However, since $$\langle \rho_\mu(\vec{q}) \rangle = A n_\mu \delta_{\vec{q},0},$$ the distinction is relevant only for vanishing wave vector $\vec{q}=0$ parallel to the plates.
Then the corresponding mode expansion of the Van Hove function $$\begin{aligned}
G(|\vec{r}-\vec{r}^{\,\prime}|,z,z^\prime,t) =& \frac{1}{A}\sum_{\vec{q}}\frac{1}{L^2}\sum_{\mu\nu}
S_{\mu\nu}(\vec{q},t) e^{{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\left(\vec{r}-\vec{r}^{\,\prime}\right)}\exp{\left[{\mathrm{i}}\left(Q_\mu z - Q_\nu z^\prime\right)\right]},\end{aligned}$$ is achieved in terms of the generalized intermediate scattering function $$S_{\mu\nu}(q,t)=\frac{1}{N}\langle \delta\rho_\mu(\vec{q},t)^*\delta \rho_\nu(\vec{q})\rangle.$$ Due to translational invariance parallel to the plates, only correlation functions for the same wave vector $\vec{q}$ are non-vanishing, while rotational invariance entails that the intermediate scattering function depends only on the magnitude of the wave vector $q = |\vec{q}|$.
Reversely, the intermediate scattering function is obtained by taking the corresponding Fourier integrals $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mu\nu}(q,t) =& \int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\mathrm{d}z \int_{-L/2}^{L/2}\mathrm{d}z^\prime \int_A \mathrm{d}(\vec{r}-\vec{r}^{\,\prime})
G(|\vec{r}-\vec{r}^{\,\prime}|,z,z^\prime,t) \nonumber\\
&\times\exp{\left[-{\mathrm{i}}\left( Q_\mu z - Q_\nu z^\prime\right)\right]}e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\left(\vec{r}-\vec{r}^{\,\prime}\right)} . \end{aligned}$$ The initial value $S_{\mu\nu}(q)\coloneqq S_{\mu\nu}(q,t=0)$ characterizing the equilibrium structure of the fluid takes the role of a generalized static structure factor for the slit geometry.
For each wavenumber $q$ the matrix $S_{\mu\nu}(q,t)$ fulfils the properties of a matrix-valued correlation function and for the Brownian dynamics considered here also the ones of a matrix-valued completely monotone function. Hence, the contractions $\sum_{\mu \nu} y_\mu^* S_{\mu\nu}(q,t) y_\nu$ may be represented as a characteristic function of a finite Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure and for our case also as a Laplace transform of another Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure as in Eq. .
Zwanzig-Mori projection operator formalism for Brownian dynamics
================================================================
In this section we derive exact equations of motion (e.o.m.) for the generalized intermediate scattering function $S_{\mu\nu}(q,t)$ relying on the Zwanzig-Mori procedure.
For a pair of orthogonal projection operators $\mathcal{P}=1-\mathcal{Q}$ the following operator identity holds [@Hansen:Theory_of_Simple_Liquids; @Lang:PRE:2012] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}\partial_t \mathcal{R}(t)\mathcal{P} =& \mathcal{P}\Omega^\dagger\mathcal{P}
\mathcal{R}(t)\mathcal{P} +\int_0^t\mathcal{P}\Omega^\dagger\mathcal{Q}e^{\mathcal{Q}\Omega^\dagger\mathcal{Q}(t-t^\prime)}
\mathcal{Q}\Omega^\dagger\mathcal{P}\mathcal{R}(t^\prime)\mathcal{P}\mathrm{d}t^\prime.\end{aligned}$$ To derive the e.o.m. for the generalized intermediate scattering function $S_{\mu\nu}(q,t)$ the projector $$\label{eq:projector}
\mathcal{P}_\rho=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\vec{q}}\sum_{\mu\nu}\ket{\rho_\mu(\vec{q})}\left[\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q)\right]_{\mu\nu}
\bra{\rho_\nu(\vec{q})},$$ is introduced, where the density modes are used as distinguished variables. Then the exact first e.o.m.$$\begin{aligned}
\dot{S}_{\mu\nu}(q,t) &+ \sum_{\kappa\lambda}D_{\mu\kappa}(q)[\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q)]_{\kappa\lambda}S_{\lambda\nu}(q,t) \nonumber\\
&+ \sum_{\kappa\lambda}\int_0^t\delta K_{\mu\kappa}(q,t-t^\prime) [\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q)]_{\kappa\lambda} S_{\lambda\nu}(q,t^\prime)
\mathrm{d}t^\prime = 0,\end{aligned}$$ follows. Here, the short-time diffusion coefficient reads $$D_{\mu\nu}(q) = -\frac{1}{N}\braket{\rho_\mu(\vec{q})|\Omega^\dagger\rho_\nu(\vec{q})},$$ and the memory kernel is expressed as $$\delta K_{\mu\nu}(q,t)=-\frac{1}{N}\braket{\mathcal{Q}_\rho\Omega^\dagger\rho_\mu(\vec{q})|
e^{\mathcal{Q}_\rho\Omega^\dagger\mathcal{Q}_\rho t}|\mathcal{Q}_\rho\Omega^\dagger\rho_\nu(\vec{q})}.$$ Since the operator $-\mathcal{Q}_\rho \Omega^\dagger \mathcal{Q}_\rho$ is again hermitian with respect to the Kubo scalar product and displays a non-negative spectrum, for each wavenumber $q$ the time-dependent matrix $-\delta K_{\mu\nu}(q,t)$ corresponds to a matrix-valued completely monotone function.
For future manipulations we rewrite the e.o.m. in obvious matrix representation $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\mathbf{S}}(q,t)+\mathbf{D}(q)\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q)\mathbf{S}(q,t)
+\int_0^t\delta\mathbf{K}(q,t-t^\prime)\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q)\mathbf{S}(q,t^\prime)
\mathrm{d}t^\prime=0.\end{aligned}$$ This e.o.m. has been anticipated earlier in Ref. [@Lang:JStatMech:2013], here we provide the microscopic derivation. Furthermore microscopic expressions for the memory kernel and the diffusion matrix are formulated.
The explicit expression for the latter one is derived in appendix \[appendix\_diffusion\], $$D_{\mu\nu}(q)=D_0 \frac{n_{\mu-\nu}^*}{n_0} (q^2+Q_\mu Q_\nu).$$ We also calculate the ’fluctuating force’ with selector $b^\alpha(x,z)= x\delta_{\alpha,\parallel}+z\delta_{\alpha,\perp}$ explicitly (appendix \[appendix\_fluctuatingforce\]) $$\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}\Omega^\dagger\ket{\rho_\mu(\vec{q})} =
{\mathrm{i}}\frac{D_0}{k_B T} \sum_{\alpha}b^\alpha(q,Q_{\mu}) \mathcal{Q}_\rho \ket{F^{\alpha}_{\mu}(\vec{q})},$$ where we defined the fluctuating force $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fluctuating_forces}
\delta F_{\mu}^\alpha(\vec{q}) = - \sum_{n=1}^N b^\alpha\left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial \vec{r}_n}, \frac{\partial U}{\partial z_n}\right) e^{{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_n}
\exp{({\mathrm{i}}Q_{\mu}z_n)} + {\mathrm{i}}k_B T b^\alpha(q,Q_\mu)\braket{\rho_{\mu}(\vec{q})},\end{aligned}$$ for the two relaxation channels $\alpha= \parallel, \perp$. The memory kernel thus splits naturally into two relaxation channels $$\delta K_{\mu\nu}(q,t) = \sum_{\alpha\beta=\parallel,\perp}b^\alpha(q,Q_\mu)\delta \mathcal{K}_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta}(q,t)
b^\beta(q,Q_\nu),$$ with reduced memory kernel $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\mathcal{K}_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta}(q,t) =-\left(\frac{D_0}{k_B T}\right)^2 \frac{1}{N}
\braket{F_\mu^\alpha(\vec{q})|\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}e^{\mathcal{Q}_\rho\Omega^\dagger\mathcal{Q}_\rho t}\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}
|F_\nu^\beta(\vec{q})}.\end{aligned}$$ Again $-\delta \mathcal{K}_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta}(q,t)$ is a matrix-valued completely monotone function. Here the matrix has to be read with respect to the super-index $(\alpha, \mu)$ consisting of the mode-index $\mu$ and the channel index $\alpha$.
We note that the matrix of short-time diffusion coefficients displays the same natural splitting $$\begin{aligned}
D_{\mu\nu}(q)
&= \sum_{\alpha\beta=\parallel,\perp}b^{\alpha}(q,Q_\mu)\mathcal{D}_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta}(q)b^{\beta}(q,Q_\nu),\end{aligned}$$ with the channel diffusion matrix $$\mathcal{D}_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta}(q) = D_0\frac{n_{\mu-\nu}^*}{n_0}\delta_{\alpha\beta}.$$
Irreducible memory kernel
=========================
In this section we derive exact e.o.m. for the matrix-valued kernel $\delta \mathcal{K}_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta}(q,t)$ in terms of an irreducible memory kernel. For the bulk case, where no splitting of the relaxation channels occurs, this has been elaborated by Cichocki and Hess [@Cichocki:PhysicaA:1987] and later more generally by Kawasaki [@Kawasaki:PhysicaA:1995]. The derivation for confined liquids presented here is new and extends the previous approaches to multi-channel relaxation. For the case of microrheology, where relaxation parallel and perpendicular to the external force emerge, irreducible memory functions have already been used successfully in MCT approaches [@Gruber:PRE:2016; @Gruber:PHD:2019].
The key insight is that the operator identity $$\label{eq:operator_id}
e^{\mathcal{Q}_\rho\Omega^\dagger\mathcal{Q}_\rho t}=e^{\Omega_{\text{irr}}^\dagger t}+\int_0^t
e^{\Omega_{\text{irr}}^\dagger(t-t^\prime)}\delta\Omega e^{\mathcal{Q}_\rho\Omega^\dagger\mathcal{Q}_\rho t^\prime}
\mathrm{d}t^\prime,$$ is valid for arbitrary splitting $\mathcal{Q}_\rho \Omega^\dagger\mathcal{Q}_\rho =\Omega_{\text{irr}}^\dagger+\delta\Omega$. Therefore exact e.o.m. of the Zwanzig-Mori type can be derived within any splitting scheme. Yet, a proper choice of the irreducible (adjoint) Smoluchowski operator $\Omega_{\text{irr}}^\dagger$ is crucial to make further analytic progress. In particular, we require that the splitting suggests a mode-coupling approximation with a mode-coupling functional that is identical to the case of Newtonian dynamics. Here we propose to define the irreducible operator by $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{\text{irr}}^\dagger := \mathcal{Q}_\rho \Omega^\dagger\mathcal{Q}_\rho + \frac{1}{N}\left(\frac{D_0}{k_B T}\right)^2 \sum_{\alpha\beta=\parallel,\perp} \sum_{\mu\nu} \mathcal{Q}_{\rho}\ket{F_{\mu}^{\alpha}(\vec{q})}
\left[\bm{\mathcal{D}}^{-1}(q)\right]_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta} \bra{F_{\nu}^{\beta}(\vec{q})}\mathcal{Q}_{\rho} .\end{aligned}$$ Sandwiching the operator identity, Eq. , between the fluctuating forces, Eq. , projected onto the orthogonal subspace, the second exact e.o.m. is found $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:second_eom}
\delta\mathcal{K}_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta}(q,t)= -\mathfrak{M}^{\alpha\beta}_{\mu\nu}(q,t) - \sum_{\kappa\lambda}
\sum_{\gamma=\parallel,\perp}\int_0^t \mathfrak{M}^{\alpha\gamma}_{\mu\kappa}(q,t-t^\prime)
\left[\bm{\mathcal{D}}^{-1}(q)\right]_{\kappa\lambda}^{\gamma\gamma}\delta\mathcal{K}_{\lambda\nu}^{\gamma\beta}(q,t^\prime)
\mathrm{d}t^\prime,\end{aligned}$$ with the irreducible memory kernel $$\mathfrak{M}^{\alpha\beta}_{\mu\nu}(q,t) = \frac{1}{N}\left(\frac{D_0}{k_B T}\right)^2
\braket{F_{\mu}^{\alpha}(\vec{q})|\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}e^{\Omega_{\text{irr}}^\dagger t}\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}|
F_{\nu}^{\beta}(\vec{q})}.$$ It is favourable to introduce the effective force kernel $\bm{\mathcal{M}}(q,t):=\bm{\mathcal{D}}^{-1}(q)\bm{\mathfrak{M}}(q,t)\bm{\mathcal{D}}^{-1}(q)$ by stripping off a channel diffusion matrix $\bm{\mathcal{D}}$ from the left and right. Here the bold calligraphic symbols are the matrix notation with matrix elements specified by a column and row superindex: $ [\bm{\mathcal{M}}(q,t)]^{\alpha \beta}_{\mu\nu} = \mathcal{M}^{\alpha\beta}_{\mu\nu}(q,t)$. Then the second e.o.m. can be rearranged, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\bm{\mathcal{K}}(q,t)=-\bm{\mathcal{D}}(q)\bm{\mathcal{M}}(q,t)\bm{\mathcal{D}}(q)
-\int_0^t \bm{\mathcal{D}}(q)\bm{\mathcal{M}}(q,t-t^\prime)\delta\bm{\mathcal{K}}(q,t^\prime) \mathrm{d}t^\prime,\end{aligned}$$ consistent with e.o.m. Eq. (23) in Ref. [@Lang:JStatMech:2013]. Due to the multiple decay channels both integro-differential equations cannot be combined to one single integro-differential equation (like in the case of simple liquids), just as in the case of Newtonian dynamics [@Lang:PRE:2012].
Introducing the Fourier-Laplace domain convention, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{S}_{\mu\nu}(q,z)={\mathrm{i}}\int_0^\infty S_{\mu\nu}(q,t)\exp({\mathrm{i}}z t)\mathrm{d}t, \quad \text{Im}[z]>0,\end{aligned}$$ with complex frequency $z$ the e.o.m. can be simplified. Here the Laplace transforms are analytic functions in the upper half plane $\mathbb{C}_{+}=\{z\in\mathbb{C}|\text{Im}[z]>0\}$. The decomposition into multiple relaxation channels is directly converted to the Fourier-Laplace domain due to linearity.
We define a modified memory kernel $\bm{\mathcal{\hat{K}}}(q,z)=\delta\bm{\mathcal{\hat{K}}}(q,z)+{\mathrm{i}}\bm{\mathcal{D}}(q)$, which explicitly takes the high-frequency limit $\bm{\mathcal{\hat{K}}}(q,z)\to{\mathrm{i}}\bm{\mathcal{D}}(q)$ as $z\to\infty$ into account and implies a $\delta$-function at the time origin.
The contraction is split accordingly, $\mathbf{\hat{K}}(q,z)=\delta\mathbf{\hat{K}}(q,z)+{\mathrm{i}}\mathbf{D}(q)$. Then the transformed first equation of motion yields a matrix equation with formal solution in the frequency domain [@Lang:JStatMech:2013] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{\hat{S}}(q,z)=-\Big[z\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q)+\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q)\mathbf{\hat{K}}(q,z)\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q)\Big]^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ and from the second equation the memory kernel $$\begin{aligned}
\bm{\mathcal{\hat{K}}}(q,z)=-\Big[{\mathrm{i}}\bm{\mathcal{D}}^{-1}(q)+\bm{\mathcal{\hat{M}}}(q,z)\Big]^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ can be calculated. So far, the e.o.m. are exact and all interactions (within the liquid as well as with the confinement) are hidden in the irreducible memory kernel $\bm{\mathcal{\hat{M}}}(q,z)$.
Mode-coupling theory
====================
The density dynamics are expressed in terms of the irreducible memory kernel $$\mathfrak{M}^{\alpha\beta}_{\mu\nu}(q,t) =\frac{1}{N}\left(\frac{D_0}{k_B T}\right)^2\braket{F_\mu^\alpha(\vec{q})|
\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}e^{\Omega_{\text{irr}}^\dagger t}\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}|F_\nu^\beta(\vec{q})},$$ within the Zwanzig-Mori formalism. A self-consistent solution of the two coupled e.o.m. relies on convenient mode-coupling approximations. Due to the caging by neighbouring particles the dynamics are slowed down. These caging forces entering the memory kernel originate from the interactions with the particles (therefore by products of density modes). Following the mode-coupling theory for supercooled liquids [@Goetze:Complex_Dynamics] and confined Newtonian liquids [@Lang:PRE:2012] an expression for the irreducible memory kernel as a functional of the generalized intermediate scattering function is provided.
We start with the well-established idea of projecting the forces onto a set of fluctuating density-pair modes $\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}\ket{F_\mu^\alpha(\vec{q})}\approx \mathcal{P}_{\rho\rho}\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}\ket{F_\mu^\alpha(\vec{q})}$, where the projection operator onto the pair fluctuating modes reads [@Lang:PRE:2012] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}_{\rho\rho}=&\sum_{\substack{\mu_1,\mu_2\\\mu_1^\prime,\mu_2^\prime}}
\sum_{\substack{\vec{q}_1,\vec{q}_2\\ \vec{q}_1^{\,\prime},\vec{q}_2^{\,\prime}}}\ket{\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)} g_{\mu_1\mu_2;\mu_1^\prime\mu_2^\prime}
(\vec{q}_1\vec{q}_2,\vec{q}_1^{\,\prime} \vec{q}_2^{\,\prime}) \bra{\rho_{\mu_1^\prime}(\vec{q}_1^{\,\prime})\rho_{\mu_2^\prime}(\vec{q}_2^{\,\prime})}.\end{aligned}$$ From now on we use a simplified notation following Ref. [@Scheidsteger:PRE:1997] by using superindices $i=(\vec{q}_i,\mu_i)$, where wave vectors and mode indices are coupled together. To ensure idempotency ($\mathcal{P}_{\rho\rho}^2=\mathcal{P}_{\rho\rho}$) the normalization condition $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{1^\prime 2^\prime} g(12;1^\prime 2^\prime)\braket{\delta\rho(1^\prime)^*\delta\rho(2^\prime)^*
\delta\rho(1^{\prime\prime})\delta\rho(2^{\prime\prime})} = \frac{1}{2}\left[\delta(1,1^{\prime\prime})\delta(2,2^{\prime\prime})+\delta(1,2^{\prime\prime})\delta(2,1^{\prime\prime})\right],\end{aligned}$$ for the matrix $g(12;1^\prime 2^\prime)$ has to be fulfilled [@Lang:PRE:2012]. The crucial step of mode-coupling theory is to factorize the dynamical four-point correlation function into dynamical two-point correlation functions [@Lang:PRE:2012] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\delta\rho(1)^*\delta\rho(2)^*\exp{\left(\Omega_{\text{irr}}^\dagger t
\right)}\delta\rho(1^\prime)\delta\rho(2^\prime)\rangle \approx N^2 \left[S(1,1^\prime,t)S(2,2^\prime,t) + S(1,2^\prime,t)S(2,1^\prime,t)\right],\end{aligned}$$ and, in particular, for the static correlation function at the time origin $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\delta\rho(1)^*\delta\rho(2)^*\delta\rho(1^\prime)\delta\rho(2^\prime)\rangle \approx \braket{\rho(1)|\rho(1^\prime)}\braket{\rho(2)|\rho(2^\prime)} +
\braket{\rho(1)|\rho(2^\prime)}\braket{\rho(2)|\rho(1^\prime)}.\end{aligned}$$ The same factorization allows us to determine consistently the approximate normalization matrix [@Lang:PRE:2012] $$\begin{aligned}
g(12,1^\prime 2^\prime) \approx
\frac{1}{4N^2}\left\{\left[\mathbf{S}^{-1}\right](1,1^\prime)\left[\mathbf{S}^{-1}\right](2,2^\prime)
+ \left[\mathbf{S}^{-1}\right](1,2^\prime)\left[\mathbf{S}^{-1}\right](2,1^\prime)\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ Aggregating the terms together the memory kernel is approximated by a bilinear functional of the generalized intermediate scattering function [@Lang:PRE:2012] $$\begin{aligned}
\mathfrak{M}^{\alpha\beta}_{\mu\nu}(q,t)\approx & \frac{1}{2N^3}\left(\frac{D_0}{k_B T}\right)^2 \sum_{\substack{\vec{q}_1 \\ \vec{q}_2=\vec{q}-\vec{q}_1}}\sum_{\substack{\mu_1\mu_2\\ \nu_1\nu_2}}
\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}_{\mu,\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}(\vec{q},\vec{q}_{1}\vec{q}_{2})
\nonumber \\
& \times S_{\mu_1\nu_1}(q_1,t)S_{\mu_2\nu_2}(q_2,t)\mathcal{X}^{\beta}_{\nu,\nu_{1}\nu_{2}}(\vec{q},\vec{q}_{1}\vec{q}_{2})^*.\end{aligned}$$ Due to translational invariance in lateral direction to the walls only wave vectors $\vec{q}_1$, $\vec{q}_2$ with the selection rule $\vec{q}=\vec{q}_1+\vec{q}_2$ contribute. The complex-valued vertex $\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}_{\mu,\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}(\vec{q},\vec{q}_{1}\vec{q}_{2})$ is generated from the overlap of the fluctuating forces with the density pair modes $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}_{\mu,\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}(\vec{q},\vec{q}_{1}\vec{q}_{2}) = & \sum_{\mu_1^\prime\mu_2^\prime}
\braket{F_\mu^\alpha(\vec{q})|\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}\rho_{\mu_1^\prime}(\vec{q}_1)\rho_{\mu_2^\prime}(\vec{q}_2)} \left[\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q_1)\right]_{\mu_1^\prime\mu_1}\left[\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q_2)\right]_{\mu_2^\prime\mu_2}.\end{aligned}$$ The main difference in changing the dynamics from Newtonian [@Lang:PRE:2012] to Brownian is the calculation of the overlap matrix elements in terms of structural quantities (see appendix \[appendix\_overlap\]). Introducing a triple correlation function $$S_{\sigma,\mu_1\mu_2}(\vec{q},\vec{q}_1\vec{q}_2) = \frac{1}{N}\braket{
\delta\rho_{\sigma}(\vec{q})^*\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)},$$ the resulting explicit expression is identical to the Newtonian case $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:overlap_explicit}
\langle F_{\mu}^{\alpha}(\vec{q})|\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)\rangle = &- {\mathrm{i}}N k_B T \delta_{\vec{q},\vec{q}_1+\vec{q}_2} \Big[
b^{\alpha}(\hat{\vec{q}}\cdot\vec{q}_1,Q_{\mu_1})
S_{\mu-\mu_1,\mu_2}(q_2) + (1 \leftrightarrow 2) \nonumber\\
&-\sum_{\kappa\sigma} \frac{n_{\mu-\kappa}^*}{n_0} b^{\alpha}(q,Q_\kappa)\left[\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q)\right]_{\kappa\sigma} S_{\sigma,\mu_1\mu_2}(\vec{q},\vec{q}_1\vec{q}_2)\Big],\end{aligned}$$ provided one identifies the fluctuating force $F_{\mu}^{\alpha}(\vec{q})$ with time derivatives of the channel-resolved fluctuating momentum fluxes [@Lang:PRE:2012]. This remarkable property is one of the main results of this work and corroborates the MCT approach to describe the slow structural relaxation. Physically it reflects that only the internal stresses between the colloidal particles lead to glassy dynamics, which are balanced by Newton’s third law, while the interaction with the solvent merely changes the short-time dynamics.
Since the triple correlation functions in Eq. are difficult to evaluate further approximations are adopted. Glassy dynamics are successfully described by using the convolution approximation [@Goetze:Complex_Dynamics], which has been effectively expanded to a liquid confined in a slit [@Lang:PRE:2012]. Since the convolution approximation does not depend on the microscopic dynamics it is not repeated here. Expressing the static three-point correlation function in terms of products of two-point correlation functions the vertices take the compact form $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathcal{X}^{\alpha}_{\mu,\mu_{1}\mu_{2}}(\vec{q},\vec{q}_{1}\vec{q}_{2})\approx {\mathrm{i}}N k_B T \frac{n_0}{L^2}
\delta_{\vec{q},\vec{q}_1+\vec{q}_2}\Big[b^{\alpha}(\hat{\vec{q}}\cdot\vec{q}_1,Q_{\mu-\mu_2})c_{\mu-\mu_2,\mu_1}(q_1) + (1 \leftrightarrow 2)\Big].\end{aligned}$$ The matrix elements $c_{\mu\nu}(q)$ of the direct correlation function are defined by a generalized Ornstein-Zernike equation [@Lang:PRE:2012] $$\label{eq:Ornstein-Zernike}
\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q) = \frac{n_0}{L^2}\left[\mathbf{v}-\mathbf{c}(q)\right],$$ with $\left[\mathbf{v}\right]_{\mu\nu}=v_{\nu-\mu}$.
The effective force kernel is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta}(q,t) =& \left[\bm{\mathcal{D}}^{-1}(q)\bm{\mathfrak{M}}(q,t)\bm{\mathcal{D}}^{-1}(q)\right]
_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta} \nonumber \\ \approx&
\frac{1}{2N}\sum_{\substack{\vec{q}_1\\\vec{q}_2=\vec{q}-\vec{q}_1}}
\sum_{\substack{\mu_1\mu_2\\\nu_1\nu_2}} \mathcal{Y}_{\mu,\mu_1\mu_2}^\alpha
(\vec{q},\vec{q}_1\vec{q}_2)S_{\mu_1\nu_1}(q_1,t) S_{\mu_2\nu_2}(q_2,t) \mathcal{Y}_{\nu,\nu_1\nu_2}^\beta
(\vec{q},\vec{q}_1\vec{q}_2)^*,\end{aligned}$$ with new vertices $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Y}_{\mu,\mu_1\mu_2}^\alpha & (\vec{q},\vec{q}_1\vec{q}_2) = \frac{n_0^2}{L^4}\delta_{\vec{q},\vec{q}_1+\vec{q}_2}
\sum_{\kappa}v_{\mu-\kappa}^* \Big[b^\alpha(\hat{\vec{q}}\cdot\vec{q}_1,Q_{\kappa-\mu_2})
c_{\kappa-\mu_2,\mu_1}(q_1) + (1 \leftrightarrow 2) \Big].\end{aligned}$$ The bilinear form $\mathcal{M}_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta}(q,t)=\mathcal{F}_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta}[\mathbf{S}(t),\mathbf{S}(t);q]$ of the force kernel is a direct consequence of the mode-coupling approximations. In the long-wavelength limit the force kernel decouples with respect to the channel index $\mathcal{M}_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta}(q\to 0,t)\eqqcolon \delta^{\alpha\beta}\mathcal{M}_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha}(t)$ and the vertex vanishes as $O(q)$ just as in the momentum-conserving case [@Lang:PRE:2012].
Tagged-particle motion
======================
It is now straightforward to derive also the e.o.m. and the MCT functional for the case of a tagged-particle with arbitrary size (of particular interest since self-dynamics are directly accessible in computer simulations and single-particle tracking experiments) by adapting the strategy elaborated above. Rather than repeating all the steps we provide a short summary of the basic equations for future reference.
Since the tracer particle may differ from the solvent particles, its accessible slit width is denoted by $L_s\ne L$. The incoherent intermediate scattering function reads $$S_{\mu\nu}^{(s)}(q,t)=\langle \delta\rho_\mu^{(s)}(\vec{q},t)^*\delta \rho_\nu^{(s)}(\vec{q})\rangle,$$ where $$\rho_\mu^{(s)}(\vec{q}) = \exp{\left[{\mathrm{i}}Q_\mu^{(s)} z_s\right]}e^{{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_s},$$ are the density modes ($Q_\mu^{(s)}=2\pi\mu/L_s, \mu\in\mathbb{Z}$) of the microscopic density $\rho^{(s)}(\vec{r},z)$. The initial value $S_{\mu\nu}^{(s)}(q,t=0)\eqqcolon S_{\mu\nu}^{(s)}=n_{\mu-\nu}^{(s)*}/n_0$ is solely identified by the density modes. Using Zwanzig-Mori technique with a suitable tagged-particle projector [@Lang:PRE_89:2014] $$\label{eq:projector_tagged}
\mathcal{P}_{\rho^{(s)}}=\sum_{\mu\nu}\ket{\rho_\mu^{(s)}(\vec{q})}\left[(\mathbf{S}^{(s)}){}^{-1}\right]_{\mu\nu}\bra{\rho_\nu^{(s)}(\vec{q})},$$ the exact first e.o.m. in matrix representation reads $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\mathbf{S}}^{(s)}(q,t)+\mathbf{D}^{(s)}(q)(\mathbf{S}^{(s)}){}^{-1}
\mathbf{S}^{(s)}(q,t)+\int_0^t\delta\mathbf{K}^{(s)}(q,t-t^\prime)
(\mathbf{S}^{(s)}){}^{-1}
\mathbf{S}^{(s)}(q,t^\prime)\mathrm{d}t^\prime=0.\end{aligned}$$ The short-time self-diffusion coefficient can be expressed explicitly by $$D_{\mu\nu}^{(s)}(q) = D_0 \frac{n_{\mu-\nu}^{(s)*}}{n_0} (q^2+Q_\mu^{(s)} Q_\nu^{(s)}),$$ and the self-memory kernel $\delta K_{\mu\nu}^{(s)}$ including the history of the dynamical process naturally splits into two relaxation channels $$\delta K_{\mu\nu}^{(s)}(q,t) = \sum_{\alpha\beta=\parallel,\perp}b^\alpha(q,Q_\mu^{(s)})\delta \mathcal{K}_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta,(s)}(q,t)
b^\beta(q,Q_\nu^{(s)}).$$ The crucial next step is to identify a suitable irreducible operator for the self-dynamics such that the splitting into multiple relaxation channels is properly reflected. We employ the following choice: $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_{\text{irr}}^{\dagger,(s)} := \mathcal{Q}_{\rho^{(s)}} \Omega^\dagger\mathcal{Q}_{\rho^{(s)}} &+ \left(\frac{D_0}{k_B T}\right)^2 \sum_{\alpha\beta=\parallel,\perp} \sum_{\mu\nu} \mathcal{Q}_{{\rho^{(s)}}}\ket{F_{\mu}^{\alpha,(s)}(\vec{q})} \nonumber \\ &\times\left[(\bm{\mathcal{D}}^{(s)}(q)){}^{-1}\right]_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta} \bra{F_{\nu}^{\beta,(s)}(\vec{q})}\mathcal{Q}_{\rho^{(s)}}.\end{aligned}$$ The second e.o.m. for the reduced self-memory kernel $\delta\bm{\mathcal{K}}^{(s)}(q,t)$ is then found to be $$\begin{aligned}
\delta\bm{\mathcal{K}}^{(s)}(q,t)=&-\bm{\mathcal{D}}^{(s)}(q)\bm{\mathcal{M}}^{(s)}(q,t)\bm{\mathcal{D}}^{(s)}(q) -\int_0^t \bm{\mathcal{D}}^{(s)}(q)\bm{\mathcal{M}}^{(s)}(q,t-t^\prime)\delta\bm{\mathcal{K}}^{(s)}(q,t^\prime)\mathrm{d}t^\prime,\end{aligned}$$ where also the channel diffusion matrix $\mathcal{D}_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta,(s)}(q) := D_0\delta_{\alpha\beta} n_{\mu-\nu}^{(s)*}/n_0$ enters.
Using MCT for a suitable description of the local caging forces, the effective force kernel $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M}_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta,(s)}(q,t) \approx
\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\substack{\vec{q}_1\\\vec{q}_2=\vec{q}-\vec{q}_1}}
\sum_{\substack{\mu_1\mu_2\\\nu_1\nu_2}} \mathcal{Y}_{\mu,\mu_1\mu_2}^{\alpha,(s)}
(\vec{q},\vec{q}_1\vec{q}_2)S_{\mu_1\nu_1}(q_1,t) S_{\mu_2\nu_2}^{(s)}(q_2,t) \mathcal{Y}_{\nu,\nu_1\nu_2}^{\beta,(s)}
(\vec{q},\vec{q}_1\vec{q}_2)^*,\end{aligned}$$ is a linear functional of the incoherent scattering function of the tracer and the collective intermediate scattering function of the host liquid. The vertices are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Y}_{\mu,\mu_1\mu_2}^{\alpha,(s)} (\vec{q},\vec{q}_1\vec{q}_2) = \frac{n_0}{L L_s}\delta_{\vec{q},\vec{q}_1+\vec{q}_2}
\sum_{\sigma}\left[(\mathbf{S}^{(s)}){}^{-1}\right]_{\mu\sigma}
b^\alpha(\hat{\vec{q}}\cdot\vec{q}_1,Q_{\sigma-\mu_2}^{(s)})
c_{\sigma-\mu_2,\mu_1}^{(s)}(q_1),\end{aligned}$$ with the generalized direct correlation function $c_{\mu\nu}^{(s)}(q)$ determining the static interactions between the single tagged-particle and the complex environment of the host liquid. It is related to the overlap of the tagged-particle density and the collective density by a generalized Ornstein-Zernike equation [@Lang:PRE_89:2014]. In contrast to the collective dynamics no convolution approximation is required since the vertex does not contain any triple correlation function. In the long-wavelength limit $q\to 0$ the functional $\mathcal{M}_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha\beta,(s)}(q\to 0,t)\eqqcolon\delta^{\alpha\beta}\mathcal{M}_{\mu\nu}^{\alpha}(t)$ decouples as in the collective case, but in contrast to collective dynamics the vertex does not vanish for $q\to 0$ since the corresponding vertex does not depend explicitly on $q$ anymore.
Again, the resulting expression is identical to the case of Newtonian dynamics, if the fluctuating force is replaced by time derivatives of the channel-resolved fluctuating momentum fluxes [@Lang:PRE_89:2014].
Summary and conclusions
=======================
In this work a mode-coupling theory of the glass transition for a colloidal suspension confined in a slit geometry has been derived microscopically. The theory yields a closed set of equations to be solved self-consistently, both for the collective and the tagged-particle dynamics. Although the e.o.m. have been anticipated before [@Lang:JStatMech:2013] by matching the short-time dynamics to the mode-coupling functional, a microscopic approach has been missing, a gap that is filled with this work.
The first step was to derive exact matrix-valued e.o.m. for time-dependent correlation functions employing the Zwanzig-Mori projection operator formalism [@Hansen:Theory_of_Simple_Liquids; @Goetze:Complex_Dynamics]. The resulting memory kernel depends on all microscopic interactions of the particles among themselves as well as with the boundaries and is generally unknown. Due to the confinement it naturally splits into two relaxation channels. In the collective case, mode-coupling theory [@Goetze:Complex_Dynamics] expresses this kernel as a bilinear functional of the intermediate scattering function, whereas for tagged-particle motion it is a linear functional both of the collective and the incoherent intermediate scattering function. Since it is favourable for the application of mode-coupling approximations, we have extended the idea of irreducible memory kernels [@Cichocki:PhysicaA:1987; @Kawasaki:PhysicaA:1995] to multi-channel relaxation for confined liquids. Then also the irreducible memory kernel splits into a component parallel and perpendicular to the confining slit geometry. Following the mode-coupling idea one of our major achievements has been to show that the force kernel and the corresponding coupling coefficients (vertices) coincide with the Newtonian case. Therefore, it is favourable to use the irreducible memory function instead of the second order memory function [@Pitts:JCP:2000].
In the framework of Newtonian dynamics the fluctuating force is the time derivative of the momentum-flux tensor (also called the stress tensor), which splits into a kinetic and a potential term. In the MCT functional, however, only the interactions appear as manifested by the direct correlation function and the static structure factor.
The colloidal case can be considered as a subsystem (solute) suspended in a solvent also obeying Newtonian dynamics. Then the general equations of motion for the subsystem can be separated into two distinctive parts [@Goetze:Complex_Dynamics]. The first one describes the convective contribution and the interactions due to the potential of the particles within the subsystem. The interactions emanating from interactions between particles with the solvent are included in the second contribution. Consequently, also the fluctuating force splits into two parts, where the first one is translationally invariant with respect to the subsystem and cannot change its total momentum. However, due to the second part momentum of the subsystem is not conserved and can be transferred to the solvent. Nevertheless for cages of neighbouring particles Newton’s third law is still fulfilled within the cage, even if momentum conservation is not valid in the colloidal case.
Thus, changing the microscopic dynamics from Newtonian to Brownian motion affects only the short-time behaviour, whereas the structural relaxation described by the MCT functional remains unchanged [@Szamel:PRA:1991; @Franosch:PRE_55:1997]. Since the e.o.m. have already been conjectured correctly all the resulting conclusions remain valid [@Lang:JStatMech:2013]. For example, the purely relaxating solutions are unique and can be obtained by a convergent iteration scheme. The solutions then correspond to matrix-valued correlation functions, i.e. they are positive-definite and display non-negative power spectra. Furthermore, the maximum solution of a self-consistent equation for the nonergodicity parameters coincides with the long-time limit of the intermediate scattering function (covariance principle). The solutions for the nonergodicity parameter can be achieved without solving the dynamical equations explicitly (maximum principle). For the generalization of the single-component properties to the matrix-valued theory it is useful to introduce an effective memory kernel [@Lang:JStatMech:2013]. Besides, the phase diagram and the nonergodicity parameters are the same for Newtonian and Brownian dynamics [@Lang:PRE:2012].
Since for Brownian dynamics the MCT solutions are completely monotone functions also for matrix-valued correlation functions [@Franosch:JStat:2002], the underlying relaxational dynamics are directly manifested. For confined liquids the numerical computation of the relaxation rate distribution from the MCT solution can be generalized from the bulk case [@Franosch:JPCB:1999].
Irreducible memory kernels are also present in modified MCT approaches, e.g. within the self-consistent generalized Langevin equation theory [@Yeomans-Reyna:PRE_64:2001; @Yeomans-Reyna:PRE_76:2007]. Our method of adopting the idea of multi-channel relaxation to irreducible memory kernels can be employed generally, e.g. to different types of confinement where the density modes can be expanded into a complete set of modes. Of particular interest is the case of quasi-confined liquids where the confinement is realized by periodic boundary conditions in the transverse direction. Then the dynamics are restricted to a three-dimensional torus implicating that all the matrix-valued quantities become diagonal in the mode index, which makes it more feasible to solve the e.o.m. numerically. Static properties of such systems have been investigated recently [@Petersen:JStatMech:2019], whereas the dynamical solutions will be part of a future publication.
Multi-channel relaxation is not restricted to confined geometries. For example, the concept can be extended to non-spherical particles like rigid linear [@Scheidsteger:PRE:1997; @Franosch:PRE_56:1997; @Kaemmerer:PRE:1998; @Kaemmerer:PRE:1998b; @Scheidsteger:PhilMagB:1998] or arbitrarily shaped molecules [@Fabbian:PRE:2000]. Since binary mixtures display fascinating mixing effects already in the bulk [@Foffi:PRL_91:2003; @Goetze:PRE_67:2003], it would be interesting to extend the MCT to confined mixtures. As already mentioned, multiple relaxation channels have been used successfully to describe active microrheology [@Gruber:PRE:2016; @Gruber:PHD:2019]. Another theory incorporating split kernels is adopted for active Brownian particles, where the memory kernel is split into translational and rotational parts [@Liluashvili:PRE:2017]. Nevertheless, since in this context orientational degrees of freedom never slow down, the split memory kernel reduces to the translational component quite contrary to our case where all matrix elements are non-vanishing.
Acknowledgements
================
We thank Markus Gruber and Matthias Fuchs for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under Grant I 2887.
Evaluation of the diffusion coefficient matrix element {#appendix_diffusion}
======================================================
The diffusion matrix element of the adjoint Smoluchowski operator Eq. can be calculated using the definition of the Kubo scalar product Eq. together with the equilibrium distribution Eq. . $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\rho_\mu(\vec{q})|\Omega^\dagger\rho_\nu(\vec{q})\rangle =& D_0 \int\mathrm{d}\Gamma \delta\rho_\mu(\vec{q})^*\Big[\sum_{n=1}^N\left(\vec{\nabla}_n-(1/k_B T)\vec{\nabla}_n U\right) \cdot\vec{\nabla}_n\delta\rho_\nu(\vec{q})\Big]
\psi_{\text{eq}}(\Gamma) \nonumber \\
=& D_0 \int\mathrm{d}\Gamma \delta\rho_\mu(\vec{q})^*\sum_{n=1}^N\vec{\nabla}_n \cdot \Big[Z^{-1}\exp{(-U/k_B T)}\vec{\nabla}_n \delta\rho_\nu(\vec{q})\Big].\end{aligned}$$ Applying the product rule for the nabla operator we calculate an explicit expression for the diffusion coefficient matrix element $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\rho_\mu(\vec{q})|\Omega^\dagger\rho_\nu(\vec{q})\rangle =& -D_0 \int\mathrm{d}\Gamma \sum_{n=1}^N \left[\vec{\nabla}_n\delta\rho_\mu(\vec{q})\right]^*\cdot \left[\vec{\nabla}_n\delta\rho_\nu(\vec{q})\right] Z^{-1}\exp{(-U/k_B T)} \nonumber \\
=& -D_0 \int\mathrm{d}\Gamma \begin{aligned}[t] &\sum_{\alpha=\parallel,\perp}b^\alpha(q,Q_\mu)b^\alpha(q,Q_\nu) Z^{-1}\exp{(-U/k_B T)} \\
\times &\sum_{n=1}^N
\left[\exp{({\mathrm{i}}Q_\mu z_n)}e^{{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_n}\right]^* \left[\exp{({\mathrm{i}}Q_\nu z_n)}e^{{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_n}\right]
\end{aligned}
\nonumber \\
=& -D_0 \left(q^2 + Q_\mu Q_\nu\right) \sum_{n=1}^N\langle\exp\left[{\mathrm{i}}\left(Q_\nu-Q_\mu\right)z_n\right]\rangle \nonumber \\
=& -D_0 \left(q^2+Q_\mu Q_\nu\right)A n_{\mu-\nu}^*,\end{aligned}$$ where obviously $\vec{\nabla}_n\delta\rho_{\mu}(\vec{q})=\vec{\nabla}_n\rho_{\mu}(\vec{q})$ is valid. In the last line $\sum_{n=1}^N\langle\exp\left[{\mathrm{i}}\left(Q_\nu-Q_\mu\right)z_n\right]\rangle=\langle\rho_{\nu-\mu}(0)\rangle=An_{\nu-\mu}=An_{\mu-\nu}^*$ has been used.
Evaluation of the fluctuating force {#appendix_fluctuatingforce}
===================================
We also calculate the ’fluctuating force’ explicitly $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}\Omega^\dagger \ket{\rho_\mu(\vec{q})} =& \mathcal{Q}_{\rho} D_0 \sum_{n=1}^N \left(\vec{\nabla}_n-\frac{1}{k_BT}\vec{\nabla}_n U\right)\cdot \vec{\nabla}_n
e^{{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_n} \exp{({\mathrm{i}}Q_{\mu} z_n)} \nonumber \\
=& -\mathcal{Q}_{\rho} D_0 \sum_{\alpha=\parallel,\perp} b^\alpha(q,Q_{\mu})^2 \sum_{n=1}^N e^{{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_n}\exp{({\mathrm{i}}Q_\mu z_n)}\nonumber\\
&- {\mathrm{i}}\frac{D_0}{k_B T}\sum_{\alpha=\parallel,\perp}b^\alpha(q,Q_\mu)\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}\sum_{n=1}^N b^\alpha\left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial \vec{r}_n},\frac{\partial U}{\partial z_n}\right)e^{{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_n} \exp{({\mathrm{i}}Q_{\mu}z_n)},\end{aligned}$$ with $\mathcal{Q}_\rho=1-\mathcal{P}_\rho$. Inserting the corresponding projector from Eq. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}\Omega^\dagger \ket{\rho_\mu(\vec{q})} =& -(q^2+Q_{\mu}^2)D_0\Bigg(\delta\rho_{\mu}(\vec{q})+\braket{\rho_{\mu}(\vec{q})} \nonumber \\
&-\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\vec{q}^{\,\prime}}\sum_{\mu^\prime\nu^\prime}\delta\rho_{\mu^\prime}(\vec{q}^{\,\prime})\left[\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q^\prime)\right]_{\mu^\prime\nu^\prime}\braket{\delta\rho_{\nu^\prime}(\vec{q}^{\,\prime})^*
\delta\rho_{\mu}(\vec{q})}\Bigg) \nonumber \\
&-{\mathrm{i}}\frac{D_0}{k_B T}\sum_{\alpha=\parallel,\perp}b^\alpha(q,Q_\mu)\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}\sum_{n=1}^N b^\alpha\left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial \vec{r}_n},\frac{\partial U}{\partial z_n}\right)e^{{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_n}\exp{({\mathrm{i}}Q_{\mu}z_n)},\end{aligned}$$ and introducing $$\begin{aligned}
\delta F_{\mu}^\alpha(\vec{q}) = -\sum_{n=1}^Nb^\alpha\left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial\vec{r}_n},\frac{\partial U}{\partial z_n}\right) e^{{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_n}
\exp{({\mathrm{i}}Q_{\mu}z_n)} + {\mathrm{i}}k_B T b^\alpha(q,Q_\mu)\braket{\rho_{\mu}(\vec{q})},\end{aligned}$$ with the average value of the fluctuating force (c.f. Eq. ) $$\begin{aligned}
\braket{F_{\mu}^{\alpha}(\vec{q})} &= -k_B T\Big\langle\sum_{n=1}^N\vec{\nabla}_n\left(e^{{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_n}
\exp({\mathrm{i}}Q_{\mu}z_n)\right)\big\rangle = -{\mathrm{i}}k_B T b^\alpha(q,Q_\mu)\braket{\rho_{\mu}(\vec{q})},\end{aligned}$$ the expression simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}&\Omega^\dagger \ket{\rho_\mu(\vec{q})}= {\mathrm{i}}\frac{D_0}{k_B T} \sum_{\alpha}b^\alpha(q,Q_{\mu}) \mathcal{Q}_{\rho}\ket{F^{\alpha}_{\mu}(\vec{q})}.\end{aligned}$$
Evaluation of the overlap matrix element {#appendix_overlap}
========================================
Here we evaluate the scalar product $\braket{F_{\mu}^{\alpha}(\vec{q})|\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)}$. Using $\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}=1-\mathcal{P}_{\rho}$ there are four contributions which are considered separately: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:overlap}
\langle\delta F_{\mu}^{\alpha}(\vec{q})^*\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)\rangle
=& \braket{F_{\mu}^{\alpha}(\vec{q})^*\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)}-\braket{F_{\mu}^{\alpha}(\vec{q})^*\mathcal{P}_{\rho}\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)} \nonumber\\
&-{\mathrm{i}}k_B T b^\alpha(q,Q_\mu)\braket{\rho_{\mu}(\vec{q})^*}\braket{\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)}
\nonumber\\
&+{\mathrm{i}}k_B T b^\alpha(q,Q_\mu)\braket{\rho_{\mu}(\vec{q})^*}
\braket{\mathcal{P}_{\rho}\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)}.\end{aligned}$$ For the first term $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:overlap_term1}
\langle F_{\mu}^{\alpha}(\vec{q})^*\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)\rangle
= -\Big\langle\sum_{n=1}^Nb^\alpha\left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial\vec{r}_n},\frac{\partial U}{\partial z_n}\right) e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_n}\exp{(-{\mathrm{i}}Q_{\mu}z_n)} \delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)\Big\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ we use the fact that for an arbitrary dynamical variable $A$ its average weighted by an internal force is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:average_dynamical_variable}
\braket{(\vec{\nabla}_n U)A} =& \int\mathrm{d}\Gamma \psi_{\text{eq}}\left[\vec{\nabla}_n U(\Gamma)\right]A(\Gamma)
\nonumber \\
=& \int\mathrm{d}\Gamma \frac{1}{Z}e^{-U(\Gamma)/k_B T}\left[\vec{\nabla}_n U(\Gamma)\right]A(\Gamma) \nonumber \\
=& -\int\mathrm{d}\Gamma \vec{\nabla}_n \cdot \left(\frac{k_B T}{Z}e^{-U(\Gamma)/k_B T}A(\Gamma)\right) +\int\mathrm{d}\Gamma \frac{k_B T}{Z} e^{-U(\Gamma)/k_B T} \vec{\nabla}_n A(\Gamma) \nonumber \\
=& \int\mathrm{d}\Gamma \frac{k_B T}{Z} e^{-U(\Gamma)/k_B T}\vec{\nabla}_n A(\Gamma) \nonumber \\
=& k_B T\braket{\vec{\nabla}_n A}.\end{aligned}$$ Plugging this result into Eq. the first contribution is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle F_{\mu}^{\alpha}(\vec{q})^*&\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)\rangle \nonumber \\
=& -k_B T \Big\langle\sum_{n=1}^N b^\alpha\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\vec{r}_n},\frac{\partial}{\partial z_n}\right)
\left( e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_n}\exp{(-{\mathrm{i}}Q_{\mu}z_n)}
\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)\right)\Big\rangle \nonumber\\
=& -k_B T \Big\langle\sum_{n=1}^N \delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)b^\alpha\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\vec{r}_n},\frac{\partial}{\partial z_n}\right) \left( e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_n}\exp{(-{\mathrm{i}}Q_{\mu}z_n)}\right)
\Big\rangle \nonumber \\
&- k_B T \Big[\Big\langle\sum_{n=1}^N e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_n}\exp{(-{\mathrm{i}}Q_{\mu}z_n)}\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2) b^\alpha\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\vec{r}_n},\frac{\partial}{\partial z_n}\right) \left(
\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\right)\Big\rangle + (1 \leftrightarrow 2)\Big]\nonumber\\
= &{\mathrm{i}}k_B T b^{\alpha}(q,Q_\mu)\Big[ \braket{\rho_{\mu}(\vec{q})|\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)} + \braket{\rho_{\mu}(\vec{q})^*}\braket{\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)}\Big] \nonumber\\
&-{\mathrm{i}}k_B T \Big[ b^{\alpha}(\hat{\vec{q}}\cdot\vec{q}_1,Q_{\mu_1})
\braket{\rho_{\mu-\mu_1}(\vec{q}-\vec{q}_1)|
\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)} + (1 \leftrightarrow 2) \Big],\end{aligned}$$ where $\braket{\rho_{\mu-\mu_1}(\vec{q}-\vec{q}_1)^*\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)}=\braket{\delta\rho_{\mu-\mu_1}(\vec{q}-\vec{q}_1)^*\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)}$ has been used, since the second contribution $\braket{\rho_{\mu-\mu_1}(\vec{q}-\vec{q}_1)}\braket{\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)}$ vanishes. Abbreviating the static three-point correlation function by $$S_{\sigma,\mu_1\mu_2}(\vec{q},\vec{q}_1\vec{q}_2) = \frac{1}{N}\braket{
\delta\rho_{\sigma}(\vec{q})^*\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)},$$ we arrive at the final expression for the first term in Eq. $$\begin{aligned}
\langle F_{\mu}^{\alpha}(\vec{q})^*&\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)\rangle \nonumber \\
= &{\mathrm{i}}k_B T\Big[ b^{\alpha}(q,Q_\mu) N S_{\mu,\mu_1\mu_2}(\vec{q},\vec{q}_1\vec{q}_2)\delta_{\vec{q},\vec{q}_1+\vec{q}_2} + \braket{\rho_{\mu}(\vec{q})^*}
\braket{\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)}\Big] \nonumber\\
&- {\mathrm{i}}k_B T \Big[ b^{\alpha}(\hat{\vec{q}}\cdot\vec{q}_1,Q_{\mu_1}) N S_{\mu-\mu_1,\mu_2}(q_2)
\delta_{\vec{q},\vec{q}_1+\vec{q}_2} +(1 \leftrightarrow 2) \Big],\end{aligned}$$ where the second term cancels with the third term in Eq. .
For the next contribution we also have to evaluate the projection on the density modes. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle F_{\mu}^{\alpha}(\vec{q})^*&\mathcal{P}_{\rho}\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)\rangle \nonumber \\
=& -\Big\langle\sum_{n=1}^N b^\alpha\left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial\vec{r}_n},\frac{\partial U}{\partial z_n}\right) e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_n}\exp{(-{\mathrm{i}}Q_{\mu}z_n)} \mathcal{P}_{\rho}\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)\Big\rangle \nonumber\\
=& -\Big\langle\sum_{n=1}^N b^\alpha\left(\frac{\partial U}{\partial\vec{r}_n},\frac{\partial U}{\partial z_n}\right)e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_n}\exp{(-{\mathrm{i}}Q_{\mu}z_n)}
\frac{1}{N}
\sum_{\vec{q}^{\,\prime}}\sum_{\kappa\sigma}\delta\rho_{\kappa}(\vec{q}^{\,\prime})\Big\rangle \nonumber \\ &\times \left[\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q^\prime)\right]_{\kappa\sigma}\braket{\rho_{\sigma}(\vec{q}^{\,\prime})|\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)} \nonumber\\
=& -\frac{k_B T}{N}\sum_{\kappa\sigma}\sum_{\vec{q}^{\,\prime}}\Big\langle\sum_{n=1}^N b^\alpha\left(\frac{\partial }{\partial\vec{r}_n},\frac{\partial }{\partial z_n}\right)
\left( e^{-{\mathrm{i}}\vec{q}\cdot\vec{r}_n}\exp{(-{\mathrm{i}}Q_{\mu}z_n)}\delta\rho_{\kappa}(\vec{q}^{\,\prime})\right)\Big\rangle \nonumber\\
&\times \left[\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q^\prime)\right]_{\kappa\sigma}\braket{\rho_{\sigma}(\vec{q}^{\,\prime})|\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)
\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)} \nonumber\\
=& {\mathrm{i}}\frac{k_B T}{N}\sum_{\kappa\sigma}\sum_{\vec{q}^{\,\prime}}\Big(b^{\alpha}(q,Q_\mu)
\braket{\rho_{\mu}(\vec{q})^*\delta\rho_{\kappa}(\vec{q}^{\,\prime})}
-b^{\alpha}(\hat{\vec{q}}\cdot\vec{q}^{\,\prime},
Q_{\kappa})\braket{\rho_{\kappa-\mu}(\vec{q}^{\,\prime}-\vec{q})}\Big) \nonumber \\
&\times\left[\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q^\prime)\right]_{\kappa\sigma}\braket{\rho_{\sigma}(\vec{q}^{\,\prime})|\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)} \nonumber\\
=& {\mathrm{i}}k_B T N \delta_{\vec{q},\vec{q}_1+\vec{q}_2}\Big(b^{\alpha}(q,Q_\mu) S_{\mu,\mu_1\mu_2}(\vec{q},\vec{q}_1\vec{q}_2) \nonumber\\
&-\sum_{\kappa\sigma}b^{\alpha}(q,Q_{\kappa})\frac{n_{\mu-\kappa}^*}{n_0}\left[\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q)\right]_{\kappa\sigma}S_{\sigma,\mu_1\mu_2}(\vec{q},\vec{q}_1\vec{q}_2)\Big).\end{aligned}$$ In the last line we used again the definition of the triple correlation function and $n_0=N/A$. Finally, it is easy to show that the last term in Eq. vanishes $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\mathcal{P}_{\rho}&\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)\rangle
=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{\vec{q}}\sum_{\mu\nu}
\braket{\delta\rho_{\mu}(\vec{q})}\left[\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q)\right]_{\mu\nu}
\braket{\delta\rho_{\nu}(\vec{q})\delta\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\delta\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Combining everything one finds the explicit representation of the overlap matrix element $$\begin{aligned}
\langle F_{\mu}^{\alpha}(\vec{q})|\mathcal{Q}_{\rho}\rho_{\mu_1}(\vec{q}_1)\rho_{\mu_2}(\vec{q}_2)\rangle
= -&{\mathrm{i}}N k_B T \delta_{\vec{q},\vec{q}_1+\vec{q}_2}\Big[b^{\alpha}(\hat{\vec{q}}\cdot\vec{q}_1,Q_{\mu_1})
S_{\mu-\mu_1,\mu_2}(q_2) + (1 \leftrightarrow 2) \nonumber \\
&- \sum_{\kappa\sigma}\frac{n_{\mu-\kappa}^*}{n_0} b^{\alpha}(q,Q_\kappa)\left[\mathbf{S}^{-1}(q)\right]_{\kappa\sigma}
S_{\sigma,\mu_1\mu_2}(\vec{q},\vec{q}_1\vec{q}_2)\Big].\end{aligned}$$
[10]{}
H. Löwen, *Colloidal soft matter under external control*, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 13 (2001), p. R415, [Available at ]{}<http://stacks.iop.org/0953-8984/13/i=24/a=201>.
C. Alba-Simionesco, B. Coasne, G. Dosseh, G. Dudziak, K.E. Gubbins, R. Radhakrishnan, and M. Sliwinska-Bartkowiak, *Effects of confinement on freezing and melting*, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 18 (2006), p. R15, [Available at ]{}<http://stacks.iop.org/0953-8984/18/i=6/a=R01>.
F. Varnik and T. Franosch, *Non-monotonic effect of confinement on the glass transition*, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 28 (2016), p. 133001, [Available at ]{}[http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0953-8984/28/13/133%
001/meta](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0953-8984/28/13/133%
001/meta).
C.R. Nugent, K.V. Edmond, H.N. Patel, and E.R. Weeks, *Colloidal [Glass]{} [Transition]{} [Observed]{} in [Confinement]{}*, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007), p. 025702, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.025702>.
M. Schmidt and H. Löwen, *Freezing between [Two]{} and [Three]{} [Dimensions]{}*, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996), pp. 4552–4555, [Available at ]{}<http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.4552>.
M. Schmidt and H. Löwen, *Phase diagram of hard spheres confined between two parallel plates*, Phys. Rev. E 55 (1997), pp. 7228–7241, [Available at ]{}<http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.55.7228>.
H.B. Eral, D. van den Ende, F. Mugele, and M.H.G. Duits, *Influence of confinement by smooth and rough walls on particle dynamics in dense hard-sphere suspensions*, Phys. Rev. E 80 (2009), p. 061403, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.80.061403>.
K. Edmond, C. Nugent, and E. Weeks, *Local influence of boundary conditions on a confined supercooled colloidal liquid*, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 189 (2010), pp. 83–93, [Available at ]{}<http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2010-01311-3>.
T.S. Ingebrigtsen, J.R. Errington, T.M. Truskett, and J.C. Dyre, *Predicting [How]{} [Nanoconfinement]{} [Changes]{} the [Relaxation]{} [Time]{} of a [Supercooled]{} [Liquid]{}*, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013), p. 235901, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.235901>.
T. Franosch, S. Lang, and R. Schilling, *Fluids in [Extreme]{} [Confinement]{}*, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012), p. 240601, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.240601>.
S. Lang, T. Franosch, and R. Schilling, *Structural quantities of quasi-two-dimensional fluids*, J. Chem. Phys. 140 (2014), p. 104506, [Available at ]{}<https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4867284>.
R. Schilling, *Strongly confined fluids: Diverging time scales and slowing down of equilibration*, Phys. Rev. E 93 (2016), p. 062102, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.93.062102>.
S. Mandal and T. Franosch, *Diverging [Time]{} [Scale]{} in the [Dimensional]{} [Crossover]{} for [Liquids]{} in [Strong]{} [Confinement]{}*, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017), p. 065901, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.065901>.
S. Mandal, M. Spanner-Denzer, S. Leitmann, and T. Franosch, *Complex dynamics induced by strong confinement – [From]{} tracer diffusion in strongly heterogeneous media to glassy relaxation of dense fluids in narrow slits*, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 226 (2017), pp. 3129–3156, [Available at ]{}<https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2017-70077-5>.
Y. Rosenfeld, *Relation between the transport coefficients and the internal entropy of simple systems*, Phys. Rev. A 15 (1977), pp. 2545–2549, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.15.2545>.
M. Dzugutov, *A universal scaling law for atomic diffusion in condensed matter*, Nature 381 (1996), p. 137, [Available at ]{}<https://www.nature.com/articles/381137a0>.
Y. Rosenfeld, *A quasi-universal scaling law for atomic transport in simple fluids*, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 11 (1999), pp. 5415–5427, [Available at ]{}<https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/11/28/303>.
J. Mittal, J.R. Errington, and T.M. Truskett, *Thermodynamics [Predicts]{} [How]{} [Confinement]{} [Modifies]{} the [Dynamics]{} of the [Equilibrium]{} [Hard]{}-[Sphere]{} [Fluid]{}*, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006), p. 177804, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.177804>.
J. Mittal, T.M. Truskett, J.R. Errington, and G. Hummer, *Layering and [Position]{}-[Dependent]{} [Diffusive]{} [Dynamics]{} of [Confined]{} [Fluids]{}*, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008), p. 145901, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.145901>.
G. Goel, W.P. Krekelberg, J.R. Errington, and T.M. Truskett, *Tuning [Density]{} [Profiles]{} and [Mobility]{} of [Inhomogeneous]{} [Fluids]{}*, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008), p. 106001, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.106001>.
G. Goel, W.P. Krekelberg, M.J. Pond, J. Mittal, V.K. Shen, J.R. Errington, and T.M. Truskett, *Available states and available space: static properties that predict self-diffusivity of confined fluids*, J. Stat. Mech. (2009), p. P04006, [Available at ]{}<http://stacks.iop.org/1742-5468/2009/i=04/a=P04006>.
J.A. Bollinger, A. Jain, J. Carmer, and T.M. Truskett, *Communication: Local structure-mobility relationships of confined fluids reverse upon supercooling*, J. Chem. Phys. 142 (2015), p. 161102, [Available at ]{}<https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4919688>.
W. Götze, *Complex Dynamics of Glass-Forming Liquids – A Mode-Coupling Theory*, Oxford, 2009, [Available at ]{}[https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/978%
0199235346.001.0001/acprof-9780199235346](https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/978%
0199235346.001.0001/acprof-9780199235346).
L.M.C. Janssen, *Mode-[Coupling]{} [Theory]{} of the [Glass]{} [Transition]{}: [A]{} [Primer]{}*, Front. Phys. 6 (2018), p. 97, [Available at ]{}<https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphy.2018.00097>.
S. Lang, V. Bo ţan, M. Oettel, D. Hajnal, T. Franosch, and R. Schilling, *Glass [Transition]{} in [Confined]{} [Geometry]{}*, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010), p. 125701, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.125701>.
S. Lang, R. Schilling, and T. Franosch, *Glassy dynamics in confinement: Planar and bulk limits of the mode-coupling theory*, Phys. Rev. E 90 (2014), p. 062126, [Available at ]{}<http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.90.062126>.
S. Lang and T. Franosch, *Tagged-particle motion in a dense confined liquid*, Phys. Rev. E 89 (2014), p. 062122, [Available at ]{}<http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.89.062122>.
S. Lang, R. Schilling, V. Krakoviack, and T. Franosch, *Mode-coupling theory of the glass transition for confined fluids*, Phys. Rev. E 86 (2012), p. 021502, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.86.021502>.
S. Mandal, S. Lang, M. Gross, M. Oettel, D. Raabe, T. Franosch, and F. Varnik, *Multiple reentrant glass transitions in confined hard-sphere glasses*, Nat. Commun. 5 (2014), p. 4435, [Available at ]{}[http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140718/ncomms5435/full/ncom%
ms5435.html](http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140718/ncomms5435/full/ncom%
ms5435.html).
S. Mandal, S. Lang, V. Bo ţan, and T. Franosch, *Nonergodicity parameters of confined hard-sphere glasses*, Soft Matter 13 (2017), pp. 6167–6177, [Available at ]{}<http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/C7SM00905D>.
J.P. Vest, G. Tarjus, and P. Viot, *Mode-coupling approach for the slow dynamics of a liquid on a spherical substrate*, J. Chem. Phys. 143 (2015), p. 084505, [Available at ]{}<https://aip.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4928513>.
J.P. Vest, G. Tarjus, and P. Viot, *Glassy dynamics of dense particle assemblies on a spherical substrate*, J. Chem. Phys. 148 (2018), p. 164501, [Available at ]{}<https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5027389>.
F. Turci, G. Tarjus, and C.P. Royall, *From [Glass]{} [Formation]{} to [Icosahedral]{} [Ordering]{} by [Curving]{} [Three]{}-[Dimensional]{} [Space]{}*, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017), p. 215501, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.215501>.
K. Nygård, R. Kjellander, S. Sarman, S. Chodankar, E. Perret, J. Buitenhuis, and J.F. van der Veen, *Anisotropic [Pair]{} [Correlations]{} and [Structure]{} [Factors]{} of [Confined]{} [Hard]{}-[Sphere]{} [Fluids]{}: [An]{} [Experimental]{} and [Theoretical]{} [Study]{}*, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012), p. 037802, [Available at ]{}<http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.037802>.
K. Nyg[å]{}rd, S. Sarman, and R. Kjellander, *Local order variations in confined hard-sphere fluids*, J. Chem. Phys. 139 (2013), p. 164701, [Available at ]{}<https://aip.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/1.4825176>.
K. Nygård, J. Buitenhuis, M. Kagias, K. Jefimovs, F. Zontone, and Y. Chushkin, *Anisotropic de [Gennes]{} [Narrowing]{} in [Confined]{} [Fluids]{}*, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016), p. 167801, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.167801>.
K. Nyg[å]{}rd, *Colloidal diffusion in confined geometries*, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 19 (2017), pp. 23632–23641, [Available at ]{}[https://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2017/CP/C7CP02%
497E](https://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2017/CP/C7CP02%
497E).
G. Szamel and H. Löwen, *Mode-coupling theory of the glass transition in colloidal systems*, Phys. Rev. A 44 (1991), pp. 8215–8219, [Available at ]{}<http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.44.8215>.
T. Franosch, W. Götze, M. Mayr, and A. Singh, *Structure and structure relaxation*, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 235-237 (1998), pp. 71–85, [Available at ]{}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00223093980%
05006](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00223093980%
05006).
S. Mandal, T. Franosch, and [Th]{}. Voigtmann, *Glassy relaxation slows down by increasing mobility*, Soft Matter 14 (2018), pp. 9153–9158, [Available at ]{}[https://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2018/SM/C8SM01%
581C](https://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2018/SM/C8SM01%
581C).
S. Lang, R. Schilling, and T. Franosch, *Mode-coupling theory for multiple decay channels*, J. Stat. Mech. (2013), p. P12007, [Available at ]{}<http://stacks.iop.org/1742-5468/2013/i=12/a=P12007>.
J.K. Dhont, *An [Introduction]{} to [Dynamics]{} of [Colloids]{}*, Vol. 2, Elsevier, 1996, [Available at ]{}[https://www.sciencedirect.com/bookseries/studies-in-interface%
-science/vol/2](https://www.sciencedirect.com/bookseries/studies-in-interface%
-science/vol/2).
M. Doi and S.F. Edwards, *The [Theory]{} of [Polymer]{} [Dynamics]{}*, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1999.
J.P. Hansen and I.R. McDonald, *Theory of [Simple]{} [Liquids]{}*, Academic Press, 2013, [Available at ]{}[https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123870322/theory-of-si%
mple-liquids](https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780123870322/theory-of-si%
mple-liquids).
W. Feller, *An [Introduction]{} to [Probability]{} [Theory]{} and [Its]{} [Applications]{}*, Vol. II, John Wiley & Sons, 1966.
F. Gesztesy and E. Tsekanovskii, *On [Matrix]{}-[Valued]{} [Herglotz]{} [Functions]{}*, Math. Nachr. 218 (2000), pp. 61–138, [Available at ]{}[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1522-2616%2820001%
0%29218:1%3C61::AID-MANA61%3E3.0.CO;2-D/abstract](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1522-2616%2820001%
0%29218:1%3C61::AID-MANA61%3E3.0.CO;2-D/abstract).
D. Henderson, *Fundamentals of Inhomogeneous Fluids*, Dekker, New York (1992).
B. Cichocki and W. Hess, *On the memory function for the dynamic structure factor of interacting brownian particles*, Phys. A 141 (1987), pp. 475–488, [Available at ]{}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037843718790%
1762](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037843718790%
1762).
K. Kawasaki, *Irreducible memory function for dissipative stochastic systems with detailed balance*, Phys. A 215 (1995), pp. 61–74, [Available at ]{}[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037843719500%
012V](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037843719500%
012V).
M. Gruber, G.C. Abade, A.M. Puertas, and M. Fuchs, *Active microrheology in a colloidal glass*, Phys. Rev. E 94 (2016), p. 042602, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.94.042602>.
M. Gruber, *Theory of microrheology in complex fluids*, Ph.D. diss., Universit[ä]{}t Konstanz, Konstanz, 2019, [Available at ]{}<http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-2-hurftyctohii2>.
R. Schilling and T. Scheidsteger, *Mode coupling approach to the ideal glass transition of molecular liquids: Linear molecules*, Phys. Rev. E 56 (1997), pp. 2932–2949, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.56.2932>.
S.J. Pitts and H.C. Andersen, *The meaning of the irreducible memory function in stochastic theories of dynamics with detailed balance*, J. Chem. Phys. 113 (2000), pp. 3945–3950, [Available at ]{}<https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1288392>.
T. Franosch, W. Götze, M.R. Mayr, and A.P. Singh, *Evolution of structural relaxation spectra of glycerol within the gigahertz band*, Phys. Rev. E 55 (1997), pp. 3183–3190, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.55.3183>.
T. Franosch and [Th]{}. Voigtmann, *Completely [Monotone]{} [Solutions]{} of the [Mode]{}-[Coupling]{} [Theory]{} for [Mixtures]{}*, J. Stat. Phys. 109 (2002), pp. 237–259, [Available at ]{}<https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019991729106>.
T. Franosch and W. Götze, *Relaxation [Rate]{} [Distributions]{} for [Supercooled]{} [Liquids]{}*, J. Phys. Chem. B 103 (1999), pp. 4011–4017, [Available at ]{}<https://doi.org/10.1021/jp983412r>.
L. Yeomans-Reyna and M. Medina-Noyola, *Self-consistent generalized [Langevin]{} equation for colloid dynamics*, Phys. Rev. E 64 (2001), p. 066114, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.64.066114>.
L. Yeomans-Reyna, M.A. Chávez-Rojo, P.E. Ramírez-González, R. Juárez-Maldonado, M. Chávez-Páez, and M. Medina-Noyola, *Dynamic arrest within the self-consistent generalized [Langevin]{} equation of colloid dynamics*, Phys. Rev. E 76 (2007), p. 041504, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.76.041504>.
C.F. Petersen, L. Schrack, and T. Franosch, *Static properties of quasi-confined hard-sphere fluids*, J. Stat. Mech. (2019), p. 083216, [Available at ]{}<https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/ab3342>.
T. Franosch, M. Fuchs, W. Götze, M.R. Mayr, and A.P. Singh, *Theory for the reorientational dynamics in glass-forming liquids*, Phys. Rev. E 56 (1997), pp. 5659–5674, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.56.5659>.
S. Kämmerer, W. Kob, and R. Schilling, *Test of mode coupling theory for a supercooled liquid of diatomic molecules. [I]{}. translational degrees of freedom*, Phys. Rev. E 58 (1998), pp. 2131–2140, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.58.2131>.
S. Kämmerer, W. Kob, and R. Schilling, *Test of mode coupling theory for a supercooled liquid of diatomic molecules. [II]{}. $q$-dependent orientational correlators*, Phys. Rev. E 58 (1998), pp. 2141–2150, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.58.2141>.
T. Scheidsteger and R. Schilling, *Glass transition for dipolar hard spheres: A mode-coupling approach*, Philos. Mag. B 77 (1998), pp. 305–311, [Available at ]{}<https://doi.org/10.1080/13642819808204956>.
L. Fabbian, A. Latz, R. Schilling, F. Sciortino, P. Tartaglia, and C. Theis, *Molecular correlations in a supercooled liquid*, Phys. Rev. E 62 (2000), pp. 2388–2404, [Available at ]{}<http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.62.2388>.
G. Foffi, W. Götze, F. Sciortino, P. Tartaglia, and [Th]{}. Voigtmann, *Mixing [Effects]{} for the [Structural]{} [Relaxation]{} in [Binary]{} [Hard]{}-[Sphere]{} [Liquids]{}*, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003), p. 085701, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.085701>.
W. Götze and [Th]{}. Voigtmann, *Effect of composition changes on the structural relaxation of a binary mixture*, Phys. Rev. E 67 (2003), p. 021502, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.67.021502>.
A. Liluashvili, J. Ónody, and [Th]{}. Voigtmann, *Mode-coupling theory for active [Brownian]{} particles*, Phys. Rev. E 96 (2017), p. 062608, [Available at ]{}<https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.96.062608>.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a surface code suffering decoherence due to coupling to a bath of bosonic modes at finite temperature and study the time available before the unavoidable breakdown of error correction occurs as a function of coupling and bath parameters. We derive an exact expression for the error rate on each individual qubit of the code, taking spatial and temporal correlations between the errors into account. We investigate numerically how different kinds of spatial correlations between errors in the surface code affect its threshold error rate. This allows us to derive the maximal duration of each quantum error correction period by studying when the single-qubit error rate reaches the corresponding threshold. At the time when error correction breaks down, the error rate in the code can be dominated by the direct coupling of each qubit to the bath, by mediated subluminal interactions, or by mediated superluminal interactions. For a 2D Ohmic bath, the time available per quantum error correction period vanishes in the thermodynamic limit of a large code size $L$ due to induced superluminal interactions, though it does so only like $1/\sqrt{\log L}$. For all other bath types considered, this time remains finite as $L{\rightarrow}\infty$.'
author:
- Adrian Hutter
- Daniel Loss
title: Breakdown of Surface Code Error Correction Due to Coupling to a Bosonic Bath
---
Introduction
============
Due to its high error threshold and since it requires only nearest-neighbor gates to be performed, the surface code [@Dennis2002; @Raussendorf2007] is the most promising platform for scalable, fault-tolerant, and universal quantum computation [@Fowler2012a]. In order to test its resilience and benchmark the performance of classical algorithms for quantum error correction (QEC), the surface code is often studied with simplistic stochastic error models, where an error is an unphysical event that happens instantaneously at a specified point in space-time. Furthermore, it is usually assumed that these errors are not spatially correlated (see, e.g., Refs. [@Duclos2009; @Wang2011; @Fowler2012b; @Wootton2012; @Hutter2013; @Fowler2013; @Duclos2014]). It is thus of importance to study to what degree these assumptions are satisfied for realistic models of a physical environment, and in case they are not, what the resilience of the surface code against the resulting effective error model is.
In this work, we will consider a surface code coupled to a thermal bath of freely propagating modes. A pair of recent articles [@Novais2013; @Jouzdani2013] studied the fidelity of the surface code in this setup (at zero temperature). They showed that, under the assumption of a trivial error syndrome (all stabilizer operators of the code still yield a $+1$ eigenvalue), there is a sharp transition between maximal and minimal surface code fidelity as the coupling strength to the bath is increased. This transition provides an upper bound to the resilience of the surface code, since a logical error with a trivial error syndrome certainly cannot be corrected.
By contrast, our goal here is to find the actual time when QEC in the surface code breaks down as a function of coupling and bath parameters. This is the time at which an error correction algorithm is no longer able to pair the surface code defects in a way that leads to a trivial operation performed on the code subspace.
In order to find these times, we follow a three-step strategy. First, calculate the error rate on each individual qubit as a function of time and physical parameters. There are three different physical mechanisms contributing to this error rate – the direct interaction of each qubit with the bath, subluminal interactions mediated by the bath as well as superluminal ones. Second, study numerically how spatial correlations between such errors affect the threshold error rate of the surface code. Third, solve for the times for which the single-qubit error rate reaches the modified threshold error rates.
When deriving actual threshold estimates, Refs. [@Novais2013; @Jouzdani2013] resort to the case of nearest-neighbor correlations only. However, we show that both subluminal and superluminal mediated long-range interactions can actually be the dominant error mechanism at the time for which the error rate reaches critical values.
Problem and Overview {#sec:problem}
====================
We consider a surface code each qubit of which is coupled to a bosonic bath at thermal equilibrium. In accordance with Refs. [@Novais2013; @Jouzdani2013], we only consider bit-flip errors here (${\sigma^x}$) and make the simplifying assumption that the bath is in thermal equilibrium at the beginning of each QEC cycle, i.e., that bath correlations between different QEC cycles are negligible. Physically, this can be thought of as the bath thermalizing with an even larger bath during one QEC period. However, we generalize the discussion in Refs. [@Novais2013; @Jouzdani2013] to the case of finite temperature.
Sums and products with a tilde on top run over all surface code qubit indices $i$, while sums without a tilde are over bath modes $\textbf{k}$. Let $H=H_0+V$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:H0}
H_0 = H_{{\mathrm{bos}}} = \sum{_{\bf{k}}}{\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}a{_{\bf{k}}}{^{\dagger}}a{_{\bf{k}}},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:V}
V=\tilde{\sum}_i{\sigma^x}_i\otimes\frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{N}}\sum{_{\bf{k}}}|\textbf{k}|^r\left(e^{i{\bf k}{\bf R}_i}a{_{\bf{k}}}+e^{-i{\bf k}{\bf R}_i}a{_{\bf{k}}}{^{\dagger}}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $a{_{\bf{k}}}{^{\dagger}}$ ($a{_{\bf{k}}}$) are the standard creation (annihilation) operators obeying bosonic commutation relations. Here, $\textbf{R}_i$ is the spatial location of qubit $i$ and $N=\sum{_{\bf{k}}}1$ is the number of bosonic modes of the bath. Physically interesting are the cases $r=0,\pm\frac{1}{2}$ [@Jouzdani2013]. We consider a linear dispersion of the bath modes, ${\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}=v|{\bf k}|$, as is accurate for acoustic phonons, spin-waves in an antiferromagnet, or electromagnetic waves. Here, $v$ is the corresponding velocity of the modes. Let the initial qubit density matrix be given by $\rho_q$ and the thermal state of the bath by $\rho_B\propto\exp(-\beta H_{{\mathrm{bos}}})$, where $T=1/\beta$ is the bath temperature. The surface code requires a set of commuting many-qubit Pauli operators, called *stabilizer operators*, to yield a $+1$ eigenvalue. All of these operators are measured at the end of each QEC cycle. Stabilizer measurements can be performed either by applying entangling gates between code and auxiliary qubits [@Dennis2002; @Fowler2012a] or by direct measurement of the corresponding many-qubit parity operators [@DiVincenzo2012; @Nigg2013]. Eigenvalues $-1$ signal that an error has occurred and are interpreted as the presence of an *anyon*. Quantum information is stored in the subspace for which all stabilizers yield a $+1$ eigenvalue. Correspondingly, the state $\rho_q$ is restricted to this subspace, i.e., $\rho_q$ is an anyon-free state. QEC is successful if the anyons are paired in a way which is homologically equivalent to the way they have been created. Finding such a pairing is the task of a classical error correction algorithm [@Duclos2009; @Wang2011; @Fowler2012b; @Wootton2012; @Hutter2013; @Fowler2013; @Duclos2014], one of which we will encounter in Sec. \[sec:errcorr\]. For more details about the surface code, see Ref. [@Fowler2012a].
The decoherent evolution of the qubits is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_q \mapsto \Phi_d(\rho_q) = {\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits}_B\left\lbrace e^{-iHt}(\rho_q\otimes\rho_B)e^{+iHt}\right\rbrace\ .\end{aligned}$$ At the end of each QEC cycle, after some time $t$, we perform a measurement of all surface code stabilizer operators, which is described by the quantum channel $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_m(\sigma) = \sum_aP_a\sigma P_a\ .\end{aligned}$$ Here, $P_a$ projects onto the space with anyon configuration $a$ and the sum runs over all possible anyon configurations $a$.
Finally, we study the state $\rho_i(t)={\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits}_{\bar{i}}\circ\,\Phi_m\circ\Phi_d(\rho_q)$ of one particular qubit. Here, ${\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits}_{\bar{i}}$ denotes a partial trace over all qubits except qubit $i$. Since $\rho_q$ is an anyon-free state and the stabilizer measurement projects the density matrix of the qubits to the spaces with well-defined anyon numbers, $\rho_i(t)$ has no contributions of terms ${\sigma^x}_i\rho_i$ or $\rho_i{\sigma^x}_i$ (here, $\rho_i={\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits}_{\bar{i}}\rho_q$). We can thus write $\rho_i(t)=(1-p_x(t))\rho_i+p_x(t){\sigma^x}_i\rho_i{\sigma^x}_i$.
(60,40)
(15,20)[$\rho_q$]{}
(27,22)[decoherence]{} (26,20)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (37,15)[$\Phi_d$]{}
(65,27)[syndrome]{} (65,22)[measurement]{} (65,20)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (75,15)[$\Phi_m$]{}
(107,27)[restrict to ]{} (107,22)[$i$-th qubit]{} (104,20)[(1,0)[30]{}]{} (114,15)[${\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits}_{\bar{i}}$]{}
(140,20)[$\rho_i(t)={\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits}_{\bar{i}}\circ\,\Phi_m\circ\Phi_d(\rho_q)$]{} (152.5,11)[$=(1-p_x(t))\rho_i+p_x(t){\sigma^x}_i\rho_i{\sigma^x}_i$]{}
Our first goal is to calculate $p_x(t)$ as a function of the time $t$, the parameters in $H$, and the bath temperature $T=1/\beta$, which is what we carry out in Sec. \[sec:sc\]. Using the results from Sec. \[sec:sc\], we calculate in Sec. \[sec:entangling\] the exact evolution of the density matrix of two qubits coupled to the bath and discuss the use of this bath coupling as an entangling gate.
Secondly, we discuss what implications such an error rate has for surface code error correction. Error correction will inevitably break down once the error rate $p_x$ on each qubit surpasses a certain critical value $p_c$. This critical value depends on the spatial correlations between errors in the code, on the classical algorithm that is employed in order to find a pairing of the anyons, and on the probability $p_m$ with which a syndrome measurement fails. In the symmetric case of $p_x=p_m$ and for uncorrelated errors, efficient error correction algorithms are able to perform successful error correction up to a critical value of $1.9\% - 2.9\%$ [@Harrington2004; @Duclos2014]. In a more involved, circuit-based modelling of syndrome extraction, critical error rates are around $1\%$ [@Raussendorf2007; @Wang2011; @Fowler2012b].
The higher $p_m$, the lower the probability of error $p_x$ for which successful correction is possible. Following Refs. [@Novais2013; @Jouzdani2013], we consider in the following the perfect measurement case $p_m=0$ for definiteness and simplicity. Generalization to the more realistic case of $p_m>0$ is straightforward; it merely corresponds to replacing $p_c$ (or $\tilde{p}_c$, see below) by a lower value.
If the errors on different qubits are independent from each other and stabilizer measurements are flawless ($p_m=0$), error correction inevitably breaks down if $p_x(t)>p_c=10.9\%$ [@Dennis2002]. For $p_x(t)<p_c$ the probability of an error is exponentially small in $L$, the linear size of the code, if quantum error correction is performed optimally. The problem of performing error correction in the surface code with perfect syndrome measurements can be mapped to the classical Ising model with erroneous qubits corresponding to antiferromagnetic bonds. The critical value $p_c$ corresponds to an order-disorder transition in this model [@Dennis2002].
For uncorrelated errors, the maximal duration $\tau$ of one QEC cycle can thus be obtained by simply inverting $p_x(\tau)=p_c$, which we exemplify for an Ohmic bath in Sec. \[sec:uncorr\]. Alternative bath types are discussed in Appendix \[app:different\]. When the errors on different qubits are not independent, the breakdown of error correction will in general occur at a single-qubit error probability $\tilde{p}_c$ different from $p_c$. If the correlations between the errors on different qubits are ignored, $\tilde{p}_c$ may be lower than $p_c$. On the other hand, taking knowledge about such correlations properly into account can even increase $\tilde{p}_c$ beyond $p_c$. We present an efficient algorithm that is capable of doing this for a specific kind of correlations in Appendix \[app:algo\]. However, we do not know the value of $\tilde{p}_c$ for the kind of correlations between errors that arise from coupling to the bosonic bath. Still, solving $p_x(\tau)=\tilde{p}_c$ for $\tau$ will provide us with the correct scaling of $\tau$ as a function of physical parameters like the bath temperature.
Furthermore, in Sec. \[sec:errcorr\] we numerically find values for $\tilde{p}_c$ for different kinds of spatial correlations between errors and provide heuristic evidence that the value of $\tilde{p}_c$ for the errors arising due to the bath coupling does not differ drastically from $p_c$. We also show that for correlated two-qubit errors the surface code can, due to being a degenerate code, be used to perform error correction in regimes where the entropy in the noise exceeds the information obtained from stabilizer measurements – which is in contrast to the uncorrelated case.
The resulting maximal QEC cycle times $\tau$ for the more general case of correlated errors are derived in Sec. \[sec:qectime\]. The obtained expressions for $\tau$ for a variety of different parameter regimes are summarized in Sec. \[sec:summary\]. We conclude in Sec. \[sec:conclusions\].
The single-qubit error rate $p_x(t)$ {#sec:sc}
====================================
In this section, we calculate exactly the joint unitary dynamics of the qubits in the surface code and the modes in the bosonic bath. From this, we derive the probability of an error on each qubit $p_x(t)$ as a function of time, taking into account all correlations with errors affecting other qubits.
We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Phid}
\Phi_d(\rho_q) &= {\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits}_B\left\lbrace e^{-iHt}(\rho_q\otimes\rho_B)e^{+iHt}\right\rbrace {\nonumber}\\
&= {\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits}_B\left\lbrace e^{iH_0t}e^{-iHt}(\rho_q\otimes\rho_B)e^{+iHt}e^{-iH_0t}\right\rbrace {\nonumber}\\
&= {\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits}_B\left\lbrace U(t)(\rho_q\otimes\rho_B)U(t){^{\dagger}}\right\rbrace\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $U(t)=e^{iH_0t}e^{-iHt}=\mathcal{T}e^{-i\int_0^t{\mathrm{d}}t'\,V(t')}$ denotes the evolution operator in the interaction picture. It follows directly from the Magnus expansion (cf.Ref. [@Jouzdani2013 Appendix A]) and the fact that $\left[V(t_1),[V(t_2),V(t_3)]\right]=0$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Ut}
U(t) &= \exp\left\lbrace -i\int_0^t{\mathrm{d}}t_1\,V(t_1) -\frac{1}{2}\int_0^t{\mathrm{d}}t_1\int_0^{t_1}{\mathrm{d}}t_2\,[V(t_1),V(t_2)] \right\rbrace {\nonumber}\\
&=: \exp\left\lbrace \tilde{\sum}_i{\sigma^x}_i\otimes X_i(t) \right\rbrace \exp\left\lbrace -\frac{i}{2}\tilde{\sum}_{ij}J_{ij}(t){\sigma^x}_i\otimes{\sigma^x}_j\right\rbrace\ .\end{aligned}$$ We have defined $$\begin{aligned}
X_i(t) = \frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{N}}\sum{_{\bf{k}}}\frac{|\textbf{k}|^r}{{\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}}\left(e^{i{\bf k}{\bf R}_i}(e^{-i{\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}t}-1)a{_{\bf{k}}}-e^{-i{\bf k}{\bf R}_i}(e^{i{\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}t}-1)a{_{\bf{k}}}{^{\dagger}}\right)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Jij}
J_{ij}(t) &= -i\frac{\lambda^2}{N}\sum{_{\bf{k}}}|{\bf k}|^{2r}\int_0^t{\mathrm{d}}t_1\int_0^{t_1}{\mathrm{d}}t_2\left\lbrace e^{i{\bf k}({\bf R}_i-{\bf R}_j)}e^{-i{\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}(t_1-t_2)} - {\mathrm{c.c.}}\right\rbrace {\nonumber}\\
&= 2\lambda^2\int{\mathrm{d}}{\bf k}\,\frac{|{\bf k}|^{2r}}{{\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}^2}\cos\left({\bf k}({\bf R}_i-{\bf R}_j)\right)\left(\sin({\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}t)-{\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}t\right)\ . \end{aligned}$$ In Appendix \[sec:induced\], we provide the functions $J_{ij}(t)$ for different bath types (i.e., different combinations of spatial dimension, $D=2,3$, and bath coupling, $r=0,\pm\frac{1}{2}$). It is straightforward to show that $[X_i(t),X_j(t)]=0$ and thus we can also write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:U}
U(t) &= \tilde{\prod}_i\exp\left\lbrace{\sigma^x}_i\otimes X_i(t) \right\rbrace\tilde{\prod}_{\lbrace i,j\rbrace}\exp\left\lbrace -iJ_{ij}(t){\sigma^x}_i\otimes{\sigma^x}_j\right\rbrace {\nonumber}\\
&= \tilde{\prod}_i\left(\cosh(X_i(t))+{\sigma^x}_i\otimes\sinh(X_i(t))\right)\tilde{\prod}_{\lbrace i,j\rbrace}\left(\cos(J_{ij}(t))-i\sin(J_{ij}(t)){\sigma^x}_i\otimes{\sigma^x}_i\right)\ .\end{aligned}$$ The product $\tilde{\prod}_{\lbrace i,j\rbrace}$ is over all pairs $\lbrace i,j\rbrace$, i.e., without double-counting.
We will refer to the first factor in Eqs. (\[eq:Ut\]) and (\[eq:U\]) as the *decoherent* part of the evolution, and to the second part as the *coherent* part. Note that only the decoherent part of the evolution will lead to a dependence of the evolution of the code on the state of the bath (in particular its temperature). The coherent part is, in principle, reversible and does not lead to a transfer of quantum information from the code qubits into the bath.
Inserting [Eq. ]{}[eq:U]{} into [Eq. ]{}[eq:Phid]{} and expanding the products can only be done if the number of qubits coupled to the bath is small. In Sec. \[sec:entangling\] we consider the case of two qubits coupled to the same bath and calculate the exact evolution of the two-qubit density matrix. However, if the number of qubits coupled to the bath is large, we need to follow a different route. Note that we are only interested in whether a net-error (i.e., an odd number of ${\sigma^x}$-errors) occurs on qubit $i$ after application of $\Phi_d$ and $\Phi_m$. This probability can be found with an inductive argument over $N_q$, the number of qubits in the code.
Since $\rho_q$ is a state with no anyons, the syndrome measurement $\Phi_m$ eliminates all terms in $\Phi_d(\rho_q)$ that apply a different tensor product of Pauli errors ‘to the left’ and ‘to the right’ of $\rho_q$. Formally, let $\ell$ label the $2^{N_q}$ possible configurations of ${\sigma^x}$ errors on the code and let $\xi_{\ell}$ denote the $\ell$-th error configuration. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_m\left(\xi_{\ell_1}\rho_q\xi_{\ell_2}{^{\dagger}}\right) = \delta_{\ell_1\ell_2}\xi_{\ell_1}\rho_q\xi_{\ell_1}{^{\dagger}}\ .\end{aligned}$$ Let us call terms which have the same tensor products of Pauli operators on the left and on the right and hence survive application of $\Phi_m$ ‘valid’ terms.
Consider first the case $N_q=1$. Then we simply have $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_d(\rho_q) = \left\langle\cosh^2\left(X_i(t)\right)\right\rangle \rho_q - \left\langle\sinh^2\left(X_i(t)\right)\right\rangle {\sigma^x}\rho_q{\sigma^x}\ .\end{aligned}$$ (Note that $X_i(t)$ is anti-Hermitian, so $\left(\sinh\left(X_i(t)\right)\right){^{\dagger}}=-\sinh\left(X_i(t)\right)$.) We have introduced the notation $\langle O\rangle = {\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits}_B\lbrace O\rho_{B}\rbrace$. Let us thus define the single-qubit decoherence rate by $p_d(t) = -\left\langle\sinh^2\left(X_i(t)\right)\right\rangle$.
Let $p_x(t)$ denote the error probability on qubit $1$. In the case of the surface code, this is then up to boundary effects the error probability on all other qubits as well. The error probability $p_x(t)$ is the total probabilistic weight of all valid terms that apply an odd number of errors to qubit $1$. Let $p_x(t)_{N_q}$ denote the probability of an error on qubit $1$ if there is a total number of $N_q$ qubits in the code. Clearly, we have $p_x(t)_1=p_d(t)$. When increasing $N_q\mapsto N_q+1$, the parity of errors on qubit $1$ is only changed if a pair of errors is applied to qubit $1$ and qubit $N_q+1$. The weight of this happening is $\sin^2(J_{1,N_q+1}(t))$, while the weight of it not happening is $\cos^2(J_{1,N_q+1}(t))$. This leads to the recursive formula $$\begin{aligned}
p_x(t)_{N_q+1} = \cos^2(J_{1,N_q+1}(t))p_x(t)_{N_q} + \sin^2(J_{1,N_q+1}(t))(1-p_x(t)_{N_q})\ .\end{aligned}$$ Let sums and products with a prime run over all qubits except qubit $1$, i.e., from $2$ to $N_q$. The solution is then evidently given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pxt}
p_x(t)_{N_q} &= \prod_i\!^{'}\cos^2(J_{1i}(t)) \times {\nonumber}\\
&\qquad
\left\lbrace
p_d(t)\sum_{\substack{m_i\in\lbrace0,1\rbrace\\ \sum'_im_i\equiv\,0\,({\mathrm{mod}}\, 2)}} \prod_i\!^{'}(\tan^2(J_{1i}(t)))^{m_i}
+ (1-p_d(t))\sum_{\substack{m_i\in\lbrace0,1\rbrace\\ \sum'_im_i\equiv\,1\,({\mathrm{mod}}\, 2)}} \prod_i\!^{'}(\tan^2(J_{1i}(t)))^{m_i}
\right\rbrace\ .\end{aligned}$$
Evolution of a two-qubit density matrix coupled to the bath {#sec:entangling}
===========================================================
Consider two qubits $i$ and $j$ at locations ${\bf R}_i$ and ${\bf R}_j$, respectively, that are coupled to a bosonic bath. We assume them to be uncorrelated with the bath at $t=0$, $\rho(0)=\rho_{ij}\otimes\rho_B$. The evolution of the two-qubit density matrix can be found using Eqs. (\[eq:Phid\]) and (\[eq:U\]). We keep the technicalities in Appendix \[app:coupling\] and present here the final result for the state of the two-qubit density matrix after some time $t$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2qubitfinal}
\rho_{ij}(t) &= \left(\frac{1}{4}(1+e^{-4\Lambda(t)}\cosh(4C_{ij}(t))) +\frac{1}{2}e^{-2\Lambda(t)}\cos(2J_{ij}(t)) \right) \times \rho_{ij} {\nonumber}\\&\quad
+\left(\frac{1}{4}(1-e^{-4\Lambda(t)}\cosh(4C_{ij}(t))\right) \times ({\sigma^x}_i\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_i + {\sigma^x}_j\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_j) {\nonumber}\\&\quad
+\left(\frac{1}{4}(1+e^{-4\Lambda(t)}\cosh(4C_{ij}(t))) -\frac{1}{2}e^{-2\Lambda(t)}\cos(2J_{ij}(t)) \right) \times {\sigma^x}_i{\sigma^x}_j\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_i{\sigma^x}_j {\nonumber}\\&\quad
+\left(-\frac{i}{2}e^{-2\Lambda(t)}\sin(2J_{ij}(t))\right) \times \left({\sigma^x}_i{\sigma^x}_j\rho_{ij}-\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_i{\sigma^x}_j\right) {\nonumber}\\&\quad
+\left(\frac{1}{4}e^{-4\Lambda(t)}\sinh(4C_{ij}(t))\right) \times \left({\sigma^x}_i{\sigma^x}_j\rho_{ij}+\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_i{\sigma^x}_j-{\sigma^x}_i\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_j-{\sigma^x}_j\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_i\right)\ .\end{aligned}$$ Here, $J_{ij}(t)$ is as defined in [Eq. ]{}[eq:Jij]{} and $$\begin{aligned}
C_{ij}(t) = \langle X_i(t)X_j(t)\rangle = -\frac{\lambda^2}{N}\sum{_{\bf{k}}}|{\bf k}|^{2r}\cos\left({\bf k}({\bf R}_i-{\bf R}_j)\right)\coth(\beta{\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}/2)\frac{\sin^2({\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}t/2)}{({\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}/2)^2}\ .\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, we introduced the non-negative function $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda(t) = - C_{ii}(t) \geq 0\ .\end{aligned}$$ It characterizes the decoherence of each individual qubit due to its coupling to the bath and will be discussed in more detail in the next section.
Unlike the functions $J_{ij}(t)$, the functions $C_{ij}(t)$ depend on temperature. For $i\neq j$, they are in general hard to evaluate at finite temperature. At zero temperature, they have been calculated for 2D baths in Ref. [@Jouzdani2013]. In the rest of this work, we will follow Ref. [@Novais2013] and focus on a bath with $r=0$, $D=2$, corresponding to an Ohmic bath. For this case, the correlator $C_{ij}(t)$ evaluates *at zero temperature* to $$\begin{aligned}
C_{ij}(t) = -\frac{\lambda^2}{\pi v^2} \theta(vt-R)\text{arccosh}(vt/R)\ .\end{aligned}$$ As it turns out, however, the single-qubit error rate $p_x(t)$ depends only on the functions $\Lambda(t)$ and $J_{ij}(t)$, but not on $C_{ij}(t)$ for $i\neq j$. For example, one easily verifies that the partial trace $\rho_i(t)$ of [Eq. ]{}[eq:2qubitfinal]{} is independent of $C_{ij}(t)$ and, using [Eq. ]{}[eq:pd]{} below, that the probability for a ${\sigma^x}$-error agrees with [Eq. ]{}[eq:pxt]{} for $N_q=2$. This allows us in the following sections to evaluate $p_x(t)$ without knowing the functions $C_{ij}(t)$ for $i\neq j$.
Bath coupling as an entangling gate
-----------------------------------
Recently, the idea of perfoming entangling gates between two qubits by coupling them to an ordered ferromagnet (which can be seen as a “magnon bath”) and exploiting the mediated interaction has been studied in Ref. [@Trifunovic2013]. The availability of entangling gates between nearest-neighbor qubits is crucial for the circuit-based implementation of the surface code [@Dennis2002; @Wang2011; @Fowler2012a]. Using the above result, it is straightforward to evaluate the fidelity of such a gate. For concreteness, let us study the fidelity of maximally entangled two-qubit states (ebits) obtained using such a gate.
Consider the initial state $\rho_{ij}={|0\rangle\langle0|}_i\otimes{|0\rangle\langle0|}_j$ and the maximally entangled states ${|\psi^\pm\rangle}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}({|0\rangle}_i{|0\rangle}_j\pm i{|1\rangle}_i{|1\rangle}_j)$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle\psi^\pm|}\rho_{ij}(t){|\psi^\pm\rangle} = \frac{1}{4}(1+e^{-4\Lambda(t)}\cosh(4C_{ij}(t))) \mp\frac{1}{2}e^{-2\Lambda(t)}\sin(2J_{ij}(t))\ .\end{aligned}$$ At times for which $J_{ij}(t)$ is an odd multiple of $\pi/4$, we obtain ebits with fidelity $\frac{1}{4}(1+e^{-4\Lambda(t)}\cosh(4C_{ij}(t)))+\frac{1}{2}e^{-2\Lambda(t)}$. For nearby qubits, $C_{ij}(t)\simeq-\Lambda(t)$, such that the fidelity simplifies to $\frac{3}{8}+\frac{1}{8}e^{-8\Lambda(t)}+\frac{1}{2}e^{-2\Lambda(t)}$. High-fidelity ebits can thus only be obtained for times $t$ such that $\Lambda(t)\ll1$. The gate is only useful if $J_{ij}(t)$ reaches $\pi/4$ in such times.
Note that the magnon bath considered in Ref. [@Trifunovic2013] has a dispersion which is parabolic rather than linear, as assumed in this work. For a 2D Ohmic bath ($r=0$, $D=2$), the function $J_{ij}(t)$ can be calculated as described in Ref. [@Jouzdani2013 Appendix C] and evaluates to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Jijspec}
J_{ij}(t) =
\frac{\lambda^2}{2\pi^2v^2}\left(\theta(R-vt)\arcsin(vt/R) + \theta(vt-R)\frac{\pi}{2}\right)\ , \end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $R:=|{\bf R}_i-{\bf R}_j|$. Note that $J_{ij}(t)$ reaches a stationary value of $\frac{\lambda^2}{4\pi v^2}$ for times $t$ such that $vt>|{\bf R}_i-{\bf R}_j|$. Choosing $\lambda=\pi v$ thus produces ebits with fidelity $\simeq1-2\Lambda(t)$ for times such that $vt>|{\bf R}_i-{\bf R}_j|$. High-fidelity ebits are obtained in the time-interval for which $vt>|{\bf R}_i-{\bf R}_j|$ and $\Lambda(t)\ll1$, if this interval exists.
Baths in 3D behave very differently in this respect: for all values of $r=0,\pm\frac{1}{2}$, $J_{ij}(t)$ grows linearly with $t$ for $t>R/v$ in 3D (see Appendix \[sec:induced\]). Similarly, $J_{ij}(t)$ grows linearly with $t$ for large enough $t$, see Sec. \[sec:parabolic\]. In these cases, ebits can be obtained by maintaining the bath-coupling for a certain amount of time.
Maximal QEC cycle time for uncorrelated errors {#sec:uncorr}
==============================================
Let us now first consider the simple case where the noise on the different qubits is uncorrelated, which is relevant if the qubits are sufficiently far apart from each other such that each qubit effectively couples to its “private bath”. Note that for the noise to be uncorrelated, it is not enough to require that $J_{ij}(t)$ vanish for all $i$ and $j$. The decoherent part of the evolution, too, leads to correlations between the errors on different qubits, which can be quantified by correlators $\langle X_i(t)X_j(t)\ldots X_m(t)\rangle$. Uncorrelated noise requires that both $J_{ij}(t)\approx0$ and $C_{ij}(t)=\langle X_i(t)X_j(t)\rangle\approx0$ for all $i\neq j$. In this case, we simply have $p_x(t)=p_d(t)$ for each qubit.
Since $X_i(t)$ is linear in the creation/annihilation operators of the bath, we can apply Wick’s theorem to calculate thermal expectation values of products of the operators $X_i(t)$. I.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle X_i(t)^{2k}\right\rangle = \frac{(2k)!}{2^kk!}\left\langle X_i(t)^2\right\rangle^k\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $(2k-1)\times(2k-3)\times\ldots\times3\times1=\frac{(2k)!}{2^kk!}$ is the number of possible contractions. We thus find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pd}
p_d(t) &:= -\left\langle\sinh^2\left(X_i(t)\right)\right\rangle {\nonumber}\\
&= -\sum_{n,m=0}^\infty\frac{1}{(2n+1)!}\frac{1}{(2m+1)!}\left\langle X_i(t)^{2n+2m+2}\right\rangle {\nonumber}\\
&= -\sum_{n,m=0}^\infty\frac{1}{(2n+1)!}\frac{1}{(2m+1)!}\frac{(2n+2m+2)!}{2^{n+m+1}(n+m+1)!}\left\langle X_i(t)^2\right\rangle^{n+m+1} {\nonumber}\\
&= -\sum_{k=0}^\infty\left\langle X_i(t)^2\right\rangle^{k+1}\frac{(2k+2)!}{2^{k+1}(k+1)!}\times\underbrace{\sum_{n=0}^k\frac{1}{(2n+1)!}\frac{1}{(2k-2n+1)!}}_{2^{2k+1}/(2k+2)!} {\nonumber}\\
&= \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\exp\left\lbrace2\left\langle X_i(t)^2\right\rangle\right\rbrace\right) {\nonumber}\\
&= \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\exp\left\lbrace-2\Lambda(t)\right\rbrace\right)\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where we have defined $k=n+m$ and $\Lambda(t)=-\left\langle X_i(t)^2\right\rangle\geq0\,$.
Different baths are characterized by their spectral density function $$\begin{aligned}
J({\omega}) = \frac{\lambda^2}{N}\sum{_{\bf{k}}}|{\bf k}|^{2r}\delta({\omega}-{\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}) = \alpha{\omega}^s{\omega}_0^{1-s}e^{-{\omega}/{\omega}_c}\ .\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\alpha$ is a dimensionless bath strength, ${\omega}_0$ is a characteristic frequency of the bath, and ${\omega}_c$ is a high-frequency cut-off. A bath with $s<1$ is called sub-Ohmic, one with $s=1$ is called Ohmic, and one with $s>1$ is called super-Ohmic.
The function $\Lambda(t)$ depends only on the spectral density function of the bath and its temperature, namely we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:integral}
\Lambda(t) = \int_0^\infty{\mathrm{d}}{\omega}\, J({\omega})\coth\left(\beta{\omega}/2\right)\frac{\sin^2\left({\omega}t/2\right)}{({\omega}/2)^2}\ .\end{aligned}$$ We see that for $s\geq1$ a finite ${\omega}_c$ is necessary to ensure the convergence of [Eq. ]{}[eq:integral]{}. With a linear dispersion, ${\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}=v|{\bf k}|$, and a $D$-dimensional bath, we have $s=D+2r-1$.
For uncorrelated errors, surface code error correction breaks down if $p_x(t)>p_c=10.9\%$ [@Dennis2002]. Inverting [Eq. ]{}[eq:pd]{}, we thus find the maximal time $\tau$ of one error correction cycle from $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tauEq}
\Lambda(\tau) = \frac{1}{2}\log\frac{1}{1-2p_c} \simeq 0.123\ . \end{aligned}$$ This solves the problem up to evaluation of the integral in [Eq. ]{}[eq:integral]{} and inversion of [Eq. ]{}[eq:tauEq]{}.
Following Ref. [@Novais2013], we restrict in the main text to the case $D=2$ and $r=0$, corresponding to an Ohmic bath. The dimensionless bath strength parameter evaluates in this case to $\alpha=\frac{\lambda^2}{2\pi v^2}$. The functions $\Lambda(t)$ for the remaining combinations of $D=2,3$ and $r=0,\pm\frac{1}{2}$ are presented in Appendix \[sec:decoherence\].
For the integral in [Eq. ]{}[eq:integral]{}, we find with $s=1$ and $\beta{\omega}_c\gg1$, using $\coth(x)=1+2\sum_{n=1}^\infty e^{-2nx}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Lambda}
\Lambda(t) &= \int_0^\infty{\mathrm{d}}{\omega}\, \alpha{\omega}e^{-{\omega}/{\omega}_c}\coth\left(\beta{\omega}/2\right)\frac{\sin^2\left({\omega}t/2\right)}{({\omega}/2)^2} {\nonumber}\\
&= \int_0^\infty{\mathrm{d}}{\omega}\, \alpha{\omega}e^{-{\omega}/{\omega}_c}\frac{\sin^2\left({\omega}t/2\right)}{({\omega}/2)^2} + 2\sum_{n=1}^\infty\int_0^\infty{\mathrm{d}}{\omega}\, \alpha{\omega}e^{-{\omega}/{\omega}_c}e^{-2n\beta{\omega}/2}\frac{\sin^2\left({\omega}t/2\right)}{({\omega}/2)^2} {\nonumber}\\
&= \alpha\log\left[1+{\omega}_c^2t^2\right] + 2\alpha\sum_{n=1}^\infty\log\left[1+\frac{{\omega}_c^2t^2}{(1+n\beta{\omega}_c)^2}\right] {\nonumber}\\
&\simeq \alpha\log\left[1+{\omega}_c^2t^2\right] + 2\alpha\sum_{n=1}^\infty\log\left[1+\frac{t^2}{n^2\beta^2}\right] {\nonumber}\\
&= \alpha\log\left[1+{\omega}_c^2t^2\right] + 2\alpha\log\left[\frac{\beta}{\pi t}\sinh(\frac{\pi t}{\beta})\right]\ .\end{aligned}$$ Inserting this into [Eq. ]{}[eq:pd]{} yields $$\begin{aligned}
p_d(t)=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\left[(1+{\omega}_c^2t^2)\frac{\sinh^2(\pi t/\beta)}{(\pi t/\beta)^2}\right]^{-2\alpha}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ which for non-vanishing times ($t\gg\frac{1}{{\omega}_c}$) is well-approximated by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pdFinal}
p_d(t)=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\beta{\omega}_c}{\pi}\sinh(\frac{\pi t}{\beta})\right]^{-4\alpha}\ .\end{aligned}$$ Inverting $p_d(\tau)=p_c$ leads to our final solution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tauUncorr}
\tau = \frac{\beta}{\pi}\text{arcsinh}\left[\frac{\pi}{\beta{\omega}_c}(1-2p_c)^{-1/4\alpha}\right]\ .\end{aligned}$$
Surface code error correction for spatially correlated errors {#sec:errcorr}
=============================================================
The form of the evolution operator derived in [Eq. ]{}[eq:U]{} reveals that the state $\Phi_m\circ\Phi_d(\rho_q)$ contains correlations between the errors on arbitrary numbers of qubits. The coherent part of the evolution affects each pair $\lbrace i,j\rbrace$ of qubits by a two-qubit error with probability $\sin^2(J_{ij}(t))$, while any set $\lbrace1,2,\ldots,m\rbrace$ of $m$ qubits suffers an $m$-qubit error with probability $(-1)^{m}\left\langle\sinh^2(X_1(t))\ldots\sinh^2(X_m(t))\right\rangle$ due to the decoherent evolution. If the decoherent evolution were uncorrelated, this probability would be given by $(-1)^{m}\left\langle\sinh^2(X_1(t))\right\rangle\ldots\left\langle\sinh^2(X_m(t))\right\rangle$. The difference between the two terms implies the presence of correlations: if a qubit suffers an error, nearby qubits have a higher chance of also being affected by an error than one would expect from the single-qubit error rate [Eq. ]{}[eq:pxt]{} alone.
The threshold error rate of $p_c=10.9\%$ derived in Ref. [@Dennis2002] applies in the case of uncorrelated errors. The correlations mentioned above will change this value to an unknown threshold $\tilde{p}_c$. A recent work studied the effect of clusters of errors on surface code correction when the probability of a certain cluster size is exponentially or polynomially suppressed [@Fowler2014]. Thresholds were not studied in terms of the single-qubit error rate $p_x$ but in terms of an over-all probability $p$ for single-qubit errors and clusters of errors. If the probability of a large cluster decays sufficiently slowly, any $p>0$ will lead to $p_x{\rightarrow}\frac{1}{2}$ for large enough $L$. This makes a direct application of the results of Ref. [@Fowler2014] to our problem impossible.
In the following, we thus want to investigate how different kinds of spatial correlations between errors affect the threshold error rate for the single-qubit error rate $p_x$. The modified threshold error rate $\tilde{p}_c$ strongly depends on the type of correlations that are present between the errors.
Fig. \[fig:errorCorrelations\] summarizes our results. A worst case is given by ballistically propagating anyons, leaving a linear trail of errors behind. In this case, $\tilde{p}_c$ can be smaller than $p_c$ by an order of magnitude or more. To understand this, note that the task of error correction is to pair the anyons in a way that is homologically equivalent to the way they have been created. Error correction breaks down if choosing the right homology class becomes ambiguous. This is achieved with the smallest number of errors if the anyons in each pair propagate into opposite directions.
(0.65,0.5) (-0.15,0.32)[![Different kinds of spatial correlations between errors in the surface code and how they affect its threshold error rate.[]{data-label="fig:errorCorrelations"}](linearConfiguration.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"}]{} (0.15,0.32)[![Different kinds of spatial correlations between errors in the surface code and how they affect its threshold error rate.[]{data-label="fig:errorCorrelations"}](diffusiveConfiguration.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"}]{} (0.45,0.32)[![Different kinds of spatial correlations between errors in the surface code and how they affect its threshold error rate.[]{data-label="fig:errorCorrelations"}](indepConfiguration.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"}]{} (0.45,0.0)[![Different kinds of spatial correlations between errors in the surface code and how they affect its threshold error rate.[]{data-label="fig:errorCorrelations"}](clusterConfiguration.png "fig:"){width="15.00000%"}]{} (-0.20,0.24)[(1,0)[0.9]{}]{} (-0.09,0.28)[ballistic]{} (0.21,0.28)[diffusive]{} (0.49,0.28)[uncorrelated]{} (0.50,0.17)[clustered]{} (-0.05,0.22)[(0,1)[0.04]{}]{} (0.25,0.22)[(0,1)[0.04]{}]{} (0.55,0.22)[(0,1)[0.04]{}]{} (0.465,0.21)[$\underbrace{\qquad\qquad\qquad}$]{} (0.73,0.245)[threshold]{} (0.73,0.220)[error rate]{}
If anyons perform a diffusive random walk in the toric code, the modified threshold error rate $\tilde{p}_c$ can also be significantly smaller than $p_c$. This scenario is physically relevant if there is a non-trivial surface (or toric) code Hamiltonian that energetically penalizes the creation, but not the propagation of anyons. The error model of diffusive errors and its effect on error correction have been studied in this context in Refs. [@Chesi2010; @Hutter2012].
For both ballistic propagation and a diffusive random walk of anyons, there is a tendency for errors to form string-like patterns. By contrast, the correlations discussed at the beginning of this section favor a clustering of errors (i.e., it is more likely than in the uncorrelated case that errors are spatially close to each other) but there is no mechanism that favors string-like error configurations.
We do not expect clustering of errors to strongly harm the threshold error rate $p_c$. Most clusters of nearby errors do not form string-like patterns and thus do not help to bring pairs of anyons apart from each other and make a homologically correct pairing ambiguous. For a fixed single-qubit error rate $p_x$, the presence of regions with a high density of errors implies the presence of regions with a low density of errors. The latter help to avoid ambiguities.
In the following subsections we study the modified threshold error rate $\tilde{p}_c$ for different kinds of spatial correlations between surface code errors by use of Monte Carlo simulations. In agreement with our expectations, we find that clustering of errors leads to at most a mild decrease of the threshold error rate – and can even be beneficial in the strongly correlated regime.
We conclude that even in the presence of spatial correlations between errors *without a mechanism that prefers string-like arrangements* the modified threshold error rate $\tilde{p}_c$ does not differ drastically from $p_c$. Heuristically, we expect correlations between errors arising from coupling the code to the bath not to be of the string-like type. We will thus in the following section invert the equation $p_x(\tau)=\tilde{p}_c$ without knowing the exact value of $\tilde{p}_c$, and simply assume that it is of the same order of magnitude as $p_c$.
Ballistic propagation of anyons {#sec:ballistic}
-------------------------------
In the following subsections, we study the impact of correlated errors on the correctability of the surface code by use of Monte Carlo simulations. That is, we produce a large number of error configurations using a certain error model, and see whether we are able to find a pairing of the resulting anyon configuration that is homologically equivalent to the actual one. Finding such a paring is the task of a classical decoding algorithm. Only if unrealistic computing power is available can we hope to actually perform correction up to the theoretical threshold of $p_c=10.9\%$ (in the uncorrelated case). Therefore, an efficient approximate error correction algorithm is needed in practice. We will employ minimum-weight perfect matching (MWPM) [@Edmonds1965], which, for a graph with weighted edges and an even number of vertices provides the matching of minimal weight. Here, the vertices correspond to the anyons found as a result of the stabilizer measurements, and the weight of an edge connecting two anyons is simply given by the minimal number of qubits that have to suffer an error in order to create that pair from the anyonic vacuum (i.e., their Manhattan distance). We employ the library `Blossom V` [@Kolmogorov2009] to perform MWPM. Using MWPM for performing error correction in the surface code reduces the threshold error rate to $10.2\%$ [@Chesi2010; @Fowler2012b].
For our first “worst case” error model, we envision anyons that after creation start to ballistically propagate into a certain direction. More precisely, we specify the error model by two parameters $f$ and $l$. First, we draw a number $n$ at random from a Poisson distribution with mean $2fL^2$. Then, we perform $n$ times the following. Choose one of the $L^2$ anyon locations and an angle $\phi\in\left[0 , 2\pi\right)$ at random. (Recall that we consider one type of error only, so for a surface code of linear size $L$ with periodic boundary conditions, there are $L^2$ anyon locations of the relevant type.) Draw random numbers $l_h$ and $l_v$ from Poisson distributions with mean $l|\cos(\phi)|$ and $l|\sin(\phi)|$, respectively (the expectation value for $l_h+l_v$ is thus $\frac{4}{\pi}l$). Starting from the initial anyon location, apply $l_h$ errors horizontally and $l_v$ errors vertically, with the directions given by the sign of the trigonometric functions. After doing this $n$ times, perform error correction by means of MWPM.
For each value of $l$, there is a threshold value $f_c$ such that for $f<f_c$ the logical error rate decreases exponentially with $L$ and for $f>f_c$ the logical error rate approaches $\frac{1}{2}$. For each triple of $l$, $f$, and $L$, we generate a number $N$ of error configurations which is such that error correction fails $10^4$ times. The logical error rate can then be estimated as $10^4/N$. The threshold values $f_c$ are then determined for each value of $l$ by comparing the logical error rates for code sizes up to $L=60$. Finally, once we know the threshold value $f_c$ we can determine the threshold $\tilde{p}_c$ for the single-qubit error rate $p_x$ by determining the fraction of qubits that suffer an error for the given pair of $l$ and $f_c$. An even number of errors on the same qubit count as no error, and on odd number as one. If the errors are sufficiently sparse such that the probability of several errors happening on the same qubit is negligible, we have $p_x=\frac{4}{\pi}l\times 2fL^2/(2L^2)=\frac{4}{\pi}lf$, while otherwise it will be smaller.
The single-qubit threshold error rates $\tilde{p}_c$ as a function of $l$ are illustrated by the purple squares in Fig. \[fig:stringlike\]. While for $l=\frac{1}{2}$ the threshold is still comparable with the value of $10.2\%$ for the uncorrelated case, it decreases strongly as $l$ is increased.
![Single-qubit error rate $\tilde{p}_c$ for which error correction breaks down for two error models that lead to string-like error patterns: ballistic and diffusive propagation of anyons.[]{data-label="fig:stringlike"}](stringlike.png){width="60.00000%"}
Diffusive propagation of anyons
-------------------------------
In the case where anyons perform a random walk, the simulation works in much the same way as described in the previous subsection. For each initial anyon location, we draw a random number from a Poisson distribution with mean $l$, and then perform a random walk whose length is given by this number. The resulting thresholds are displayed by the blue circles in Fig. \[fig:stringlike\]. Threshold error values are, for a given value of $l$, significantly higher than in the ballistic case though significantly lower than in the uncorrelated case.
Clustered errors
----------------
Here, we study a family of error models that describe clustering of errors in the surface code. For $l\leq m^2$, we define the error model $m$-$l$-cluster as follows: from each square of $m\times m$ qubits in the surface code, pick $l$ qubits at random and apply an error to all of them with probability $f$. The resulting single-qubit error rate is $p_x\lesssim fl$. (Note that the same qubit can suffer several errors and an even number corresponds to no error at all, leading to $p_x<fl$.) The modified critical error rates $\tilde{p}_c$ are again determined as described in Sec. \[sec:ballistic\].
![Single-qubit error rate $\tilde{p}_c$ for which error correction breaks down in the $m$-$l$-cluster error models.[]{data-label="fig:cluster"}](clusterBreakdown.png){width="60.00000%"}
Fig. \[fig:cluster\] shows our results. If $l\ll m$, errors are essentially uncorrelated and the threshold values for $\tilde{p}_c$ are close to $10.2\%$, the threshold for MWPM-based error correction in the uncorrelated case. For $l\lesssim m$, $\tilde{p}_c$ falls slightly below $10\%$, though the decrease is not dramatic. This decrease is due to the possibility of forming string-like patterns of length $l$, which leads to a smaller number of errors being necessary for correction to become ambiguous. Finally, for $l>m$ the threshold increases significantly beyond $p_c$. Additional errors now make it easier to recognize the cluster and increase the probability that several errors together form a (partial) stabilizer operator and therefore do no harm to the code. For instance, in the $2$-$4$-cluster case the threshold error rate is as high as $\tilde{p}_c=29.0\%$, since half of all errors combine to a stabilizer operator. In reality, we do of course not expect the environment to apply exclusively $2\times2$ squares of errors, but to find ourselves in the regime where the clustering of errors leads to a slight reduction of the single-qubit threshold error rate.
Correlated two-qubit errors
---------------------------
Let us now study the case where there are correlations between errors on pairs of qubits only. Note that the coherent part of the evolution is able to produce such correlations only. The regime considered here is thus relevant if correlations between error events on more than two qubits due to the decoherent evolution are weak.
The study of correlated two-qubit errors is simplified by the fact that there is a clear worst-case, namely a two-qubit error on a pair of nearest-neighbor qubits. We assume that each qubit in the code suffers an error with probability $p_1$ and that, furthermore, each pair of nearest neighbors in the code suffers a pair of errors with probability $p_2$. We expect and have verified in numerical simulations (see below) that correlated errors on pairs of qubits which are not nearest neighbors have, for a fixed single-qubit error rate $p_x$, less of an effect on error correction than correlated errors on nearest neighbor qubits. Studying this particular case thus allows us to find the maximal impact of correlated two-qubit error events.
With the above parameters, and since each qubit in the code has four nearest neighbors, the single-qubit error rate $p_x$ can be calculated in analogy to [Eq. ]{}[eq:pxt]{} as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:px}
p_x &= p_1\sum_{k\text{ even}}\binom{4}{k}p_2^k(1-p_2)^{4-k} + (1-p_1)\sum_{k\text{ odd}}\binom{4}{k}p_2^k(1-p_2)^{4-k}{\nonumber}\\
&= \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}(1-2p_1)(1-2p_2)^4\ .\end{aligned}$$
We can make two estimates for where error correction will break down in the above model. First, we can simply assume that the correlations do neither help nor derogate the correctability of the code. In this case, the breakdown occurs for $p_x = p_c$ (or, with MWPM correction, for $p_x=10.2\%$), independently of $p_2$. A second estimate is of entropic nature. It is obtained by studying whether it is at all possible that the stabilizer measurements provide us with enough information to infer what errors have happened. Assume that there are $n$ qubits in the code. There are $2n$ pairs of nearest neighbors and $n/2$ plaquette stabilizers that can give us information about bit-flip errors. For large $n$, the total information contained in the noise can be compressed to $nh(p_1)+2nh(p_2)$ bits, where $h(p)=-p\log_2(p)-(1-p)\log_2(1-p)$ is the binary entropy function. On the other hand, the plaquette stabilizers give us at most $n/2$ bits of information. Error correction will thus break down if $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:entropicEstimate}
2h(p_1)+4h(p_2)=1\ .\end{aligned}$$ If we needed to know exactly which qubits have suffered a bit-flip, [Eq. ]{}[eq:entropicEstimate]{} would put a rigorous upper bound on the correctability of the surface code. However, we only need to know the error pattern *modulo application of stabilizer operators*. For this reason, [Eq. ]{}[eq:entropicEstimate]{} should rather be seen as an estimate of an upper bound. Such an entropic estimate predicts the unavoidable breakdown of surface code error correction to high accuracy for both uncorrelated bit-flip errors [@Dennis2002] (i.e., $2h(p_c)\simeq1$) and depolarizing noise [@Bombin2012]. Ref. [@Roethlisberger2012] shows that variations of the surface code tailored for stability against biased noise ($p_x\neq p_z$) give thresholds that fall only a few percents short of the ones suggested by such entropic arguments – even with error correction performed by an efficient approximate algorithm.
We will use two different algorithms for performing error correction for the above error model. Both of them are based on MWPM, but they differ in the weights they assign to the edges. The first one is the algorithm used in the previous subsections. It ignores correlations and assigns the Manhattan distance between two anyons to the edge connecting them. The second algorithm, described in more detail in Appendix \[app:algo\], uses a more sophisticated assignment of edge weights that allows it to take spatial correlations between the errors into account.
![Each qubit is independently subjected to an error with probability $p_1$. Furthermore, each pair of nearest-neighbor qubits is subjected to a a pair of errors with probability $p_2$. The blue lines correspond to a constant value of $p_x$, calculated according to [Eq. ]{}[eq:px]{}, while the red line shows the entropic bound [Eq. ]{}[eq:entropicEstimate]{}. Diamonds represent threshold error rates $(p_1,p_2)$ when error correction is performed with MWPM and correlations are ignored. Squares represent threshold error rates for an algorithm that takes correlations into account. Threshold error rates have been determined to accuracy $10^{-3}$, by comparing logical error rates for code sizes between $10$ and $50$ (periodic boundary conditions). For each combination of error rates and code sizes, the logical error rates were obtained from as many error configurations as were necessary to obtain $10^4$ logical errors.[]{data-label="fig:breakdown"}](ignoreNot.png){width="80.00000%"}
Fig. \[fig:breakdown\] compares the above estimates with the resulting combinations $(p_1,p_2)$ for which error correction breaks down in actual numerical simulations, when the two algorithms described above are used for performing error correction. If the Manhattan distance between two anyons is used as the edge weight and correlations between the errors are ignored, error correction breaks down for $p_x=10.2\%$ for $p_2{\rightarrow}0$, slightly below the value of $p_c$ for perfect error correction. In the maximally correlated regime, $p_1{\rightarrow}0$, error correction already breaks down for $p_x=9.6\%$ – a pretty insignificant decrease. We have obtained similar data to the one displayed in Fig. \[fig:breakdown\] for correlated errors that happen on pairs of qubits which are further away from each other than nearest neighbors. In this case, the deviations from the line $p_x=10.2\%$ are smaller. Already for pairs of qubits that are three lattice constants away from each other, the obtained threshold error rates are indistinguishable (to accuracy $10^{-3}$) from this line.
For the second, improved algorithm, error correction breaks down for $p_x=10.6\%$ in the uncorrelated case ($p_2{\rightarrow}0$), close to the theoretical value of $p_c$, and for $p_x=18.6\%$ in the maximally correlated case ($p_1{\rightarrow}0$). The threshold error rates $(p_1,p_2)$ approximately follow that of the two above estimates wich predicts the higher threshold value and significantly beat both estimates in some regimes. Beyond the red line in Fig. \[fig:breakdown\], it is information-theoretically impossible that we learn from the stabilizer measurements what errors have happened. That it is possible to error correct beyond that line shows that due to its degenerate nature (i.e., different error configurations can lead to the same syndrome) the surface code is able to take care of some of the entropy in the noise itself.
In conclusion, ignoring during error correction that pairs of qubits can be affected by correlated errors hardly affects the single-qubit threshold error rate of the surface code. If an algorithm takes these correlations into account, the single-qubit threshold error rate can be significantly boosted in the strongly correlated regime. Due to its degenerate nature, the surface code is able to correct in regimes where it is information-theoretically impossible that we learn what errors the code has suffered.
Maximal QEC cycle time for correlated errors {#sec:qectime}
============================================
Assuming that the form of spatial correlations between errors that will be present in $\Phi_m\circ\Phi_d(\rho_q)$ does not lead to a threshold error rate $\tilde{p}_c$ that differs drastically from $p_c$, the single-qubit error rate $p_x(t)$ in [Eq. ]{}[eq:pxt]{} contains already all the information we need in order to predict the maximal QEC period $\tau$. A great advantage of [Eq. ]{}[eq:pxt]{} is that it depends only on $p_d(t)$ and the coherent interaction strengths $J_{ij}(t)$, but not on the temperature-dependent correlators $C_{ij}(t)$ for $i\neq j$.
Our goal is thus to solve the equation $p_x(\tau)=\tilde{p}_c$ for $\tau$, where $p_x(t)$ is given by [Eq. ]{}[eq:pxt]{}. Since $\tilde{p}_c$ is an order of magnitude smaller than $1$, we can approximate $p_x(t)$ by its leading-oder contributions, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pxApprox}
p_x(t)\simeq p_d(t) + \sum_i\!^{'}\sin^2(J_{1i}(t))\ .\end{aligned}$$ We follow again Ref. [@Novais2013] and study an Ohmic bath ($r=0$, $D=2$). The function $J_{ij}(t)$ for this bath type has been provided in [Eq. ]{}[eq:Jijspec]{}. Note that $J_{ij}(t)$ decays inversely with distance outside of the light-cone. Therefore, the second summand in [Eq. ]{}[eq:pxApprox]{} diverges logarithmically with the code size $L$ at any non-zero time (up to constant prefactors of order $1$, we have $\sum_i\!^{'}\frac{1}{|{\bf R}_1-{\bf R}_i|^2}\sim\int_1^{L/2}\frac{1}{r^2}r{\mathrm{d}}r\sim\log(L)$). Correspondingly, the maximal QEC period vanishes in the thermodynamic limit (though it does so very slowly, see below). For all other combinations of $D=2,3$ and $r=0,\pm\frac{1}{2}$, $J_{ij}(t)$ decays stronger than $|{\bf R}_i-{\bf R}_j|^{-1}$ outside of the light-cone (see Appendix \[sec:induced\]). The maximal QEC period remains thus finite in the thermodynamic limit for all other bath types.
Setting the lattice constant of the surface code to unity and assuming a linear code size $L$, we can estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_i\!^{'}\sin^2(J_{1i}(t)) \simeq 2\pi\int_0^{L/2}{\mathrm{d}}R\,R\sin^2\left[\frac{\lambda^2}{2\pi^2v^2}\left(\theta(R-vt)\arcsin(vt/R) + \theta(vt-R)\frac{\pi}{2}\right)\right]\ .\end{aligned}$$ Since we are interested in times where this sum is (still) sufficiently smaller than $1$, in particular each summand has to be much smaller than $1$. Defining $m(t)=\min\lbrace L/2,vt\rbrace$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:mediatedError}
\sum_i\!^{'}\sin^2(J_{1i}(t)) &\simeq 2\pi\int_{m(t)}^{L/2}{\mathrm{d}}R\,\frac{1}{R}\left(\frac{\lambda^2t}{2\pi^2v}\right)^2 + 2\pi\int_0^{m(t)}{\mathrm{d}}R\,R\left(\frac{\lambda^2}{4\pi v^2}\right)^2 {\nonumber}\\
&=\frac{\lambda^4t^2}{2\pi^3v^2}\log(\frac{L/2}{m(t)}) + \frac{\lambda^4}{16\pi v^4}m^2(t)\ .\end{aligned}$$ Combining Eqs. (\[eq:pdFinal\]), (\[eq:pxApprox\]), and (\[eq:mediatedError\]) we conclude that for times $t$ which are small enough such that $p_x(t)\ll1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
p_x(t) \simeq \underbrace{\frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\beta{\omega}_c}{\pi}\sinh(\frac{\pi t}{\beta})\right]^{-2\lambda^2/\pi v^2}}_{A(t)} + \underbrace{\frac{\lambda^4t^2}{2\pi^3v^2}\log(\frac{L/2}{m(t)})}_{B(t)} + \underbrace{\frac{\lambda^4}{16\pi v^4}m^2(t)}_{C(t)}\ .\end{aligned}$$
We can recognize three different mechanisms contributing to the single-qubit error rate $p_x(t)$. Summand $A(t)$ describes errors due to each qubit coupling individually to the bath. Correspondingly, this term is independent of $L$. It is the only term that depends on temperature and the only term that contributes if the qubits do not interact via the bath. Summand $B(t)$ describes errors due to superluminal interactions between the qubits mediated by the bath. It diverges logarithmically with $L$ for short enough times but vanishes once all qubits are within their mutual light-cones. Finally, summand $C(t)$ describes errors due to subluminal interactions between the qubits. Once all qubits are within their mutual light-cones, this term reaches a time-independent constant which is proportional to the number of qubits in the code.
We have already studied the times $\tau_d$ which are necessary for summand $A(t)$ to reach critical levels ($A(\tau_d)\simeq p_c$) in Sec. \[sec:uncorr\]. The only question that remains is whether $B(t)$ or $C(t)$ reach critical levels before $A(t)$ and if so, on what time-scales. As shown in Fig. \[fig:times\], each of the three summands can be the dominant force leading to the breakdown of error correction. A higher temperature increases the weight of summand $A(t)$, while a larger code size increases the weight of summands $B(t)$ and $C(t)$.
(0.8,0.62) (-0.11,0.32)[![The three summands $A(t)$, $B(t)$, and $C(t)$ and their sum $p_x(t)$ compared with $p_c$ for code sizes $L=10^2$, $L=10^3$, and $L=10^4$. We have used paramters $v=1$, $\lambda=0.1$, $T=0.01$, and ${\omega}_c=30$. Note that the assumptions $\beta{\omega}_c\gg1$ and $\tau_d\gg1/{\omega}_c$ made during the derivation of $A(t)$ are well-satisfied.[]{data-label="fig:times"}](breakdown2.png "fig:"){width="51.00000%"}]{} (0.4,0.32)[![The three summands $A(t)$, $B(t)$, and $C(t)$ and their sum $p_x(t)$ compared with $p_c$ for code sizes $L=10^2$, $L=10^3$, and $L=10^4$. We have used paramters $v=1$, $\lambda=0.1$, $T=0.01$, and ${\omega}_c=30$. Note that the assumptions $\beta{\omega}_c\gg1$ and $\tau_d\gg1/{\omega}_c$ made during the derivation of $A(t)$ are well-satisfied.[]{data-label="fig:times"}](breakdown3.png "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}]{} (-0.1,-0.01)[![The three summands $A(t)$, $B(t)$, and $C(t)$ and their sum $p_x(t)$ compared with $p_c$ for code sizes $L=10^2$, $L=10^3$, and $L=10^4$. We have used paramters $v=1$, $\lambda=0.1$, $T=0.01$, and ${\omega}_c=30$. Note that the assumptions $\beta{\omega}_c\gg1$ and $\tau_d\gg1/{\omega}_c$ made during the derivation of $A(t)$ are well-satisfied.[]{data-label="fig:times"}](breakdown4.png "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}]{}
(0.24,0.42)[$L=10^2$]{} (0.74,0.42)[$L=10^3$]{} (0.24,0.095)[$L=10^4$]{}
(-0.04,0.605)[$p_c$]{} (0.00,0.595)[$p_x(t)$]{} (0.00,0.56)[$A(t)$]{} (-0.025,0.43)[$B(t)$]{} (0.00,0.495)[$C(t)$]{}
(0.61,0.545)[$p_c$]{} (0.515,0.60)[$p_x(t)$]{} (0.61,0.50)[$A(t)$]{} (0.60,0.47)[$B(t)$]{} (0.565,0.57)[$C(t)$]{}
(0.125,0.185)[$p_c$]{} (0.04,0.245)[$p_x(t)$]{} (0.13,0.150)[$A(t)$]{} (0.07,0.222)[$B(t)$]{} (0.09,0.20)[$C(t)$]{}
In order to find the maximal QEC period $\tau$, we make the simplifying assumption that the breakdown is due to the dominant mechanism alone, i.e., we approximate $p_x(t)\simeq\max\lbrace A(t),B(t),C(t)\rbrace$. Note that for times much smaller than $L/v$, we have $B(t)>C(t)$, while for times of order $L/v$ or larger, we have $B(t)<C(t)$. For times larger than $L/2v$, $C(t)$ reaches its maximal value $\frac{\lambda^4L^2}{64\pi v^4}$. Therefore, for $L>8\sqrt{\pi \tilde{p}_c}\frac{v^2}{\lambda^2}$ the term $C(t)$ will reach critical values ($\tilde{p}_c$) in a time $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tauSub}
\tau_{\text{sub}}=\frac{4\sqrt{\pi \tilde{p}_c}v}{\lambda^2}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ while otherwise it will never do so. Elementary calculus shows that the maximal value, which $B(t)$ can achieve while still being larger than $C(t)$, is $\frac{e^{-\pi^2/4}}{64\pi}\frac{\lambda^4}{v^4}L^2$, and that $B(t)$ is monotonically increasing until it reaches this value. Therefore, $B(t)$ reaches $\tilde{p}_c$ before $C(t)$ if and only if $L>8e^{\pi^2/8}\sqrt{\pi \tilde{p}_c}\frac{v^2}{\lambda^2}$. The (relevant) solution to $B(\tau_{\text{super}})=\tilde{p}_c$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tauSuper}
\tau_{\text{super}} = 2\pi\sqrt{\pi \tilde{p}_c}\frac{v}{\lambda^2} \left|W_{-1}(-16\pi^3\tilde{p}_cv^4/\lambda^4L^2)\right|^{-1/2}\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $W_{-1}$ is the lower branch of the Lambert $W$ function [@Lambert]. For $z{\rightarrow}0^{-}$, we have $W_{-1}(z)\simeq\log|z|$, showing that the available QEC time vanishes in the thermodynamic limit $L{\rightarrow}\infty$ like $\tau\sim1/\sqrt{\log(L)}$, that is, very slowly.
Summary of results {#sec:summary}
------------------
Let us summarize our results for a 2D Ohmic bath. There are three different mechanisms that contribute to the error rate on each qubit and hence put limits on the maximal QEC period $\tau$: the individual coupling of each qubit to the bath, superluminal interactions between the qubits mediated by the bath as well as subluminal ones.
The direct interaction of each qubit with the bath puts an upper bound $\tau_d$ on the maximal time for which error correction can suceed. This time is given by [Eq. ]{}[eq:tauUncorr]{}, for which we find a high- and a low-temperature value $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_d &= \frac{1}{\pi T}\text{arcsinh}\left[\frac{\pi T}{{\omega}_c}(1-2\tilde{p}_c)^{-\pi v^2/2\lambda^2}\right] {\nonumber}\\
&\simeq
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{{\omega}_c}\exp(cv^2/\lambda^2) &\text{if}\quad T<\frac{{\omega}_c}{\pi}\exp(-cv^2/\lambda^2) \\
\quad\\
\frac{1}{\pi T}\left(cv^2/\lambda^2 - \log\left[\frac{{\omega}_c}{2\pi T}\right]\right) &\text{if}\quad T>\frac{{\omega}_c}{\pi}\exp(-cv^2/\lambda^2)\ .
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $c=\frac{\pi}{2}\log\frac{1}{1-2\tilde{p}_c}$. Assuming $\tilde{p}_c\simeq p_c$, we find $c\simeq0.4$.
The interaction between the qubits mediated by the bath is a further source of errors, both due to subluminal and superluminal interactions. Errors due to mediated interactions can only reach critical values if the linear code size $L$ is large enough; if $L<8\sqrt{\pi \tilde{p}_c}\frac{v^2}{\lambda^2}$, neither the error strength due to sub- nor due to super-luminal interactions will ever reach $\tilde{p}_c$. For $8\sqrt{\pi \tilde{p}_c}\frac{v^2}{\lambda^2}<L<8e^{\pi^2/8}\sqrt{\pi \tilde{p}_c}\frac{v^2}{\lambda^2}$, errors due to sub-luminal interaction reach a critical strength in a time $\tau_{\text{sub}}\sim v/\lambda^2$. If errors due to superluminal interactions also reach criticality, they will do so on times larger than $\tau_{\text{sub}}$ for these values of $L$. Finally, if $L>8e^{\pi^2/8}\sqrt{\pi \tilde{p}_c}\frac{v^2}{\lambda^2}$, superluminally meadiated errors reach criticality before subluminal ones, and they do so in a time $\tau_{\text{super}}\sim v/\lambda^2\sqrt{\log L}$. This time vanishes very slowly in the thermodynamic limit. These results are summarized in the following table (assuming $\tilde{p}_c\simeq p_c$).
Code size Breakdown in a time Dominant mechanism
-------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------
$L<4.7\frac{v^2}{\lambda^2}$ $\tau_d$ direct bath coupling
$4.7\frac{v^2}{\lambda^2}<L<16.1\frac{v^2}{\lambda^2}$ $\min\lbrace\tau_d,\tau_{\text{sub}}\rbrace$ direct bath coupling or subluminal interactions
$L>16.1\frac{v^2}{\lambda^2}$ $\min\lbrace\tau_d,\tau_{\text{super}}\rbrace$ direct bath coupling or superluminal interactions
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
Quantum information is fragile and can only be maintained if the accumulation of entropy in the information-bearing degrees of freedom of a storage device can be suppressed – either by preventing entropy from entering or by removing it at a sufficient pace. Any possible measure to achive this can only succeed for certain classes of system-environment couplings. Correspondingly, a proposal that promises stability of quantum information is only as valuable as the error source against which it protects is realistic.
In this work, we have investigated how long the surface code is able to protect a quantum state against noise emerging from a physically relevant type of environment – a bath of freely propagating bosonic modes. We have seen that there are two very distince kinds of error mechanisms: the individual decoherence of each qubit, and induced interactions between the code qubits. Both mechanisms lead to spatial and temporal correlations between the errors happening in the code. However, we have shown that a tendency of errors to cluster without a tendency to form string-like configurations does not strongly derogate the correctability of the surface code – even when these correlations are ignored during error correction. We have managed to express the time before the error rates in the code reach critical values in terms of code size ($L$), accidental coupling strength ($\lambda$), mode velocity ($v$), and bath temperature ($T$) across a wide range of different parameter regimes. Two further parameters that determine the physical character of the qubits’ decoherence mechanism are the spatial dimension of the medium in which the modes propagate ($D$) and the nature of the coupling to the bath ($r$). We have focused our discussion on the specific combination ($D=2$, $r=0$) investigated in Ref. [@Novais2013], which corresponds to an Ohmic bath. This combination is of particular interest since it is the only one for which the maximal QEC time vanishes (very slowly) in the thermodynamic limit. For all other combinations of $D=2,3$ and $r=0,\pm\frac{1}{2}$, this time remains finite.
Following Refs. [@Novais2013; @Jouzdani2013], we have made several simplifying assumptions to make the actual problem analytically tractable. These are: a trivial Hamiltonian for the qubits; undamped and non-interacting bath modes; no residual bath correlations between different QEC periods; one type of errors only (bit-flips); immediate and flawless syndrome measurement and error correction (including no time cost for efficient classical computations). Relaxing these assumptions opens a wide field of additional challenges. For instance, fully fault-tolerant syndrome extraction and error correction are discussed in Ref. [@Wang2011; @Duclos2014]. A finite probability of syndrome measurement failure will lead to a lower value of $\tilde{p}_c$ and hence necessitate shorter QEC periods. Moreover, we have in this work been concerned exclusively with spatial and temporal correlations between errors in the surface code. If there are non-commuting error types on the same qubit (bit- and phase-flips), a further type of correlation in the noise emerges, namely correlations between different error types on the same qubit. Such correlations are present in the often-used error model of depolarizing noise. How they can be taken into account during error correction is studied in Refs. [@Duclos2009; @Wootton2012; @Hutter2013; @Fowler2013]. Finally, adding an energy splitting $-\frac{\Delta}{2}\tilde{\sum}_i{\sigma^z}_i$ for the code qubits would transform the problem into a many-spin generalization of the well-studied spin-boson problem. For a single spin-qubit coupled to an Ohmic bath, the spin-boson problem has been solved within the Born approximation in Ref. [@DiVincenzo2005]. However, the generalization of this problem to the many-qubit case may well be analytically intractable [@Terhal2005].
Acknowledgements
================
We would like to thank J. R. Wootton, P. Jouzdani, B. M. Terhal, and A. G. Fowler for helpful discussions. This work was supported by the Swiss NF, NCCR QSIT, and IARPA.
[99]{}
E. Dennis, A. Y. Kitaev, A. Landahl, and J. Preskill, J. Math. Phys. **43**, 4452 (2002).
R. Raussendorf and J. Harrington, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 190504 (2007).
A. G. Fowler, M. Mariantoni, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Phys. Rev. A **86**, 032324 (2012).
G. Duclos-Cicanci and D. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 050504 (2010).
D. S. Wang, A. G. Fowler, and L C. L. Hollenberg, Phys. Rev. A **84**, 020302(R) (2011).
A. G. Fowler, A. C. Whiteside, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 050504 (2012).
J. R. Wootton and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 160503 (2012).
A. Hutter, J. R. Wootton, and D. Loss, arXiv:1302.2669 (2013).
A. G. Fowler, arXiv:1310.0863 (2013).
G. Duclos-Cianci and D. Poulin, Quant. Inf. Comp. **14**, 0721 (2014).
E. Novais and E. R. Mucciolo, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 10502 (2013).
P. Jouzdani, E. Novais, and E. R. Mucciolo, Phys. Rev. A **88** 012336 (2013).
D. P. DiVincenzo and F. Solgun, arXiv:1205.1910 (2012).
S. Nigg and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 243604 (2013).
J. W. Harrington, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology (2004).
L. Trifunovic, F. L. Pedrocchi, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. X **3**, 041023 (2013).
H. Bombin, R. S. Andrist, M. Ohzeki, H. G. Katzgraber, and M. A. Martin-Delgado, Phys. Rev. X **2**, 021004 (2012).
B. Röthlisberger, J. R. Wootton, R. M. Heath, J. K. Pachos, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. A **85**, 022313 (2012).
J. Edmons, Can. J. Math. **17**, 449 (1965).
V. Kolmogorov, Math. Prog. Comp. **1**, 43 (2009).
A. G. Fowler and J. M. Martinis, arXiv:1401.2466 (2014).
S. Chesi, B. Röthlisberger, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. A **82**, 022305 (2010).
A. Hutter, J. R. Wootton, B. Röthlisberger, and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. A **86**, 052340 (2012).
The Lambert $W$ function by definition satisfies $z=W(z)e^{W(z)}$. For $-e^{-1}<z<0$, there are two solutions, giving rise to two branches $W_{-1}(z)$ and $W_0(z)$ with $W_{-1}(z)<W_0(z)<0$. The equation $a=x^2\log(\xi/x)$ with $a>0$ and $\xi>\sqrt{2ae}$ has the two solutions $x=\sqrt{2a}\left|W_k(-2a/\xi^2)\right|^{-1/2}$, with $k=-1,0$. Since we are interested in the smaller of the two solutions, we choose the $k=-1$ branch and obtain [Eq. ]{}[eq:tauSuper]{}.
D. P. DiVincenzo and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B **71**, 035318 (2005).
B. M. Terhal and G. Burkard, Phys. Rev. A **71**, 012336 (2005).
Different bath types {#app:different}
====================
Induced interactions {#sec:induced}
--------------------
### Linear dispersion
The bath-induced pairwise interaction between code qubits is described by the function $$\begin{aligned}
J_{ij}(t) = 2\lambda^2\int{\mathrm{d}}{\bf k}\,e^{-v|{\bf k}|/{\omega}_c}\frac{|{\bf k}|^{2r}}{{\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}^2}\cos\left({\bf k}({\bf R}_i-{\bf R}_j)\right)\left(\sin({\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}t)-{\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}t\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced a cut-off factor $e^{-v|{\bf k}|/{\omega}_c}$ into the expression given in [Eq. ]{}[eq:Jij]{}. The cut-off factor is only necessary in the case (3D, $r=\frac{1}{2}$), while in all other cases we can let ${\omega}_c{\rightarrow}\infty$. In 2D, the functions $J_{ij}(t)$ can be calculated as described in Ref. [@Jouzdani2013 Appendix C]. With ${\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}=v|{\bf k}|$ and $R:=|{\bf R}_i-{\bf R}_j|$, the results are $$\begin{aligned}
J_{ij}(t) =
\begin{cases}
\frac{\lambda^2}{2\pi^2v^2}\theta(vt-R)\left(\sqrt{v^2t^2-R^2}-vt\log(\frac{vt+\sqrt{v^2t^2-R^2}}{R})\right) &\text{for }r=-\frac{1}{2} \\
\frac{\lambda^2}{2\pi^2v^2}\left(\theta(R-vt)\arcsin(vt/R) + \theta(vt-R)\frac{\pi}{2}\right) &\text{for }r=0 \\
\frac{\lambda^2}{2\pi^2v^2}\frac{\theta(vt-R)}{\sqrt{v^2t^2-R^2}} &\text{for }r=\frac{1}{2}\,,
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ while in 3D, we find $$\begin{aligned}
J_{ij}(t) =
\begin{cases}
-\frac{\lambda^2}{2\pi Rv^2}(vt-R)\theta(vt-R) &\text{for }r=-\frac{1}{2} \\
\frac{\lambda^2}{2\pi^2Rv^2}\left(\log\left|\frac{R+vt}{R-vt}\right|-\frac{2vt}{R}\right) &\text{for }r=0 \\
\frac{2\lambda^2}{\pi^2R^4v{\omega}_c}\frac{2R^2-v^2t^2}{(R^2-v^2t^2)^2}v^3t^3 &\text{for }r=\frac{1}{2}\,.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
Note that in three cases the interaction vanishes exactly outside of the light-cone. The combination (2D, $r=0$) considered in the main text shows the longest-range superluminal interactions. It is the only one for which the sum $\sum_i\!^{'}\sin^2(J_{1i}(t))$ in [Eq. ]{}[eq:pxApprox]{} diverges for any non-zero time in the thermodynamic limit. Correspondingly, it is the only one for which the maxmial QEC period (theoretically) vanishes in this limit.
### Ordered ferromagnet: parabolic dispersion {#sec:parabolic}
Recently, the idea of performing entangling gates between qubits by coupling them to an ordered Heisenberg ferromagnet has attracted interest [@Trifunovic2013]. An ordered Heisenberg ferromagnet can be seen as a 3D magnon bath (${\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}=D{\bf k}^2$). If we couple to a spin component which is orthogonal to the ordering, we obtain a coupling of type $r=0$. The ferrogmanet thus acts as a sub-Ohmic bath ($s=\frac{1}{2}$). Then, $$\begin{aligned}
J_{ij}(t) = \frac{\lambda^2}{4\pi^2D^2R}\left[-2\pi Dt -\pi(R^2-2Dt)C\left(\frac{R}{\sqrt{2\pi Dt}}\right) +\pi(R^2+2Dt)S\left(\frac{R}{\sqrt{2\pi Dt}}\right) + \sqrt{2\pi Dt}R(\cos(\frac{R^2}{4Dt})+\sin(\frac{R^2}{4Dt}))\right]\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $C(x)=\int_0^x\cos(t^2){\mathrm{d}}t$ and $S(x)=\int_0^x\sin(t^2){\mathrm{d}}t$ are the Fresnel-integrals. For times such that $R\ll\sqrt{Dt}$, the first summand in the bracket dominates and we find $$\begin{aligned}
J_{ij}(t) = -\frac{\lambda^2t}{2\pi DR}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Decoherence {#sec:decoherence}
-----------
We have shown in Sec. \[sec:uncorr\] that the probability of an error due to the coupling of a qubit to the bath is given by $$\begin{aligned}
p_d(t) = \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\exp\left\lbrace-2\Lambda(t)\right\rbrace\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the function $\Lambda(t)$ is given in [Eq. ]{}[eq:integral]{}. It depends only on the spectral function $J({\omega})=\alpha{\omega}^s{\omega}_0^{1-s}e^{-{\omega}/{\omega}_c}$ of the bath and its temperature. The cases $s=0,1,2,3$ are relevant for the kinds of couplings to a bath with linear dispersion in 2D or 3D considered in the main part of this work. The case $s=\frac{1}{2}$ is relevant for an ordered Heisenberg ferromagnet (see previous subsection).
For those values of $s$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Lambdas}
\Lambda(t) =
\begin{cases}
\alpha\pi\omega_0t & {\mathrm{if}}\quad s=0 \quad{\mathrm{and}}\quad\beta{\rightarrow}\infty \\
2\alpha\sqrt{2\pi{\omega}_0t}+2\alpha\sqrt{\frac{\beta{\omega}_0}{\pi}}\left(4\pi{\mathrm{Re}}\,\zeta(-\frac{1}{2},1+\frac{it}{\beta})+\zeta(\frac{3}{2})\right) & {\mathrm{if}}\quad s=\frac{1}{2} \quad{\mathrm{and}}\quad \beta{\omega}_c\gg1 \\
\alpha\log(1+{\omega}_c^2t^2)+2\alpha\log\left(\frac{\beta}{\pi t}\sinh(\frac{\pi t}{\beta})\right) & {\mathrm{if}}\quad s=1 \quad{\mathrm{and}}\quad \beta{\omega}_c\gg1 \\
\frac{\alpha}{{\omega}_0}\left(-\frac{2{\omega}_c^2t^2}{1+{\omega}_c^2t^2}-\frac{4}{\beta}\psi(\frac{1}{\beta{\omega}_c})+\frac{4}{\beta}{\mathrm{Re}}\,\psi(\frac{1+i{\omega}_ct}{\beta{\omega}_c})\right) & {\mathrm{if}}\quad s=2 \\
\frac{\alpha}{{\omega}_0^2}\left(-\frac{2{\omega}_c^4t^2(3+{\omega}_c^2t^2)}{(1+{\omega}_c^2t^2)^2}+\frac{4}{\beta^2}\psi'(\frac{1}{\beta{\omega}_c})-\frac{4}{\beta^2}{\mathrm{Re}}\,\psi'(\frac{1+i{\omega}_ct}{\beta{\omega}_c})\right) & {\mathrm{if}}\quad s=3\ .
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\zeta(-\frac{1}{2},z)$ denotes a Hurwitz zeta function and $\psi(z)$ is the digamma function. The case $s=0$ requires at finite temperature an infrared cut-off for convergence. The result for $s=1$ has been derived in [Eq. ]{}[eq:Lambda]{}, the result for $s=\frac{1}{2}$ can be derived in a very analogous way. Note that a well-defined ${\omega}_c{\rightarrow}\infty$ limit exists only for sub-Ohmic baths.
The expressions in [Eq. ]{}[eq:Lambdas]{} (for $s>0$) are displayed for a specific set of parameters $\alpha$, ${\omega}_0$, ${\omega}_c$, and $\beta$ in Fig. \[fig:lambdas\] and compared to the critical value of $\Lambda(t)$ in the case of uncorrelated errors given in [Eq. ]{}[eq:tauEq]{}. We see that for super-Ohmic baths this critical value is reached distinctively earlier than for Ohmic and sub-Ohmic baths.
(1.0,0.5) (0.0,0.0)[![\[fig:lambdas\] The bold lines show the functions $\Lambda(t)$ given in [Eq. ]{}[eq:Lambdas]{}. We have used parameters $\alpha=0.01$, ${\omega}_c/{\omega}_0=30$, and $\beta{\omega}_0=10$. The dashed line shows the critical value $\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{1}{1-2p_c} \simeq 0.123$, when error correction breaks down in the uncorrelated case.](lambdas.png "fig:"){width="80.00000%"}]{} (0.39,0.34)[$s=\frac{1}{2}$]{} (0.39,0.25)[$s=1$]{} (0.39,0.405)[$s=2$]{} (0.39,0.49)[$s=3$]{}
An algorithm that is able to take correlations between errors on nearest neighbors into account {#app:algo}
===============================================================================================
We assume again a single-qubit error rate $p_1$ and a rate of two-qubit errors on nearest neighbors $p_2$. To an edge connecting anyons $i$ and $j$, we want to assign a weight $-\log(p_{ij})$, where $p_{ij}$ is the sum of the probabilities of all error chains connecting anyons $i$ and $j$. The minimal-weight error chain is then the most likely one. Taking the negative logarithm ensures that the weights are additive for independent error chains. More precisely, we will not consider the absolute probabilities but the probabilities relative to no errors happening. This leads to a constant shift of all weights, which is irrelevant since the number of edges involved in each matching is identical.
Using the Manhattan distance of the anyons as the weight, as we did for the algorithm that ignores correlations between errors, corresponds to approximating $p_{ij}$ by the probability of the most likely single-qubit error path connecting anyons $i$ and $j$, without taking the degeneracy of this probability into account. While calculating $p_{ij}$ exactly is unfeasible, the algorithm presented here is based on a better approximation of $p_{ij}$, which, in particular, takes the possibility of two-qubit errors into account. We will restrict to those error chains which probabilistically dominate for either $p_1\gg p_2$ or $p_1\ll p_2$.
Assume that anyons $i$ and $j$ have horizontal distance $a$ and vertical distance $b$, or *vice versa*, with $a\leq b$. Below, we list all contributions to $p_{ij}$ which we consider. The probability-independent prefactors are the number of possible paths of the respective type. We denote with $m_1$ the number of one-qubit events and with $m_2$ the number of two-qubit events in an error path. We consider all error paths contributing to $p_{ij}$ for which $m_1\leq1$ or $m_2\leq1$, and which are such that there is no error path with error numbers $m_1'$ and $m_2'$ connecting anyons $i$ and $j$ such that $m_1'\leq m_1$, $m_2'\leq m_2$, and $m_1'+m_2'<m_1+m_2$.
Condition Type Contribution to $p_{ij}$
------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$m_2=0$ $\binom{a+b}{a}\left(\frac{p_1}{1-p_1}\right)^{a+b}$
$a + b \equiv 0\,\,\, ({\mathrm{mod}}\,\,2)$ $m_1=0$ $\binom{b}{(b-a)/2} \left(\frac{p_2}{1-p_2}\right)^b$
$a + b \equiv 1\,\,\, ({\mathrm{mod}}\,\,2) \land a+b\geq3$ $m_1=1 \land m_2\geq1$ $\frac{a+b+1}{2}\binom{b}{(b-a-1)/2}\frac{p_1}{1-p_1}\left(\frac{p_2}{1-p_2}\right)^{b-1}$
$a\geq1 \land a+b\geq4$ $m_1\geq2 \land m_2=1$ $(a+b-1)\binom{a+b-2}{a-1}\left(\frac{p_1}{1-p_1}\right)^{a+b-2}\frac{p_2}{1-p_2}$
Exact evolution of two-qubit density matrix {#app:coupling}
===========================================
Let us assume that only two qubits, $i$ and $j$, couple to the bath and let us study their joint evolution, which according to Eqs. (\[eq:Phid\]) and (\[eq:U\]), is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{ij}(t) = \exp\left\lbrace-iJ_{ij}(t){\sigma^x}_i\otimes{\sigma^x}_j\right\rbrace {\mathcal{E}}_t(\rho_{ij}) \exp\left\lbrace+iJ_{ij}(t){\sigma^x}_i\otimes{\sigma^x}_j\right\rbrace\ .\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rhoij}
{\mathcal{E}}_t(\rho_q) &= {\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits}_B\left\lbrace e^{{\sigma^x}_i\otimes X_i(t)}e^{{\sigma^x}_j\otimes X_j(t)}(\rho_{ij}\otimes\rho_B)e^{-{\sigma^x}_i\otimes X_i(t)}e^{-{\sigma^x}_j\otimes X_j(t)} \right\rbrace {\nonumber}\\
&=
\rho_{ij}\times\left\langle\cosh^2(X_i(t))\cosh^2(X_j(t))\right\rangle
-{\sigma^x}_i\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_i\times\left\langle\sinh^2(X_i(t))\cosh^2(X_j(t))\right\rangle {\nonumber}\\&\quad
-{\sigma^x}_j\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_j\times\left\langle\cosh^2(X_i(t))\sinh^2(X_j(t))\right\rangle
+{\sigma^x}_i{\sigma^x}_j\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_i{\sigma^x}_j\times\left\langle\sinh^2(X_i(t))\sinh^2(X_j(t))\right\rangle {\nonumber}\\&\quad
+\left({\sigma^x}_i{\sigma^x}_j\rho_{ij}+\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_i{\sigma^x}_j-{\sigma^x}_i\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_j-{\sigma^x}_j\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_i\right) \times \left\langle\cosh(X_i(t))\sinh(X_i(t))\cosh(X_j(t))\sinh(X_j(t))\right\rangle\ .\end{aligned}$$
Our goal is to express all appearing expectation values in terms of the correlators $$\begin{aligned}
C_{ij}(t) = \langle X_i(t)X_j(t)\rangle = -\frac{\lambda^2}{N}\sum{_{\bf{k}}}|{\bf k}|^{2r}\cos\left({\bf k}({\bf R}_i-{\bf R}_j)\right)\coth(\beta{\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}/2)\frac{\sin^2({\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}t/2)}{({\omega}{_{\bf{k}}}/2)^2}\ .\end{aligned}$$ The fuctions $\Lambda(t)=-C_{ii}(t)$ are discussed in detail in Sec. \[sec:uncorr\].
Recall that $\sinh^2(x)=\frac{1}{2}(\cosh(2x)-1)$ and $\cosh^2(x)=\frac{1}{2}(\cosh(2x)+1)$. The first four expectation values (those corresponding to diagonal terms) can thus be reduced to $\langle\cosh(2X_i(t))\rangle$ and $\langle\cosh(2X_i(t))\cosh(2X_j(t))\rangle$. We already know that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\cosh(2X_i(t))\rangle = 2\langle\sinh^2(X_i(t))\rangle + 1 = \exp\lbrace-2\Lambda(t)\rbrace\end{aligned}$$ (see [Eq. ]{}[eq:pd]{}). Let us thus calculate $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\cosh(2X_i(t))\cosh(2X_j(t))\rangle &= \sum_{m,n=0}^\infty\frac{2^{2m+2n}}{(2m)!(2n)!}\langle X_i(t)^{2m}X_j(t)^{2n}\rangle {\nonumber}\\
&= \sum_{m,n=0}^\infty\sum_{k}^{\min(m,n)}\frac{2^{2m+2n}}{(2m)!(2n)!}\binom{2m}{2k}(2k)!\binom{2n}{2k}\langle X_i(t)^{2m-2k}\rangle\langle X_i(t)X_j(t)\rangle^{2k}\langle X_j(t)^{2n-2k}\rangle {\nonumber}\\
&= \sum_{m,n=0}^\infty\sum_{k}^{\min(m,n)}(-1)^{m+n}\frac{2^{2m+2n}}{(2m)!(2n)!}\binom{2m}{2k}(2k)!\binom{2n}{2k}\frac{(2m-2k)!}{2^{m-k}(m-k)!}\frac{(2n-2k)!}{2^{n-k}(n-k)!} {\nonumber}\\&\quad\times \Lambda(t)^{m+n-2k}C_{ij}(t)^{2k} {\nonumber}\\
&= \sum_{m,n=0}^\infty\sum_{k}^{\min(m,n)} \frac{(-2)^{m+n+2k}\Lambda(t)^{m+n-2k}C_{ij}(t)^{2k}}{(m-k)!(n-k)!(2k)!} \ .
\end{aligned}$$ To simplify this expression, we define $u:=m-k$ and $v:=n-k$. Then, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\cosh(2X_i(t))\cosh(2X_j(t))\rangle &=
\sum_{u,v,k=0}^\infty \frac{(-2)^{u+v+4k}\Lambda(t)^{u+v}C_{ij}(t)^{2k}}{u!v!(2k)!} {\nonumber}\\
&= e^{-4\Lambda(t)} \cosh(4C_{ij}(t))\ .\end{aligned}$$ We conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle\cosh^2(X_i(t))\cosh^2(X_j(t))\right\rangle &= \frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{2}e^{-2\Lambda(t)}+\frac{1}{4}e^{-4\Lambda(t)}\cosh(4C_{ij}(t))\ , {\nonumber}\\
\left\langle\sinh^2(X_i(t))\cosh^2(X_j(t))\right\rangle &= \left\langle\cosh^2(X_i(t))\sinh^2(X_j(t))\right\rangle = \frac{1}{4}e^{-4\Lambda(t)}\cosh(4C_{ij}(t))-\frac{1}{4}\ ,\text{ and} {\nonumber}\\
\left\langle\cosh^2(X_i(t))\sinh^2(X_j(t))\right\rangle &= \frac{1}{4}-\frac{1}{2}e^{-2\Lambda(t)}+\frac{1}{4}e^{-4\Lambda(t)}\cosh(4C_{ij}(t))\ .\end{aligned}$$ Let us now also calculate the remaining expectation value in [Eq. ]{}[eq:rhoij]{}. We find $$\begin{aligned}
&\left\langle\cosh(X_i(t))\sinh(X_i(t))\cosh(X_j(t))\sinh(X_j(t))\right\rangle {\nonumber}\\
&\quad= \frac{1}{4} \left\langle\sinh(2X_i(t))\sinh(2X_j(t))\right\rangle {\nonumber}\\
&\quad= \frac{1}{4} \sum_{m,n=0}^\infty \frac{2^{2m+1}}{(2m+1)!}\frac{2^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!} \left\langle X_i(t)^{2m+1}X_j(t)^{2n+1}\right\rangle {\nonumber}\\
&\quad= \frac{1}{4} \sum_{m,n=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^{\min(m,n)} \frac{2^{2m+1}}{(2m+1)!}\frac{2^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!} \binom{2m+1}{2k+1}(2k+1)!\binom{2n+1}{2k+1}
\left\langle X_i(t)^{2m-2k}\right\rangle\left\langle X_i(t)X_l(t)\right\rangle^{2k+1}\left\langle X_j(t)^{2n-2k}\right\rangle {\nonumber}\\
&\quad= \frac{1}{4} \sum_{m,n=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^{\min(m,n)} (-1)^{m+n} \frac{2^{2m+1}}{(2m+1)!}\frac{2^{2n+1}}{(2n+1)!} \binom{2m+1}{2k+1}(2k+1)!\binom{2n+1}{2k+1}
\frac{(2m-2k)!}{2^{m-k}(m-k)!}\frac{(2n-2k)!}{2^{n-k}(n-k)!} {\nonumber}\\&\qquad\times \Lambda(t)^{m+n-2k}C_{ij}(t)^{2k+1} {\nonumber}\\
&\quad= \sum_{m,n=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^{\min(m,n)}\frac{(-2)^{m+n+2k}}{(m-k)!(n-k)!(2k+1)!} \Lambda(t)^{m+n-2k}C_{ij}(t)^{2k+1} {\nonumber}\\
&\quad= \sum_{u,v,k=0}^\infty\frac{(-2)^{u+v+4k}}{u!v!(2k+1)!} \Lambda(t)^{u+v}C_{ij}(t)^{2k+1} {\nonumber}\\
&\quad= \frac{1}{4}e^{-4\Lambda(t)}\sinh(4C_{ij}(t))\ .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{ij}(t) &= \exp\left\lbrace -iJ_{ij}(t){\sigma^x}_i\otimes{\sigma^x}_j\right\rbrace \left[
\left(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{2}e^{-2\Lambda(t)}+\frac{1}{4}e^{-4\Lambda(t)}\cosh(4C_{ij}(t))\right) \times \rho_{ij} \right. {\nonumber}\\&\quad
+\left(\frac{1}{4}-\frac{1}{4}e^{-4\Lambda(t)}\cosh(4C_{ij}(t))\right) \times ({\sigma^x}_i\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_i + {\sigma^x}_j\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_j) {\nonumber}\\&\quad
+\left(\frac{1}{4}-\frac{1}{2}e^{-2\Lambda(t)}+\frac{1}{4}e^{-4\Lambda(t)}\cosh(4C_{ij}(t))\right) \times {\sigma^x}_i{\sigma^x}_j\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_i{\sigma^x}_j {\nonumber}\\&\quad
\left. +\frac{1}{4}e^{-4\Lambda(t)}\sinh(4C_{ij}(t)) \times \left({\sigma^x}_i{\sigma^x}_j\rho_{ij}+\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_i{\sigma^x}_j-{\sigma^x}_i\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_j-{\sigma^x}_j\rho_{ij}{\sigma^x}_i\right) \right] \exp\left\lbrace +iJ_{ij}(t){\sigma^x}_i\otimes{\sigma^x}_j\right\rbrace\ .\end{aligned}$$ Using now $\exp\left\lbrace \pm iJ_{ij}(t){\sigma^x}_i\otimes{\sigma^x}_j\right\rbrace = \cos(J_{ij}(t))\pm i\sin(J_{ij}(t)){\sigma^x}_i\otimes{\sigma^x}_j$, we arrive at [Eq. ]{}[eq:2qubitfinal]{}.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this letter it is shown that the Hořava-Lifshitz gravity theory admits Lorentz symmetry preserving preferred global time foliation of the spacetime.'
author:
- 'J. Rembieliński'
title: 'Hidden Lorentz symmetry of the Hořava - Lifshitz gravity'
---
The possibility that gravity may exhibit a preferred foliation at its most fundamental level has attracted a lot of attention recently, mainly due to the Hořava’s papers [@raz; @2; @3] devoted to gravity models characterized by certain specific anisotropic scaling between space and time. The leading idea of the Hořava approach to the quantization of gravity is to achieve power-counting renormalizability by modifying the graviton propagator. This is obtained by adding to the action terms containing higher order spatial derivatives of the metric which, in turn, naturally leads to the preferred co-dimension – one foliation $\mathcal{F}$ of space-time manifold $\mathcal{M}$ topologically equivalent [@raz; @2; @3] to $R^1\times \Sigma$. The resulting theory, known as the Hořava-Lifshitz (HL) gravity, is then invariant under a group of diffeomorphisms $\mathcal{D}iff(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{M})$ preserving this foliation $$\label{1}
\tilde{t}=\tilde{t}(t),\quad \tilde{x}^i=\tilde{x}^i(t,x^i)$$ where $i=1,2,...,D$. The above mentioned anisotropic scaling characterizing HL gravity is of the form $$\label{2}
t\longrightarrow b^zt,\quad \boldsymbol{x}\longrightarrow b\boldsymbol{x}.$$ Thus the (momentum) dimension $[t]=-z$, $[x^i]=-1$, so the light velocity $c$ has the dimension $[c]=z-1$. When $z$ equals the number of spatial dimensions $D$ the theory becomes power-counting renormalizable provided all terms allowed are compatible with the gauge symmetries in the action.
The HL theory is naturally described by the ADM decomposition [@4] of the relativistic metric, namely by the lapse function $N$ $([N]=0)$, the shift vector $N^i$ $([N^i]=[N_i]=z-1)$ and the metrics $\gamma_{ij}$ $([\gamma_{ij}]=0)$ on the spacial slices $\Sigma$. In the HL gravity the lapse $N=N(t)$ is only a function of time $t$ which is constant along $\Sigma$ whereas the shift vector $N^i$ depends on the spacetime point $(t,\boldsymbol{x})$. In terms of the ADM variables the metrics can be written as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{2a}
{\,\mathrm{d}}s^2=g_{\mu\nu}{\,\mathrm{d}}x^{\mu}{\,\mathrm{d}}x^{\nu}\\=-c^2N^2{\,\mathrm{d}}t^2+\gamma_{ij}({\,\mathrm{d}}x^i+N^i{\,\mathrm{d}}t)({\,\mathrm{d}}x^j+N^j{\,\mathrm{d}}t)\end{gathered}$$ The HL action, respecting the symmetries $\mathcal{D}iff(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{M})$ is [@raz; @2; @3] $$\label{3}
S=\frac{2}{\kappa^2}\int {\,\mathrm{d}}t{\,\mathrm{d}}^D \boldsymbol{x}\sqrt{\gamma}N\left[\left(K_{ij}K^{ij}-\lambda K^2\right)-V\right],$$ where $K=K_{\,\,i}^{i}$, $\lambda$ is a dimensionless coupling constant and $$\label{4}
K_{ij}=\frac{1}{2N}(\partial_t\gamma_{ij}-\nabla_iN_j-\nabla_jN_i)$$ is the extrinsic curvature of the leaves hypersurface $\Sigma$. A scalar potential function $V$ is built out of the spatial metrics, the spatial Riemann tensor and its covariant spatial derivatives but is independent of the time derivatives of fields. For a review and extensions of the Hořava’s approach see [@5; @6; @7; @8]. In the following we restrict ourselves to the physically important $z=D=3$ case.
One of the problems of the Hořava-Lifshitz gravity is that this theory does not exhibit Lorentz symmetry. A proposed way out of this situation is an appropriate preparation of the potential to restore dynamically local Lorentz invariance in the low-energy limit [@raz; @2; @3]. However, for each finite energy scale the Lorentz symmetry is in fact broken. In this letter we suggest a way to overcome the difficulty with the Lorentz symmetry in the Hořava-Lifshitz gravity in a physically acceptable way. To do this let us consider a coordinate independent solution to the model defined by the action (\[3\]) where the potential $V$ is chosen as in Ref. [@raz] with the cosmological constant equal to zero. Namely, let us choose the shift vector $\boldsymbol{N}$ as $$\label{5}
\boldsymbol{N}=\frac{-c\,\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}{1-\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^2}$$ with $0\leq \boldsymbol{\epsilon}^2<1$, while the lapse $N$ is given by $$\label{6}
N=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^2}}.$$ Furthermore, the space metrics is chosen as $$\label{7}
\gamma=(I-\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\otimes \boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{\rm{T}}),$$ where T denotes transposition of the coordinate independent dimensionless column vector $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}=(\epsilon^a)$, $a=1,2,3$. With help of the classical equations of motion [@9] it can be verified that the equations (\[5\]-\[7\]) define the flat solution to the HL theory determined by (\[3\]). The spacetime metrics (\[2a\]) takes the form $$\begin{gathered}
\label{8}
{\,\mathrm{d}}s^2=\zeta_{\alpha\beta}{\,\mathrm{d}}x^{\alpha}{\,\mathrm{d}}x^{\beta}\\=-c^2{\,\mathrm{d}}t^2-2c\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\cdot{\,\mathrm{d}}\boldsymbol{x}{\,\mathrm{d}}t+
{\,\mathrm{d}}\boldsymbol{x}^{\rm{T}}(I-\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\otimes \boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{\rm{T}}){\,\mathrm{d}}\boldsymbol{x}\end{gathered}$$ with the metric tensor $$\label{9}
\zeta_{\alpha\beta}=\left(\begin{array}{c|c}
-1&-\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{\rm{T}}\\\hline
-\boldsymbol{\epsilon}&I-\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\otimes \boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{\rm{T}}
\end{array}\right).$$ Here $\alpha, \beta=0,1,2,3.$ It is easy to see that the metrics form (\[8\]) is related to the Minkowski spacetime as well as the space geometry is Euclidean. Now, let us consider the standard rotations $$\label{10}
t'=t,\quad \boldsymbol{x}'=R\,\boldsymbol{x},\quad \boldsymbol{\epsilon}'=R\,\boldsymbol{\epsilon},$$ where $R$ belongs to the group of orthogonal matrices, and the transfromations defined by
$$\begin{aligned}
t'&=&\frac{t}{a+\boldsymbol{a}\cdot\boldsymbol{\epsilon}},\label{11}\\
\boldsymbol{x}'&=&\left(I+\boldsymbol{a}\otimes\boldsymbol{\epsilon}^{\rm{T}}+
\frac{\boldsymbol{a}\otimes\boldsymbol{a}^{\rm{T}}}{1+a}\right)\boldsymbol{x}+\boldsymbol{a}ct,\label{12}\\
\boldsymbol{\epsilon}'&=&\frac{1}{a+\boldsymbol{a}\cdot\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}\left[\boldsymbol{\epsilon}+\boldsymbol{a}
\left(1+\frac{\boldsymbol{a}\cdot\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}{1+a}\right)\right],\label{13}\end{aligned}$$
where $\boldsymbol{a}$ parametrizes the standard Lorentz boost $L(\boldsymbol{a})$ $$\label{14}
L(\boldsymbol{a})=\left(
\begin{array}{c|c}
a&\boldsymbol{a}^{\rm{T}}\\\hline {\tiny{}}&{\tiny{}}\vspace{-0.36cm}\\
\boldsymbol{a}&I+\frac{\boldsymbol{a}\otimes \boldsymbol{a}^{\rm{T}^{}}}{1+a}
\end{array}
\right),$$ with $a=\sqrt{1+\boldsymbol{a}^2}$. It can be shown that the transformations (\[10\]-\[13\]) taken together form the realization of the Lorentz group and it is obvious that they do not destroy the foliation $\mathcal{F}$. Consequently, they do not affect absolute simultaneity and causality characteristic to the Hořava-Lifshitz model. Moreover, the metrics (\[8\]) is form invariant under the transformations (\[10\]-\[13\]). We point out that in view of (\[10\]-\[13\]) the above transformations form a nonlinear realization of the Lorentz group [@10; @11]. Nonlinearity affects the coordinate independent vector $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ only, whereas $\boldsymbol{x}$ and $t$ transform linearly. The nonlinear realization (\[10\]-\[13\]) was firstly introduced in a different context and form in [@12] and was applied to the localization problem in the relativistic quantum mechanics [@21; @22] as well as to a Lorentz-covariant formulation of the statistical physics [@23]. There is a simple relationship between the standard Lorentz transformations and those given by (\[10\]-\[13\]). Indeed, introducing the new time coordinate by the affine transformation (not belonging to the $\mathcal{D}iff(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{M})$) $$\label{15}
t_E=t+\frac{\boldsymbol{\epsilon}\cdot\boldsymbol{x}}{c}$$ we arrive at the standard Minkowski form of the metrics (\[8\]). Moreover, we can easily recover for $\boldsymbol{x}$ and $t_E$ the standard Lorentz transformations in the standard pseudoorthogonal frame. Thus the time redefinition (\[15\]) should be interpreted as the change of distant clock synchronization [@13; @14; @15; @16; @17]. Consequently, the vector $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ plays the role of the Reichenbach synchronization coefficient [@13; @18].
Now, it is not difficult to apply the above Lorentz covariant flat solution as the local reference frame in a general case. This can be done by introducing the tetrad fields$\omega^{\alpha}=\lambda_{\,\,\mu}^{\alpha}{\,\mathrm{d}}x^{\mu}$ satisfying $$\label{16}
\zeta_{\alpha\beta}\omega^{\alpha}\omega^{\beta}=g_{\mu\nu}{\,\mathrm{d}}x^{\mu}{\,\mathrm{d}}x^{\nu},$$ with $\zeta_{\alpha\beta}$ and $g_{\mu\nu}$ given by (\[8\]) and (\[2a\]) respectively. The solution has the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{17}
\omega^0&=&(cN-\epsilon^ae^{a}_{i}N^i){\,\mathrm{d}}t-\epsilon^ae^{a}_{i}{\,\mathrm{d}}x^i,\\ \omega^a&=&e^a_i({\,\mathrm{d}}x^i+N^i{\,\mathrm{d}}t),\end{aligned}$$
where the triads $e^a_i$ determine the space metrics $e^a_ie^a_j=\gamma_{ij}$. The tetrads $\omega^{\alpha}$ transform with respect to the index $\alpha$ according to the law (\[10\]-\[13\]) treated as the frame transformations. Notice, that in general the synchronization vector $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ is frame dependent because it transforms from frame to frame according to the formula (\[13\]). In particular, we can specify the boost parameter $\boldsymbol{a}$ to obtain the synchronization vector $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ equal to zero in a distinguished frame. In this peculiar frame related to the preferred foliation $\mathcal{F}$ the Einstein synchronization convention applies. It can be shown [@21; @22] that the synchronization vector $\boldsymbol{\epsilon}$ can be related to the velocity of the preferred frame. Finally, let us stress that the synchronization change (\[15\]) does not affect the physical content of theory on the classical level because of the conventionality of the synchronization procedure [@13; @14; @15; @16; @17; @18]. However, it breaks the quantization procedure essential to the Hořava approach. This can indicate that result of quantization depends on the adapted synchronization scheme. Concluding, the Hořava-Lifshitz gravity admits Lorentz symmetry preserving preferred global time foliation of the spacetime. This symmetry can be related to the standard Lorentz transformations by the frame – dependent change of synchronization (\[15\]) to the Einstein one. However, (\[15\]) breaks the preferred foliation of the HL gravity. Thus the HL theory forces Lorentz symmetry realized in the synchronization scheme related to the transformation laws (\[10\]-\[13\]). Our observation can be also applied to the causal dynamical triangulation theory [@19], where the global time foliation is assumed too (however see [@20]).
The author is grateful to Bogus[ł]{}aw Broda and Krzysztof Kowalski for discussion and to Jerzy Jurkiewicz for helpful remarks concerning the causal dynamical triangulation theory.
[23]{}ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{}ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{}““\#1””@noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{}sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{}@startlink\[1\]@endlink\[0\]@bib@innerbibempty @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} in @noop [**]{}, (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, , ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, , ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop ()
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present full evolutionary calculations appropriate for the study of hot hydrogen-deficent DO white dwarfs, PG 1159 stars, and DB white dwarfs. White dwarf sequences are computed for a wide range of stellar masses and helium envelopes on the basis of a complete treatment of the evolutionary history of progenitors stars, including the core hydrogen and helium burning phases, the thermally-pulsing AGB phase, and the born-again episode that is responsible for the hydrogen deficiency. We also provide colors and magnitudes for the new sequences for $T_{\rm eff} < 40\,000$ K, where the NLTE effects are not dominant. These new calculations provide an homogeneous set of evolutionary tracks appropriate for mass and age determinations for both PG 1159 stars and DO white dwarfs. The calculations are extended down to an effective temperature of 7000 K. We applied these new tracks to redetermine stellar masses and ages of all known DO white dwarfs with spectroscopically-determined effective temperatures and gravities, and compare them with previous results. We also compare for the first time consistent mass determinations for both DO and PG 1159 stars, and find a considerably higher mean mass for the DO white dwarfs. We discuss as well the chemical profile expected in the envelope of variable DB white dwarfs from the consideration of the evolutionary history of progenitor stars. Finally, we present tentative evidence for a different evolutionary channel, other than that involving the PG 1159 stars, for the formation of hot, hydrogen-deficient white dwarfs.'
author:
- |
L. G. Althaus$^{1,4}$, J. A. Panei$^{1,2}$, M. M. Miller Bertolami$^{1,2,3}$, E. García–Berro$^{4,5}$, A. H. Córsico$^{1,2}$,\
A. D. Romero$^{1,2}$, S. O. Kepler$^{6}$, and R. D. Rohrmann$^{7}$
title: 'New evolutionary sequences for hot H-deficient white dwarfs on the basis of a full account of progenitor evolution'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
White dwarf stars are the end-product of the evolution of the vast majority of stars. Indeed, more than 97% of all stars in our Galaxy are expected to end their lives as white dwarfs. For this reason, the present population of white dwarfs contains valuable information about the evolution of individual stars, the previous history of the Galatic populations (Isern et al. 1998; Torres et al. 2002) and the rate of star formation (Díaz–Pinto et al. 1994). In addition, white dwarfs have potential applications as reliable cosmic clocks to infer the age of a wide variety of stellar populations (Winget et al. 1987; García–Berro et al. 1988; Hansen et al. 2007), and to place constraints on elementary particles (Córsico et al. 2001; Isern et al. 2008). Recent reviews on the properties and evolution of white dwarfs and of their applications are those of Winget & Kepler (2008) and Fontaine & Brassard (2008).
Traditionally, white dwarfs have been classified into two distinct families according to the main constituent of their surface: those with a hydrogen (H)-dominated atmosphere — the DA spectral type — and those with a helium (He)-rich surface composition — the non-DA white dwarfs. The latter, that comprise about $\sim 20$% of known white dwarfs, are usually divided into three subclasses: the DO spectral type (with effective temperatures 45000 K $\leq T_{\rm eff}
\leq 200\,000$ K) that shows relatively strong lines of singly ionized He (He[ii]{}), the DB type (11000 K $\leq T_{\rm eff} \leq
30\,000$ K), with strong neutral He (He[i]{}) lines, and the DC, DQ, and DZ types ($T_{\rm eff} < 11\,000$ K) showing traces of carbon and metals in their spectra. As a DO white dwarf evolves, the He[ii]{} recombines to form He[i]{}, ultimately transforming into a DB white dwarf. The transition from DO to the cooler DB stage is interrupted by the non-DA gap (that occurs at 30000 K $ < T_{\rm eff} < 45\,000$ K) where few objects with H-deficient atmospheres have been observed (Eisenstein et al. 2006). To this list, we have to add the discovery of a new white dwarf spectral type with carbon-dominated atmospheres, the “hot DQ” white dwarfs, with $T_{\rm eff}\sim 20\,000$ K (Dufour et al. 2007, 2008).
DO white dwarfs are usually thought to be the progeny of PG 1159 stars (Dreizler & Werner 1996; Unglaub & Bues 2000; Althaus et al. 2005), hot stars with H-deficient and He-, C- and O-rich surface layers (Werner & Herwig 2006). A large fraction of PG 1159 stars is believed to be the result of a born-again episode, i.e., a very late thermal pulse (VLTP) experienced by a white dwarf during its early cooling phase (Fujimoto 1977; Schönberner 1979; Iben et al. 1983; Althaus et al. 2005). During the VLTP, most of the H content of the remnant is violently burned (Herwig et al. 1999; Miller Bertolami et al. 2006). As a result, the remnant is forced to evolve rapidly back to the AGB and finally into the central star of a planetary nebula as a hot H-deficient object and with a surface composition resembling that of the intershell region chemistry of AGB star models — typical mass abundances are $X_{\rm He}\simeq 0.33$, $X_{\rm C}\simeq 0.5$ and $X_{\rm O}\simeq 0.17$, though notable variations are found from star to star (Dreizler & Heber 1998; Werner 2001). Eventually, gravitational settling acting during the early stages of white dwarf evolution causes He to float and heavier elements to sink down, giving rise to an He-dominated surface, and turning the PG 1159 star into a DO white dwarf (Unglaub & Bues 2000). During this stage, the evolution of the star is dictated essentially by neutrino losses and the release of gravothermal energy (O’Brien & Kawaler 2000; Althaus et al. 2005). Because these white dwarfs are the hottest ones, the evolution during the DO stage proceeds very fast, with typical evolutionary time scales $\sim$1 Myr.
Several works have been devoted to the identification and spectral analysis of H-deficient objects like PG 1159 and DO white dwarfs — see Dreizler & Werner (1996), Dreizler et al. (1997) and references therein for earlier studies of spectroscopically confirmed DO white dwarfs. Particularly relevant is the star KPD0005+5106, the hottest known DO white dwarf with an effective temperature of about 200000 K (Werner et al. 2008a), much higher than previously thought (Dreizler & Werner 1996). With the advent of large surveys, like the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (York et al. 2000) the number of spectroscopically-identified H-deficient stars has increased considerably. For instance, Krzesiński et al. (2004) reported 15 spectroscopically-identified DO stars — 13 of which were new discoveries — from the SDSS Data Release 1 (Abazajian et al. 2003), which contains $\approx$2500 white dwarfs (Kleinman et al. 2004). Also, Eisenstein et al. (2006) reported 31 DO white dwarfs and 10 PG 1159 stars, from their catalog based on SDSS DR4 (Adelman-McCarthy et al. 2006). Hügelmeyer et al. (2005) performed spectral analyses of 16 hot H-deficient stars from DR1, DR2 and DR3 catalogs , where 9 were classified as DO and 5 as PG 1159 stars. More recently, Hügelmeyer et al. (2006) extended this work to 13 DO and 4 PG 1159 stars — see also Werner et al. (2004). These authors derived effective temperatures, surface gravities and stellar masses for their sample, and for that of Hügelmeyer et al. (2005), and discussed the evolutionary connection between DO white dwarfs and PG 1159 stars.
To infer the mass and age of observed DO white dwarfs, evolutionary calculations for these stars are required. However, most of the existing calculations that are employed in the determination of evolutionary parameters of non-DA white dwarf stars (Wood 1995; Benvenuto & Althaus 1999) are not entirely consistent with the evolutionary history that leads to the formation of H-deficient stars. Even though significant deviations are not expected at low effective temperatures, this lack of consistency becomes relevant for the high effective temperatures characteristic of hot DO white dwarfs. In addition, the lack of evolutionary calculations covering the whole stage from the domain of luminous PG 1159 to the hot white dwarf stage prevents from a consistent mass determination for the DOs and PG 1159 stars (Dreizler & Werner 1996). To our knowledge, the only exception is the study of Althaus et al. (2005), who computed the formation and evolution of a $0.588 \,M_{\sun}$ white dwarf remnant from the ZAMS through the born-again and PG 1159 stages to the white dwarf regime. This paper is precisely intended to fill this gap, by computing new evolutionary tracks and mass-radius relations appropriate for both non-DA white dwarfs and PG 1159 stars. Sequences are derived from a full and self-consistent treatment of the complete evolutionary history of progenitor stars with different masses evolved through the born-again episode. In this way, the white dwarf evolutionary calculations presented here are not affected by inconsistencies arising from artificial procedures to generate starting white dwarf configurations. In addition, the computation of the evolutionary history of progenitor stars gives us the amount of He left in the white dwarf as well as the chemical profiles expected not only for the carbon-oxygen core, but also for the partially degenerate regions above the core, of relevance for the white dwarf cooling phase.
The calculations presented here constitute an homogeneous set of evolutionary tracks aimed to study both PG 1159 and DO white dwarf stars, as well as the DB white dwarfs. The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. \[Computational\] we describe the main physical inputs to the models. We also describe the main characteristics of the initial models and some details of the evolutionary computations. In Sect. \[results\] we present the results for DO white dwarf evolutionary sequences. We apply the sequences to redetermine stellar masses and ages of observed DO white dwarfs, and we derive mass-radius relations. In addition, we show the results for the case of DO white dwarf sequences with very thin He-rich envelopes. We close the paper in Sect. \[conclusiones\] by discussing and summarizing the implications of our results, particularly regarding the origin of the observed DO white dwarfs.
$M_{\rm WD}$ $M_{\rm ZAMS}$ $M_{\rm He}$
-------------- ---------------- --------------
0.515 1.00 0.0219
0.530 1.00 0.0090
0.542 1.00 0.0072
0.565 2.20 0.0067
0.584 2.50 0.0060
0.609 3.05 0.0058
0.664 3.50 0.0036
0.741 3.75 0.0019
0.870 5.50 0.0009
: Initial and final stellar mass (in solar units), and the total mass of He content left in the white dwarf for the evolutionary sequences considered in this work.
\[tableini\]
Computational details {#Computational}
=====================
Input physics
-------------
The evolutionary calculations presented in this work were done with the [LPCODE]{} stellar evolutionary code we employed in our previous studies on the formation of the H-deficient stars through late He flashes, like PG 1159 and extreme horizontal branch stars (Althaus et al. 2005; Miller Bertolami & Althaus 2006; Miller Bertolami et al. 2008). More recently, the code was used to compute the formation of hot DQ white dwarfs (Althaus et al. 2009b) as well as the formation and evolution of He-core white dwarfs with high metallicity progenitors (Althaus et al. 2009c). Details of [LPCODE]{} can be found in these works. In particular, the code considers a simultaneous treatment of non-instantaneous mixing and burning of elements, which is of primary importance for the calculation of chemical abundance changes during the short-lived evolutionary stages characteristic of unstable burning episodes, like the born-again stage, from which our starting H-deficient white dwarf configurations are derived, see 2.1. Nuclear reaction rates are from Caughlan & Fowler (1988) and Angulo et al. (1999), and are detailed in Althaus et al. (2005). In particular, the $^{12}$C($\alpha,\gamma)^{16}$O reaction rate was taken from Angulo et al. (1999), which is about twice as large as that of Caughlan & Fowler (1988). A moderate, diffusive overshooting in the core and in the envelope is allowed during pre-white dwarf evolution.
For the white dwarf regime, we considered the following main physical ingredients. Neutrino emission rates for pair, photo and bremsstrahlung processes are those of Itoh et al. (1996). For plasma processes we included the treatment presented in Haft et al. (1994). Radiative opacities are those of the OPAL project (Iglesias & Rogers 1996), including carbon and oxygen rich composition. We adopted the conductive opacities of Cassisi et al. (2007). This prescription covers the whole regime where electron conduction is relevant. For the high density regime, we used the equation of state of Segretain et al. (1994), which accounts for all the important contributions for both the liquid and solid phases — see Althaus et al. (2007a) and references therein. For the low-density regime, we used an updated version of the equation of state of Magni & Mazzitelli (1979). The release of latent heat upon crystallization was also considered. In particular, for our calculations, crystallization sets in when the ion coupling constant reaches $\Gamma
=180$, where $\Gamma \equiv \langle Z^{5/3}\rangle e^2/a_e k_{\rm B}T$ and $a_e$ is the interelectronic distance. We considered a latent heat release of $k_{\rm B}T$ per ion, which was spread over the range $175<\Gamma<185$. Convection was treated in the formalism of the mixing length theory as given by the ML2 parameterization (Tassoul et al. 1990).
All our white dwarf sequences were computed in a consistent way with the evolution of the chemical abundance distribution caused by element diffusion along the whole cooling phase. In particular, we considered gravitational settling and chemical diffusion of $^4$He, $^{12}$C, $^{13}$C, $^{14}$N and $^{16}$O — see Althaus et al. (2003) for details. In our simulations, we obtain high amounts of $^{13}$C and $^{14}$N at the VLTP, in agreement with observational inferences in the Sakurai object and, in the case of $^{14}$N, in some PG 1159 stars (Werner & Herwig 2006). Our treatment of time-dependent diffusion is based on the multicomponent gas treatment presented in Burgers (1969). Diffusion velocities are evaluated at each evolutionary time step. For the white dwarf evolution, is worth mentioning that opacity is calculated taking into account the diffusion predictions for the heavy element composition.
Initial models
--------------
The initial models for our white dwarf sequences correspond to realistic PG 1159 stellar configurations derived from the full evolutionary calculations of their progenitor stars for solar metallicity (Miller Bertolami & Althaus 2006). All the sequences were computed from the ZAMS through the thermally-pulsing and mass-loss phases on the AGB and finally to the born-again stage where the remaining H is violently burnt. After the born-again episode, the H-deficient, quiescent He-burning remnants evolve at constant luminosity to the domain of PG1159 stars with a surface chemical composition rich in He, carbon and oxygen (Miller Bertolami & Althaus 2006). This new generation of PG 1159 evolutionary models has succeeded in explaining both the spread in surface chemical composition observed in most PG 1159 stars and the location of the GW Vir instability strip in the $\log T_{\rm eff}- \log g$ plane (Córsico et al. 2006), as well as the short born-again timescales of V4334 Sgr (Miller Bertolami et al. 2006). To our knowledge, this is the first time that such a detailed treatment of the evolutionary history of progenitors stars with different initial stellar masses is taken into account in the calculation of cooling sequences for H-deficient white dwarfs.
$M/M_{\sun}$ $\log T_{\rm eff}$ \[K\] $\log(L/L_{\sun})$ $\log g$ \[cm s$^{-2}$\] $X_{\rm He}$ $X_{\rm C}$ $X_{\rm O}$
-------------- -------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------- -------------- ------------- -------------
0.515 5.0634 2.6868 6.6713 0.7437 0.1637 0.0279
0.530 5.1366 2.9762 6.6876 0.3301 0.3944 0.1716
0.542 5.1650 3.0546 6.7412 0.2805 0.4064 0.2127
0.565 5.2105 3.1565 6.8304 0.3632 0.2737 0.2173
0.584 5.2398 3.2574 6.8615 0.3947 0.3060 0.1704
0.609 5.2819 3.3533 6.9518 0.4990 0.3465 0.1033
0.664 5.3578 3.3611 7.0813 0.4707 0.3260 0.1234
0.741 5.4535 3.8069 7.2701 0.4795 0.3361 0.1390
0.870 5.5829 4.0961 7.5679 0.5433 0.3012 0.0938
\[tablequi\]
Specifically, we computed nine H-deficient white dwarf evolutionary sequences. In Table \[tableini\] we list the stellar masses of the resulting white dwarfs, together with the inital masses of the progenitor stars at the ZAMS. Also listed in Table \[tableini\] is the mass of He left by previous evolution. Note that for these sequences, which cover most of the observed stellar mass range of H-deficient white dwarfs, the expected range of He envelope masses spans more than one order of magnitude. Due to He burning during the PG 1159 stage, the mass of He left when the remnant reaches its cooling track is considerably lower than that obtained shortly after the born-again episode (0.0036 and $0.0075 \, M_{\sun}$, respectively, for the $0.664 \, M_{\sun}$ sequence). For the $1 \, M_{\sun}$ model, two different sequences were computed with two different mass-loss rates during the AGB evolution. In this way we obtain a different number of thermal pulses and, in the end, two different remnant masses of 0.530 and $0.542\, M_{\sun}$, respectively. Finally, the sequence with $0.515 \, M_{\sun}$ was specifically computed to reproduce the observational features of low-mass, He-enriched PG 1159 stars, like and — see Miller Bertolami & Althaus (2006) and Althaus et al. (2007b). This model was extracted from the full evolution of a $1\, M_{\sun}$ model star that experiences its first thermal pulse as a late thermal pulse (LTP) after leaving the AGB. We adopt the mass-loss rates of of Blöcker (1995) multiplied by a 0.2 factor. Mass loss during the departure from the AGB has been arbitrarily set to obtain a final helium shell flash during the early white dwarf cooling phase. Our calculations cover the hot pre-white dwarf stages (PG 1159 regime) and the advanced phases of evolution down to an effective temperature of 7000 K, therefore covering all the DB cooling sequence.
![Abundance by mass of $^4$He, $^{12}$C and $^{16}$O as a function of the outer mass fraction $\log(1-M_r/M_*)$ for PG 1159 models corresponding to the sequences of 0.870 (top panel) and 0.515 $M_{\sun}$ (bottom panel). Luminosity and effective temperature ($\log(L/L_{\sun});\log T_{\rm eff}$) are specified for each model.[]{data-label="input1"}](fig01.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[input1\] we show the mass abundances of $^4$He, $^{12}$C and $^{16}$O throughout the deep interior of two PG 1159 star models corresponding to the sequences with 0.515 and $0.870\, M_{\sun}$. The models shown correspond to evolutionary stages at high luminosities where the chemical profile at the bottom of the He-rich envelope is being modified by residual He shell-burning. Note the dependence of the composition profile on the stellar mass, which emphasizes the need for a detailed knowledge of the progenitor history for a realistic treatment of white dwarf evolution. The chemical stratification of our H-deficient pre-white dwarf models consists of a carbon-oxygen core, which emerges from core He burning in prior stages. The core chemical profile is typical of situations in which extra mixing episodes beyond the fully convective core during the core He burning, like moderate overshooting and/or semiconvection, are allowed — see Straniero et al. (2003) and also Prada Moroni & Straniero (2007) for the consequences on white dwarf evolution. The core is surrounded by a homogeneous and extended envelope rich in He, carbon and oxygen, which is the result of prior mixing and burning events during the thermally pulsing AGB and born-again phases. The surface abundance of He of our pre-white dwarf models is within 0.28 and 0.75 by mass (see Table \[tablequi\]), which is in agreement with the range of observed He abundances in most PG1159 stars (Werner & Herwig 2006). These abundances are not only determined by the stellar mass, but also by the number of thermal pulses during the AGB phase, by the inner penetration of the convective envelope and by the mass lost after the complete burning of protons (Miller Bertolami & Althaus 2006). Finally, we have removed any H from our PG 1159 models, despite that some H is expected to be present in PG 1159 stars. This is particularly true if some of these stars result from a LTP episode. Here, the H content with which the progenitor star departs from the AGB for the first time is not burnt during the late helium flash but instead diluted to deeper layers. In this case, the presence of H in PG 1159 stars may be responsible for the fact that not all PG 1159 stars evolve to DO white dwarfs, see Sect. \[conclusiones\]. By contrast, during the VLTP, only traces of H survive the violent H burning, see Miller Bertolami et al. (2006). It is expected that a large fraction of this remaining H is removed by mass loss during the following return to the giant state and Sakurai state.
Evolutionary results {#results}
====================
Sequences with thick envelopes
------------------------------
In Fig. \[resultado1\], we show the evolution of our H-deficient sequences both in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram and in the $\log
T_{\rm eff}--\log g$ plane. The evolutionary sequences shown cover from the PG 1159 stage at intermediate gravities to the white dwarf domain. Thus, these sequences constitute a homogeneous set of tracks that consistently cover both evolutionary stages. Some characteristics of them at the highest effective temperature are listed in Table \[tablequi\].
![Upper panel: Hertzsprung-Russell diagram for our evolutionary sequences. Bottom panel: evolution in the $\log T_{\rm
eff}-\log g$ plane. Filled dots on each track indicate the instant with the highest effective temperature, which we adopt as our time origin. Mass values are given in solar units.[]{data-label="resultado1"}](fig02.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Internal abundance distribution of $^4$He, $^{12}$C and $^{16}$O as a function of the outer mass fraction $\log(1-M_r/M_*)$ for our $0.870 \, M_{\sun}$ sequence at various selected stages on its cooling branch, as specified by the luminosity and effective temperature values ($\log(L/L_{\sun});\log T_{\rm eff}$) in each panel.[]{data-label="resultado-perfil-1"}](fig03.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
During the PG 1159 and hot white dwarf stages, $^{4}$He, $^{12}$C and $^{16}$O are by far the dominant species in the envelope of our models. Among the main remaining constituents are $^{13}$C, $^{14}$N and $^{22}$Ne. In particular, as a result of the violent H burning during the born-again episode, $^{13}$C reaches abundances as high as 0.05 by mass in the envelope. Once He burning becomes virtually extinct after the point of maximum effective temperature, the H-deficient remnants settle upon their cooling track. Here, the chemical abundance distribution will be strongly modified by the various diffusion processes acting during white dwarf evolution. A glimpse of the inner chemistry variations that occur during this stage is given in Figs. \[resultado-perfil-1\] and \[resultado-perfil-2\] for the 0.870 and $0.515 \, M_{\sun}$ sequences, respectively. The upper panel of each figure shows the chemical stratification at the start of the cooling track. Clearly, gravitational settling causes He to float to the surface and heavier elements to sink. Thus, as the evolution proceeds, the He abundance in the outer layers increases, thus turning the PG 1159 star into a white dwarf of spectral type DO (Dehner & Kawaler 1995; Gautschy & Althaus 2002). At this point, we must mention that our treatment of diffusion cannot predict when a PG 1159 star is transformed into a DO white dwarf. To do this, a more elaborated treatment of diffusion in the surface layers than that we consider here — including mass loss through winds, and radiative levitation — should be used (Unglaub & Bues 2000). Note the formation of a diffusively-evolving double-layered chemical structure, that is, a pure He mantle and an intermediate remnant shell rich in He, carbon and oxygen result of the last He thermal pulse. Because of the more intense gravitational field and the smaller He content in more massive remnants, the double-layered structure in our $0.87 \, M_{\sun}$ sequence almost disappears before the DBV instability strip is reached at $T_{\rm
eff}\approx 30\,000$ K, see the bottom panel of Fig. \[resultado-perfil-1\]. Indeed, the outer layer chemical profile of the massive remnant resembles that of a single-layered structure by the time cooling has proceeded to this stage. As shown by Fontaine & Brassard (2002) and also by Althaus & Córsico (2004), the presence of a double-layered structure bears consequences for the pulsational properties of variable DB white dwarfs. In particular, the double-layered structure causes the period-spacing diagrams to exhibit mode-trapping substructure (Althaus & Córsico 2004). Thus, a complete assessment of the evolutionary history of H-deficient white dwarf progenitors like that considered here constitutes a key aspect that has to be considered in asteroseismological studies of DBV stars. In this sense, we conclude that on the basis of a full account of progenitor evolution, a double-layered structure is not expected in H-deficient white dwarfs with masses higher than about $0.87 \,
M_{\sun}$ by the time evolution has proceeded to the domain of the DBV instability strip.
![Same as Fig. \[resultado-perfil-1\] but for the $0.515 \,
M_{\sun}$ sequence.[]{data-label="resultado-perfil-2"}](fig04.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
{width="90.00000%"}
Our evolutionary sequences are appropriate for mass determinations of H-deficient white dwarfs, particularly at the early and hot stages when white dwarf evolution is still sensitive to the initial conditions. In Fig. \[resultado2\] we show the evolution of our sequences in the $\log g-log T_{\rm eff}$ diagram and the effective temperatures and surface gravities (in cm/s$^2$) derived by Hügelmeyer et al. (2006), Dreizler & Werner (1996) and Dreizler et al. (1997) of the observed DO white dwarfs. They are listed in Table \[tabledo\] together with the stellar masses determined by these authors using the evolutionary tracks of Wood (1995) for carbon-core white dwarfs and a He layer mass of 10$^{-4} M_*$ (column 4). In passing, we note that the stellar mass of J204158.98+000325.4 listed in Hügelmeyer et al. (2006) is not correct, it should read 0.49 instead of $0.6\, M_{\sun}$. We have corrected this in Table \[tabledo\]. From Fig. \[resultado4\] it is clear the importance of finite-temperature effects during the early evolutionary stages, particularly in the case of low-mass sequences. We expect then that the stellar mass for hot DOs with low gravities determined from cooling tracks that neglect the progenitor evolution will be different when our new evolutionary tracks are employed. Thus, we redetermined the stellar mass of the DO white dwarfs listed in Table \[tabledo\] using our new sequences. The results are given in column 5. For most DOs, mass determinations from both sets of tracks agree reasonably well, but in the case of the hot and lowest-gravity DOs, our evolutionary tracks lead to an increase in the derived stellar mass of up to 10% when compared with the determinations based on the cooling tracks of Wood (1995). We must caution however that some simplifications done in the calculations of Wood (1995), in particular regarding the chemical profile and He envelope mass of the models, prevents us from a consistent and meaningful comparison between both sets of tracks. For instance, the decrease in surface gravity resulting from the assumption of a pure carbon core in the models of Wood (1995) is in part compensated for by the lower He envelope mass that characterize these models, as compared to our carbon-oxygen core white dwarf models that are characterized by more massive He envelopes. Finally, note that for the low-gravity DO, $J075606.36+421613.0$, we derive a stellar mass of $0.467 \,
M_{\sun}$. Although this value results from extrapolation of our tracks, it is interesting to note that the resulting mass is substantially higher than the $0.42 \, M_{\sun}$ quoted by Hügelmeyer et al. (2006). The new stellar mass seems to suggest that the progenitor of this star could probably be a He-SdO star formed in a delayed He core flash (Miller Bertolami et al. 2008).
----------------------- ------------------- ----------------- -------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- -----------------
DO Name $T_{\rm eff}$ $\log g$ $M_{\rm WD}$ $M_{\rm WD}$ \[$M_{\sun}$\] $M_{\rm WD}$ \[$M_{\sun}$\] Age \[Myr\] Age \[Myr\] Ref
\[kK\] \[cm s$^{-2}$\] (Wood) (Thick) (Thin) (Thick) (Thin)
J091433.61+581238.1 120.0$\pm$1.7 8.00$\pm$0.02 0.75 0.750$\pm0.010$ 0.740$\pm0.010$ 0.076$\pm0.006$ 0.074$\pm0.006$ (a)
J204158.98+000325.4 110.0$\pm$4.5 7.20$\pm$0.04 0.49 0.525$_{-0.002}^{+0.003}$ 0.510$_{-0.005}^{+0.007}$ 0.060$_{-0.010}^{+0.016}$ 0.030$_{-0.005}^{+0.007}$ (b)
J214223.32+111740.4 110.0$\pm$2.4 7.60$\pm$0.05 0.60 0.595$_{-0.011}^{+0.012}$ 0.580$_{-0.013}^{+0.015}$ 0.064$_{-0.007}^{+0.008}$ 0.054$\pm0.006$ (c)
J154752.33+423210.9 100.0$\pm$1.6 7.60$\pm$0.06 0.59 0.584$_{-0.019}^{+0.014}$ 0.569$_{-0.016}^ {+0.017}$ 0.107$_{-0.009}^{+0.008}$ 0.088$\pm0.008$ (d)
J151026.48+610656.9 95.0$\pm$0.8 8.00$\pm$0.04 0.71 0.715$\pm0.015$ 0.708$\pm0.016$ 0.232$\pm0.008$ 0.233$\pm0.008$ (e)
J084008.72+325114.6 85.0$\pm$1.1 8.40$\pm$0.08 0.90 0.900$_{-0.045}^{+0.040}$ 0.890$\pm0.040$ 0.420$\pm0.015$ 0.460$\pm0.020$ (f)
J025403.75+005854.5 80.0$\pm$0.5 8.00$\pm$0.06 0.68 0.695$\pm0.025$ 0.688$_{-0.021}^{+0.027}$ 0.450$\pm0.010$ 0.455$\pm0.010$ (g)
J155356.81+483228.6 75.0$\pm$1.2 8.00$\pm$0.09 0.68 0.687$_{-0.037}^{+0.043}$ 0.680$_{-0.038}^{+0.043}$ 0.565$_{-0.030}^{+0.034}$ 0.575$\pm0.035$ (h)
J084223.14+375900.2 70.0$\pm$0.3 8.00$\pm$0.06 0.68 0.680$_{-0.026}^{+0.027}$ 0.673$_{-0.026}^{+0.029}$ 0.715$\pm0.010$ 0.725$\pm0.010$ (i)
J140409.96+045739.9 70.0$\pm$0.5 8.00$\pm$0.04 0.68 0.680$_{-0.018}^{+0.017}$ 0.673$_{-0.018}^{+0.019}$ 0.715$\pm0.015$ 0.725$\pm0.015$ (j)
J113631.50+591229.8 67.5$\pm$1.6 8.20$\pm$0.13 0.78 0.775$_{-0.065}^{+0.070}$ 0.770$_{-0.057}^{+0.070}$ 0.790$\pm0.050$ 0.820$\pm0.050$ (k)
J131724.75+000237.4 62.5$\pm$0.5 7.80$\pm$0.03 0.58 0.582$_{-0.012}^{+0.013}$ 0.576$_{-0.011}^{+0.012}$ 1.040$\pm0.020$ 0.950$\pm0.030$ (l)
J034101.39+005353.0 55.0$\pm$0.4 8.00$\pm$0.05 0.65 0.656$\pm0.024$ 0.650$\pm0.025$ 1.500$\pm0.030$ 1.500$\pm0.030$ (m)
J003343.06+142251.5 52.5$\pm$0.2 8.20$\pm$0.01 0.76 0.755$\pm0.005$ 0.753$\pm0.005$ 1.570$\pm0.010$ 1.580$\pm0.010$ (n)
J115218.69$-$024915.9 52.5$\pm$0.3 8.20$\pm$0.02 0.76 0.755$\pm0.012$ 0.753$\pm0.011$ 1.570$\pm0.020$ 1.580$\pm0.020$ (o)
J034227.62$-$072213.2 50.0$\pm$0.2 8.00$\pm$0.03 0.65 0.647$_{-0.014}^{+0.015}$ 0.643$\pm0.015$ 1.970$\pm0.020$ 1.950$\pm0.020$ (p)
J081115.09+270621.8 48.0$\pm$0.3 8.00$\pm$0.04 0.64 0.645$\pm0.020$ 0.640$\pm0.020$ 2.210$\pm0.040$ 2.190$\pm0.040$ (q)
J113609.59+484318.9 48.0$\pm$0.1 8.00$\pm$0.04 0.64 0.645$\pm0.020$ 0.640$\pm0.020$ 2.210$\pm0.020$ 2.190$\pm0.020$ (r)
J081546.08+244603.3 48.0$\pm$0.2 8.20$\pm$0.01 0.76 0.750$\pm0.007$ 0.747$_{-0.005}^{+0.006}$ 2.010$\pm0.030$ 2.000$\pm0.020$ (s)
J015629.58+131744.7 40.0$\pm$0.2 8.20$\pm$0.01 0.75 0.741$\pm0.007$ 0.739$_{-0.007}^{+0.006}$ 3.400$\pm0.050$ 3.270$\pm0.050$ (t)
J091621.83+052119.2 60.0$\pm$5.0 8.00$\pm$0.20 0.66 0.664$_{-0.087}^{+0.101}$ 0.659$_{-0.087}^{+0.103}$ 1.170$_{-0.260}^{+0.300}$ 1.170$_{-0.250}^{+0.300}$ (u)
J133633.22$-$013116.5 52.5$\pm$0.5 7.60$\pm$0.06 0.48 0.500$\pm0.015$ 0.485$_{-0.015}^{+0.020}$ 2.270$\pm0.070$ 2.400$\pm0.100$ (v)
J075606.36+421613.0 52.5$\pm$0.8 7.40$\pm$0.05 0.42 0.467$_{-0.003}^{+0.005}$ 0.445$\pm0.005$ 2.900$\pm0.150$ 3.200$\pm0.150$ (w)
KPD0005+5106 200. 6.2 — 0.770 0.700 $-$0.00153 $-$0.00038 ($\alpha$)
PG0038+199 115. 7.5 0.59 0.575 0.562 0.050 0.040 ($\beta$)
PG0109+111 110. 8.0 0.74 0.735 0.730 0.120 0.120 ($\gamma$)
PG1034+001 100. 7.5 0.56 0.554 0.545 0.100 0.080 ($\delta$)
HS1830+7209 100. 7.2 0.47 0.517 0.500 0.107 0.052 ($\varepsilon$)
PG0108+101 95. 7.5 0.54 0.548 0.540 0.133 0.105 ($\zeta$)
PG0046+078 73. 8.0 0.68 0.680 0.675 0.620 0.630 ($\eta$)
PG0237+116 70. 8.0 0.68 0.680 0.675 0.720 0.730 ($\theta$)
RE0503-289 70. 7.5 0.49 0.515 0.505 0.670 0.700 ($\iota$)
HS0111+0012 65. 7.8 0.58 0.587 0.580 0.880 0.820 ($\kappa$)
Lanning 14 58. 7.9 0.61 0.615 0.610 1.220 1.225 ($\lambda$)
HZ21 53. 7.8 0.56 0.562 0.555 1.750 1.750 ($\mu$)
HS0103+2947 49.5 8.0 0.65 0.645 0.640 2.025 2.010 ($\nu$)
HD149499B 49.5 8.0 0.65 0.645 0.640 2.025 2.010 ($\nu$)
MCT 2148-294 85. 7.5 0.53 0.536 0.529 0.240 0.210 (1)
PG 0929+270 55. 7.9 0.61 0.608 0.603 1.450 1.460 (2)
PG 1057-059 50. 7.9 0.60 0.601 0.595 2.025 1.980 (3)
PG 1133+489 46. 8.0 0.64 0.640 0.635 2.500 2.470 (4)
----------------------- ------------------- ----------------- -------------- ----------------------------- ----------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- -----------------
\[tabledo\]
Our sequences provide also realistic evolutionary ages, particularly for the hot stages of white dwarf evolution, for which employing artificial procedures to generate starting white dwarf configurations may lead to evolutionary sequences with erroneous thermomechanical structures and, thus, to wrong ages. We employed our tracks to derive evolutionary ages for the white dwarfs plotted in Fig. \[resultado2\]. They are listed in column 7 of Table \[tabledo\]. The zero-point age corresponds to the highest effective temperature for each track, see Fig. \[resultado1\]. For the stellar masses not covered by our tracks, ages were obtained from extrapolation, so they should be taken with some caution. We also plot isochrones in Fig. \[resultado2\] for better visualization. Note that the bulk of observed DO white dwarfs have ages between 0.6 and 2.5 Myr, though the hottest members of the sample are indeed very young, with ages less than 0.10 Myr. Note also that the mass distribution of young DO white dwarfs differs considerably from that of the older ones. In fact, for ages less than about $\sim 0.4$ Myr, DO white dwarfs less massive than $\approx0.6\, M_{\sun}$ are 75% of the total number of DOs at those ages, whilst for longer ages, this contribution declines to 40%. Finally, the population of high-gravity DOs increases considerably for ages greater than 0.4 Myr, below $T_{\rm eff} \approx 85\,000$ K. These features may help to shed light on the formation and evolutionary status of DOs.
![Mass-radius relations for our H-deficient sequences with thick He envelopes, corresponding to several effective temperatures. From bottom to top we show relations for $40\,
000$ K to $124\, 000$ K in temperature steps of $4\, 000$ K. In the interest of clarity, the mass-radius relations for effective temperatures $40\, 000$ K, $60\, 000$ K, $80\, 000$ K, $100\, 000$ K and $120\, 000$ K are displayed with dashed lines.[]{data-label="resultado4"}](fig06.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Age (in Myr) versus luminosity (in solar units) for our H-deficient white dwarf sequences.[]{data-label="resultado3"}](fig07.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[resultado3\] we show the age (Myr) as a function of the luminosity (in solar units) for all the H-deficient sequences. At very high luminosity stages, residual He shell-burning constitutes an appreciable fraction of the surface luminosity. For instance, at $\log
T_{\rm eff}= 5$, the He shell burning luminosity represents 25% of the surface luminosity in our lowest-mass sequence. This contribution declines steeply to 10% at $\log T_{\rm eff}= 4.95$. Except for these very high luminosity stages, evolution during the early stages is driven by neutrino emission and the release of gravothermal energy. In particular, neutrino losses exceed photon luminosity during most of the hot white dwarf stages. Indeed, except for the hot and low-gravity DO sample shown in Fig. \[resultado2\], it is during this “neutrino epoch” that most DO white dwarfs are observed. Note from Fig. \[resultado3\] that the imprints of neutrino emission on the cooling curve are more noticeable as the mass increases. Less massive sequences are older than more massive sequences for $\log(L/L_{\sun})
\gtrsim -1$. At this stage, neutrino emission arrives at its end, thus causing a change in the slope in the cooling curve around $\log(L/L_{\sun})\sim -1$, and later for the less massive sequences. At lower luminosities, Coulomb interactions become more important, increasing the specific heat, until crystallization and the associated release of latent heat start at the center (Van Horn 1968; Winget et al. 2009). At this point, cooling can be well understood on the basis of the simple cooling theory of Mestel (1952), which predicts less massive white dwarfs to cool faster.
For all our cooling sequences, we computed accurate colors and magnitudes based on non-gray LTE model atmospheres (Rohrmann et al. 2002). The calculations were done for a pure helium composition and for the HST ACS filters (Vega-mag system) and $UBVRI$ photometry. Briefly, each model atmosphere is approximated, locally, by plane-parallel layers in hydrostatic equilibrium and local thermodynamic equilibrium. Convective energy transport in cooler atmospheres has been calculated with the so-called ML2 parameterization of the mixing-length theory. The correct total energy flux transported by radiation and convection is obtained from a Rybicki scheme, see details in Rohrmann et al. (2002). Chemical populations are computed within the occupation probability formalism of Hummer & Mihalas (1988). For helium pure models, the opacity sources include bound-free (He, He$^+$, He$^{2+}$) and free-free (He, He$^+$,He$^{2+}$, He$^-$) transitions, electronic and Rayleigh (He) scattering, and the most significant line series of He and He$^+$. The level occupation probabilities are explicitly included in the evaluation of the line and continuum opacities. As an example of the present atmosphere calculations, we show in Fig. \[cmd\] the F814W, F606W–F814W color-magnitude diagram for all our sequences. Colors have been computed for effective temperatures lower than 40000K, because NLTE effects become important above this temperature. For higher effective temperatures, most of radiation flux emerges at shorter wavelengths. We then expect colors to present a markedly less dependence with temperature. Comparison between our color sequences and those due to Bergeron (see Fig. \[cmd\]) reveals a rather good agreement, with some small discrepancies presumably due to differences of the constitutive physics used in the atmosphere codes.
Thin envelope sequences
-----------------------
In section 3.1 we studied sequences characterized by the thickest He-rich envelope that can be left after a born-again episode. However, there is theoretical and observational evidence that He-rich envelopes could be substantially thinner. For instance, using asteroseismology, Kawaler & Bradley (1994) derived a He-rich envelope of $\sim 10^{-3}
M_{\sun}$ in at least one of the PG 1159 stars with masses $0.6 \,
M_{\sun}$. More recently, Althaus et al. (2008) showed that PG 1159 star models with thin He-rich envelopes appear to be needed to solve the discrepancy between the observed (Costa & Kepler 2008) and the theoretical rates of period change in the pulsating star PG1159$-$035. A more direct evidence for the existence of PG 1159 stars with thin He envelopes is provided by the strong mass-loss events reported in the post-born again star V4334 Sgr, also known as Sakurai’s object (van Hoof et al. 2007). All these facts point at the possibility that some PG 1159 stars could be characterized by He-rich envelopes thinner than expected from the standard theory of stellar evolution (Althaus et al. 2009a). Last but not least, the mere existence of the hot DQ class of white dwarfs (Dufour et al. 2007, 2008) could be reflecting the existence of He-rich white dwarfs with extremely thin He envelopes (Dufour et al. 2008; Althaus et al. 2009b). In view of these considerations, we examined the evolution of H-deficient white dwarfs for the extreme situation in which a very thin He envelope could result from prior evolution. To this end, we computed five sequences with stellar masses of 0.53, 0.565, 0.609, 0.664 and $0.741 \,
M_{\sun}$ characterized by He-rich envelopes with masses $\sim 10^{-8}
M_{*}$, a value which is of the order required by the diffusive/convective mixing scenario to explain the origin of hot DQ white dwarfs (Althaus et al. 2009b). To construct initial models with such thin He-rich envelopes, we artificially reduced the He content of our models to $\sim 10^{-8} M_{*}$ well before they reach the PG 1159 domain. These sequences were evolved down to $T_{\rm eff}
\approx$ 20000 K, where the He-rich envelope is diluted by the outer convection zone.
![F814W versus F606W–F814W color-magnitude diagram for our DB white dwarf sequences with pure He envelopes. Dotted lines correspond to Bergeron et al. (1995) sequences for He-atmospheres white dwarfs and stellar masses of, from top to bottom, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, and $0.9\, M_{\sun}$. []{data-label="cmd"}](fig08.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Surface gravity as a function of $T_{\rm eff}$ for the sequences with thin and thick envelopes and stellar masses of 0.530, 0.565, 0.609, 0.664 and $0.741 \, M_{\sun}$.[]{data-label="resultado6"}](fig09.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
![Mass-radius relations for H-deficient sequences with thick (solid lines) and thin (dotted line) He envelopes. Curves correspond to effective temperatures of, from bottom to top, $40\,000$ K to $124\,000$ K in temperature steps of $4\,000$ K.[]{data-label="resultado7"}](fig10.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
{width="90.00000%"}
In Fig. \[resultado6\] the resulting tracks in the $\log g - \log
T_{\rm eff}$ plane are compared with the sequences corresponding to thick He envelope models analyzed in section 3.1. When thin He-rich envelopes are considered, the evolutionary tracks in this plane are strongly modified for the PG 1159 regime, with important consequences for PG 1159 spectroscopic mass determinations (Althaus et al 2008). For the white dwarf regime, models with thin He envelopes are more compact — see Fig. \[resultado7\] — and, thus, are characterized by higher gravities. As a result, lower white dwarf masses would be inferred when the sequences with thin He envelopes are used, as it is clear by examining column 6 in Table \[tabledo\]. From Fig. \[resultado6\] we expect this to be relevant only for the hot white dwarf stages. Indeed, note from Table \[tabledo\] that only for hot DO white dwarfs we find a noticeable, albeit small, change in the stellar mass when the models with thin He-rich envelopes are used. In Fig. \[resultado5\] we show the white dwarf tracks for thin He-rich envelopes together with the observed DO white dwarfs as listed in Table \[tabledo\]. Note that the low-mass sequences with thin He envelopes evolve faster during the hot stages of evolution. In fact, for these DO white dwarfs significantly smaller ages are inferred when the tracks with thin He envelopes are used, see column 8 in Table \[tabledo\]. This is because the He shell burning does not represent an energy source in the sequences with thin He envelopes. Finally, the formation of a double-layered structure in pulsating DB stars is not expected if H-deficient white dwarfs are formed with sufficiently thin He-rich envelopes.
Discussion and conclusions {#conclusiones}
==========================
Motivated by the increasing number of detected hot H-deficient white dwarfs (of the DO type) as well as by the lack of realistic sets of evolutionary tracks appropriate for their interpretation, we computed new evolutionary sequences and colors for non-DA white dwarfs with stellar masses of 0.515, 0.530, 0.542, 0.565, 0.584, 0.609, 0.664, 0.741 and $0.870 \, M_{\sun}$. In contrast to previous studies, these sequences were obtained considering the full evolution of the progenitor stars, from the ZAMS through the thermally pulsing AGB phase and born-again episode, to the domain of the PG 1159 stars — see Miller Bertolami & Althaus (2006) for details. Our H-deficient white dwarf evolutionary tracks are thus not affected by inconsistencies arising from artificial procedures to generate the starting white dwarf configurations, and so, they are appropriate for realistic mass and age determinations of H-deficient white dwarfs, particularly for objects at the early and hot stages. Calculations were followed to advanced phases of evolution down to an effective temperature of 7000 K.
We applied this new set of tracks to redetermine the stellar masses of all known DO white dwarfs with spectroscopically-determined effective temperatures and gravities. The results are listed in Table \[tabledo\]. The stellar masses for hot DOs with the lowest gravities inferred from our tracks differ appreciably from the determinations based on the evolutionary tracks of Wood (1995). This is because these tracks do not consider the full evolution of progenitor stars. This is also true for the age determinations of these stars. In particular, our evolutionary sequences provide realistic ages at very early stages of evolution. For thick He layers, we find that He shell-burning supplies an appreciable fraction of the surface luminosity, thus changing appreciably the evolutionary time scales, particularly of the hottest DO white dwarfs with low gravities. The amount of He left in the remnant white dwarf affects both the mass and the age determinations of hot DOs. Models with thin He-rich envelopes are characterized by higher gravities than models with thick He-rich envelopes, thus predicting lower white dwarf stellar masses for the observed DOs.
The evolutionary tracks presented here cover all the stages from the domain of luminous PG 1159 star region to the hot white dwarf domain. Thus, they constitute an homogeneous set of evolutionary tracks to study both type of stars. This is of major interest because we can make consistent mass determinations for both the DOs and PG 1159 stars for the first time. In Fig. \[histo\] we compare the mass distribution of the DO white dwarfs listed in Table \[tabledo\] with the mass distribution of PG 1159 stars constructed on the basis of mass determinations made by Miller Bertolami & Althaus (2006), shaded region and solid line, respectively. The size of the bins in both distributions is $0.1\, M_{\sun}$. Note that massive DOs outnumber massive PG 1159 stars. We obtain a mean DO mass of $0.644 \,
M_{\sun}$, considerably higher (by $0.071 \, M_{\sun}$) than the mean mass of PG 1159 stars, $0.573\, M_{\sun}$. One may wonder if the reason for this difference is simply that evolution through the PG 1159 stage proceeds considerably faster for massive stars (Miller Bertolami & Althaus 2006), thus decreasing the possibility of detection. To elaborate on this point, we have proceeded as follows. In order to avoid the possibility that the massive PG1159 stars are under-represented because they do not spend long times in the PG 1159 stage, we have tested the hypothesis that PG 1159 stars and DO white dwarfs form an isolated evolutionary sequence by analyzing the PG 1159+DO group as a whole. Taking advantage of the consistent set of tracks for both groups, we have divided the sample (78 stars) into two groups based on their age. The young group, which consists of all stars with ages below 0.3 Myr (this includes all 37 PG 1159 stars plus 12 young DO white dwarfs) and the old group consisting of all DO white dwarfs with ages greater than 0.4 Myr (29 stars). It must be noted that there are no PG 1159 stars in the old group.
The choice of the 0.3–0.4 Myr isochrone to divide both groups is admittedly arbitrary but suggested by the location of the different wind limits studied by Unglaub & Bues (2000). Dividing the whole PG 1159+DO group by an isochrone allows to test the hypothesis that PG 1159 and DO stars form an isolated evolutionary sequence. This can be done comparing their mass distributions (as relative numbers within a given group will not be affected by differences in evolutionary speeds). The two groups show significant differences in their mass distributions. While the young group has a mean mass of $M_{\rm
Y}=0.584 \, M_{\sun}$ (with a variance of $\sigma_{\rm Y}=0.080 \,
M_{\sun}$) the old group has a mean mass of $M_{\rm O}=0.655 \,
M_{\sun}$ (with a variance of $\sigma_{\rm O}=0.087 \, M_{\sun}$). Thus, the difference in the mean masses is comparable with the variance within each sample, suggesting that both mass distributions are significantly different. This is confirmed by a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The result of this test is that the probability that both samples are taken from the same mass distribution is rather small ($\sim 10^{-5}$).
These results clearly suggest that there may be some other important evolutionary channels operating within PG 1159 and DO stars. For instance, it is possible that not all PG 1159 stars evolve to DOs. In particular, those PG 1159 stars resulting from a LTP — low-mass remnants are more prone to experience a LTP episode — are expected to evolve into DA white dwarfs (near the winds limits shown in Fig. \[resultado2\] with solid dashed lines), thus avoiding the DO stage, as shown by Unglaub & Bues (2000). This is so because, in contrast to a VLTP event, in a LTP, H is not burned, but instead diluted to low surface abundances (Miller Bertolami & Althaus 2006). Alternatively, some DO white dwarfs could result from evolutionary channels that not involve only the PG 1159 stars. For instance, they could be the result of post-merger evolution involving the giant, H-deficient RCrB stars, via the evolutionary link RCrB $\rightarrow$ EHe (extreme He stars)$\rightarrow$ He-SdO$^+$ $\rightarrow$O(He) $\rightarrow$ DO — see Rauch et al. (2006) for a connection between O(He) stars and RCrB stars. This is reinforced by the recent study by Werner et al. (2008a,b) of the star KPD0005+5106, the hottest known DO white dwarf. These authors present evidence that KPD0005+5106 is not a descendant of PG 1159 stars, but more probably related to the O(He) stars and RCrB stars.
![The shaded histogram shows the mass distribution for the DO white dwarfs listed in Table 3. The mass determinations have been done using the evolutionary tracks described in this work. The solid line corresponds to the PG 1159 mass distribution from Miller Bertolami & Althaus (2006), and the dashed line to that of DB white dwarfs taken from Kepler et al. (2007).[]{data-label="histo"}](fig12.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
The group of young and hot DO white dwarfs is particularly relevant. Note that they are located considerably above the wind limit for PG 1159 stars (see Fig. \[resultado2\]). In fact, above this line, mass-loss is large enough to prevent gravitational settling. Hence, the transformation of a PG 1159 star into a DO white dwarf should be expected approximately below this line. Although the estimated mass-loss rates could be overestimated by more than a factor of ten — in which case the transition from PG 1159 to DO would be near a line with $\log g\approx 7.5$ (Unglaub & Bues 2000) — it could be possible that the less massive and young DOs are not the descendants of PG 1159 stars. This is also suggested by the fact that for ages less than about 0.3–0.4 Myr, the DO white dwarf population is markedly less massive than at greater ages. Indeed, the number of detected old, less massive DOs is smaller than the number of young, less massive DOs, despite the evolutionary timescales being a factor about 5 for the former. This could be indicative that some of the less massive DOs experience a tranformation in their spectral type after $\approx 0.3-0.4$ Myr of evolution. In particular, traces of H could turn the white dwarf spectral type from DO to DA as a result of gravitational settling. An approximate location where this transformation should occur is provided by the thick dashed lines shown in Fig. \[resultado2\], which provides the wind limits for PG 1159 stars with different initial H abundances (Unglaub & Bues 2000). It is worth mentioning that because of the much smaller carbon content and correspondingly less intense winds, such limits would be expected at lower gravities in a DO white dwarf with similar H content. According to Unglaub & Bues (1998), for a DO white dwarf with $\log g= 7$ and H number ratio of 0.01, the transformation into a DAO in presence of a moderate mass loss would take about 0.25 Myr, not very different from the age range where the DO mass distribution seems to change. At this point it is worthwhile to comment on the possibility that the origin of low-mass, hot DOs can be connected with the merger of two low-mass, He-core white dwarfs (Guerrero et al. 2004; Lorén–Aguilar et al. 2009), which will evolve to become a low-gravity extreme He star and then a hot subdwarf (Saio & Jeffery 2000). The presence of H expected in this case, could lead to a transformation of the DO white dwarfs into DA ones.
In Fig. \[histo\] we have also included with dashed line the mass distribution of the DB white dwarfs in SDSS hotter than $T_{\rm eff} =
16\,000$ K taken from Kepler et al. (2007). The DB distribution is more weigthed to massive stars. In fact, the DB mean mass is of $0.711\, M_{\sun}$, considerably higher than the mean DO mass of $0.644 \, M_{\sun}$. This marked difference in the mass distribution between both populations is certainly quite unexpected in view of our understanding that DO stars must evolve into DB stars. However, it is possible that the DB stellar masses considered in Fig. \[histo\] could be overestimated. This hypothesis was raised by Kepler et al. (2007), who discuss that an increase in the measured surface gravity of DBs below $T_{\rm eff} \approx 18\,000$ K could result from missing or incorrect physics in model atmospheres at such temperatures. It could be also possible that the increase in the gravity of the DBs by $T_{\rm eff}\approx 18\,000$ K could be reflecting the existence of DBs with traces of carbon in their atmospheres. As shown by Dufour et al. (2005) in the context of cool DQs, the surface gravities derived from model atmospheres including carbon are significantly lower than the gravities obtained from pure He models. The idea that some carbon could be present in the atmosphere of some hot DBs is particularly attractive if a large fraction of DB white dwarfs evolve through the hot DQ stage. Indeed, as discussed in Althaus et al (2009b) in the diffusive/convective mixing picture for the hot DQ formation, shortly after the formation of the carbon-rich convective envelope, by $T_{\rm
eff} \approx 20\,000$ K, a substantial depletion of carbon is expected in the entire convective envelope, because of the very short diffusion timescale at the base of the convection zone. Hence, it is expected that the hot DQ stage, during which the white dwarf is characterized by high amounts of carbon in its surface, is indeed a short-lived phase. However, the change in composition in the convective envelope will lead to changes in the depth of the convection zone, which will affect, in turn, the timescales of diffusion. The lack of detailed computations of this feedback between convection and diffusion shortly after the formation of a DQ does not allow to make reasonable predictions, but it is not discarded that the star experiences additional mixing episodes, eventually reaching some stationary situation in which the star resembles a He-rich DB white dwarf with some carbon in its atmosphere. This being the true course of events, it would be worthwhile to re-determine the mass distribution of DBs in the frame of model atmospheres that incorporate the effects of the presence of carbon. Finally, in view of the material discussed in this section, it is feasible that a fraction of low-mass DOs experiences a change in their spectral type at young ages.
In closing, because our DO tracks consider the evolutionary history of progenitor, we can make sound predictions about the chemical profile expected in the envelope of H-deficient white dwarfs. This is of relevance for asteroseismological inferences about pulsating DB white dwarfs. In particular, we find that depending on the stellar mass, diffusion processes lead to a variety of envelope chemical profiles, from single-layered to double-layered structures, by the time evolution has proceeded to the domain of the variable DBs. Detailed tabulations of our evolutionary sequences are available at our web site [http://www.fcaglp.unlp.edu.ar/evolgroup]{}.
This research was supported by AGENCIA: Programa de Modernización Tecnológica BID 1728/OC-AR, by the AGAUR, by MCINN grant AYA2008–04211–C02–01, by the European Union FEDER funds and by PIP 6521 grant from CONICET. LGA also acknowledges a PIV grant of the AGAUR of the Generalitat de Catalunya. We also acknowledge the comments and suggestions of our referee, K. Werner, which strongly improved the original version of this work. This research has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System. Finally, we thank H. Viturro and R. Martínez for technical support
Abazajian, K., et al. 2003, , 126, 2081
Adelman-McCarthy, J. K., et al. 2006, , 162, 38
Althaus, L. G., & C[ó]{}rsico, A. H. 2004, , 417, 1115
Althaus, L. G., C[ó]{}rsico, A. H., & Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2007b, , 467, 1175
Althaus, L. G., C[ó]{}rsico, A. H., Torres, S., & Garc[í]{}a-Berro, E. 2009a, , 494, 1021
Althaus, L. G., Serenelli, A. M., C[ó]{}rsico, A. H., & Montgomery, M. H. 2003, , 404, 593
Althaus, L. G., C[ó]{}rsico, A. H., Miller Bertolami, M. M., Garc[í]{}a-Berro, E., & Kepler, S. O. 2008, , 677, L35
Althaus, L. G., Garc[í]{}a-Berro, E., C[ó]{}rsico, A. H., Miller Bertolami, M. M., & Romero, A. D. 2009b, , 693, L23
Althaus, L. G., Garc[í]{}a-Berro, E., Isern, J., C[ó]{}rsico, A. H., & Rohrmann, R. D. 2007a, , 465, 249
Althaus, L. G., Serenelli, A. M., Panei, J. A., C[ó]{}rsico, A. H., Garc[í]{}a-Berro, E., & Sc[ó]{}ccola, C. G. 2005, , 435, 631
Althaus, L. G., Panei, J. A., Romero, A. D., Rohrmann, R. D., C[ó]{}rsico, A. H., Garc[í]{}a-Berro, E., & Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2009c, , 502, 207
Angulo, C., et al. 1999, Nuclear Physics A, 656, 3
Benvenuto, O. G., & Althaus, L. G. 1999, MNRAS, 303, 30
Bergeron, P., Wesemael, F., & Beauchamp, A. 1995, , 107, 1047
Blöcker, T. 1995, , 297, 727
Burgers, J. M. 1969, [*“Flow Equations for Composite Gases”*]{}, New York: Academic Press
Cassisi, S., Potekhin, A. Y., Pietrinferni, A., Catelan, M., & Salaris, M. 2007, , 661, 1094
Caughlan, G. R., & Fowler, W. A. 1988, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 40, 283
C[ó]{}rsico, A. H., Althaus, L. G., & Miller Bertolami, M. M. 2006, , 458, 259
C[ó]{}rsico, A. H., Benvenuto, O. G., Althaus, L. G., Isern, J., & Garc[í]{}a-Berro, E. 2001, New Astronomy, 6, 197
Costa, J. E. S., & Kepler, S. O. 2008, , 489, 1225
Dehner, B. T., & Kawaler, S. D. 1995, , 445, L141
Díaz-Pinto, A., García–Berro, E., Hernanz, M., Isern, J., & Mochkovitch, R. 1994, , 282, 86
Dreizler, S., & Heber, U. 1998, , 334, 618
Dreizler, S., & Werner, K. 1996, , 314, 217
Dreizler, S., Werner, K., Heber, U., Reid, N., & Hagen, H. 1997, in [*“The Third Conference on Faint Blue Stars”*]{}, Eds.: A. G. D. Philip, J. Liebert, R. Saffer & D. S. Hayes (New York: L. Davis Press), 303
Dufour, P., Bergeron, P., & Fontaine, G. 2005, , 627, 404
Dufour, P., Liebert, J., Fontaine, G., & Behara, N. 2007, , 450, 522
Dufour, P., Fontaine, G., Liebert, J., Schmidt, G. D., & Behara, N. 2008, , 683, 978
Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2006, , 167, 40
Fontaine, G., & Brassard, P. 2002, , 581, L33
Fontaine, G., & Brassard, P. 2008, , 120, 1043
Fujimoto, M. Y. 1977, , 29, 331
García–Berro, E., Hernanz, M., Isern, J., & Mochkovitch, R. 1988, , 333, 642
Gautschy, A., & Althaus, L. G. 2002, , 382, 141
Guerrero, J., Garc[í]{}a-Berro, E., & Isern, J. 2004, , 413, 257
Haft, M., Raffelt, G., & Weiss, A. 1994, , 425, 222
Hansen, B. M. S., et al. 2007, , 671, 380
Herwig, F., Bl[ö]{}cker, T., Langer, N., & Driebe, T. 1999, , 349, L5
H[ü]{}gelmeyer, S. D., Dreizler, S., Werner, K., Krzesi[ń]{}ski, J., Nitta, A., & Kleinman, S. J. 2005, , 442, 309
H[ü]{}gelmeyer, S. D., Dreizler, S., Homeier, D., Krzesi[ń]{}ski, J., Werner, K., Nitta, A., & Kleinman, S. J. 2006, , 454, 617
Hummer, D. G., & Mihalas, D. 1988, , 331, 794
Iben, I., Jr., Kaler, J. B., Truran, J. W., & Renzini, A. 1983, , 264, 605
Iglesias, C. A., & Rogers, F. J. 1996, , 464, 943
Isern, J., Garc[í]{}a-Berro, E., Torres, S., & Catal[á]{}n, S. 2008, , 682, L109
Isern, J., García–Berro, E., Hernanz, M., Mochkovitch, R., & Torres, S. 1998, , 503, 239
Itoh, N., Hayashi, H., Nishikawa, A., & Kohyama, Y. 1996, , 102, 411
Kawaler, S. D., & Bradley, P. A. 1994, , 427, 415
Kepler, S. O., Kleinman, S. J., Nitta, A., Koester, D., Castanheira, B. G., Giovannini, O., Costa, A. F. M., & Althaus, L. 2007, , 375, 1315
Kleinman, S. J., et al. 2004, , 607, 426
Krzesi[ń]{}ski, J., Nitta, A., Kleinman, S. J., Harris, H. C., Liebert, J., Schmidt, G., Lamb, D. Q., & Brinkmann, J. 2004, , 417, 1093
Lor[é]{}n-Aguilar, P., Guerrero, J., Isern, J., Lobo, J. A., & Garc[í]{}a-Berro, E. 2005, , 356, 627
Magni, G., & Mazzitelli, I. 1979, , 72, 134
Mestel, L. 1952, , 112, 583
Miller Bertolami, M. M., & Althaus, L. G. 2006, , 454, 845
Miller Bertolami, M. M., & Althaus, L. G. 2007, , 470, 675
Miller Bertolami, M. M., Althaus, L. G., Serenelli, A. M., & Panei, J. A. 2006, , 449, 313
Miller Bertolami, M. M., Althaus, L. G., Unglaub, K., & Weiss, A. 2008, , 491, 253
O’Brien, M. S., & Kawaler, S. D. 2000, , 539, 372
Prada Moroni, P. G., & Straniero, O. 2007, , 466, 1043
Rauch, T., Reiff, E., Werner, K., Herwig, F., Koesterke, L., & Kruk, J. W. 2006, in [*“Astrophysics in the Far Ultraviolet: Five Years of Discovery with FUSE”*]{}, Eds.: G. Sonneborn, H. Moos & B. G. Andersson, ASP Conf. Ser., 348, 194
Rohrmann, R. D., Serenelli, A. M., Althaus, L. G., & Benvenuto, O. G. 2002, , 335, 499
Saio, H., & Jeffery, C. S. 2000, , 313, 671
Schönberner, D. 1979, , 79, 108
Segretain, L., Chabrier, G., Hernanz, M., Garcia-Berro, E., Isern, J., & Mochkovitch, R. 1994, , 434, 641
Straniero, O., Dom[í]{}nguez, I., Imbriani, G., & Piersanti, L. 2003, , 583, 878
Tassoul, M., Fontaine, G., & Winget, D. E. 1990, , 72, 335
Torres, S., Garc[í]{}a–Berro, E., Burkert, A., & Isern, J. 2002, , 336, 971
Unglaub, K., & Bues, I. 1998, , 338, 75
Unglaub, K., & Bues, I. 2000, , 359, 1042
van Hoof, P. A. M., et al. 2007, , 471, L9
van Horn, H. M. 1968, , 151, 227
Werner, K. 2001, , 275, 27
Werner, K., & Herwig, F. 2006, , 118, 183
Werner, K., Rauch, T., & Kruk, J. W. 2008a, in [*“Hydrogen-Deficient Stars”*]{} , Eds.: K. Werner & T. Rauch, ASP Conf. Ser., 391, 239
Werner, K., Rauch, T., & Kruk, J. W. 2008b, , 492, L43
Werner, K., Rauch, T., Napiwotzki, R., Christlieb, N., Reimers, D., & Karl, C. A. 2004, , 424, 657
Winget, D. E., & Kepler, S. O. 2008, , 46, 157
Winget, D. E., Kepler, S. O., Campos, F., Montgomery, M. H., Girardi, L., Bergeron, P., & Williams, K. 2009, , 693, L6
Winget, D. E., Hansen, C. J., Liebert, J., van Horn, H. M., Fontaine, G., Nather, R. E., Kepler, S. O., & Lamb, D. Q. 1987, , 315, L77
Wood, M. A. 1995, Lecture Notes in Physics, (Berlin: Springer-Verlag) Vol. 443, 41
York, D. G. et al. 2000, , 120, 1579
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'By using a notion of a geometric Dehn twist in $\sharp_k(S^2 \times S^1)$, we prove that when projections of two ${\mathbb{Z}}$-splittings to the free factor complex are far enough from each other in the free factor complex, Dehn twist automorphisms corresponding to the ${\mathbb{Z}}$ splittings generate a free group of rank $2$. Moreover, every element from this free group is either conjugate to a power of one of the Dehn twists or it is a fully irreducible outer automorphism of the free group. We also prove that, when the projections of ${\mathbb{Z}}$–splittings are sufficiently far away from each other in the intersection graph, the group generated by the Dehn twists have automorphisms either that are conjugate to Dehn twists or are atoroidal fully irreducibles.'
address: |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign\
Urbana, IL 61801
author:
- Funda Gültepe
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: |
Fully irreducible Automorphisms of the Free Group\
via Dehn twisting in $\sharp_k(S^2 \times S^1)$
---
introduction
============
Due to their dynamical properties, *fully irreducible* outer automorphisms are important to understand the dynamics and geometric structure of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Out}}\xspace}(F_k)$ and its subgroups.([@LevLust1], [@CLAYP], [@bestclay1]). Just like pseudo Anosov surface homeomorphisms, fully irreducibles are characterized to be the class of automorphisms no power of which fixes a conjugacy class of a proper free factor of $F_k$. Since their dynamical properties and their role in ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Out}}\xspace}(F_k)$ is similar to those of pseudo Anosov mapping classes for the mapping class group, to construct fully irreducibles it is natural to seek ways similar to those of pseudo Anosov constructions. In this work, we will provide such construction using *Dehn twist automorphisms*, by composing powers of Dehn twists from the free group of rank $2$ that they generate. This is inspired by the work of Thurston on pseudo Anosov mapping classes of mapping class group of a surface ([@Thurston1]) yet we use the similar ping pong methods Hamidi-Tehrani uses in his generalization of Thurston’s to Dehn twists along multicurves ([@HTEH02]).
Constructing fully irreducible automorphisms by composing certain (possibly powers of) other automorphisms and locating free groups is not new to the study of automorphisms of the free group. For instance, Clay and Pettet in [@CLAYP] constructed fully irreducibles by composing elements of a free group of rank $2$ which was generated by powers of two Dehn twist automorphisms. However, the powers of the Dehn twists used to generate the free group were not uniform but depended on the twists, one needed to take a different power for each pair of Dehn twists to obtain a free group.
In their work Clay and Pettet studied Dehn twists algebraically, as outer automorphisms of the free group and they used algebraic tools to study them. As a result their construction produced the nonuniform powers of twists. In this paper, our goal is constructing fully irreducible automorphisms by studying Dehn twist automorphisms differently. We first change the model for ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Out}}\xspace}(F_k)$ from the $1$–dimensional one to the $3$–dimensional one, $M=\sharp_k(S^2 \times S^1)$. This way, we were able to understand Dehn twists geometrically, using essential imbedded tori in $M$. This approach resulted in a more geometric construction of fully irreducibles.
More specifically, we will prove the following theorem using *geometric Dehn twists*.
\[twist\] Let $T_1$ and $T_2$ be two $\mathbb{Z}$–splittings of the free group $F_k$ with rank $k>2$ and $\alpha_1$ and ${\alpha}_2$ be two corresponding free factors in the free factor complex $FF_k$ of the free group $F_k$. Let $D_{1}$ be a Dehn twist fixing $\alpha_1$ and $D_{2}$ a Dehn twist fixing $\alpha_2$, corresponding to $T_1$ and $T_2$, respectively. Then there exists a constant $N=N(k)$ such that whenever $d_{FF_k}(\alpha_1, {\alpha}_2) \geq N$,
1. $\langle D_{1}, D_{2}\rangle \simeq F_2$.
2. All elements of $\langle D_{1}, D_{2}\rangle$ which are not conjugate to the powers of $D_{1}, D_{2}$ in $\langle D_{1}, D_{2}\rangle$ are fully irreducible.
Now we would like to give the definitions necessary to understand the statement of the Theorem \[twist\] and explain the ideas used in its proof.
[**Splittings and ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Out}}\xspace}(F_k)$ Complexes:**]{}
A *Dehn twist automorphism* is an element of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Out}}\xspace}(F_k)$ defined by using $\mathbb{Z}$–splittings of $F_k$ either as an amalgamated free product $F_k=A\ast_{{\langle}c {\rangle}}B$ or as an HNN extension of the free group $F_k= A\ast_{{\langle}c {\rangle}}$. More precisely, it is induced by the following automorphisms in each case: $$\begin{aligned}
A*_{{\langle}c {\rangle}} B:& \, a \mapsto a \text{ for } a \in A & \quad
A*_{{\langle}tct^{-1} = c' {\rangle}}:& \, a \mapsto a \text{ for } a \in A \\
& \, b \mapsto cbc^{-1} \text{ for } b \in B & & \, t \mapsto tc\end{aligned}$$ Given a $\mathbb{Z}$–splitting of $F_k$ as $F_k=A_1\ast_{{\langle}c_1 {\rangle}}B_1$ at least one of $A_1$, $B_1$ is a proper free factor. In HNN extension case $F_k= A_1\ast_{{\langle}c_1 {\rangle}}$ the stable letter is a proper free factor. By Bass–Serre theory, each $\mathbb{Z}$–splitting of $F_k$ gives rise to a tree whose quotient with respect to the action of the free group is a single edge. The edge stabilizer is $\mathbb{Z}$ and vertex stabilizers in the amalgamated case are $A_1$ and $B_1$ while in the HNN case it is $A_1$. We will coarsely *project* each splitting onto the vertex which is a proper free factor. In the amalgamated case we consider the Dehn twist automorphism corresponding to the $\mathbb{Z}$–splitting which fixes this free factor and in the HNN case the Dehn twist automorphism will be the one fixing the vertex stabilizer. We study the action of this Dehn twist on the *free factor complex* $FF_k$ of the free group $F_k$ of rank $k$ and we determine under which conditions the compositions of the Dehn twist automorphisms give fully irreducible automorphisms. The free factor complex is a simplicial complex whose vertices are conjugacy classes of proper free factors of $F_k$ and the adjacency between two vertices corresponding to two free factors $A$ and $B$ is given whenever $A < B$ or $B< A$. This complex was first introduced by Hatcher and Vogtmann in [@H3] as a *curve complex* analog for ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Out}}\xspace}(F_k)$ and in this work we will use its geometric properties due to its hyperbolicity, which is given in [@BestHyp] by Bestvina and Handel.
There are several geometrically distinct hyperbolic simplicial complices ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Out}}\xspace}(F_k)$ acts on by simplicial automorphisms which are considered to be analogs to the curve complex for the mapping class group. Contrary to the case with the curve complex and the action of the mapping class group on it, it is not always possible to identify fully irreducible elements with respect to the way they act on a curve complex analog. For example, an element of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Out}}\xspace}(F_k)$ might act hyperbolically on a curve complex analog yet it may not be fully irreducible. In this work the free factor complex was used since loxodromic action of an automorphism on free factor complex completely characterizes being fully irreducible for a free group automorphism. Thus, to identify fully irreducibles in a group generated by two Dehn twists, it is enough to have a loxodromic action.
As *geometric* Dehn twist we mean the following. For each equivalence class of a ${\mathbb{Z}}$–splitting, by Lemma \[CR\], there is an associated homotopy class of a torus in $M$. More specifically, an amalgamated free product gives a separating torus in $M$ whereas an HNN extension corresponds to a non-separating torus. Hence, each Dehn twist automorphism corresponds to a Dehn twist along the torus given by the ${\mathbb{Z}}$–splitting. The Dehn twist along a torus will be called a geometric Dehn twist.
[**Dehn twists and their almost fixed sets:**]{} To prove the main theorem we use a *ping pong argument for elliptic type subgroup* since Dehn twists have fixed points in the free factor complex. To define such argument one needs to construct so called ping pong sets. Thus we need to know first that the points of the free factor complex which are not moved too far away by a power of a Dehn twist are manageable. More precisely, let $\phi\in {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Out}}\xspace}(F_k)$ and let $$F_C(\phi)= \{x \in FF_k: \exists n \neq 0\,\,\text{such that}\,\, d(x, \phi^n(x)) \leq C \}$$ be its almost fixed set in $FF_k$. The following theorem is the main ingredient in the elliptic type ping pong argument.
\[diam\] Let $T$ be a $\mathbb{Z}$–splitting of the free group $F_k$ with $k >2$, and $D_{T}$ denote a corresponding Dehn twist. Then, for all sufficiently large constants $C$, there exists a $C'=C'(C,k)$ such that the diameter of the almost fixed set $$F_C= \{x \in FF_k: \exists n \neq 0\,\, \text{such that}\,\,d(x, D_{T}^n(x)) \leq C \}$$ corresponding to $ \langle D_{T} \rangle$ is bounded above by $C'$.
[**Relative twisting and distances along paths:**]{} Now, to prove that the almost fixed sets of Dehn twists have bounded diameter, one needs to understand distances between points in the free factor complex. However we cannot assume that there is a geodesic between two points in the free factor complex which is appropriate for our calculation purposes since we do not know what these geodesics are. But it is known that the *folding paths* in outer space give rise to geodesics in outer space and their projections to free factor complex are quasigeodesics. To prove the Theorem \[diam\], we have proved that there is a folding path whose projection to the free factor complex is at a bounded distance from the given free factor. To achieve this one would need an analog of the *annulus projection* and to be able to calculate distances on an annulus complex. Then using a version of *Bounded Geodesic Image Theorem* of [@MM2] one would conclude that whenever the number of twists is more than the universal constant given in this theorem, the quasi geodesic between a point and its twisted image has a vertex which does not intersect the core curve of the annulus. However, we do not have the main tool for the purpose, which is an analog for annulus projection, since the subfactor projection is not defined for free factors of rank one ([@BestSF], [@ST1].)
To calculate distances without using a projection we refer to a theorem of Clay and Pettet in [@CP2] in which they give a pairing $tw_a(G,G{'})$ named *relative twisting number* between two graphs $G, G{'} \in CV_k$ relative to some nontrivial $a\in F_k$, which is defined by means of the Guirardel core. Using this pairing, they obtain a condition on the graphs $G, G{'} \in CV_k$ that, when satisfied, enables them construct a connecting geodesic between them, traveling through thin part of $CV_k$.
[**Relative twisting along tori in $\displaystyle{\sharp_k(S^2 \times S^1)}$:**]{} We have used the interpretation of *the relative twisting number* pairing $tw_a(G,G{'})$ for two spheres relative to an element of the free group, which is in our case the generator of the core (longitude) curve of a torus. Then the relative twist is a number which calculates distances between two spheres which are intersecting the same torus along its core curve. Mimicking annulus projection, the relative twisting number might be interpreted as number of intersections between *projections* of some spheres in $M$ onto a torus (yet we do not make a formal definition of such a projection). With relative twisting number we were able to calculate a lower bound for the twisting number between a sphere and its Dehn twisted image, relative to a torus hence in some sense relative to a rank-$1$ free factor (related to its core curve). Afterwards, a lemma of [@CP2] by Clay and Pettet guarantees the existence of a geodesic between the corresponding points in the outer space along which core curve gets short. Using a Bestvina-Feighn lemma ([@BestHyp]) we project this geodesic to the free factor complex and using the distance calculations we show easily that the almost fixed set of a Dehn twist automorphism has a bounded diameter. This completes the preparation for ping pong with elliptic type group as it is given by Kapovich and Weidmann in [@KWeid1]. Now we have ping pong sets that we have control over.
The main argument which also finishes the proof of our main result is encoded in the following theorem.
\[gen\] Let $G$ be a group acting on a $\delta$-hyperbolic metric space $X$ by isometries and $\phi_1, \phi_2 \in G$. Suppose $C>100 \delta$ and the almost fixed sets ${\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_1)$ and ${\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_2)$ of $\langle \phi_1 \rangle$ and $ \langle \phi_2 \rangle$ respectively have diameters bounded above by a constant $C{'}$. Then there exists a constant $C_1$ such that, whenever $d_X({\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_1),{\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_2)) \geq C_1$,
1. $\langle \phi_1, \phi_2 \rangle \simeq F_2$ and,
2. every element of $\langle {\phi_1}, {\phi_2}\rangle $ which is not conjugate to the powers of $\phi_1, \phi_2$ in $\langle {\phi_1}, {\phi_2}\rangle $ acts loxodromically in $X$.
Finally, we *project* Dehn twists to *intersection graph* ${\mathcal{P}}_k$. Its vertex set consists of marked roses up to equivalence and there are two types of edges between vertices. The first is that whenever two roses share an edge with the same label, corresponding vertices are connected by an edge in ${\mathcal{P}}_k$. Second one is obtained whenever there is a marked surface with one boundary component such that the element of the fundamental group represented by the boundary crosses each edge of both roses twice. This simplicial complex is closely related to the *intersection graph* introduced by Kapovich and Lustig ([@KaLu2]) and it is hyperbolic. ([@MannTh]).
A fully irreducible automorphism is called *geometric* if it is induced by a pseudo-Anosov homeomorphism of a surface with one boundary component. A fully irreducible automorphism is *atoroidal* if no positive power of it preserves the conjugacy class of a nontrivial element of $F_k$. Moreover, only non-geometric fully irreducible automorphisms are atoroidal by a theorem of Bestvina-Handel ([@BH1]). The important feature of the intersection graph for us is that the atoroidal fully irreducibles act loxodromically on this graph ([@MannTh]).
We obtain the following theorem.
\[ato\] Let $T_1$ and $T_2$ be two $\mathbb{Z}$–splittings of $F_k$ with $k>2$ with corresponding free factors $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ and let $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$ be two Dehn twists corresponding to $T_1$ and $T_2$, respectively. Then there exists a constant $N_2=N_2(k)$ such that whenever $d_{{\mathcal{P}}_k}(\sigma(\alpha_1), \sigma(\alpha_2)) \geq N_2$ , $\langle D_{_1}, D_{_2}\rangle \simeq F_2$ and all elements from this group which are not conjugate to the powers of $D_{1}, D_{2}$ in $\langle D_{1}, D_{2}\rangle$ are atoroidal fully irreducible.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
I would like to thank Ilya Kapovich for asking the question which led to the writing of this paper. I am especially indebted to Chris Leininger for his constant support and for suggesting a shorter proof for the main theorem. I am very grateful for Matt Clay for giving me permission to use his proof in this paper. Many thanks also to Mark C. Bell for reading the preprint and making many useful suggestions. Lastly I would like to specifically thank the anonymous referee whose suggestions and corrections improved the paper substantially.
Preliminaries
=============
Sphere systems and normal tori
------------------------------
Let $M=\sharp_k(S^2 \times S^1)$. Then ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Out}}\xspace}(F_k)$ is isomorphic to the mapping class group $MCG(M)$ of $M$ up to twists about $2$-spheres in $M$ ([@LAUD]). $M$ can be described as follows: we remove the interiors of $2k$ disjoint 3-balls from $S^3$ and identify the resulting 2-sphere boundary components in pairs by orientation-reversing diffeomorphisms, creating $k$ many $S^2\times S^1$ summands.
Associated to $M$ is a rich algebraic structure coming from the essential $2$-spheres that $M$ contains. A *sphere system* is a collection of isotopy classes of disjoint and non-trivial 2-spheres in $M$ no two of which are isotopic.
We call a collection $\Sigma$ of disjointly imbedded essential, non-isotopic $2$-spheres in $M$ *a maximal sphere system* if every complementary component of $\Sigma$ in $M$ is a $3$-punctured $3$-sphere.
A fixed maximal sphere system $\Sigma$ in $M$ gives a description of the universal cover $\widetilde{M}$ of $M$ as follows. Let ${\mathbb{P}}$ be the set of $3$-punctured $3$-spheres in $M$ given by a maximal sphere system $\Sigma$ and regard $M$ as obtained from copies of $P$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$ by identifying pairs of boundary spheres. Note that a pair might both be contained in a single $P$, in which case the image of $P$ in $M$ is a once-punctured $S^2\times S^1$. To construct $\widetilde{M}$, begin with a single copy of $P$ and attach copies of the $P$ in ${\mathbb{P}}$ inductively along boundary spheres, as determined by unique path lifting. Repeating this process gives a description of $\widetilde{M}$ as a treelike union of copies of the $P$. We remark that $\widetilde{M}$ is homeomorphic to the complement of a Cantor set in $S^3$.
To be able to define a concept of Dehn twist, we need to use the correspondence between the equivalence classes of $\mathbb{Z}$–splittings of $F_k$ and homotopy classes of *essential* tori in $M$, which is given in Lemma \[CR\].
For us, a torus in $M$ is an imbedded torus in $M$ so that the image of the fundamental group of torus is a cyclic group isomorphic to ${\mathbb{Z}}$ in $\pi_1(M)$. Moreover, we consider *essential* tori only, the tori which do not bound a solid torus in $M$. There are two types of essential tori in $M$, depending on the type of the splitting of the free group they correspond to. Namely, for an amalgamated free product we have a separating torus in $M$ and a non-separating one for an HNN extension of the free group. Two examples could be seen in the Figure \[fig:MT\].
As an analog of a geodesic representative from a homotopy class of a curve, among the representatives of a torus in a homotopy class, it is necessary to identify one which intersects the spheres in a maximal sphere system of $M$ minimally. To this end, the *normal form* for tori is defined. Following Hatcher’s normal form for sphere systems in [@H1], a normal form for tori defined in [@F1] so that the each intersection of the torus with each complementary $3$-punctured $3$-sphere is a disk, a cylinder or a pants piece. And according to [@F1], if a torus $\tau$ is in *normal form* with respect to a maximal sphere system $\Sigma$, then the intersection number of $\tau$ with any $S$ in $\Sigma$ is minimal among the representatives of the homotopy class ${{\boldsymbol \tau}}$. Here, by *intersection number* we mean the number of components of intersection between the spheres of a maximal sphere system and the torus.
In this work, we will implicitly use the following existence theorem form [@F1].
[@F1] Every imbedded essential torus in $M$ is homotopic to a normal torus and the homotopy process does not increase the intersection number with any sphere of a given maximal sphere system $\Sigma$.
Geometric models, complexes and projections
-------------------------------------------
Given the free group $F_k$ on $k$ letters, the associated space of the marked metric graphs $CV_k$ which are homotopy equivalent to $F_k$ with total volume is $1$ introduced first by Culler and Vogtmann in [@Vogt1]. A marked metric graph is an equivalence class of pair of a metric graph $\Gamma$ and a marking, which is a homotopy equivalence with a rose. Outer space might be thought as an analogue to [[Teichmüller ]{}]{}space for the mapping class group. For the details we refer the reader to [@Vogt1] and [@VogtSurvey].
The *free factor complex* of a free group is defined first by Hatcher and Vogtmann in [@H3] as a simplicial complex whose vertices are conjugacy classes of proper free factors and adjacency is determined by inclusion. It is hyperbolic by [@BestHyp].
We will use the coarse projection $\pi: CV_k\rightarrow FF_k$ defined as follows: for each proper subgraph $\Gamma_0$ of a marked graph $G$ that contains a circle, we take its image in $FF_k$ as the conjugacy class of the smallest free factor containing $\Gamma_0$. Now by [@BestHyp], for two such proper subgraphs $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$, $d_{FF_k}(\pi(\Gamma_1),\pi(\Gamma_2) )\leq 4$ hence we have a coarsely defined map.
Another hyperbolic ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Out}}\xspace}(F_k)$– graph we refer to is the *free bases graph* $FB_k$ given by Kapovich-Rafi ([@KaRa]). For $k\geq 3$, this graph has vertices the free bases of $F_k$ up to equivalence, (two bases are equivalent if their Cayley graphs are $F_k$-equivariantly isometric) and whenever two bases representing the vertices have a common element these vertices are connected by an edge. What is useful for us is that $FB_k$ and the $FF_k$ are quasi isometric ([@KaRa]).
*The intersection graph* ${\mathcal{P}}_k$ has vertex set consisting of marked roses up to equivalence. Two roses are connected by an edge if either they have a common edge with the same label, or there is a marked surface with one boundary component and the representative of this component crosses each edge of both roses twice. There is a Lipschitz map between $FB_k$ and ${\mathcal{P}}_k$, constructed by thinking of each basis of $F_k$ as its corresponding rose marking and observing that ${\mathcal{P}}_k$ shares the edges and vertices of $FB_k$ and has some additional edges between roses.
Tori in $M$ and ${\mathbb{Z}}$–splittings of the free group
-----------------------------------------------------------
In this section we will establish the correspondence between an equivalence class of a ${\mathbb{Z}}$–splitting and a homotopy class of a torus in $M$. Consider an imbedded essential torus $\tau$ in $M$. There is a simplicial tree associated to this torus. To obtain this simplicial tree we take a neighborhood of each lift in the set of lifts $\widetilde{\tau}$ of $\tau$ and we take a vertex for each complementary component. Two complementary components are adjacent if they bound the neighborhood of the same lift. We will denote this tree by $T_{{{\boldsymbol \tau}}}$ and as correspondence between this tree and the torus $\tau$ we will understand the $F_k$–equivariant map $\widetilde{M} \rightarrow T_{\tau}$ which sends each complementary component of a neighborhood of a lift to a vertex and shrinks each such neighborhood to an edge. The tree constructed this way is referred to as the *Bass-Serre* tree corresponding to $\tau$. Recall that by Bass–Serre theory, the action of $F_k$ on $T_{\tau}$ gives a single–edged graph of groups decomposition of $F_k$, and hence a ${\mathbb{Z}}$–splitting of the free group $F_k$.
The next lemma gives the existence of an equivalence class of a ${\mathbb{Z}}$–splitting for each homotopy class of a torus in $M$ and its proof is based on the notion of the *ends* of $\widetilde{M}$.
An end of a topological space is a point of the so called *Freudenthal compactification* of the space. More precisely,
Let $X$ be a topological space. For a compact set $K$, let $C(K)$ denote the set of components of complement $X-K$. For $L$ compact with $K\subset L$, we have a natural map $C(L) \to C(K)$. These compact sets define a *directed system* under inclusion. The set of ends $E(X)$ of $X$ defined to be the inverse limit of the sets $C(K)$.
The space $\widetilde{M}$ is non-compact and it has infinitely many ends. We denote the set of ends of $\widetilde{M}$ by $E(\widetilde{M})$. It is homeomorphic to a Cantor set, in particular, it is compact. For a maximal sphere system $\Sigma$ in $M$, the set $E(T_{\Sigma})$ of ends of the Bass-Serre tree $T_{\Sigma}$ of $\Sigma$ is identified with the set $E(\widetilde{M})$. By analyzing this set we were able to prove the following.
\[tree\] Let $T_{{\tau}_1}$ and $T_{{\tau}_2}$ be two Bass-Serre trees corresponding to two tori ${\tau}_1$ and ${\tau}_2$, respectively. If ${\tau}_1$ and ${\tau}_2$ are homotopic, $T_{{\tau}_1}= T_{{\tau}_2}$ and hence ${\tau}_1$ and ${\tau}_2$ have equivalent $\mathbb{Z}$–splittings.
Let ${\tau}$ be an embedded essential torus. We claim that each lift of ${\tau}$ is two sided. For if it is not 2 sided, then there is a non-trivial (non-homotopic to a point) loop which intersects a lift once and connects an end of $\widetilde{M}$ to itself. Now by the loop theorem, this loop bounds a disk in $\widetilde{M}$. Then, the projection of this disk to $M$ bounds a disk in $M$, which means that the torus bounds a solid torus in $M$. This contradicts the fact that $\tau$ is essential.
Hence each lift divides $\widetilde{M}$ into two disjoint parts. A transverse orientation on the torus gives an orientation on the spheres on each such parts and hence there is a labeling on the valence-$2$ vertices corresponding to these spheres. It is clear that each lift $\sf L = S^1
\times {\mathbb{R}}$ of ${\tau}$ defines a decomposition of the set of ends of $T_{\Sigma}$ into two sets $\sf L^+$ and $\sf L^-$ where $\sf L^+\cap \sf L^{-}$ consists of two endpoints, corresponding to the axis of the lift $\sf L$. For each torus, let us consider all the endpoints corresponding to the axes of all lifts and eliminate them from the set of ends $E(\widetilde{M})$ of $\widetilde{M}$. Let us denote the remaining set $\tilde{E}(\widetilde{M})$.
Now, for each lift $L$, we have a partition ($\sf L^+, \sf L^{-}$) of the set $\tilde{E}(\widetilde{M})$. Since the lifts are disjoint, any two lifts $L_1$ and $L_2$ satisfy either $\sf L^+_1 \subset \sf L^+_2$ or $ \sf L^+_1\subset \sf L^-_2$.
We construct a tree corresponding to the set of partitions as follows: Given a pair of set of partitions ($\sf L_1^+, \sf L_1^{-}$) ($\sf L^+_2, \sf L_2^{-}$) with $ \sf L^+_1 \subset \sf L^+_2$ or $\sf L^+_1\subset \sf L^-_2$, whenever there is no collection of ends $(\sf Z^+,\sf Z^-)$ satisfying $ \sf L^+_1 \subset \sf Z^+\subset \sf L^+_2$ or $\sf L^+_1\subset \sf Z^-\subset \sf L^-_2$ we take an edge between them. For each maximal subset of $\tilde{E}(\widetilde{M})$ which is not separated by any lift, we take a vertex. Since the partitions of ends do not intersect, we have a tree.
Now, since for each lift we have a partition of the ends, there is an isomorphism between the tree given by the partitions and the Bass Serre tree $T_{{\tau}}$ corresponding to ${\tau}$. More precisely, we define a map between two trees by taking the “edge-midpoint” vertices of $T_{{\tau}}$ to the set of partitions (i.e. the components of $\widetilde{{\tau}}$). and the components of $\widetilde{M} - \widetilde{{\tau}}$, i.e. vertices of the $T_{{\tau}}$, are mapped to the collections of lifts (topologically, the frontier components of these components), having the property that if $L_1$ and $L_2$ are two of them, then (assuming that we select the notation so that $ \sf L^+_1 \subset \sf L^+_2$ there is no $L_3$ in the collection for which $ \sf L^+_1 \subset \sf L^+_3\subset \sf L^+_2$ or $ \sf L^+_1 \subset \sf L^-_3 \subset \sf L^+_2$
Now we claim that for a homotopy of embedded tori in $M$, the initial and final tori determine the same partition of the ends in $\tilde{E}(\widetilde{M})$, and hence they have the same partition tree, and the same Bass Serre tree as a result.
To see this, let ${\tau}_1$ be homotopic to ${\tau}_2$. To show that we get the same partitions of the endpoints from the lifts of ${\tau}_1$ and from the lifts of ${\tau}_2$, we need to show that if two endpoints are separated by a component $L$ of $\widetilde{{\tau}_1}$, and $L$ is homotopic to $L'\in \widetilde{{\tau}_2}$ then they are separated by $L^\prime$ too.
Let $p$ and $q$ be two endpoints separated by $L$. Fix an arc between them that crosses $L = S^1 \times {\mathbb{R}}$ in one point. During the homotopy, although no longer imbedded, $L$ moves in $\widetilde{M}$, in particular, it does not touch any endpoint. So assuming that the homotopy is transverse to the arc, its inverse image in $S^1\times {\mathbb{R}}\times I$ consists of circles and arcs properly imbedded in $S^1 \times {\mathbb{R}}\times I$. Note that if the homotopy could cross an endpoint of the arc, then an arc of the inverse image could fail to be properly imbedded in $S^1\times {\mathbb{R}}\times I$. But this does not happen since the homotopy between the two tori induces a homotopy between normal representatives of each tori, corresponding to a fixed maximal sphere system in $M$. By [@F1] such a homotopy is *normal* at each stage hence cannot cross an endpoint.
Back to the inverse image of the homotopy between two tori, since only one endpoint of the inverse image of the arc is in $L$, there must be an odd number of endpoints in $L^\prime$ (i. e. the arc crosses $L^\prime$ an odd number of times) and therefore $L^\prime$ also separates $p$ and $q$.
Recall that given a $\mathbb{Z}$–splitting of $F_k$, an associated *Dehn twist automorphism* of $F_k$ is defined in two following ways.
$$\begin{aligned}
A*_{{\langle}c {\rangle}} B:& \, a \mapsto a \text{ for } a \in A & \quad
A*_{{\langle}tct^{-1} = c' {\rangle}}:& \, a \mapsto a \text{ for } a \in A \\
& \, b \mapsto cbc^{-1} \text{ for } b \in B & & \, t \mapsto tc\end{aligned}$$
On the left is the definition when the $\mathbb{Z}$–splitting is given by an amalgamated product $F_k=A\ast_{{\langle}c {\rangle}}B$ and on the right is the definition when the $\mathbb{Z}$ splitting is an HNN extension $A\ast_{{\langle}c {\rangle}}$ of the free group $F_k$. Note that the Dehn twist automorphism in the amalgamated case is defined up to conjugacy since it is possible to reverse the roles of $A$ and $B$.
Before we give the last lemma in this section, we give two theorems relating ${\mathbb{Z}}$–splittings to free splittings which will be used in the proof.
\[she\] Suppose that a free group $\mathbb{F}$ is an amalgamated free product ${\mathbb{F}}=A*_BC$ where $B$ is cyclic. Then $B$ is a free factor of $A$ or a free factor of $C$.
\[swarup\] Suppose that a free group $F$ is an HNN entension ${\mathbb{F}}=A*_B $ where $B\neq 1$ is cyclic. Then $A$ has a free product structure $A=A_0*A_1$ in such a way that one of the following symmetric alternatives hold.
1. $B\subset A_0$ and there exists $a\in A$ such that $t^{-1} B t= a^{-1} A_1 a$. Or,
2. $t^{-1} B t \subset A_0$ and there exists $a \in A$ such that $B=a^{-1} A_1 a$.
where $t$ is the stable letter.
Finally, the following lemma gives the converse relation between a torus and ${\mathbb{Z}}$–splitting hence explains why we are interested in tori in $M$. The argument is due to Matt Clay.
\[CR\] Given a ${\mathbb{Z}}$–splitting $Z$ and an associated Dehn twist automorphism, there is a torus $\tau$ in $M$ unique up to homotopy such that $T_Z= T_{\tau}$ where $T_Z$ and $T_{\tau}$ are the corresponding Bass-Serre trees.
In this proof we will build a homotopy class of a torus from a sphere and a loop. First we use theorems \[she\] and \[swarup\] that relate a ${\mathbb{Z}}$–splitting of $F_k$ to a free splitting of $F_k$. Then to relate the free splitting to a homotopy class of a sphere we use a theorem originally due to Kneser ([@kneser]). This theorem is later developed by Grushko [@Grus], and most recently by Stallings ([@STA1]) and these are the versions we will be referring to. We treat the amalgamated product and HNN-extension cases separately. Amalgamated case has schematic pictures Figure \[fig:slide\] and Figure \[fig:slide2\] associated to the proof.
[**Case 1:**]{} We first consider the case of an amalgamated free product $F_k = A*_{{\langle}b {\rangle}}B$. By Shenitzer’s Theorem \[she\], ${{\langle}b {\rangle}}$ is either a free factor of $A$ or a free factor of $B$. Hence, there is a free splitting $F = A*B_0$ where $B =
{\langle}b {\rangle}* B_0$ or $F_k = A_0*B$ with $A=A_0*{\langle}b {\rangle}$. Let us assume the former, and let $S \subset M$ be an imbedded (separating) sphere representing this splitting. We fix a basepoint $* \in M$ and assume it lies on $S$. As $b \in A$, there is an embedded loop $\gamma \subset M$ that represents $b \in F$ and only intersects $S$ at $*$. For small $\epsilon$, boundary of the closed $\epsilon$–neighborhood of $S \cup \gamma$ consists of two components: an imbedded sphere isotopic to $S$ and an imbedded essential torus $\tau_\gamma$.
Every torus can be written as a sphere and a loop attached to it. Hence it is clear from the construction, that the splitting of $F$ associated to $\tau_\gamma$ is the original splitting. However, there are some choices made in the construction of $\tau_\gamma$ and it must be shown that different choices result in homotopic tori. It is clear that changing $S$ or $\gamma$ in the construction by a homotopy results in a change of $\tau_\gamma$ by a homotopy.
Now since Shenitzer’s theorem [@shenitzer] gives many possible splittings differed by automorphisms of $B$ fixing ${\langle}b {\rangle}$ (Hence Nielsen automorphisms that fix $b$), we need to consider two different complementary free factors $B_0$ and $B_1$ of $A$ such that ${\langle}b {\rangle}*B_0 = {\langle}b {\rangle}*B_1 = B$ and show that the tori obtained after we add the loop to corresponding spheres are homotopic, even when the spheres themselves are not. For this, let $S_0$ and $S_1$ be the spheres representing the splittings $A*B_0$ and $A*B_1$ respectively and $\tau_0$ and $\tau_1$ be the tori as constructed above using these spheres. We assume that $\gamma$ intersects $S_0$ only at the fix basepoint $* \in M$.
We first treat the special case that $B_1$ is obtained from $B_0$ by replacing a generator $x \in B_0$ by $xb$. Fix a basis for $F$ consisting of a basis for $A$ and a basis for $B_0$ where $x$ is one of the generators for $B_0$. This corresponds to a sphere system in $M$ which decomposes as $\Sigma_A \cup \Sigma_{B_0}$; the sphere $S_0$ separates the two sets $\Sigma_A$ and $\Sigma_{B_0}$. In terms of these sphere systems, we can describe a homeomorphism that takes $S_0$ to (a sphere isotopic to) $S_1$.
Denote by $\Sigma_\gamma$ the ordered set of spheres (all in $\Sigma_A$) pierced by $\gamma$ starting from the basepoint. Cut $M$ open along the sphere $\beta$ corresponding to the generator $x$ and via a homotopy push the boundary sphere $\beta^-$ through the spheres in $\Sigma_\gamma$ in order, dragging $S_0$ along. After regluing $\beta^+$ and $\beta^-$, the image of $S_0$ is $S_1$ and the sphere $\beta$ now corresponds to $xb$. By shrinking $\beta^-$ and $S_0$, we can assume that homotopy is the identity on $\tau_0$ and $\gamma$. Thus, we have a homeomorphism taking $S_0$ to $S_1$, $S_0 \cup \gamma$ to $S_1 \cup \gamma$ and is the identity on $\tau_0$. As a homeomorphism takes a regular neighborhood to a regular neighborhood, $\tau_0$ is homotopic to $\tau_1$.
To see a schematic picture of this homotopy we refer the reader to the Figure \[fig:slide\]. In the first picture, the black sphere (an example of $S_0$) and a neighborhood of the red loop gives a torus ($\tau_0$). And this torus is homotopic to the torus obtained from the last picture by taking a neighborhood of the black sphere (now an example for $S_1$) and the red loop.
A similar argument works if we replace $x$ by $xb^{-1}$, $bx$ or $b^{-1}x$.
The general case now follows as we can transform $B_0$ to $B_1$ by a finite sequence of the above transformations plus changes of basis that do not affect the associated spheres. Indeed, the subgroup of automorphisms of $B$ that fix $b \in B$ is generated by the Nielsen automorphisms that fix $b$( [@ar:Wade14], Theorem 4.1).
Finally, we need to consider the possibility that $F = A_0 * {\langle}b {\rangle}* B_0$ where $A = {\langle}A_0,b {\rangle}$ and $B = {\langle}B_0,b {\rangle}$. Let $S_A$ and $S_B$ be the spheres representing the splittings $A*B_0$ and $A_0*B$ respectively, fix loops $\gamma_{A}$ and $\gamma_{B}$ representing $b$ and consider the neighborhoods $s_{A}$ of $S_{A} \cup \gamma_{A}$ and $s_{B}$ of $S_{B} \cup \gamma_{B}$. Since each of these neighborhoods give a torus and a sphere, we have tori $\tau_{A}$ and $\tau_B$ that both represent the splitting $A*_{{\langle}b {\rangle}} B$. In this case as a component of $M - (S_{A} \cup S_{B})$ is $S^1 \times S^2$ with two balls removed, it is easy to see that $\tau_A$ and $\tau_B$ are homotopic. Indeed, let us model $S^1 \times S^2$ as the region between the spheres of radius 1 and 2 in ${\mathbb{R}}^3$ after identifying the boundary spheres. Remove a ball of radius $\frac{1}{4}$ at each of the points $(0,0,3/2)$ and $(0,0,-3/2)$. For $\gamma_{A}$ we can choose the intersection with the positive $z$–axis; for $\gamma_{B}$ we can choose the intersection with the negative $z$–axis. Then clearly the torus obtained from the intersection with the $xy$–plane is homotopic to both $\tau_A$ and $\tau_B$. For a simple example see Figure \[fig:slide2\].
[**Case 2:**]{} We now consider the case of an HNN-extension $F_k = A*_{{\langle}b {\rangle}}$. By Swarup’s Theorem [@swarup], there is a free factorization $A = A_0*{\langle}t^{-1}bt {\rangle}$ for some $t \in F_k$, such that $A_0$ is a co-rank 1 free factor of $F_k$ and such that $b \in A_0$. Let $S \subset M$ be an embedded (non-separating) sphere representing the splitting $F_k = A_0*_{ \{ 1 \} }$. We fix a basepoint $p \in M$ and assume it lies on $S$. As $b \in A_0$, there is an embedded loop $\gamma\subset M$ that represents $b \in F$ and only intersects $S$ at $p$. Further, both ends of $\gamma$ are on the same side of $S$ and so a neighborhood of $s = S \cup \gamma$ gives a torus. Let $\tau$ be this neighborhood of $s$ and as in Case 1, it is clear that the splitting associated to ${\tau}$ is the original splitting.
Given another torus $\tau' \subset M$ that represents the same splitting, we can compress $\tau'$ to a union of a sphere and a loop $s' = S' \cup \gamma'$ such that $S'$ represents a splitting of the form $A_{1} *_{\{1\}}$ where $A = A_{1} * {\langle}t b t^{-1} {\rangle}$. Then as in Case 1, there is a sequence of transformations taking $A_{0}$ to $A_{1}$ that do not change the homotopy type of the corresponding torus.
geometric intersection and relative twisting using ends of $\widetilde{M}$
==========================================================================
The intersection criterion and the relative twisting number
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Guirardel core ${\mathcal{C}}$ is a way of assigning a closed, connected CAT($0$) complex to a pair of splittings which counts the number of times the corresponding Bass-Serre trees intersect. Guirardel’s version unifies several notions of intersection number in the literature including the one given for two splittings of finitely generated groups given by Scott and Swarup ([@ScottSwarupInt]). For two $F_k$–trees $T_0$ and $T_1$ the core is roughly the main part of the diagonal action of the $F_k$ on $T_0\times T_1$. For the details we refer the reader to [@Gui:Core] and [@bestclay1].
Let $T$ be a tree and $p$ a point in it. A *direction* is a connected component of $T-p$. Given two trees $T_0$ and $T_1$, a *quadrant* is a product $\delta\times \delta^{'}$ of two directions $\delta \subset T_0$ and $\delta^{'}\subset T_1$.
We fix a basepoint $\ast=(\ast_0, \ast_1)$ in $T_0\times T_1$ and we say that a quadrant $Q$ is *heavy* if there exists a sequence $\{g_n\}$ in $F_k$ such that $g_{n}(\ast)\in Q $ for every $n$ and $d_{T_i}(\ast_i, g_n(\ast_i))\rightarrow \infty$ as $n\rightarrow \infty$. A quadrant is *light* if it is not heavy.
Let $T_0$ and $T_1$ be to $F_k$–trees. The Guirardel core $\mathcal{C}$ defined as $$\mathcal{C}=\mathcal{C}(T_0\times T_1)= (T_0\times T_1)-\cup_IQ$$ where $I$ is over all of the light quadrants.
Let $p$ be a point in $T_0$. Then, $\mathcal{C}_p=\{x\in T_1\mid (p,x)\in \mathcal{C}\}$ is a subtree of $T_1$ called the *slice of the core* above the point $p$. The slice which is a subtree of $T_0$ is defined similarly.
Given two trees $T_0$ and $ T_1$, we define the *Guirardel intersection number* between them by: $$i(T_0, T_1)= vol(\mathcal{C}/F_k)$$ where the right hand side is given by the volume of the action of $F_k$ on the Guirardel core $\mathcal{C}(T_0\times T_1)$ for the product measure on $T_0\times T_1$. Note that for simplicial trees $T_0$ and $T_1$ this volume is the number of the $2$-cells in $\mathcal{C}/F_k$, which will be our case.
Given a maximal sphere system $\Sigma$ in $M$ and a homotopy class $\bf S$ of a sphere $S$, the intersection number between a sphere $\bf S$ and $\Sigma$ is the number $i(\bf S ,\Sigma)$ of components of intersection of a normal representative of $S$ with spheres of $\Sigma$ when the intersections are transversal ([@H1]). This is called the *geometric* intersection number.
We need to understand how geometric intersection numbers between two sphere systems and the Guirardel intersection numbers between corresponding trees are related. Each sphere in $\widetilde{M}$ corresponds to an edge in the associated Bass–Serre tree and a geometric intersection between two spheres will give a square in product of the Bass–Serre trees. If the intersection is essential, this square is in the Guirardel core. By the definition of Guirardel core, a square which is in the core is in a heavy quadrant. As a consequence there exists $4$ unbounded disjoint regions in $\widetilde{M}$ corresponding to such a square. On the other hand, each sphere $\widetilde S$ gives two disjoint sets $E^+(\widetilde S)$ and $E^-(\widetilde S)$ of ends of $\widetilde{M}$. Thus whenever two spheres $\widetilde S_1$ and $\widetilde S_2$ intersect essentially in $\widetilde{M}$ there are four disjoint sets of ends $E^+(\widetilde S_1)\cap E^+(\widetilde S_2)$, $E^+(\widetilde S_1)\cap E^-(\widetilde S_2)$, $E^-(\widetilde S_1)\cap E^+(\widetilde S_2)$, $E^-(\widetilde S_1)\cap E^-(\widetilde S_2)$ of $\widetilde M$ in the complement of the intersection circle.
Finally we have the following definition which we will use in the next section.
We will call the existence of four disjoint sets of ends of $\widetilde M$ in the complement of an intersection circle between two spheres the *intersection criterion* for that intersection circle.
According to the discussion above, an intersection circle between two spheres is essential if and only if we have intersection criterion satisfied for that intersection circle.
Now we will define the *relative twisting number* for two intersecting sphere systems $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$.
Given an axis of an element in $\widetilde{M}$, there are two ends of $\widetilde{M}$ which are fixed by this axis.
A sphere $\widetilde{S}$ is said to intersect an axis ${{\boldsymbol a}}$ whenever the two ends of $\widetilde{M}$ determined by ${{\boldsymbol a}}$ are separated by the two disjoint sets $E^+(\widetilde{S})$, $E^{-}(\widetilde{S})$ of ends corresponding to $\widetilde{S}$.
Now we will define the relative twisting number between $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ relative to an element $a\in F_k$. This number is meaningful when both sphere systems intersect an axis $ba$ of $a$ in $\widetilde M$. The definition of geometric relative twisting of [@CP2] is for two points in Outer space, which are simple sphere systems in our setting. For our purposes we will translate their definition to a one which is stated in terms of ends of $\widetilde {M}$.
We will start by the definition given in [@CP2].
Let $\Sigma_1$ and $\Sigma_2$ be two simple sphere systems in $M$ and $T_{\Sigma_1}$ and $T_{\Sigma_2}$ the corresponding Bass–Serre trees. Let $e_{\widetilde S_1}$ and $e_{\widetilde S_2}$ be two edges in $T_{\Sigma_1}$ and $T_{\Sigma_2}$ corresponding to spheres $S_1\in \Sigma_1$ and $S_2\in \Sigma_2 $, respectively. Then, for an element $a\in F_k$, the relative twisting $tw_{a}(\Sigma_1, \Sigma_2$) of $\Sigma_1$ and $ \Sigma_2$ relative to $a$ is defined to be, $$tw_a(\Sigma_1, \Sigma_2):=\max_{\mathclap{\substack{ e_{\widetilde S_1}\subset {T^a_{\Sigma_1}}\\
e_{\widetilde S_2}\subset T^a_{\Sigma_2}}}} \,\,\{\,k \mid a^ke_{\widetilde S_1}\times e_{\widetilde S_2}\in {\mathcal{C}}\,\, \text{and}\,\, e_{\widetilde S_1}\times e_{\widetilde S_2}\in {\mathcal{C}}\}$$ where $T^a_{\Sigma_1}$ and $T^a_{\Sigma_2}$ are the sets of edges of $T_{\Sigma_1}$ and $T_{\Sigma_2}$ respectively whose elements intersect a fixed axis ${{\boldsymbol a}}$ of $a$.
Using the fact that a geometric intersection between two spheres is a square in the Guirardel core and hence it gives a separation of ends of $\widetilde M$ into $4$ nonempty disjoint sets, we tailor this definition to the one below to suit our needs.
For $i\in \{1,2\} $, let $\widetilde S_i$ be two spheres and $E^{\mp}({\widetilde S_i})$ be the set of ends of $\widetilde M$ separated by these spheres. Assume that both spheres intersect an axis ${{\boldsymbol a}}\in F_k$. Then the relative twisting $tw_{a}(\widetilde S_1, \widetilde S_2)$ of $ \widetilde S_1$ and $\widetilde S_2$ relative to $a$ is defined to be
$$\begin{aligned}
tw_{a}(\widetilde S_1, \widetilde S_2):={} & \max \{k\in \mathbb{Z} \mid E^{\mp}({\widetilde S_i})\,\cap E^{\mp}({a^k\widetilde S_j})\neq\emptyset \,\,\text{whenever}\,E^{\mp}({\widetilde S_i})\,\cap\, E^{\mp}({\widetilde S_j})\neq\emptyset, \\
&\,\{i,j\}\in \{1,2\}\}
\end{aligned}$$
Dehn twist along a torus: The Geometric Picture
===============================================
Definition of a Dehn twist along a torus
-----------------------------------------
We will now give the definition of the Dehn twist homeomorphism about a torus in $M$, a description of the action of such a homeomorphism on spheres in $M$, and a description of the action on $F_k$.
To define a Dehn twist along an imbedded torus $\tau$, we will take a parametrized tubular neighborhood of the torus in $M$.
\[Def:dehntwist\] Let $\tau: \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z} \times [0,1] \rightarrow M$ be an imbedding such that $\tau(\{0\}\times \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}\times \{0\})$ bounds a disk in $M$. Denote the associated torus $\tau(\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}\times \mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}\times \{0\})$ with $\tau$. The *geometric Dehn twist* $D_{{\tau}}$ along the torus ${\tau}$ is the homeomorphism of $M$ that is the identity on the complement of the image of the map $\tau$ and for which a point $p = {\tau}(x,y,t)$ is sent to ${\tau}(x+t,y,t)$.
Here, the direction of the associated torus which bounds a disk in $M$ will be the *meridional* direction and the other one will be called *longitude* direction. For a geometric description of the twist, we refer the reader to Figure \[fig:NDT1\].
Now, an ambiguity might arise in the definition of a geometric Dehn twist when it comes to determining a longitude curve for the parametrization. But two such choices differ by a map $x \mapsto x+ny $ for some integer $n$ and a twist along the meridional direction. By work of Laudenbach ([@LAUD]) meridional direction does not give a non-trivial homeomorphism since twists along meridional direction correspond to twists along $2$–spheres in $M$. It is known that such mapping classes act trivially on $F_k$ hence they are in the kernel of the homomorphism $MCG(M)\rightarrow {\ensuremath{\operatorname{Out}}\xspace}(F_k)$ ([@McCHat]). Hence, the induced outer automorphism $D_{{\tau}*}$ from the geometric Dehn twist $D_{\tau}$ is independent of the parametrization of the neighborhood of the torus (image of the map $\tau$).
Now, assume that we have a loop $\xi$ intersecting a torus ${\tau}$ transversely. Then the image $D_{\tau}(\xi)$ of the loop under the geometric twist $D_{\tau}$ is obtained as follows: we surger the loop at the intersection point and insert a loop $\beta^+$ or $\beta ^-$ representing a generator of $\pi_1({\tau})$ in $\pi_1(M)$, depending on which side of the torus the intersection point is. Hence the induced automorphism conjugates $\xi$ with one of $\beta^+$ or $\beta^-$ and fixes the other. If ${\tau}$ is non-separating, then the stable letter is multiplied by $\xi$.
This coincides with the action of $D_{{\tau}*}$ on the corresponding splitting: When the splitting is amalgamated product of the form $A*_{{\langle}c {\rangle}} B$, $A$ is fixed whereas $B$ is conjugated by the generator of the fundamental group of torus $\tau$ in $M$. (Roles of $A$, $B$ might be changed.) When we have $A*_{{\langle}tct^{-1} = c' {\rangle}}$, $D_{{\tau}*}$ fixes $A$ and $t$ is multiplied by $c$.
As a summary we have,
\[geoDT\] Let ${\tau}$ be an imbedded torus and $D_{\tau}$ the associated geometric Dehn twist. Then, $D_{{\tau}*}= D_Z$ where $D_{{\tau}*}$ is the Dehn twist automorphism induced by the homeomorphism $D_{\tau}$ and $D_Z$ is the Dehn twist automorphism given by the ${\mathbb{Z}}$–splitting $Z$ associated to the torus ${\tau}$.
From the lemmata \[geoDT\] and \[tree\], we easily deduce the following.
Let ${\tau}_1$ and ${\tau}_2$ be two homotopic tori. Then up to conjugacy we have $D_{{\tau}_1*} = D_{{\tau}_2*}$ where $D_{{\tau}_1*}$ and $D_{{\tau}_2*}$ are the Dehn twist automorphisms induced by the geometric Dehn twists $D_{{\tau}_1}$ and $D_{{\tau}_2}$.
Since homotopic tori give equivalent splittings by Lemma \[tree\], the Dehn twist automorphisms are equal by the definition. Then by lemma \[geoDT\] the corresponding Dehn twists induced by the geometric Dehn twists are equal.
For our purposes, we need to find a lower bound on $tw_a(G, D^n_{T}(G))$ for a given simple sphere system $G$ and a $\mathbb{Z}$–splitting $T$. Now we have $D_T=D_{{\tau}}$ where ${\tau}$ is the essential imbedded torus given by the $\mathbb{Z}$–splitting $T$ for which the Dehn twist is defined and $a$ is the generator of the image of the fundamental group of $\tau$ in $\pi_1(M)$ under the map induced from the imbedding $\iota: {\tau}\rightarrow M$. Now we take a maximal sphere system containing $G$ and homotope ${\tau}$ to be normal with respect to this sphere system. Then ${\tau}$ intersects the spheres of $\Sigma$ minimally, by [@F1]. Now we take a lift of the torus which has an axis a conjugate of $a$. The relative twisting number counts the number of iterates of a sphere which intersect image of another sphere under a Dehn twist along an axis. Hence we have,
$$tw_a(G, D^n_{T}(G))=tw_{{\tau}}(G, D^n_{{\tau}}(G)).$$
Lower Bound on the Relative Twisting Number
===========================================
In this section we will prove that the relative twisting number of a simple sphere system and its Dehn twisted image has a lower bound, which is linear with respect to the power of the Dehn twist. We first have the following introductory lemma, recall that for a sphere system in $M$, *simple* means that the complementary components in $M$ are simply connected.
Given a sphere $S$ and a torus ${\tau}$ an intersection circle of $S\cap {\tau}$ which does not bound a disk in ${\tau}$ is called a *meridian* in $\tau$.
\[pret\]Given an imbedded essential torus $\tau$ and a simple sphere system $G$, there exists a sphere ${{\boldsymbol S}}\in G$ such that at least one intersection between ${{\boldsymbol S}}$ and $\tau$ is meridian in $\tau$.
We first complete $G$ to a maximal sphere system and homotope ${\tau}$ to be normal with respect to this maximal sphere system. Then ${\tau}$ intersects minimally every sphere of $G$ it intersects ([@F1]). Assume that no isotopy class of spheres in $G$ intersect ${\tau}$ in a way that the intersection is meridian in ${\tau}$. On the other hand, since ${\tau}$ is essential, the image of the fundamental group of $\tau$ in $\pi_1(M)$ is non-trivial. Hence, the core curve of ${\tau}$ exists and by the assumption it must be contained in a complementary component of $G$ in $M$. But this is not possible since $G$ is simple.
\[twistlemma\] Let $T$ be a $\mathbb{Z}$–splitting of the free group $F_k$, $\tau$ the associated torus and $D_{\tau}$ the Dehn twist along ${\tau}$. For $G \in CV_k$ and $n\geq 2$, $$tw_{\tau} \big{(}G , D^n_{\tau}(G) \big{)} \geq n-1.$$
(100,45) (10,0)[![Fundamental domains, sets of ends separated by ${{\widetilde \tau}}_0$ and an arc $\ell_0$ connecting them. []{data-label="fig:endtwist1"}](endtwist1 "fig:"){width="75.00000%"}]{}
(41,37)[$\mathbf{E^+_0}$]{} (41,1)[$\mathbf{E^-_0}$]{} (11,32)[$\color{blue}{\widetilde{S_0}}$]{} (19,32)[$\color{red}{{\ell_0}}$]{} (11,18)[$\widetilde\tau_0$]{} (30,32)[$\color{blue}{\widetilde S_{0,1}}$]{} (50,32)[$\color{blue}{\widetilde S_{0,2}}$]{} (70,32)[$\color{blue}{\widetilde S_{0,n}}$]{} (22,27)[$\Delta$]{} (42,27)[$a\Delta$]{} (62,27)[$\cdots a^{n-1}\Delta$]{} (80,27)[$a^n\Delta$]{}
(100,35) (10,0)[![The image of $\ell_0$ under Dehn twisting and sets of ends corresponding to the intersection $\widetilde D^n_{\tau}(\widetilde S_0)\cap \widetilde S_{0,1}$.[]{data-label="fig:endtwist3"}](endtwist3 "fig:"){width="75.00000%"}]{} (56,10)[$\color{red}{\widetilde D^n_{\tau}(\ell_0)}$]{} (17,27)[$\color{violet}E^+(\widetilde S_{0,1})\cap E_{0,0}^+$]{} (36,27)[$\color{violet}E^-(\widetilde S_{0,1})\cap E_{0,0}^+$]{} (17,3)[$\color{violet}E^+(\widetilde S_{0,1})\cap E_{0,0}^-$]{} (36,3)[$\color{violet}E^-(\widetilde S_{0,1})\cap E_{0,0}^-$]{} (11,16)[$\widetilde\tau_0$]{} (11,23)[$\color{blue}{\widetilde{S_0}}$]{}
(30,23)[$\color{blue}{\widetilde S_{0,1}}$]{} (50,23)[$\color{blue}{\widetilde S_{0,2}}$]{} (67,23)[$\color{blue}{\cdots\widetilde S_{0,n}}$]{}
We will prove this theorem by taking $G$ as a simple sphere system instead of a marked metric graph. Let $\Sigma$ be a maximal sphere system completing $G$ and homotope $\tau$ to be the normal with respect to $\Sigma$.
Now, let $S\in G$ be such that $S$ and ${\tau}$ intersect in a way that $\mu=S\cap {\tau}$ is meridian in $\tau$. The existence of a meridional intersection circle is given by Lemma \[pret\]. As before, let $D_{\tau}$ be the Dehn twist along the normal torus $\tau.$ More precisely, let $N(\tau)$ be a tubular neighborhood of $\tau$ in which $D_{\tau}$ is supported. Let ${{\widetilde \tau}}$ be the full preimage of $\tau$ in $\widetilde{M}$ and ${{\widetilde \tau}}_0$ a component, $N({{\widetilde \tau}})$ be the full preimage of $N(\tau)$ and $N({{\widetilde \tau}}_0)$ be the component containing ${{\widetilde \tau}}_0$. Let $\widetilde S$ be the full preimage of $S$, and $\widetilde{S_0}$ a component such that $\widetilde{S_0}\cap {{\widetilde \tau}}_0= \widetilde\mu_0$ , a lift of $\mu$. Let us call $a$ the generator of $\pi_1(\tau)$ corresponding to ${{\widetilde \tau}}_0$, hence we have a covering transformation $a: \widetilde{M} \rightarrow \widetilde{M}$ which stabilizes ${{\widetilde \tau}}_0$. Let $\Delta$ be the region between $\widetilde S_0$ and $a\widetilde S_0$ which is the fundamental domain of ${\langle}a{\rangle}$ on $\widetilde {M}$. Set $\widetilde S_{0,j}=a^j \widetilde S_0$. Then $a^j\Delta$ is the region bounded by $\widetilde S_{0,j}$ and $\widetilde S_{0, j+1}$.
Since $tw_{\tau} \big{(}G , D^n_{\tau}(G) \big{)} \geq tw_{{\tau}} \big{(}S , D^n_{{\tau}}(S) \big{)}$, it is sufficient to prove that
$$tw_{{\tau}} \big{(}S , D^n_{{\tau}}(S) \big{)} \geq n-1.$$
Let us denote by $E(\widetilde{M})$ the ends of $\widetilde{M}$. As it was discussed in Section 2.2, there is a pair of ends of $\widetilde{M}$ fixed by $a$ and ${{\widetilde \tau}}_0$ separates the remaining set of ends into two disjoint sets $E_0^{+}$ and $E_0^{-}$. Since ${{\widetilde \tau}}_0$ is separating in $\widetilde M$, there is a ray $\ell$ which connects an end $\sf{e^{+}}$$\in E_0^+$ to an end $\sf{e^{-}}$$\in E_0^-$, intersecting ${{\widetilde \tau}}_0$ only once. Observe that since ${\tau}$ is essential, there is always such ray which is disjoint from ${{\widetilde \tau}}- {{\widetilde \tau}}_0$.
Let $X^+$ and $X^{-}$ be the components of $\widetilde{M}-N({{\widetilde \tau}})$ whose closures meet $N({{\widetilde \tau}}_0)$. Since $D_{\tau}$ is identity on ${M}-N(\tau)$ we choose a lift $\widetilde D_{\tau}$ which is the identity on $X^{-}$ and a translation on $X^{+}$. Without loss of generality we may assume this is translation by $a$. Hence, $\widetilde D_{\tau}(\sf{e^{-}})= \sf{e^{-}}$ and $\widetilde D^{m}_{\tau}(\sf{e^{+}})= a^{m}\sf {e^{+}}$.
Let $E_{0,0}^- \subset E_0^- $ and $E_{0,0}^+ \subset E_0^+ $ be two disjoint sets of ends in $\Delta$. Now, as described above, in this fundamental domain there is a line $\ell_0$ which connects an end $\sf{e_0^{-}}$ in $E_{0,0}^-$ to an end $\sf{e_0^{+}}$ in $E_{0,0}^+$ intersecting ${{\widetilde \tau}}$ once in ${{\widetilde \tau}}_0$. (See the Figure \[fig:endtwist1\]). Now, after $n$ times Dehn twisting along ${{\widetilde \tau}}$, the image ray $\widetilde D^{n}_{\tau}(\ell_0)$ will connect the point $\sf{e_0^{-}}$ in $E_{0,0}^-$ to the point $\widetilde D^{n}_{\tau}(\sf{e_0^{+}})=a^n \sf e_0^+={e_{n}^{+}}$ in $E_{0,{n-1}}^+= \widetilde D^n_{\tau}(E_{0,0}^+)$. (See the schematic picture Figure \[fig:endtwist3\]).
On the other hand, let us denote by $E^+(\widetilde S_{0,s})$ and $E^-(\widetilde S_{0,s})$ the two disjoint sets of ends corresponding to the sphere $\widetilde S_{0,s}$, for $s \in \{1,\cdots ,n \}$. Now, without loss of generality assume that $\sf{e_0^{-}}$$\in E^-(\widetilde S_{0,1})$. Then, since the image ray $\widetilde D^{n}_{\tau}(\ell_0)$ still intersects ${{\widetilde \tau}}_0$ only once, and does not intersect neither $\widetilde S_{0}$ (this would create a bigon) nor any other lift of the torus, $\widetilde D^{n}_{\tau}(\sf{e_0^{+}})={e_{n}^{+}}$$\in E^+(\widetilde S_{0,1})$. So for $s=1$ we have $4$ disjoint, non empty sets of ends $E^+(\widetilde S_{0,1})\cap E_{0,0}^- $, $E^+(\widetilde S_{0,1})\cap E_{0,0}^+$, $E^-(\widetilde S_{0,1})\cap E_{0,0}^-$ and $E^-(\widetilde S_{0,1})\cap E_{0,0}^+ $. By intersection criterion, this shows that $\widetilde D^n_{\tau}(\ell_0)$ intersects $\widetilde S_{0,1}$. Since $E^+(\widetilde S_{0,1})\subset E^+(\widetilde S_{0,n})$ and $E^-(\widetilde S_{0,n})\subset E^-(\widetilde S_{0,0})$ we similarly have the nonempty disjoint sets of ends $E^+(\widetilde S_{0,n})\cap E_{0,{n-1}}^- $, $E^+(\widetilde S_{0,n})\cap E_{0,{n-1}}^+$, $E^-(\widetilde S_{0,n})\cap E_{0,{n-1}}^-$ and $E^-(\widetilde S_{0,n})\cap E_{0,{n-1}}^+ $. Again by intersection criterion this means that $\widetilde D^n_{\tau}(\ell_0)$ intersects $\widetilde S_{0,n}$ as well. As a result, $\widetilde D^n_{\tau}(\ell_0)$ intersects all iterates $\widetilde S_{0,s},\,\, s \in \{1,\cdots ,n \}$ of $\widetilde S_0$.
Hence $\widetilde D^n_{\tau}(\widetilde S_0)$ intersects all $n-1$ iterates of $\widetilde{S_0}$. More precisely, $$\widetilde D^{n}_{\tau}(\widetilde S_0)\cap {\widetilde S_{0,j}}\neq\emptyset \,\,\text{for}\, j=1,\cdots, n,\,\,\, n\geq2,$$
and thus we conclude that, $$tw_{{\tau}} \big{(}S , D^n_{{\tau}}(S) \big{)} \geq n-1.$$
The Almost Fixed Set
====================
In this section we will prove the following theorem which says that there is an upper bound on the diameter of the almost fixed set of a Dehn twist and this upper bound depends only on the rank of the free group.
Let $T$ be a $\mathbb{Z}$–splitting of $F_k$ with $k >2$, and $D_{T}$ denote the corresponding Dehn twist. Then, for all sufficiently large constants $C$, there exists a $C'=C'(C,k)$ such that the diameter of the almost fixed set $$F_C= \{x \in FF_k: \exists n \neq 0 \,\text{such that}\,\, d(x, D_{T}^n(x)) \leq C \}$$ corresponding to $ \langle D_{T} \rangle$ is bounded above by $C'$.
Finding the folding line
------------------------
For $G_1$ and $G_2$ in $CV_k$, let $m(G_1, G_2)$ be the infimum of the set of maximal slopes of all *change of markings* (a map linear on edges) $f: G_1\longrightarrow G_2$. Then we define a function $d_L: CV_k\times CV_k \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ by $$d_L(G_1, G_2)= \log m(G_1, G_2).$$ Despite being non-symmetric, since this is its only failure to be distance, $d_L$ is referred as the *Lipschitz metric* on $CV_k$.
For an interval $I\subset \mathbb{R}$ the folding lines $\widetilde{g}: I \longrightarrow CV_k$ are the paths connecting any given two points in the interior of $CV_k$, obtained as follows:
For $G_1, G_2 \in CV_k$ let $f: G_1\longrightarrow G_2$ be a change of marking map whose Lipschitz constant realizes the maximal slope. We find a path based at $G_1$ which is contained in an open simplex of unprojectivized outer space and parametrize it by arclength. Then we concatenate this path with another geodesic path outside the open simplex obtained by folding process. The resulting path $g: [0, d_L(G_1, G_2)]\longrightarrow CV_k$ is a geodesic by Francaviglia and Martino ([@FM1]), which we will call *folding line*.
For a given $F_k$–tree $\Gamma$ and an element $a\in F_k$, let $\ell_{\Gamma}(a)$ denote the minimal translation length of $a$ in $\Gamma$. To prove the Theorem \[diam\], we use the following result from [@CP2]:
\[clayp2\] Suppose $G,G^{\prime} \in CV_k$ with $d = d_L(G,G^{\prime})$ such that $tw_a(G,G^{\prime}) \geq n+2$ for some $a \in F_k$. Then there is a geodesic (folding line) $g: [0, d]\rightarrow
CV_k$ such that $g(0) = G$, $g(d) = G^{\prime}$ and for some $t \in [0, d]$, we have $\ell_{g(t)}(a) \leq \frac{1}{n}$. In other words, $g([0, d])\cap CV_k^ {1/n}
\neq \emptyset$
Converting short length to distance
-----------------------------------
Let $\pi$ be the coarse projection $\pi:CV_k\rightarrow FF_k$.
\[L1\] Let $a \in F_k$ be a simple class, $G$ a point in $CV_k$ so that the loop corresponding to $a$ in $G$ intersects some edge $\leq m$ times. Then,
$$d_{FF_k}({\alpha},\pi(G))\leq 6m+13$$ where ${\alpha}$ is the smallest free factor containing the conjugacy class of $a$.
Using this lemma we prove the following:
\[L2\] Let $\alpha$ be a free factor containing the conjugacy class of an element $a \in F_k$, $G$ a point in $CV_k$ and $\ell_{G}(a)\leq m$. Then, there is a constant $B$ and a number $A$ depending only on the rank of the free group such that
$$d_{FF_k}({\alpha},\pi(G))\leq Am+B$$
Let $e$ be the edge of $G$ with the longest length. Hence, $\ell(e)\geq 1/(3k+3)$. Then, $\alpha$ crosses $e$ less than $(3k+3)m$ times. Therefore, by Lemma \[L1\], $d_{FF_k}({\alpha},\pi(G))\leq 6(3k+3)m+13$. Here, $A= 6(3k+3)$ clearly depends only on the rank of the free group.
Proof of Theorem \[diam\]
-------------------------
Given $x \in F_C$, let us assume that $G\in CV_k$ is a point which is projected to $x$. We will write $\pi(G)=x$. Let $\tau$ be the essential imbedded torus in $M$ corresponding to the given ${\mathbb{Z}}$–splitting $T$.
Let $n$ be such that $d_{FF_k}(G, D_T^n(G))\leq C$. Up to replacing $C$ by a constant we can assume that $n\geq 4$. By Theorem \[twistlemma\], we have $tw_{\tau} \big{(}G , D^n_{\tau}(G) \big{)} \geq n-1$. Since $tw_{\tau} \big{(}G , D^n_{\tau}(G) \big{)}=tw_{a} \big{(}G , D^n_{T}(G) \big{)}$ where $a\in F_k$ represents the core curve of the torus $\tau$, we can use Clay-Pettet Theorem \[clayp2\]. Thus there is a folding path, ${G_t: [0,d]\rightarrow CV_k}$ such that $G_0=G$, $G_{d}=D_{{\tau}}^{n}(G)$ and $a$ gets short along the geodesic $\{G_t\}_t$; for some $t \in [0,d]$, $\ell_{G_t}(a)\leq 1/(n-3)$.
Now, by [@BestHyp] and [@KaRa], the projection $\pi(\{G_{t}\})$ of the folding path $\{G_t\}_{t}$ onto $FF_k$ is a quasi-geodesic in $FF_k$ between $\pi(D^n_{\tau}(G))$ and $\pi(G)=x$. Let $\alpha$ be the smallest free factor containing $a$.
Then, since $n \geq 4$ we use Lemma \[L2\] to deduce that
$d_{FF_k}({\alpha}, \pi(G_t))\leq \frac{A}{n-3}+13$
where $A$ is as it is given in the same lemma. Since $\pi(\{G_{t}\})$ is uniformly Hausdorff-close to a geodesic and $d_{FF_k}(\pi(G), \pi(D^n_{\tau}(G)))\leq C$, by triangle inequality we have
$d_{FF_k}(\pi(G), {\alpha})\leq \frac{A}{n-3}+C+H+13\leq A+C+H+13$
where $H=H(k)$ is the distance between the geodesic and unparametrized quasi geodesic $\pi(\{G_{t}\})$. Hence we have $$C'=2(A+C+H+13)$$.
Constructing Fully Irreducibles
===============================
In this section we will prove the main theorem of this paper.
Let $T_1$ and $T_2$ be two $\mathbb{Z}$–splittings of the free group $F_k$ with rank $k>2$ and $\alpha_1$ and ${\alpha}_2$ be two corresponding free factors in the free factor complex $FF_k$ of the free group $F_k$. Let $D_{1}$ be a Dehn twist fixing $\alpha_1$ and $D_{2}$ a Dehn twist fixing $\alpha_2$, corresponding to $T_1$ and $T_2$, respectively. Then there exists a constant $N=N(k)$ such that whenever $d_{FF_k}(\alpha_1, {\alpha}_2) \geq N$,
1. $\langle D_{1}, D_{2}\rangle \simeq F_2$.
2. All elements of $\langle D_{1}, D_{2}\rangle$ which are not conjugate to the powers of $D_{1}, D_{2}$ in $\langle D_{1}, D_{2}\rangle$ are fully irreducible.
We will start with some basic definitions and lemmata, which are standard for $\delta$–hyperbolic spaces.
Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. For $x,y,z \in X$, the *Gromov product* $(y,z)_x$ is defined as $$(y,z)_x:=\frac12 (d(y,x)+d(z,x)-d(y,z)).$$
If $(X,d)$ is a $\delta$-hyperbolic space, the initial segments of length of $(y,z)_x$ of any two geodesics $[x,y]$ and $[x,z]$ stay close to each other. Namely, they are in $2\delta$-neighborhoods of each other. Hence, the Gromov product measures for how long two geodesics stay close together. This will be the characterization of the $\delta$- hyperbolicity we will use in our work as definition of being $\delta$– hyperbolic.
Also, in this case, the Gromov product $(y,z)_x$ approximates the distance between $x$ and the geodesic $[y,z]$ within $2\delta$: $$(y,z)_x \leq d(x, [y,z])\leq (y,z)_x+ 2\delta$$
A path $\sigma: I \rightarrow X$ is called a $(\lambda, \epsilon)$–quasi geodesic if $\sigma$ is parametrized by arc-length and for any $s_1$, $s_2 \in I$ we have $$|s_1-s_2|\leq \lambda d(\sigma(s_1), \sigma(s_2))+\epsilon$$ If the restriction of $\sigma$ to any subsegment $[a,b] \subset I$ of length at most $L$ is a $(\lambda, {\mathcal{L}})$ quasigeodesic, then we call $\sigma$ an $\ell$–local $(\lambda, {\mathcal{L}})$–quasigeodesic.
Let $X$ be a geodesic metric space and $Y\subset X$. We say that $Y$ is $c$–quasiconvex if for all $y_1, y_2 \in Y$ the geodesic segment $[y_1, y_2]$ lies in the $c$– neighborhood of $Y$.
For any $x\in X$ we call $p_x\in Y$ an *$\epsilon$-quasi projection* of $x$ onto $Y$ if $$d(x,p_x)\leq d(x,Y)+ \epsilon.$$ In hyperbolic spaces, quasi projections onto quasiconvex sets are *quasiunique*:
\[quasiPro\] Let $X$ be $\delta$–hyperbolic metric space and $Y \subset X$ $c$–quasiconvex. Let $x\in X$, and $p_x$ and $p_{x{'}}$ be two $\epsilon$–quasi projections of $x$ onto $Y$. Then, $$d(p_x, p_{x'})\leq 2c+4\delta+ 2\epsilon.$$
For a $\delta$ hyperbolic geodesic $G$-space $X$, consider the almost fixed set $X_C(g)$ corresponding to a subgroup ${\langle}g {\rangle}$ for $g\in G$. Then, the *quasi convex hull* ${\mathcal{X}}_C(g)$ of $X_C(g)$ is defined to be the union of all geodesics connecting any two points of $X_C(g)$. From now on we will work with quasi convex hulls of almost fixed sets. The following is a standard for $\delta$- hyperbolic spaces.
${\mathcal{X}}_C(g)$ is $g$-invariant and $4\delta$-quasiconvex.
The following lemma appears as Lemma 3.12 in [@KWeid1]:
\[L3\] Let $(X,d)$ be a $\delta$–hyperbolic space and let $[x_p, x_q]$ be a geodesic segment in $X$. Let $p,q\in X$ be such that $x_p$ is a projection of $p$ on $[x_p, x_q]$ and that $x_q$ is a projection of $q$ on $[x_p, x_q]$. Then if $d(x_p,x_q)>100\delta$ , the path $[p,x_p]\cup [x_p, x_q]\cup [x_q, q]$ is a $(1, 30 \delta)$–quasigeodesic.
In the proof of Theorem \[gen\] we use the Lemma \[L3\] which assumes that the projections onto almost fixed sets exist. However, given a geodesic metric space $X$ and $Y\subset X$ when $Y$ is not closed in $X$, the closest point projection onto $Y$ may not exist. To fix this we will use quasi-projections which exist quasi-uniquely when there is quasi convexity, by Lemma \[quasiPro\].
Now we will state and prove the following theorem which essentially proves the Theorem \[twist\].
Let $G$ be a group acting on a $\delta$-hyperbolic metric space $X$ by isometries and $\phi_1, \phi_2 \in G$. Suppose $C>100 \delta$ and the almost fixed sets ${\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_1)$ and ${\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_2)$ of $\langle \phi_1 \rangle$ and $ \langle \phi_2 \rangle$ respectively have diameters bounded above by a constant $C{'}$. Then there exists a constant $C_1$ such that, whenever $d_X({\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_1),{\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_2)) \geq C_1$,
1. $\langle \phi_1, \phi_2 \rangle \simeq F_2$ and,
2. every element of $\langle {\phi_1}, {\phi_2}\rangle $ which is not conjugate to the powers of $\phi_1, \phi_2$ in $\langle {\phi_1}, {\phi_2}\rangle $ acts loxodromically in $X$.
Let $p_{1}\in {\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_1)$ and $p_{2} \in {\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_2)$ be two points such that $d_X(p_1,p_2)=d_X({\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_1),{\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_2))$. To prove the theorem we will pick a random word $\omega$ and construct a ping pong argument involving the sets ${\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_1)$ and ${\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_2)$. The goal is to show that the iterates of $ [p_{1}, p_{2}]$ under $\omega$ give a local quasigeodesic, hence a quasigeodesic. Without loss of generality, for $g \in\langle\phi_1 \rangle $, we will start with proving that the path $[p_{2}, p_{1}] \cup [p_{1}, gp_{1}] \cup g[p_{1}, p_{2}]$ is a quasigeodesic. Let $\pi(p_{2})$ and $\pi(gp_{2})$ be quasi-projections of the points $p_{2}$ and $gp_{2}$ on the geodesic segment $[p_{1}, gp_{1}]$. Then, $p_1$ and $\pi(p_2)$ are both $4\delta$–quasi projections. This is true for $\pi(gp_{2})$ and $gp_1$ also. Since the difference is negligible we will assume $p_1$ and $gp_1$ to be closest point projections.
Now we prove that $d(p_{1},gp_{1})\geq C$. To see this suppose that $d_X(p_{1},gp_{1})<C$. We take a point $x$ on the geodesic segment $[p_1,p_2]$ such that $d(x,p_1)< \epsilon$ where $\epsilon=\displaystyle\frac {C- d(p_{1},gp_{1})}{2}$. Then, $$d(x, gx)\leq 2\epsilon+ d(p_{1},gp_{1})=C.$$ which is a contradiction since $p_1$ is the closest point of ${\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_1)$ to ${\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_2)$. Since the claim is proved we apply Lemma \[L3\] to conclude that the path $[p_{2}, p_{1}] \cup [p_{1}, gp_{1}] \cup g[p_{1}, p_{2}]$ is a quasigeodesic.
(100,45) (20,0)[![The ping pong sets and a quasigeodesic between iterated points.[]{data-label="fig:pp1"}](pingpong2 "fig:"){width="75.00000%"}]{} (54,12)[$gp_{1}$]{} (61,27)[$gp_{2}$]{} (76,20)[$p_{2}$]{} (71,8)[$p_{1}$]{} (75,12)[$x$]{} (57,18)[$gx$]{} (9,17)[$\phi_2 ({\mathcal{X}}_C({\phi_1}))$]{} (78,31)[${\mathcal{X}}_C({\phi_2})$]{} (46,5)[${\mathcal{X}}_C({\phi_1})$]{} (42,40)[$\phi_1({\mathcal{X}}_C({\phi_2}))$]{}
Now let $p_{1}\in {\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_1)$, $p_{2}\in {\mathcal{X}}_C(\phi_2)$ be two points as above and we take a geodesic between them. Such a geodesic, which is called a *bridge* is not unique, however it is *almost unique*, when two sets are sufficiently far apart (\[Lemma 5.2, [@KWeid1]\]). Hence assume that, $$d(p_{1}, p_{2})\geq C
.$$ Since $C>100\delta$ this is sufficient to have a quasiunique bridge. Now we take a word $\omega=\phi_2^{m_l}\phi_1^{s_l} \, \cdots \, \phi_2^{m_1}\phi_1^{s_1}$ and consider the iterates of the quasiunique bridge $[p_1, p_2]$ under $\omega$.
It is known that by the hyperbolicity of $X$, given $(\lambda, {\mathcal{L}})$, there exists $\ell>0$ such that a $\ell$–local $(\lambda,{\mathcal{L}})$–quasigeodesic is a $(\lambda', {\mathcal{L}}')$–quasigeodesic where $\lambda'=\lambda'(\lambda, {\mathcal{L}}, \ell)$, $L'=L'(\lambda, L, \ell)$. Since we have $(1,30\delta)$–quasigeodesic pieces, we have such $\ell=\ell(30 \delta)$. Hence we let $$d(p_{1}, p_{2})\geq C_1:=\max\{100 \delta, \ell\}.$$
Thus the path $\gamma:= [p_{1}, p_{2}]\cup [p_1, \phi_1^{s_1}p_1]\cup [\phi_1^{s_1}p_{1}, \phi_1^{s_1}p_{2}]\cup [\phi_1^{s_1}p_{2}, \phi_2^{m_1}\phi_1^{s_1}p_{2}]\cup \cdots \cup [\omega{p_1}, \omega{p_2}]$ is a $\ell$–local $(1,100\delta)$–quasigeodesic, which is a quasigeodesic.
In particular, for any word $\omega$ in $\langle \phi_1, \phi_2 \rangle$ we have $d(\omega(x),x)\geq |\omega|$ where $|\omega|$ denotes the syllable length, up to conjugation. Now, it follows that $\langle \phi_1, \phi_2 \rangle$ is free. Since the path which is obtained by iterating any segment between two almost fixed sets under $\omega$ is a quasigeodesic, $\omega$ is loxodromic.
Consider the action of ${\ensuremath{\operatorname{Out}}\xspace}(F_k)$ on the free factor complex $FF_k$, which is known to be hyperbolic. Then for a sufficiently large constant $C=C(k)$, there exists a $C'=C'(C)$ such that the diameter of the almost fixed set of a Dehn twist is bounded above by $C'$, by Theorem \[diam\]. Let $C_1$ be the constant from the Theorem \[gen\].
Now, assume that $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$ are the Dehn twists so that $d_{FF_k}(\alpha_1, \alpha_2)\geq 2C{'}+C_1$ where $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are the projections of the given ${\mathbb{Z}}$-splittings $T_1$ and $T_2$ to $FF_k$, respectively. Then, since from Theorem \[diam\] we have $\operatorname{diam}\{F_C\}\leq A+C+H+13 =C'$, $$d(F_C(D_1), F_C(D_2)) \geq C_1.$$ Hence, Theorem \[gen\] applies to ${\langle}D_{1},D_{2}{\rangle}$ with $N= 2 \operatorname{diam}\{F_C\} +C_1 = 2C'+C_1$. It is clear that $N=N(k)$. As a conclusion, since loxodromically acting elements in the free factor complex are fully irreducible, every element from the group ${\langle}D_{1},D_{2}{\rangle}$ is either conjugate to powers of the twists or fully irreducible.
Constructing atoroidal fully irreducibles
=========================================
In this part we prove the following theorem which produces *atoroidal* fully irreducibles. Recall $FF_k^{(1)}$ is the 1-skeleton of the free factor complex (free factor graph) and that $\sigma: FF_k^{(1)} \rightarrow {\mathcal{P}}_k$ is a coarse surjective map and that both graphs have the same vertex sets.
Let $T_1$ and $T_2$ be two $\mathbb{Z}$–splittings of $F_k$ with $k>2$ with corresponding free factors $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ and let $D_{1}$ and $D_{2}$ be two Dehn twists corresponding to $T_1$ and $T_2$, respectively. Then there exists a constant $N_2=N_2(k)$ such that whenever $d_{{\mathcal{P}}_k}(\sigma(\alpha_1), \sigma(\alpha_2)) \geq N_2$ , $\langle D_{_1}, D_{_2}\rangle \simeq F_2$ and all elements from this group which are not conjugate to the powers of $D_{1}, D_{2}$ in $\langle D_{1}, D_{2}\rangle$ are atoroidal fully irreducible.
To see that $\langle D_{1}, D_{2}\rangle \simeq F_2$ we use the Theorem \[gen\]. To do that, we need to show that given a $\mathbb{Z}$–splitting $T$ and a constant $C$ there is another constant depending only on $C$ which bounds from above the diameter of the almost fixed set ${\mathcal{P}}_C$ of a Dehn twist corresponding to $T$.
Let $x$ be a point in ${\mathcal{P}}_C$ and $\sigma\pi(G)=x$ for some $G\in CV_k$. Then, as before, we use the Theorem \[clayp2\] of Clay and Pettet to obtain a folding line $\{G_t\}_t$ between $G$ and $D^n_{\tau}(G)$ along which $a$ is short, where $a$ is the generator of the fundamental group of the torus $\tau$ in $M$. Then, since distances in the intersection graph are shorter, the Bestvina Feighn lemma \[L1\] is valid, $$d_{{\mathcal{P}}_k}(\sigma\alpha, \sigma\pi(G))\leq d_{FF_k}({\alpha},\pi(G))\leq 6m+13.$$ Hence, we can convert the short length to distance in the intersection graph. Thus there exists constants A and B such that
$$d_{{\mathcal{P}}_k}({\alpha},\pi(G_t))\leq Am+B$$
where $G_t$ is the point along which $a$ is short. Then the rest of the proof follows the same since the image of the folding line in ${\mathcal{P}}_k$ is a quasigeodesic and it is Hausdorff close to a geodesic by [@KaRa] and [@MannTh]. Hence diameter of ${\mathcal{P}}_C$ is uniformly bounded above by a constant, and Theorem \[gen\] applies to ${\langle}D_{1},D_{2}{\rangle}$ with $N_2= 2 \operatorname{diam}\{{\mathcal{P}}_C\} +C_1$.
Since in ${\mathcal{P}}_k$ loxodromically acting automorphisms are atoroidal fully irreducible ([@MannTh]), an element of $\langle D_{1}, D_{2}\rangle$ which is not conjugate to the powers of $D_1, D_{2}$ in $\langle D_{1}, D_{2}\rangle$ is an *atoroidal* fully irreducible.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this note, we study existence of the outgoing/incoming resolvents of repulsive Schrödinger operators which may not be essentially self-adjoint on the Schwartz space. As a consequence, we construct $L^2$-eigenfunctions associated with complex eigenvalues by a standard technique of scattering theory. In particular, we give another proof of the classical result via microlocal analysis: The repulsive Schrödinger operators with large repulsive exponent are not essentially self-adjoint on the Schwartz space.'
author:
- Kouichi Taira
---
Introduction
============
In this paper, we consider the following repulsive Schrödinger operator on $\re^n$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rep}
P=P_{\a}=-\Delta-{\langle x \rangle}^{2\a}+{\mathrm{Op}}(V),\quad \a>1,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\langle x \rangle}=(1+|x|^2)^{1/2}$ and ${\mathrm{Op}}(V)$ is the Weyl quantization of a symbol $V:\re^{2n}\to \re$. We set $$\begin{aligned}
P_0=P_{0,\a}=-\Delta-{\langle x \rangle}^{2\a}, \quad \a>1.\end{aligned}$$ Let $p_0(x,\x)=|\x|^2-{\langle x \rangle}^{2\a}$ and $p(x,\x)=p_0(x,\x)+V(x,\x)$. In this paper, we always assume the following assumptions.
\[assa\] We set Suppose that $V$ is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
V(x,\x)=\sum_{j,k=1}^na_{jk}(x)\x_j\x_k+\sum_{j=1}^nb_j(x)\x_j+c(x),\end{aligned}$$ where $a_{jk}=a_{kj}$, $b_j$ and $c$ are real-valued smooth functions on $\re^n$ and satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
&|\pa_{x}^{\b}a_{jk}(x)|\leq C_{\b}(1+|x|)^{-\m-|\b|},\, |\pa_{x}^{\b}b_{j}(x)|\leq C_{\b}(1+|x|)^{\a-\m-|\b|},\\
&|\pa_{x}^{\b}c(x)|\leq C_{\b}(1+|x|)^{2\a-\m-|\b|}.\end{aligned}$$ with some $0<\m<1/2$ and $C_{\b}>0$.
In particular, ${\mathrm{Op}}(V)$ is a symmetric differential operator and $$\begin{aligned}
V(x,\x)=\sum_{j=0}^2V_j(x,\x),\quad V_j\in S^{j, \a (2-j)-\m}.\end{aligned}$$
\[assb\] For any $M>0$ $$\begin{aligned}
|p(x,\x)|\geq C{\langle \x \rangle}^2,\quad |x|\leq M, |\x|\geq R_0\end{aligned}$$ with some $C>0$ and $R_0>0$.
We study stationary scattering theory of $P$ and give an application to limit circle problem. The usual scattering theory is based on the limiting absorption principle: the resolvent bound $$\begin{aligned}
\label{resbd}
\sup_{\re z\in I,\, {\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z\neq 0}\|{\langle x \rangle}^{-1/2-0}(-\Delta+V-z)^{-1} {\langle x \rangle}^{-1/2-0}\|_{L^2\to L^2}<\infty\end{aligned}$$ and existence of the boundary values of the resolvent $$\begin{aligned}
\label{resbovalue}
\lim_{\pm{\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z\to 0}{\langle x \rangle}^{-1/2-0}(-\Delta+V-z)^{-1} {\langle x \rangle}^{-1/2-0}.\end{aligned}$$ $(\ref{resbd})$ is used in order to prove existence and completeness of the wave operators. $(\ref{resbovalue})$ is used for a construction of generalized eigenfunctions of the stationary Schrödinger equation: $$\begin{aligned}
(-\Delta+V-z)u=0.\end{aligned}$$ The difficulty in the case of $P$ with $\a>1$ lies in the lack of essential self-adjointness of $P$ on $\mathcal{S}(\re^n)$. Since $P$ may have many self-adjoint extensions, “the boundary value of the resolvent” seems meaningless. The recent progress in the microlocal analysis gives another definition of the outgoing/incoming resolvents of pseudodifferential operators under some dynamical conditions. See [@FS] for the Anosov vector fields, [@BVW] and [@V2] for the d’Alembertians in the scattering Lorentzian spaces. We apply this technique to the repulsive Schrödinger operator $P$ even for $\a>1$ and prove existence of the outgoing/incoming resolvents. Moreover, we show that $P$ has many eigenfunctions associated with the eigenvalues $\l\in \mathbb{C}$ except for the discrete set. As a corollary, we give another proof of that $P$ is not essentially self-adjoint for $\a>1$ in view of scattering and microlocal theory. This is a classical result which is known as a typical limit circle case (for example, see [@RS]) when ${\mathrm{Op}}(V)$ is a multiplication operator. It seems to be new result when ${\mathrm{Op}}(V)$ is not a multiplication operator.
The repulsive Schrödinger operator is studied by several authors when ${\mathrm{Op}}(V)$ is a multiplication operator. Time-dependent scattering theory of the operator $(\ref{rep})$ for $0<\a\leq 1$ is studied in [@BCHM] in the short-range case. They prove existence and completeness of the wave operator and existence of the asymptotic velocity. They also study that existence of the outgoing/incoming resolvent and the absence of $L^2$-eigenvalues. The recent works in [@It1] and [@It2] extend some results in [@BCHM] for the long-range case. Moreover, in [@It1], the author of these papers proves the absence of eigenvalues in the Besov space is proved, where the order of Besov space is $\frac{\a-1}{2}$. This result is an extension of well-known results for the usual Schrödinger operators ($\a=0$) to the repulsive Schrödinger operators ($0<\a\leq 1$).
From the usual stationary scattering theory of $-\Delta$, we know that:
- Eigenfunctions of $-\Delta$ associated with positive eigenvalues do not exist in the threshold weighted $L^2$-space: $L^{2,-\frac{1}{2}}$.
- There are many eigenfunctions right above $L^{2,-\frac{1}{2}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
-\Delta u=\l u,\quad u\in \bigcap_{s>1/2}L^{2,-s}\end{aligned}$$ for each $\l>0$.
The result in [@It1] and [@It2] suggests that the above results hold for the repulsive Schrödinger operator with $0<\a\leq 1$ with threshold weight $\frac{\a-1}{2}$. It is expected that these results also hold for $\a>1$. In this paper, we almost justify these and we prove the existence of non-trivial $L^2$-solution to $$\begin{aligned}
(P-z)u=0\end{aligned}$$ for $z\in \mathbb{C}$ except for a discrete subset of $\mathbb{C}$.
We introduce the variable order weighted $L^2$-space $L^{2,k+tm(x,\x)}$, where $k, t\in \re$ and $m$ is a real-valued function on the phase space $\re^{2n}$. Though we give a precise definition of $L^{2,k+tm(x,\x)}$ in Appendix \[appB\], we state properties of $L^{2,k+tm(x,\x)}$ here: If $u\in L^{2,k+tm(x,\x)}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
u\in& L^{2,k-t}, \text{microlocally near} \{|x|,|\x|>R, |\x|\sim |x|^{\a}, x\cdot \x\sim |x||\x|\}\label{inc}\\
u\in& L^{2,k+t}, \text{microlocally near} \{|x|,|\x|>R, |\x|\sim |x|^{\a}, x\cdot \x\sim -|x||\x|\}\label{out}\end{aligned}$$ for large $R>0$. The following theorem is an analog of [@FS Theorem 1.4].
\[thm1\]
- Let $t\ne 0$ and $z\in \mathbb{C}$. We define $$\begin{aligned}
D_{tm}=\{u\in L^{2,\frac{\a-1}{2}+tm(x,\x)} \mid (P-z)u\in L^{2,\frac{1-\a}{2}+tm(x,\x)} \}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Pmap}
P-z: D_{tm}\to L^{2,\frac{1-\a}{2}+tm(x,\x)}\end{aligned}$$ is a Fredholm operator and coincides with the closure of $(P-z)$ with domain $\mathcal{S}(\re^n)$ with respect to its graph norm.
- There exists a discrete subset $T_{\a,t}\subset \mathbb{C}$ such that $(\ref{Pmap})$ is invertible for $\mathbb{C}\setminus T_{\a,t}$.
By the standard radial point estimates and the propagation of singularities, it follows that $T_{\a,t}=T_{\a,{\text{{\rm sgn}\;}}t}$ is independent of $|t|$ and $T_{\a,t}\subset \mathbb{C}_{-{\text{{\rm sgn}\;}}t}=\{-({\text{{\rm sgn}\;}}t){\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z\geq 0\}$. Moreover, this theorem is true for $0<\a\leq 1$ if we replace $z\in \mathbb{C}$ above by $z\in \mathbb{C}_{{\text{{\rm sgn}\;}}t}$ (though $D_{tm}$ depends on $z$). We leave their proofs to future work.
This theorem also gives the bijectivity of $P-z$ in the usual weighted $L^2$-spaces: Suppose $z\in \mathbb{C}\setminus T_{\a,t}$. For any $f\in L^{(1-\a)/2+\e}$ with $\e>0$, there exists a unique solution $u\in L^{2,(\a-1)/2-\e}$ to the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
(P-z)u=f,\,\, \text{in the distributional sense},\\
u\,\, \text{is outgoing if the signature is $+$ and incoming if the signature is $-$},
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ where “$u$ is outgoing” says that $(\ref{out})$ holds with $k=(\a-1)/2$ and $t=\e$ and “$u$ is incoming” says that $(\ref{inc})$ holds with $k=(\a-1)/2$ and $t=-\e$.
Moreover, we construct non-trivial $L^2$ solutions to $Pu=zu$.
\[thm2\] Let $\a>1$ and $0<|t|<1/2$. For $z\in \mathbb{C}\setminus T_{\a,t}$, there exists $u\in L^2\setminus \{0\}$ such that $Pu=zu$.
As is proved in Proposition \[many\], it follows that there are many eigenfucntions associated with $z\in \mathbb{C}\setminus T_{\a,t}$.
From Theorem \[thm2\] and the standard criterion for essential self-adjointness [@RS Corollary after Theorem VIII.3], we conclude that $P$ is not essentially self-adjoint if $\a>1$.
Suppose $\a>1$. Then $P=P_{\a}$ is not essentially self-adjoint on $C_c^{\infty}(\re^n)$ and $\mathcal{S}(\re^n)$.
The repulsive Schrödinger operator $P=P_{\a}$ for large $\a$ is expected to have the same structure to the Laplace operator on a bounded open set in $\re^n$. For a bounded open set ${\Omega}$, it easily follows that the inclusion $H^2_0({\Omega})\hookrightarrow L^2({\Omega})$ is compact. Here we note that $H^2_0({\Omega})$ is the minimum domain of $-\Delta|_{C_c^{\infty}({\Omega})}$. For the repulsive Schrödinger operator, we prove the similar result.
\[thm3\] Define a Banach space $$\begin{aligned}
D^{\a}_{\mathrm{min}}=\{u\in L^2(\re^n) \mid Pu\in L^2(\re^n),\, \exists u_n\in C_c^{\infty}(\re^n)\, \, u_k\to u, Pu_k\to Pu\, \text{in}\, L^2(\re^n) \}\end{aligned}$$ with its graph norm. Then the inclusion $D^{\a}_{\mathrm{min}}\hookrightarrow L^2$ is compact.
$D^{\a}_{\mathrm{min}}$ coincides with the minimal domain of $P|_{C_c^{\infty}(\re^n)}$, that is the domain of the closure of $P|_{C_c^{\infty}(\re^n)}$.
\[disc1\] Let $n=1$ and $P_U$ be a self-adjoint extension of $P$. Then there exists $\{\l_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}\subset \re$ such that $\s(P_U)=\s_d(P_U)=\{\l_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ and $|\l_k|\to \infty$ as $k\to \infty$, where $\s(P_U)$ is the spectrum of $P_U$ and $\s_d(P_U)$ is the discrete spectrum of $P_U$.
For a relatively bounded open interval $I\subset \re$, it is proved that each self-adjoint extension of $-\Delta|_{C_c^{\infty}(I)}$ has a discrete spectrum by mimicking the proof of Corollary \[disc1\]. However, in the case of $n\geq 2$, the situation is dramatically different. In fact, we consider the Klein Laplacian ($-\Delta$ with domain $\{u\in L^2({\Omega})\mid \Delta u=0\}+H^2_0({\Omega})$) for the bounded domain with smooth boundary $\pa {\Omega}$. The Klein Laplacian has a nonempty essential spectrum for $n\geq 2$. In fact, we note that any $L^2$ harmonic functions on ${\Omega}$ lies in the domain of the Klein Laplacian. Since restrictions of harmonic functions on $\re^n$ to ${\Omega}$ are $L^2$ harmonic functions on ${\Omega}$ and since the dimension of the set of all harmonic functions for $n\geq 2$ is infinite, we conclude that $0$ is the eigenvalue with infinite multiplicity. In this way, it follows that the essential spectrum is not empty.
As an analogy to $-\Delta$ on ${\Omega}$, we naturally propose the following problems:
- Does there exist a distinguish self-adjoint extension of $P$ (such as the Friedrichs extension of $-\Delta|_{C_c^{\infty}({\Omega})}$ in the case of $-\Delta$ on ${\Omega}$)?
- How is the structure of the self-adjoint extension of $P$? (More concretely, does there exist a self-adjoint extension of $P$ which has a discrete spectrum?)
We fix some notations. $\mathcal{S}(\re^n)$ denotes the set of all rapidly decreasing functions on $\re^n$ and $\mathcal{S}'(\re^n)$ denotes the set of all tempered distributions on $\re^n$. We use the weighted Sobolev space: $L^{2,l}={\langle x \rangle}^{-l}L^2(\re^n)$, $H^k={\langle D \rangle}^{-k}L^2(\re^n)$ and $H^{k,l}={\langle x \rangle}^{-l}{\langle D \rangle}^{-k}L^2(\re^n)$ for $k,l\in \re$. For Banach spaces $X,Y$, $B(X,Y)$ denotes the set of all linear bounded operators form $X$ to $Y$. For a Banach space $X$, we denote the norm of $X$ by $\|\cdot\|_{X}$. If $X$ is a Hilbert space, we write the inner metric of $X$ by $(\cdot, \cdot)_{X}$, where $(\cdot, \cdot)_{X}$ is linear with respect to the right variable. We also denote $\|\cdot\|_{L^2}=\|\cdot\|_{L^2(\re^n)}$ and $(\cdot,\cdot)_{L^2}=(\cdot, \cdot)_{L^2(\re^n)}$. We denote the distribution pairing by $<\cdot, \cdot>$. For $I\subset \re$, we denote $I_{\pm}=\{z\in \mathbb{C}\mid {\text{{\rm Re}\;}}z\in I, \pm {\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z\geq 0 \}$. We denote ${\langle x \rangle}=(1+|x|^2)^{1/2}$ for $x\in \re^n$. Set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{C}_{\pm}=\{z\in \mathbb{C}\mid \pm{\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z\geq 0\}.\end{aligned}$$
**Acknowledgment.** This work was supported by JSPS Research Fellowship for Young Scientists, KAKENHI Grant Number 17J04478 and the program FMSP at the Graduate School of Mathematics Sciences, the University of Tokyo. The author would like to thank Shu Nakamura for pointing out mistakes of the first draft and for useful comments. The author also would like to thank Kyohei Itakura, Kenichi Ito and Kentaro Kameoka for helpful discussions.
Preliminary
===========
Notations and cut-off functions {#subcut}
-------------------------------
In this subsection, we fix some notations and define cut-off functions which are used in this paper many times.
Let $\chi\in C_c^{\infty}(\re, [0,1])$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\chi(t)= \begin{cases}
1,& |t|\leq 1, \\
0,& |t|\geq 2.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ For $R, L\geq 1$ and $0<r\leq 1$, set $\bar{\chi}=1-\chi$ and $$\begin{aligned}
a_{r,R}(x,\x)=&\bar{\chi}(|x|/R)\bar{\chi}(|\x|/R)\chi(|\x|^2-|x|^{2\a})/r(|\x|^2+|x|^{2\a})),\label{cut1}\\
a_R(x,\x)=&a_{R^{-1}, R}(x,\x),\,\,b_L(x,\x)=\chi(|x|/L)\chi(|\x|/L)\label{cut2}.\end{aligned}$$
We often use the symbol $$\begin{aligned}
\y(x,\x)=\frac{x\cdot \x}{|x||\x|}.\end{aligned}$$
Pseudodifferential operators
----------------------------
Set $$\begin{aligned}
S^{k,l}=\{a\in C^{\infty}(\re^n)\mid |\pa_{x}^{\c_1}\pa_{\x}^{\c_2}a(x,\x)|\leq C_{\c_1,\c_2}{\langle x \rangle}^{l-|\c_1|}{\langle \x \rangle}^{k-|\c_2|} \}.\end{aligned}$$ We denote the Weyl quantization of $a\in C^{\infty}(\re^{2n})\cap \mathcal{S}'(\re^n)$ by ${\mathrm{Op}}(a)$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Op}}(a)u(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^n}\int_{\re^n}\int_{\re^n}e^{i(x-y)\cdot \x}a(\frac{x+y}{2},\x)u(y)dyd\x.\end{aligned}$$ We denote ${\mathrm{Op}}S={\mathrm{Op}}(S)$ for $S\subset \mathcal{S}'(\re^{2n})$. Recall that if $a$ is real-valued, then ${\mathrm{Op}}(a)$ is formally self-adjoint with respect to the metric on $L^2(\re^n)$. We denote the composition of the Weyl calculus by $\#$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Op}}(a\# b)={\mathrm{Op}}(a){\mathrm{Op}}(b).\end{aligned}$$
The following lemmas is easily proved by a standard $\e/3$-argument.
\[b\_L\] Let $b_L$ as in subsection \[subcut\] and $Q\in S^{k,l}$ for some $k,l\in \re$. Then the symbol of $[Q, {\mathrm{Op}}(b_L)]$ is uniformly bounded in $S^{k-1,l-1}$ with respect to $L\geq 1$ and converges to $0$ in $S^{k-1+\e, l-1+\e}$ as $L\to \infty$ for any $\e>0$.
The following proposition is proved by the standard parametrix construction and Assumption \[assb\]. We omit its proof.
\[elliptic\] Let $z\in \mathbb{C}$, $k,l\in \re$, $N>0$ and $k_1,l_1\geq 0$ with $k_1+l_1\leq 2$. For $R, M\geq 1$ and $\c>1$, set $$\begin{aligned}
{\Omega}_{loc}=&\{(x,\x)\in \re^{2n} \mid |x|<M\}\cup \{(x,\x)\in \re^{2n} \mid |\x|<M\},\\
{\Omega}_{R,\c,1}=&\{(x,\x)\in \re^{2n} \mid |x|>R, |\x|>R, |\x|>\c |x|^{\a}\},\\
{\Omega}_{R,\c,2}=&\{(x,\x)\in \re^{2n} \mid |x|>R, |\x|>R, |x|^{\a}>\c |\x|\}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\c>1$. There exists $R_1>0$ such that if $R\geq R_1$ and $a, a_1\in S^{0,0}$ are supported in ${\Omega}_{loc}\cup {\Omega}_{R,\c,1}\cup {\Omega}_{R,\c,2}$ and $\inf_{{\text{{\rm supp}\;}}a}|a_1|>0$, then there exists $C>0$ such that for $u\in H^{-N,-N}$ with ${\mathrm{Op}}(a_1) Pu\in H^{k,l}$, we have ${\mathrm{Op}}(a)u\in H^{k+k_1, l+\a l_1}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathrm{Op}}(a)u\|_{H^{k+k_1,l+\a l_1}}\leq C\|{\mathrm{Op}}(a_1)(P-z)u\|_{H^{k,l}}+C\|u\|_{H^{-N,-N}}.\end{aligned}$$ Here the constant $C>0$ is locally uniformly in ${\text{{\rm Re}\;}}z\in \re$.
The next lemma follows from a simple observation; $|\x|\sim |x|^{\a}$ on ${\text{{\rm supp}\;}}a_R$.
\[suppell\] Let $k,l\in \re$. If $u\in H^{k,l}$, then ${\mathrm{Op}}(a_R)u\in H^{k+M, l-\a M}$ for $M\in \re$, where $a_R$ is as in subsection \[subcut\].
First, suppose $|M|\leq 1$. By a support property of $a_R$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle \x \rangle}^{M}\#{\langle x \rangle}^{-\a M}\# a_R\in S^{0,0}\end{aligned}$$ Then $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathrm{Op}}(a_R)u\|_{H^{k+M, l-\a M}}\leq& C\| {\mathrm{Op}}({\langle \x \rangle}^{M}\# {\langle x \rangle}^{-\a M}\#(a_R))u\|_{H^{k,l}}\\
\leq&C'\|u\|_{H^{k,l}}\end{aligned}$$ with some $C>0$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm1\] $(i)$
===============================
For $k\in \re$, we set $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\a}^k=\bigcup_{l\in \re}S^{l,k-\a l}.\end{aligned}$$
Construction of an escape function {#subsecesc}
----------------------------------
Take $\rho\in C^{\infty}(\re,[0,1])$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\rho(t)=1,\,\, \text{if}\,\, |t|\geq 1/2,\,\, \rho'(t)\geq 0,\,\, \rho'(t)\geq C_1\geq C_2|\rho(t)|,\,\, \text{if}\,\, |t|\leq 1/4,\label{ro21}\\
&\rho'(t)\leq C_3\leq C_4|\rho(t)|,\,\, \text{if}\,\, |t|\geq 1/4,\,\, t\rho(t)\geq 0.\label{ro22}\end{aligned}$$ We define $$\begin{aligned}
m(x,\x)=m_{R}(x,\x)=-\rho(\y(x,\x))a_R(x,\x)^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\y(x,\x)=x\cdot \x/|x||\x|$ and $a_R$ is as in $(\ref{cut2})$. Moreover, we set $$\begin{aligned}
{\Omega}_R=\{(x,\x)\in \re^{2n}\mid |x|>R,\, |\x|>R,\, -\frac{1}{2R}<\frac{|\x|^2-|x|^{2\a}}{|\x|^2+|x|^{2\a}}<\frac{1}{2R} \}.\end{aligned}$$
\[escape\] There exists $R_0\geq 1$ such that if $R\geq R_0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
H_p(m\log{\langle x \rangle})(x,\x)\leq -C{\langle x \rangle}^{\a-1}a_R(x,\x)^2-e(x,\x),\end{aligned}$$ where $e(x,\x)=\rho(\y(x,\x))(H_pa_R)(x,\x)\log{\langle x \rangle}\in S_{\a}^{\a-1+0}$.
We learn $$\begin{aligned}
H_p(\rho(\y)\log{\langle x \rangle})\geq& 2(\y\rho(\y))|x||\x|{\langle x \rangle}^{-2}+(H_{p_0}\y)\rho'(\y)\log{\langle x \rangle}\\
&-C|\rho(\y)|{\langle x \rangle}^{\a-1-\m}-C|\rho'(\y)|{\langle x \rangle}^{\a-1-\m}\log{\langle x \rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the first line of the right hand side is positive for $(x,\x)\in {\Omega}_R$. Moreover, we observe that $|\x|\sim |x|^{\a}$ on ${\Omega}_R$ if $R$ is large enough. For $|\y(x,\x)|\geq 1/4$, it follows $$\begin{aligned}
H_p(\rho(\y)\log{\langle x \rangle})\geq& 2(\y\rho(\y))|x||\x|{\langle x \rangle}^{-2}-C|\rho(\y)|{\langle x \rangle}^{\a-1-\m}\\
&-C|\rho'(\y)|{\langle x \rangle}^{\a-1-\m}\log{\langle x \rangle}\\
\geq &C{\langle x \rangle}^{\a-1}|\rho(\y)|-C{\langle x \rangle}^{\a-1-\m}\log{\langle x \rangle}|\rho(\y)|\geq C{\langle x \rangle}^{\a-1}.\end{aligned}$$ by $(\ref{ro21})$ and $(\ref{ro22})$. For $|\y(x,\x)|\leq 1/4$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
H_p(\rho(\y)\log{\langle x \rangle})\geq&(H_{p_0}\y)\rho'(\y)\log{\langle x \rangle}-C|\rho(\y)|{\langle x \rangle}^{\a-1-\m}\\
&-C|\rho'(\y)|{\langle x \rangle}^{\a-1-\m}\log{\langle x \rangle}\\
\geq& C\rho'(\y){\langle x \rangle}^{\a-1}\log{\langle x \rangle} -C|\rho'(\y)|{\langle x \rangle}^{\a-1-\m}\log{\langle x \rangle}\geq C{\langle x \rangle}^{\a-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we complete the proof.
Fredholm properties
-------------------
Let $m=m_{R_0}$ be as in subsection \[subsecesc\], where $R_0$ is as in Lemma \[escape\]. Moreover, we set $k_{\a}=(\a-1)/2$. Let $S^{k,tm(x,\x)+l}$ be as in Definition \[def1app\] and let $\tilde{G}_{k_{\a},tm}(x,\x)={\langle x \rangle}^{k_{\a}+tm(x,\x)}+ S^{-\infty, -\infty}$ such that ${\mathrm{Op}}(\tilde{G}_{k_{\a},tm}):\mathcal{S}(\re^n)\to \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$ is invertible. Existence of such $\tilde{G}_{k_{\a},tm}$ is proved in Lemma \[varinv\] (see also (\[Ginvdef\])). Moreover, the variable order weighted $L^2$-space $L^{2, k_{\a}+tm(x,\x)}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
L^{2, k_{\a}+tm(x,\x)}={\mathrm{Op}}(\tilde{G}_{k_{\a},tm})^{-1}L^2.\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[varequi\] $(ii)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
L^{2, k_{\a}+tm(x,\x)}={\mathrm{Op}}(\tilde{G}_{0,tm})^{-1}L^{2,k_{\a}}.\end{aligned}$$
For $t\neq 0$ and $z\in \mathbb{C}_{\pm}$, we set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{unitary}
P_{tm}(z)={\mathrm{Op}}(\tilde{G}_{0, tm})(P-z){\mathrm{Op}}(\tilde{G}_{0,tm})^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ We note that the operator $P$ on $L^{2, k_{\a}+tm(x,\x)}$ is unitary equivalent to $P_{tm}$ on $L^{2,k_{\a}}$. This is why we study the Fredholm property of $P_{tm}(z)$ instead of $P$ in order to prove Theorem \[thm1\]. By the asymptotic expansion, we have $$\begin{aligned}
P_{tm}(z)=P-z+it{\mathrm{Op}}(H_p(m\log{\langle x \rangle}))+{\mathrm{Op}}S^{0,-2+0}\end{aligned}$$ since $|\x|\sim |x|^{\a}$ on ${\text{{\rm supp}\;}}m$ and $\tilde{G}_{0, tm}={\langle x \rangle}^{tm(x,\x)}+S^{-\infty, -\infty}$.
\[mGar\] We have $$\begin{aligned}
-(u, {\mathrm{Op}}(H_p(m\log{\langle x \rangle}))u)_{L^2}\geq \|{\mathrm{Op}}(a_R)u\|_{L^{2,\frac{\a-1}{2}}}^2 -C\|u\|_{L^{2,-1+0}}^2+(u,{\mathrm{Op}}(e)u)_{L^2}\end{aligned}$$ for $u\in \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$.
By the construction, $m$ is supported in ${\text{{\rm supp}\;}}a_R$. Hence we have $$\begin{aligned}
H_p(m\log{\langle x \rangle})\in S^{1,-1+0}.\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[escape\] and the sharp G$\rm{\mathring{a}}$rding inequality, we obtain the above inequality.
\[Ddense\] Set $\tilde{D}_{tm}(z)=\{u\in L^{2,(\a-1)/2}\mid P_{tm}(z)u\in L^{2,(1-\a)/2}\}$. We consider $\tilde{D}_{tm}(z)$ as a Banach space with its graph norm. Then $\mathcal{S}(\re^n)$ is dense in $\tilde{D}_{tm}(z)$.
Let $u\in\tilde{D}_{tm}(z)$. We recall that $b_{L}(x,\x)=\chi(|x|/L)\chi(|\x|/L)$ is as in $(\ref{cut2})$. Since ${\mathrm{Op}}(b_L)u\to u$ in $L^{2,(\a-1)/2}$ and ${\mathrm{Op}}(b_L)P_{tm}(z)u\to P_{tm}(z)u$ in $L^{2,(1-\a)/2}$, it suffices to prove that $[P_{tm},{\mathrm{Op}}(b_L)]u\to 0$ in $L^{2,(1-\a)/2}$. We learn $$\begin{aligned}
\|[P_{tm}(z), {\mathrm{Op}}(b_L)]u\|_{L^{2,(1-\a)/2}}\leq& \|[P_{tm}(z), {\mathrm{Op}}(b_L)]{\mathrm{Op}}(a_R)u\|_{L^{2,(1-\a)/2}}\\
&+\|[P_{tm}(z), {\mathrm{Op}}(b_L)](1-{\mathrm{Op}}(a_R))u\|_{L^{2,(1-\a)/2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $|\x|\sim |x|^{\a}$ on $a_R$, it follows that $[P_{tm}(z),{\mathrm{Op}}(b_L)]{\mathrm{Op}}(a_R)$ is uniformly bounded in $S^{0,\a-1}$ and converges to $0$ in $S^{0,(\a-1)/2+0}$. Lemma \[b\_L\] and $u\in L^{2,(\a-1)/2}$ imply $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{L\to \infty}\|[P_{tm}(z), {\mathrm{Op}}(b_L)]{\mathrm{Op}}(a_R)u\|_{L^{2,(1-\a)/2}}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, since $u\in L^{2,(\a-1)/2}$ with $P_{tm}(z)u\in L^{2, (1-\a)/2}$, then the elliptic estimates (Proposition \[elliptic\]) implies $(1-{\mathrm{Op}}(a_R))u\in H^{k_1, (1-\a)/2+\a l_1}$ for $k_1,l_1\geq 0$ with $k_1+l_1\leq 2$. In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
(1-{\mathrm{Op}}(a_R)) u\in \bigcap_{j=1}^2H^{j,\frac{\a+1}{2}+(j-1)\a}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $[P_{tm}(z), {\mathrm{Op}}(b_L)]$ is uniformly bounded in $\sum_{j=0}^2 S^{1-j, j\a-1}$ and converges to $0$ in $\sum_{j=0}^2 S^{1-j+\e, j\a-1+\e}$ for any $\e>0$, then Lemma \[b\_L\] gives $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{L\to \infty}\|[P_{tm}(z), {\mathrm{Op}}(b_L)](1-{\mathrm{Op}}(a_R))u\|_{L^{2,(1-\a)/2}}=0.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
Let $I\subset \re$ be a relativity compact interval. Then there exists $C>0$ such that for $z\in I_{{\text{{\rm sgn}\;}}t}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\|_{L^{2,(\a-1)/2}}\leq C\|P_{tm}(z)u\|_{L^{2, (1-\a)/2}}+C\|u\|_{H^{-N,-N}},\,\, u\in \tilde{D}_{tm}(z),\label{13}\\
\|u\|_{L^{2,(\a-1)/2}}\leq C\|P_{tm}(z)^*u\|_{L^{2, (1-\a)/2}}+C\|u\|_{H^{-N,-N}},\,\, u\in\tilde{D}_{tm}(\bar{z}). \label{14}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $(\ref{13})$ and $(\ref{14})$ hold for $z\in I_{-{\text{{\rm sgn}\;}}t}$ though the constant $C>0$ depends on ${\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z$.
First, we assume $z\in I_{{\text{{\rm sgn}\;}}t}$. We prove $(\ref{13})$ only. Since $P_{tm}(z)^*=(P-z)^*-it{\mathrm{Op}}(H_p(m\log{\langle x \rangle}))+{\mathrm{Op}}S^{0,-2+0}$ holds, $(\ref{14})$ is similarly proved. By Lemma \[Ddense\], we may assume $u\in \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$. By Lemma \[mGar\] and $t{\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z\geq 0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
-({\text{{\rm sgn}\;}}t){\text{{\rm Im}\;}}(u,P_{tm}(z)u)_{L^2}\geq& \|{\mathrm{Op}}(a_R)u\|_{L^{2,(\a-1)/2}}^2-C\|u\|_{L^{2,-1+0}}^2+(u, {\mathrm{Op}}(e)u)_{L^2}\end{aligned}$$ for $u\in \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$. Since $t{\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z\geq 0$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathrm{Op}}(a_R)u\|_{L^{2,(\a-1)/2}}^2\leq& C\|P_{tm}(z)u\|_{L^{2,(1-\a)/2}}\|u\|_{L^{2,(\a-1)/2}}+C\|u\|_{L^{2,-1+0}}^2\label{11}\\
&+|(u, {\mathrm{Op}}(e)u)_{L^2}|.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By the elliptic estimate (Proposition \[elliptic\]) and the interpolation estimate, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{12}
\|&(1-{\mathrm{Op}}(a_R))u\|_{L^{2,(\a-1)/2}}^2+\|u\|_{L^{2,-1+0}}^2+|(u, {\mathrm{Op}}(e)u)_{L^2}|\\
&\leq C\|{\mathrm{Op}}(a_R)u\|_{L^{2,-1+0}}^2+C\|P_{tm}(z)u\|_{L^{2,(1-\a)/2}}^2+C\|u\|_{H^{-N,-N}}^2\nonumber\\
&\leq \frac{1}{2}\|{\mathrm{Op}}(a_R)u\|_{L^{2,(\a-1)/2}}^2+C\|P_{tm}(z)u\|_{L^{2,(1-\a)/2}}^2+C\|u\|_{H^{-N,-N}}^2.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By using $(\ref{11})$, $(\ref{12})$ and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we obtain $(\ref{13})$ for $u\in \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$.
Next, we prove that $(\ref{13})$ and $(\ref{14})$ hold for $z\in I_{-{\text{{\rm sgn}\;}}t}$ though the constant $C>0$ depends on ${\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z$. In fact, since $(\a-1)/2>(1-\a)/2$, then the elliptic estimate and the interpolation inequality implies that for any $\e_1>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
|{\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z|\|u\|_{L^{2, (1-\a)/2}}^2\leq& \e_1\|u\|_{L^{2, (\a-1)/2}}^2+C\|u\|_{L^{2,-N-N\a}}^2\\
\leq & \e_1\|u\|_{L^{2, (\a-1)/2}}^2+C\|P_{tm}(z)\|_{L^{2,(1-\a)/2}}^2+C\|u\|_{H^{-N,-N}}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Taking $\e_1>0$ small enough and use $(\ref{13})$ and $(\ref{14})$ for $\bar{z}$, we obtain $(\ref{13})$ for $z\in I_{-{\text{{\rm sgn}\;}}t}$.
\[Fredinv\] Suppose $t\geq 0$. If ${\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z$ is large enough, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{15}
\|u\|_{L^{2,(\a-1)/2}}\leq C\|P_{tm}(z)u\|_{L^{2,(\a-1)/2}}.\end{aligned}$$ In fact, in $(\ref{11})$, we have a stronger bound: $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathrm{Op}}(a_R)u\|_{L^{2,(\a-1)/2}}^2+{\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z\|u\|_{L^2}^2\leq (\text{RHS of $(\ref{11})$}).\end{aligned}$$ Hence the argument after $(\ref{11})$ implies $$\begin{aligned}
(1+\e)\|u\|_{L^{2,(\a-1)/2}}^2+{\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z\|u\|_{L^2}^2\leq C\|P_{tm}(z)u\|_{L^{2,(\a-1)/2}}^2+C\|u\|_{H^{-N,-N}}^2.\end{aligned}$$ We use the trivial bounds $\|u\|_{H^{-N,-N}}\leq \|u\|_{L^2}$ $\|u\|_{H^{-N,-N}}\leq \|u\|_{L^{2,(\a-1)/2}}$ and we obtain $(\ref{15})$. Similarly, for $t\leq 0$, $(\ref{15})$ holds if $-{\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z$ is large enough.
\[frecor\] A map $$\begin{aligned}
\label{P_tmmap}
P_{tm}(z):\tilde{D}_{tm}(z)\to L^{2,(1-\a)/2}\end{aligned}$$ is a Fredholm operator. Moreover, if $t{\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z\geq 0$ holds and $|{\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z|$ is large enough, then $P-z$ is invertible. Furthermore, $(\ref{P_tmmap})$ is an analytic family of Fredholm operators with index zero. Moreover, there exists a discrete set $T_{\a,t}\subset \mathbb{C}$ such that $(\ref{P_tmmap})$ is invertible for $z\in \mathbb{C}\setminus T_{\a,t}$.
\[remFre2\] Remark \[Fredinv\] implies that $P_{tm}(z)$ is invertible for $t\geq0$ and for large ${\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z >0$. In fact, the injectivity of $P_{tm}(z)$ follows from $(\ref{15})$ and the surjectivity follows from the injectivity of $P_{tm}(z)^*$.
First, we prove that ${\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}P_{tm}(z)<\infty$ is of finite dimension and ${\text{{\rm Ran}\;}}P_{tm}(z)$ is closed. Let a bounded sequence $u_k \in\tilde{D}_{tm}(z)$ such that $P_{tm}(z)u_k$ is convergent in $L^{2,(1-\a)/2}$. Due to [@Ho Proposition 19.1.3], it suffices to prove that $u_k$ has a convergent subsequence in $\tilde{D}_{tm}(z)$. It easily follows from $(\ref{13})$ and the compactness of the inclusion $L^{2,(\a-1)/2}\subset H^{-N,-N}$.
Next, we prove that the cokernel of $P_{tm}(z)$ is of finite dimension. To do this, it suffices to prove that the kernel of $P_{tm}(z)^*: L^{2,(\a-1)/2}\to \tilde{D}_{tm}(z)^*$ is of finite dimension. By definition, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}P_{tm}(z)^*=&\{u\in L^{2,(\a-1)/2}\mid (u,P_{tm}(z)w)_{L^2}=0,\, \forall w\in \tilde{D}_{tm}(z) \}\\
=&\{u\in L^{2,(\a-1)/2}\mid (u,P_{tm}(z)w)_{L^2}=0,\, \forall w\in \mathcal{S}(\re^n) \},\end{aligned}$$ where we use Lemma \[Ddense\] in the second line. If $u\in L^{2,(\a-1)/2}$ satisfies $P_{tm}(z)^*u=0$, then this equality holds in the distributional sense. The claim follows same as in the first half part of this proof.
The invertibility of $(\ref{P_tmmap})$ when $t{\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z\geq 0$ and when $|{\text{{\rm Im}\;}}z|$ is large follows from Remark \[Fredinv\] and its dual statement. The analytic Fredholm theorem [@Z Theorem D.4] imply existence of $T_{\a,t}$ as above.
Theorem \[thm1\] follows from $(\ref{unitary})$ and Corollary \[frecor\].
Proof of Theorem \[thm2\]
=========================
Outgoing/incoming parametrices
------------------------------
In this subsection, we construct outgoing/incoming parametrices of a solution to $Pu=zu$. Set $$\begin{aligned}
S^{k}(\re^n)=\{a\in C^{\infty}(\re^n\setminus\{0\})\mid |\pa_{x}^{\b}a(x)|\leq C_{\b}{\langle x \rangle}^{k-|\b|},\,\, \text{for}\,\, |x|>1\}.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we frequently use the following notation: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{x}=x/|x|.\end{aligned}$$
The main result of this subsection is the following theorem.
\[parathm\] Fix a signature $\pm$ and $a\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})$. Then there exists $\f_{\pm}\in S^{1+\a}(\re^n)$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&\f_{\pm}\mp\frac{|x|^{1+\a}}{1+\a} \mp z\frac{|x|^{1-\a}}{2(1-\a)}\in S^{1+\a-\m}(\re^n),\,\,{\text{{\rm Im}\;}}(\f_{\pm}\mp z\frac{|x|^{1-\a}}{2(1-\a)})\in S^0(\re^n),\\
&e^{-i\f}(-\Delta-|x|^{2\a}+{\mathrm{Op}}(V)-z)(e^{i\f}b)\in S^{-\frac{n+1-\a}{2}-\m}(\re^n),\end{aligned}$$ where $b(x)=|x|^{-\frac{n-1+\a}{2}}\bar{\chi}(|x|/R)a(\hat{x})\in S^{-\frac{n-1+\a}{2}}(\re^n)$ and $\hat{x}=x/|x|$.
Theorem \[parathm\] is proved by Propositions \[paraprop\] and \[eikonal\] below.
\[paraprop\] Fix a signature $\pm$, $z\in \mathbb{C}$ and $a\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})$. Set $b(x)=|x|^{-\frac{n-1+\a}{2}}\bar{\chi}(|x|/R)a(\hat{x})\in S^{-\frac{n-1+\a}{2}}(\re^n)$. Let $\f_{\pm,z}\in S^{1+\a}(\re^n)$ be satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\f_{\pm,z}\mp\frac{|x|^{1+\a}}{1+\a}\mp z\frac{|x|^{1-\a}}{2(1-\a)} \in S^{1+\a-\m}(\re^n),\,\, {\text{{\rm Im}\;}}(\f_{\pm,z}\mp z\frac{|x|^{1-\a}}{2(1-\a)})\in S^0(\re^n).\end{aligned}$$ Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
&e^{-i\f_{\pm,z}}(-\Delta-|x|^{2\a}+{\mathrm{Op}}(V)-z)(e^{i\f_{\pm,z}}b)\\
&=((\nabla\f)^2-|x|^{2\a}+V(x,\nabla\f_{\pm.z}(x))-z)b(x)+ S^{-\frac{n+1-\a}{2}-\m}(\re^n).\end{aligned}$$
Proposition \[paraprop\] directly follows from Lemmas \[paramain\] and \[paraper\] below.
\[paramain\] Fix a signature $\pm$ and $z\in \mathbb{C}$. Let $\f_{\pm,z}$ and $b$ be as in the above proposition. Then $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-i\f_{\pm,z}}(-\Delta-|x|^{2\a}-z)(e^{i\f_{\pm,z}}b)=((\nabla\f_{\pm,z})^2-|x|^{2\a}-z)b+S^{-\frac{n+1-\a}{2}-\m}(\re^n).\end{aligned}$$
Set $k=-\frac{n-1+\a}{2}$, then we note $k+\a-\m-1=-\frac{n+1-\a}{2}-\m$. We write $\f=\f_{\pm}$ and $\f_0=\f_{0,\pm}=\pm|x|^{1+\a}/(1+\a)$. By a simple calculation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-i\f}(-\Delta-|x|^{2\a}-z)(e^{i\f}b)=&((\nabla\f)^2-|x|^{2\a}-z)b-i(2\nabla\f\cdot\nabla b+(\Delta\f)b)-(\Delta b).\end{aligned}$$ Due to $b\in S^k$ and $\f-\f_0\in S^{1+\a-\m}$, we observe $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta b,\,2\nabla(\f-\f_0)\cdot \nabla b+\Delta(\f-\f_0)b\in S^{k+\a-\m-1}(\re^n).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, it suffices to prove $$\begin{aligned}
2\nabla \f_0\cdot \nabla b+(\Delta\f_0)b\in S^{k+\a-\m-1}(\re^n).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\nabla\f_0=\pm |x|^{\a-1}x,\,\,\Delta\f_0=\pm (n-1+\a)|x|^{\a-1}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
2\nabla \f_0\cdot \nabla b+(\Delta\f_0) b =&\pm(2|x|^{\a}\pa_rb(x)+(n-1+\a)|x|^{n-1+\a} b)\\
=&\pm \frac{2}{R}|x|^{k+\a}a(\hat{x})(\bar{\chi})'(|x|/R) \in C_c^{\infty}(\re^n) \subset S^{k+\a-\m-1}(\re^n).\end{aligned}$$
\[paraper\] Let $k\in \re$, $\f\in S^{1+\a}(\re^n)$ and $b\in S^k(\re^n)$. Set $\g(x,y)=\int_0^1\nabla\f(tx+(1-t)y)dt$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-i\f(x)}{\mathrm{Op}}(V)e^{i\f}b(x)=V(x,\nabla\f(x))b(x)+L(x),\end{aligned}$$ where $L\in S^{k+\a-\m-1}(\re^n)$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
L(x)=D_y(\pa_{\x}V(x,\g(x,y)) b(x))|_{x=y}+(D_y^2(\pa_{\x}^2V(\frac{x+y}{2},0) b(y))|_{x=y}.\end{aligned}$$
By a simple calculation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-i\f(x)}{\mathrm{Op}}(V)(e^{i\f}b)(x)=&\frac{1}{(2\pi)^n}\int_{\re^{2n}}e^{i(x-y)\cdot\x-i(\f(x)-\f(y))}V(\frac{x+y}{2}, \x)b(y)dyd\x\\
=&\frac{1}{(2\pi)^n}\int_{\re^{2n}}e^{i(x-y)\cdot\x}V(\frac{x+y}{2}, \x+\g(x,y))b(y)dyd\x\\
=&V(x,\nabla\f(x))b(x)+L(x),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
L(x)=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^n}\int_{\re^{2n}}e^{i(x-y)\cdot\x}(V(\frac{x+y}{2}, \x+\g(x,y))-V(\frac{x+y}{2}, \g(x,y)))b(y)dyd\x.\end{aligned}$$ Thus it suffices to compute $L$. Since $V$ is a polynomial of degree $2$ with respect to $\x$-varibble, we have $$\begin{aligned}
V(\frac{x+y}{2},\x+\g(x,y) )=&V(\frac{x+y}{2}, \g(x,y))+\x\cdot \pa_{\x}V(\frac{x+y}{2},\g(x,y))\\
&+\frac{1}{2}\x\cdot \pa_{\x}^2V(\frac{x+y}{2},\g(x,y)) \cdot\x.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\pa_{\x}^2V(\frac{x+y}{2},\g(x,y))=\pa_{\x}^2V(\frac{x+y}{2},0)$ since $V$ is a second order differential operator. By integrating by parts, $L(x)$ is written as $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{1}{(2\pi)^n}\int_{\re^{2n}}e^{i(x-y)\cdot \x}(\x\cdot \pa_{\x}V(\frac{x+y}{2},\g(x,y))+ \x\cdot \pa_{\x}^2V(\frac{x+y}{2},\g(x,y)) \cdot\x) b(y)dyd\x\\
&=D_y(\pa_{\x}V(x,\g(x,y)) b(x))|_{x=y}+(D_y^2(\pa_{\x}^2V(\frac{x+y}{2},0) b(y))|_{x=y}\in S^{k+\a-\m-1}(\re^n).\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
Now we find approximate solutions to the eikonal equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eikonalr}
(\nabla\f(x))^2-|x|^{2\a}+V(x,\nabla\f(x))-z=0.\end{aligned}$$ In [@GY], solutions to eikonal equations is used for constructing eigenfunctions of a usual Schrödinger operator $-\Delta+V$ with a long range perturbation. Isozaki [@I1] proved the existence of solutions to eikonal equations for $-\Delta+V$ by using the estimates for the classical trajectories. In our case, we cannot directly apply this strategy since the classical trajectories may blow up at finite time. Instead, we use iteration and construct the approximate solutions to $(\ref{eikonalr})$ even for $z\notin \re$.
\[eikonal\] Set $\f_{0,\pm}(x)=\f_{0,\pm}(x,z)=\pm\frac{|x|^{\a+1}}{1+\a}\pm z\frac{|x|^{1-\a}}{2(1-\a)}$. Let $R\geq 1$ be large enough. Then for any integer $N>0$, there exists $\f_{N,\pm}\in S^{1+\a}(\re^n)$ such that $\f_{N,\pm}-\f_{N-1,\pm}\in S^{1+\a-N\m}(\re^n)$, ${\text{{\rm Im}\;}}(\f_{N,\pm}-\f_{0,\pm})\in S^{0}(\re^n)$, $\f_{N,\pm}-\f_{N-1,\pm}$ is supported in $|x|\geq R$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eikonalapp}
(\nabla\f_{N,\pm}(x))^2-|x|^{2\a}+V(x,\nabla\f_{N,\pm}(x))-z\in S^{2\a-(N+1)\m}(\re^n).\end{aligned}$$
Such construction of $\f_N$ succeeds for $0<\a< 1$. For $\a=1$ and $z\in \re$, we have to replace $\f_{0,\pm}(x,z)=\pm\frac{|x|^{2}}{2}\pm \frac{z}{2}\log|x|$.
We find $\f_{N,\pm}\in S^{1+\a}(\re^n)$ of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\f_{N,\pm}(x)=\f_{0,\pm}(x)+\sum_{j=1}^Ne_{j,\pm}(x),\,\, e_{j,\pm}\in S^{1+\a-j\m}.\end{aligned}$$ By a simple calculation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&(\nabla\f_{N,\pm}(x))^2-|x|^{2\a}+V(x,\nabla\f_{N,\pm}(x))-z\\
=&\frac{z^2}{4}|x|^{-2\a}+2\sum_{j=1}^N\nabla\f_{0,\pm}\cdot \nabla e_{j,\pm}+\sum_{j,k=1}^N\nabla e_{j,\pm}\cdot \nabla e_{k,\pm}+V(x,\nabla\f_{N,\pm}(x)).\end{aligned}$$
We set $$\begin{aligned}
e_{1,\pm}(x)=&\mp\int_{\frac{R}{2}}^{|x|} \frac{1}{2s^{\a}}(V(s\hat{x},\nabla {\f}_{0,\pm}(s\hat{x}))-\frac{z^2}{4}s^{-2\a} )ds\bar{\chi}_R(x)\in S^{\a+1-\m}(\re^n)\\
\f_{1,\pm}(x)=&\f_{0,\pm}(x)+e_{1,\pm}(x).\end{aligned}$$ Note ${\text{{\rm Im}\;}}e_{1,\pm}\in S^{1-\a-\m}(\re^n)$. Then $(\nabla \f_{1,\pm}(x))^2-|x|^{2\a}+V(x,\nabla\f_{1,\pm}(x))-z$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&({\text{{\rm Im}\;}}\nabla\f_{0,\pm})\cdot \nabla e_{1,\pm}+ (\nabla e_{1,\pm})^2+V(x,\nabla\f_{1,\pm})-V(x,\nabla \f_{0,\pm})\\
&=({\text{{\rm Im}\;}}\nabla\f_{0,\pm})\cdot \nabla e_{1,\pm}+(\nabla e_{1,\pm})^2+\int_0^1\nabla e_{1,\pm}\cdot(\pa_{\x}V)(x,\nabla\f_{0,\pm}+t \nabla e_{1,\pm})dt,\end{aligned}$$ and this term belongs to $S^{2\a-2\m}(\re^n)$. In fact, $\nabla\f_{0,\pm}+t \nabla e_{1,\pm}(x)=|x|^{\a-1}x+O(|x|^{\a-\m})$ and hence $\pa_{\x}V(x,\nabla\f_{0,\pm}+t \nabla e_{1,\pm})=O(|x|^{\a-\m})$ uniformly in $0\leq t\leq 1$.
For $N\geq 1$, we define $\f_N\in S^{\a+1}$ and $e_{N}\in S^{\a+1-N\m}$ inductively as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\f_{N+1,\pm}(x)=&\f_{N,\pm}(x)+e_{N+1,\pm}(x),\,e_{N+1,\pm}(x)=\mp\int_{\frac{R}{2}}^{|x|}\frac{E_{N+1}(s\hat{x})}{2s^{\a}}ds\bar{\chi}_R(|x|),\\
E_{N+1,\pm}=&\sum_{\substack{j+k=N+1,\\1\leq j,k\leq N}}\nabla e_{j,\pm}\cdot \nabla e_{k,\pm}+V(x, \nabla\f_{N,\pm})-V(x,\nabla\f_{N-1,\pm})\\
&-2({\text{{\rm Im}\;}}\nabla \f_{0,\pm})\cdot \nabla e_{N,\pm}.\end{aligned}$$ We note ${\text{{\rm Im}\;}}e_{N,\pm}\in S^{1-\a-N\m}(\re^n)$. For $|x|\geq 2R$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
(\nabla\f_{N+1,\pm})^2-|x|^{2\a}-z=&(\nabla\f_{0,\pm}(x)+\sum_{j=1}^{N+1}\nabla e_{j,\pm})^2-|x|^{2\a}-z\\
\equiv&2\sum_{j=1}^{N+1}\nabla\f_{0,\pm}\cdot \nabla e_{j,\pm}+\sum_{m=2}^{N+1}\sum_{j+k=m}\nabla e_{j,\pm}\cdot\nabla e_{k,\pm}\\
=&-V(x, \nabla\f_{N,\pm}(x))\end{aligned}$$ modulo $S^{2\a-(N+2)\m}$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
|\nabla\f_{N+1,\pm}|^2-|x|^{2\a}+V(x,\nabla\f_{N+1}(x))\equiv& V(x,\nabla\f_{N+1}(x))-V(x,\nabla\f_{N}(x))\\
\equiv& 0\end{aligned}$$ modulo $S^{2\a-(N+2)\m}$. Moreover, we have ${\text{{\rm Im}\;}}(\f_{N,\pm}\mp z\frac{|x|^{1-\a}}{2(1-\a)})\in S^0(\re^n)$ since ${\text{{\rm Im}\;}}e_{N,\pm}\in S^{1-\a-N\m}(\re^n)$ and $\a>1$. This completes the proof.
Fix a signature $\pm$. Let $N>0$ be an integer such that $$\begin{aligned}
2\a-(N+1)\m<-\frac{n+1-\a}{2}-\m.\end{aligned}$$ We take $\f=\f_{\pm}=\f_{\pm,N}$ as in Proposition \[eikonal\]. Then Proposition \[paraprop\] gives Theorem \[parathm\].
Construction of the $L^2$-solutions, proof of Theorem \[thm2\]
--------------------------------------------------------------
Now we construct the $L^2$-solutions to $$\begin{aligned}
(P-z)u=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $u$ is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{efform}
u(x)=u_0(x)+u_1(x),\,\, u_0(x)=e^{i\f_-(x)}b(x),\,\, u_1\in L^{2, \frac{\a-1}{2}+tm(x,\x)}.\end{aligned}$$
Set $\tilde{V}(x,\x)=V(x,\x)-({\langle x \rangle}^{2\a}-|x|^{2\a})\bar{\chi}(2|x|/R)$ for $R>0$. Let $\f_{-}\in S^{1+\a}$ and $b=|x|^{-\frac{n-1+\a}{2}}\bar{\chi}(|x|/R)a(\hat{x})$ be as in Theorem \[parathm\] with $\tilde{V}$, where $a\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})\setminus \{0\}$. Since $\bar{\chi}(2|x|/R)\bar{\chi}(|x|/R)=\bar{\chi}(|x|/R)$ and $S^{-\frac{n+1-\a}{2}-\m}(\re^n)\subset L^{2, \frac{1-\a+\m}{2}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{u_0}
(P-z)(e^{i\f_{-}}b)\in L^{2, \frac{1-\a+\m}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$
Now we take $0<t<\min(\m/2, (\a-1)/2)$ and $m=m_{R_0}$ be as in subsection \[subsecesc\], where $R_0$ is as in Lemma \[escape\]. Since $$\begin{aligned}
L^{2,(1-\a)/2+tm(x,\x)}\subset L^{2, \frac{1-\a+\m}{2}},\,\,z\in \mathbb{C}\setminus T_{\a,t},\end{aligned}$$ then there exists $u_1\in L^{2,(\a-1)/2+tm(x,\x)}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
(P-z)u_1=-(P-z)(e^{i\f_{-}}b).\end{aligned}$$ by Theorem \[thm1\]. We set $u=u_1+e^{i\f_{-}}b\in L^2$, then $u$ satisfies $(P-z)u=0$ since $t<(\a-1)/2$. Finally, we prove $u\neq 0$. In order to prove this, we use the wavefront condition of $u_1$ and $e^{i\f_{-}}b$.
\[WF1\] Set $u_0=e^{i\f_{-}}b$, where $b(x)=|x|^{-\frac{n-1+\a}{2}}\bar{\chi}(|x|/R)a(\hat{x})$ and $a\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})\setminus \{0\}$. Let $b_{R_1,\d}(x,\x)=\chi((\y(x,\x)+1)/\d)a_{R_1}(x,\x)$ and $A_{R_1,\d}={\mathrm{Op}}(b_{R_1,\d})$ for $0<\d<1$ small enough and $R_1\geq 1$ large enough. Then $A_{R_1,\d}u_0\notin L^{2,\frac{\a-1}{2}}$.
By $(\ref{u_0})$, Proposition \[elliptic\] implies that $(1-{\mathrm{Op}}(a_R))u_0\in L^{2,(\a-1)/2}$. Moreover, by a simple calculation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rad}
|x|^{-\a-1}(x\cdot D_x- x\cdot \pa_x\f_-(x))u_0\in \bigcap_{\e>0} L^{2,\frac{\a-1}{2}+1-\e}\subset L^{2,\frac{\a-1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that if $r_1,\d$ are small and $R_1$ is large, for $(x,\x)\in {\text{{\rm supp}\;}}(a_{R_1}-b_{R_1,\d})$ $$\begin{aligned}
|x\cdot \x-x\cdot \pa_{x}\f_-(x)|\geq C|x|^{1+\a}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $u_0\notin L^{2,(\a-1)/2}$ and $u_0\in \cap_{\e>0}L^{2,(\a-1)/2-\e}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Op}}(a_{R_1}-b_{R_1,\d})u_0=&{\mathrm{Op}}(\frac{a_{R_1}-b_{R_1,\d}}{x\cdot \x-x\cdot \pa_x\f_-(x)}|x|^{1+\a} )\\
&\cdot |x|^{-1-\a}(x\cdot D_x-x\cdot \pa_x\f_-(x))u_0+L^{2,\frac{\a-1}{2}} \in L^{2,\frac{\a-1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ by a symbol calculus and $(\ref{rad})$. Thus if we suppose $A_{R_1,\d}u_0\in L^{2,\frac{\a-1}{2}}$, then $u_0\in L^{2,\frac{\a-1}{2}}$ follows. However, this is a contradiction since $u_0\notin L^{2,(\a-1)/2}$ by a simple calculation.
\[WF2\] For $0<\d<1$ small enough and $R_1\geq 1$ large enough, $A_{R_1,\d}u_1\in L^{2,\frac{\a-1}{2}}$.
Note that $u_1\in L^{2,(\a-1)/2-tm(x,\x)}={\mathrm{Op}}(\tilde{G}_{(\a-1)/2, -tm})^{-1}L^2$, $0<t<(\a-1)/2$ and $\tilde{G}_{(\a-1)/2,-tm}={\langle x \rangle}^{(\a-1)/2-tm(x,\x)}$ by $(\ref{Ginvdef})$. Moreover, we note $m(x,\x)=-1$ on ${\text{{\rm supp}\;}}b_{R_1,\d}$ if $0<\d<1$ is small enough and $R_1\geq 1$ is large enough. Thus $A_{R_1,\d}u\in L^{2,(\a-1)/2}$.
By the above two lemmas, we obtain $u=u_0+u_1\neq 0$. This completes the proof of Theorem \[thm2\].
Finally, we prove that there are many eigenfunctions associated with $\l\in \mathbb{C}\setminus T_{\a,t}$.
\[many\] Suppose that $a,a'\in C^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}^{n-1})$ are linearly independent. Let $u,u' \in L^2\setminus$ be corresponding eigenfunctions as in $(\ref{efform})$. Then $u,u'$ are also linearly independent.
By $(\ref{efform})$ and Lemma \[WF2\], we write $$\begin{aligned}
u(x)=&e^{i\f_{-}(x)}|x|^{-\frac{n-1+\a}{2}}\bar{\chi}(|x|/R)a(\hat{x})+u_1(x),\\
u'(x)=&e^{i\f_{-}(x)}|x|^{-\frac{n-1+\a}{2}}\bar{\chi}(|x|/R)a'(\hat{x})+u_1'(x),\end{aligned}$$ where $u_1,u_1'\in L^2$ satisfy $A_{R_1,\d}u_1, A_{R_1,\d}u_1'\in L^{2,\frac{\a-1}{2}}$, where $A_{R_1,\d}$ is defined in Lemma \[WF1\]. Suppose that $L, L'\in \mathbb{C}$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{linindep}
Lu(x)+L'u'(x)=0,\,\, x\in \re^n.\end{aligned}$$ It suffices to prove that $La(\hat{x})+L'a'(\hat{x})= 0$ for $\hat{x}\in S^{n-1}$. Suppose $La(\hat{x})+L'a'(\hat{x})\neq 0$ for some $\hat{x}\in S^{n-1}$. By Lemma \[WF1\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lin2}
A_{R_1,\d}(e^{i\f_{-}(x)}|x|^{-\frac{n-1+\a}{2}}\bar{\chi}(|x|/R)(La(\hat{x})+L'a'(\hat{x}) ))\notin L^{2,\frac{\a-1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ $(\ref{linindep})$ and $(\ref{lin2})$ imply $$\begin{aligned}
A_{R_1,\d}(Lu+L'u')\notin L^{2,\frac{\a-1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ This is a contradiction.
Proof of Theorem \[thm3\] and Corollary \[disc1\]
=================================================
Proof of Theorem \[thm3\]
-------------------------
.
Note that if $\a\leq 1$, then $D^{\a}_{\mathrm{min}}=\{u\in L^2\mid Pu\in L^2\}$ since $P$ is essentially self-adjoint on $\mathcal{S}(\re^n)$ for $\a\leq 1$. However, it follows that $D^{\a}_{\mathrm{min}}\neq \{u\in L^2\mid Pu\in L^2\}$ for $\a>1$.
Let $\a>1$. For $\d>0$, there exists $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{smo1}
\|{\mathrm{Op}}(a_{2R})u\|_{L^{2,\frac{\a-1-\d}{2}}}\leq C\|Pu\|_{L^2}+C\|u\|_{L^2}\end{aligned}$$ for $u\in D^{\a}_{\mathrm{min}}$, where we recall that $a_{2R}$ is as in $(\ref{cut2})$.
First, we prove $(\ref{smo1})$ for $u\in \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$. We may assume $0<\d<\m$. Set $$\begin{aligned}
b_{R}(x,\x)=a_{2R}(x,\x)^2\frac{x\cdot\x}{|x||\x|}\int_1^{|x|/R}s^{-1-\d}ds\in S^{0,0}.\end{aligned}$$ We note that $|x|>2R$, $|\x|\geq 2R$ and $|x|^{\a}\sim |\x|$ hold for $(x,\x)\in {\text{{\rm supp}\;}}b_{R}$. For $(x,\x)\in {\text{{\rm supp}\;}}b_{R}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
H_{p_0}(\frac{x\cdot\x}{|x||\x|}\int_1^{|x|/R}s^{-1-\d}ds)=&2\frac{|x|^2|\x|^2-(x\cdot\x)^2}{|x||\x|}(\frac{1}{|x|^2}+\a\frac{|x|^{2\a-2}}{|\x|^2})\int_{1}^{\frac{|x|}{R}}\frac{1}{s^{1+\d}}ds\\
&+2R^{\d}\frac{(x\cdot\x)^2}{|x|^{3+\d}|\x|}\\
\geq&C{\langle x \rangle}^{\a-1-\d}\end{aligned}$$ with $C>0$ if $R>0$ is large enough. Since $H_{V}b_{R}\in S^{0,\a-1-\m}$ and $0<\d<\m$, we see $$\begin{aligned}
H_pb_{R}\geq C{\langle x \rangle}^{\a-1-\d}a_{2R}^2+e_{R},\end{aligned}$$ where $e_{R}\in S^{0,\a-1}$ is supported away from the elliptic set of $P$. By the sharp G$\rm{\mathring{a}}$rding inequality, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{smoes}
(u,[P, i{\mathrm{Op}}(b_{R})]u)_{L^2}\geq \|{\mathrm{Op}}(a_{2R})u\|_{L^{2,\frac{\a-1-\d}{2}}}^2+(u, {\mathrm{Op}}(e_{R})u)_{L^2}-C\|u\|_{H^{-\frac{1}{2},\frac{\a}{2}-1}}^2\end{aligned}$$ for any $u\in \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$. Take $R_1\geq 1$ such that $a_{2R}a_{R_1}=a_{2R}$. Substituting ${\mathrm{Op}}(a_{R_1})$ into $(\ref{smoes})$ and using the disjoint support property and a support property of $a_{R_1}$, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
(u,[P, i{\mathrm{Op}}(b_{R})]u)_{L^2}\geq \|{\mathrm{Op}}(a_{2R})u\|_{L^{2,\frac{\a-1-\d}{2}}}^2+(u, {\mathrm{Op}}(e_{R})u)_{L^2}-C\|u\|_{L^2}^2\end{aligned}$$ for $u\in \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$ with some $C>0$. Using the elliptic estimate Proposition \[elliptic\] in order to estimate the term $(u, {\mathrm{Op}}(e_{R})u)_{L^2}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathrm{Op}}(a_{2R})u\|_{L^{2,\frac{\a-1-\d}{2}}}\leq C\|Pu\|_{L^2}+C\|u\|_{L^2}\end{aligned}$$ for $u\in \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$ with some $C>0$. Thus we obtain $(\ref{smo1})$ for $u\in \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$.
In order to prove $(\ref{smo1})$ for $u\in D^{\a}_{\mathrm{min}}$, it remains to use a standard density argument. Let $u\in D^{\a}_{\mathrm{min}}$. By definition of $D^{\a}_{\mathrm{min}}$, there exists $u_k\in C_c^{\infty}(\re^n)$ such that $u_k\to u$ and $Pu_k\to Pu$ in $L^2(\re^n)$. Substituting $u_k$ into $(\ref{smo1})$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{k}\|{\mathrm{Op}}(a_{2R})u_k\|_{L^{2,\frac{\a-1-\d}{2}}}<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Hence ${\mathrm{Op}}(a_{2R})u_k$ has a weak\*-convergence subsequence in $L^{2,\frac{\a-1-\d}{2}}$ and its accumulation point is ${\mathrm{Op}}(a_{2R})u$. Thus we obtain ${\mathrm{Op}}(a_{2R})u\in L^{2,\frac{\a-1-\d}{2}}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\mathrm{Op}}(a_{2R})u\|_{L^{2,\frac{\a-1-\d}{2}}}\leq \liminf_{k\to \infty}\|{\mathrm{Op}}(a_{2R})u_k\|_{L^{2,\frac{\a-1-\d}{2}}}\leq C\|Pu\|_{L^2}+C\|u\|_{L^2}.\end{aligned}$$
Combining this lemma with the elliptic estimate Proposition \[elliptic\] and Lemma \[suppell\], we have the following proposition:
Let $\a>1$ and $0\leq \b_1,\b_2\leq 4$ with $\b_1+\b_2=1$. For $\d>0$, there exists $C>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{smo2}
\|u\|_{H^{\frac{\a-1-\d}{2\a}\b_1, \frac{\a-1-\d}{2}\b_2}}\leq C\|Pu\|_{L^2}+C\|u\|_{L^2}\end{aligned}$$ for $u\in D^{\a}_{\mathrm{min}}$. In particular, the natural embedding $D^{\a}_{\mathrm{min}}\hookrightarrow L^2(\re^n)$ is compact, where we regard $D^{\a}_{\mathrm{min}}$ as a Banach space equipped with its graph norm.
This proposition gives the proof of Theorem \[thm3\].
Proof of Corollary \[disc1\]
----------------------------
Note that $D_{min}^{\a}$ is the domain of the closure of $P|_{C_c^{\infty}(\re)}$. Set $$\begin{aligned}
D^{\a}=\{u\in L^2(\re^n)\mid Pu\in L^2(\re^n)\}.\end{aligned}$$ We easily see that $D^{\a}$ is the domain of $(P|_{C_c^{\infty}(\re)})^*$. Moreover, it follows that the action of $(P|_{C_c^{\infty}(\re)})^*$ on $D^{\a}$ is in the distributional sense. In particular, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}((P|_{C_c^{\infty}(\re)})^*\mp i)={\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}_{L^2}(P\mp i).\end{aligned}$$
We use the following von-Neumann theorem.
[@RS Theorem X.2 and Corollary after Theorem X.2]\[von\] Set $\mathcal{H}_{\pm}={\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}_{L^2}(P\mp i)$. Then there is a one-to-one correspondence between self-adjoint extensions of $P|_{C_c^{\infty}(\re)}$ and unitary operators from $\mathcal{H}_+$ to $\mathcal{H}_-$. Moreover, for $U\in B(\mathcal{H}_+,\mathcal{H}_-)$ be a unitary operator , we define $$\begin{aligned}
D_U=\{v+w+Uw\mid v\in D_{min}^{\a}, w\in \mathcal{H}_+\}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $P$ is self-adjoint on $D_U$.
Now suppose $n=1$. We prove that each self-adjoint extension of $P|_{C_c^{\infty}(\re)}$ has a discrete spectrum.
\[one2\] $\dim\mathcal{H}_{+}=\dim\mathcal{H}_{-}=2$.
By [@RS Theorem X.1], it suffices to prove that $$\begin{aligned}
\dim{\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}_{L^2}(P-i\m)=\dim{\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}_{L^2}(P+i\m)=2\end{aligned}$$ for some $\m>0$. We note $\dim{\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}_{L^2}(P\pm i\m)\leq 2$ by uniqueness of solutions to ODE. Hence it suffices to prove $\dim{\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}_{L^2}(P\pm i\m)\geq 2$. We observe $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}=\mathbb{S}^0=\{\pm 1\}$ and $\dim C^{\infty}(\{\pm 1\})=2$. By Proposition \[many\], the discreteness of $T_{\a,t}$ imply that for some $\m\in \mathbb{C}\setminus \re\cup T_{\a,t}$ there exists linearly independent functions such that $u_{\pm}, u'_{\pm}\in {\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}_{L^2}(P\pm i\m)$. This gives $\dim{\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}_{L^2}(P\pm i\m)\geq 2$.
The following proposition is a variant of [@RS Theorem XIII.64]. We do not know whether a self-adjoint extension of $P|_{C_c^{\infty}(\re^n)}$ is bounded from below. Hence we cannot apply [@RS Theorem XIII.64] with our case directly in order to prove Corollary \[disc1\].
\[cptcrprop\] Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a Hilbert space and $A$ be a self-adjoint operator on $\mathcal{H}$. Suppose that $(A+i)^{-1}$ is a compact operator on $\mathcal{H}$. Then there exists $\{\l_j\}_{j=1}^{\infty}\subset \re$ such that $|\l_k|\to \infty$ as $k\to\infty$ and $\s(A)=\s_d(A)=\{\l_j\}_{j=1}^{\infty}$, where $\s(A)$ is the spectrum of $A$ and $\s_d(A)$ is the discrete spectrum of $A$.
First, we prove existence of $\l\in \re\setminus \s(A)$. To prove this, we use a contradiction argument. Suppose $\s(A)=\re$. Set $B=(A-i)^{-1}(A+i)^{-1}=f(A)$, where $f(t)=1/(t^2+1)$. By the spectrum mapping theorem, we have $\s(B)=[0,1]$. On the other hand, by the assumption of the lemma, it follows that $B$ is a compact self-adjoint operator on $\mathcal{H}$. This contradicts to $\s(B)=[0,1]$.
We let $\l\in \re\setminus \s(A)$ and set $T=(A-\l)^{-1}$. Since $(A+i)^{-1}$ is compact and since $\l\in \re$, it easily follows that $T$ is a compact self-adjoint operator. By the Hilbert-Schmidt theorem [@RS Theorem VI.16], there exist a complete orthonormal basis $\f_k\in \mathcal{H}$ and a sequence $\m_k\in\re$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cptef}
T\f_k=\m_k\f_k,\,\, \m_k\to 0\,\, \text{as}\,\, k\to \infty.\end{aligned}$$ We note that $\f_k$ belongs to the domain of $A$ since $\f_k\in {\text{{\rm Ran}\;}}T$ and since ${\text{{\rm Ran}\;}}T$ is contained in the domain of $A$. Moreover, we observe $\m_k\neq 0$. In fact, suppose $\m_k=0$ holds. Multiplying $(\ref{cptef})$ by $A-\l$, we have $\f_k=0$, which is a contradiction. By $(\ref{cptef})$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
A\f_k=\l_k\f_k,\,\, \l_k=\l+1/\m_k.\end{aligned}$$ Note $|\l_k|\to\infty$ as $k\to \infty$. Since $\l_k$ has no accumulation point in $\re$, it suffices to prove $\s(A)=\{\l_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$. To see this, we prove that $A-z$ has a bounded inverse for $z\in \re\setminus \{\l_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$. We set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{resol}
R(z)\g=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\l_k-z}(\f_k, \g)\f_k,\,\, \g\in \mathcal{H}\end{aligned}$$ and $c=\inf_{k\geq 1}|\l_k-z|$. Since $\l_k$ has no accumulation point in $\re$, we have $c>0$. Thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{|\l_k-z|^2}|(\f_k,\g)|^2\leq c^{-2}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}|(\f_k,\g)|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $R(z)$ is a bounded operator on $\mathcal{H}$. Moreover, $(A-z)R(z)\g=\g$ holds by $(\ref{resol})$. These imply $z\notin \re\setminus\s(A)$. Thus we have $\s(A)=\{\l_j\}_{j=1}^{\infty}$. Moreover, it follows that $\s_d(A)=\s(A)$ holds since $\dim{\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}(A-\l_k)=\dim{\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}(T-\m_k) <\infty$.
By virtue of Lemma \[one2\] and [@RS Corollary after Theorem X.2], it follows that $P|_{C_c^{\infty}(\re)}$ has a self-adjoint extension.
Fix $U\in $ be a unitary operator and let $D_U$ be as in Lemma \[von\]. By virtue of Proposition \[cptcrprop\], it suffices to prove that the inclusion $D_{U}\subset L^2$ is compact, where we regard $D_U$ as a Hilbert space equipped with the graph norm of $P$. Let $\f_j\in D_{U}$ be a bounded sequence in $D_{U}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\sup_{j}(\|\f_j\|_{L^2}+\|P\f_j\|_{L^2}) <\infty.\end{aligned}$$ We only need to prove that $\f_j$ has a convergent subsequence in $L^2$. We write $\f_j=u_j+v_j+Uv_j$, where $u_j\in D_{min}^{\a}$ and $v_j\in \mathcal{H}_+$. By [@RS Lemma before Theorem X.2], we see that $$\begin{aligned}
0=(u_j,v_j)_{L^2}+(Pu_j,Pv_j)_{L^2}=&(v_j,Uv_j)_{L^2}+(Pv_j,PUv_j)_{L^2}\\
=&(u_j,Uv_j)_{L^2}+(Pu_j,PUv_j)_{L^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $u_j$ and $v_j$ are bounded in $D_U$. Since $u_j\in D_{min}^{\a}$, it follows that $u_j$ has a convergent subsequence $\{u_{j_k}\}$ in $L^2$. Moreover, we see that $v_{j_k}\in \mathcal{H}_+$ has a convergent subsequence in $L^2$ due to the finiteness of the dimension of $\mathcal{H}_+$. Thus we conclude that $\f_j$ has a convergent subsequence in $L^2$.
Variable order spaces {#appB}
=====================
In this Appendix, we give a construction of variable order weighted $L^2$-spaces. Here, we follow the argument in [@FRS]. See [@BVW Appendix A] for other ways of constructions.
Let $m\in S^{0,0}$ be real-valued and $k,t\in \re$. Suppose $|m(x,\x)|\leq 1$ for $(x,\x)\in \re^{2n}$. Set $G_{k,tm}(x,\x)={\langle x \rangle}^{k+tm(x,\x)}$. Set $l(x)={\langle \log{\langle x \rangle} \rangle}$.
\[def1app\] For $a\in C^{\infty}(\re^{2n})$, we say that for $a\in S^{s,k+tm(x,\x)}$ if $$\begin{aligned}
|\pa_{x}^{\c_1}\pa_{\x}^{c_2}a(x,\x)|\leq C_{\c_1\c_2}l(x)^{|\c_1|+|\c_2|} {\langle x \rangle}^{k+tm(x,\x)-|\c_1|}{\langle \x \rangle}^{s-|\c_2|}\end{aligned}$$ for $\c_1,\c_2\in \mathbb{N}^n$.
Note that $G_{k,tm} \in S^{0,k+tm(x,\x)}$.
An unbounded operator ${\mathrm{Op}}(G_{k,tm})$ on $L^2(\re^n)$ with domain $\mathcal{S}(\re^n)$ admits a self-adjoint extension.
By virtue of[@RS Theorem X.23], it suffices to prove that ${\mathrm{Op}}(G_{k,tm})$ is bounded below in $\mathcal{S}(\re^n)$. We note $G_{k,tm}(x,\x)=G_{k/2,tm/2}(x,\x)^2$. By the standard construction (see [@FRS Lemma 13]), there exists $R_j\in S^{-j,k/2-j+0+tm(x,\x)/2}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
(&G_{k/2,tm/2}(x,\x)^2+\sum_{j=1}^NR_j)^*(G_{k/2,tm/2}(x,\x)^2+\sum_{j=1}^NR_j)\\
&\in S^{-(N+1), k-(N+1)+0+tm(x,\x)},\end{aligned}$$ where $(\cdot )^*$ denotes the adjoint symbol. By the Borel summation theorem, we have $$\begin{aligned}
G_{k,tm}(x,\x)=b^*b+e,\,\, b\in S^{k/2+tm(x,\x)/2},\,\, e\in S^{-\infty,-\infty}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
(u, {\mathrm{Op}}(G_{k,tm})u)\geq (u,{\mathrm{Op}}(e)u)\geq -C\|u\|_{L^2}^2,\,\, u\in \mathcal{S}(\re^n).\end{aligned}$$
We denote a self-adjoint extension of ${\mathrm{Op}}(G_{k,tm})$ in $L^2(\re^n)$ by $G(t)$ and its domain by $D_{G(t)}$.
\[varinv\] There exists $R_1(t)\in {\mathrm{Op}}S^{-\infty, -\infty}$ such that ${\mathrm{Op}}(G_{k,tm})+R_1(t)$ is invertible in $\mathcal{S}(\re^n)\to \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$. Moreover, its inverse is a pseudodifferential operator with its symbol in $S^{0,-k-tm(x,\x)}$. Moreover, the symbol of its inverse is $G_{-k,-tm}+S^{-1,-k-1-tm(x,\x)+0}$.
We follow the argument as in [@FRS Appendix Lemma 12]. We decompose $L^2=\overline{{\text{{\rm Ran}\;}}_{L^2} G(t)}\oplus {\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}_{L^2}G(t)$. We denote the orthogonal projection into ${\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}_{L^2}G(t)$ by $\pi(t): L^2\to {\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}_{L^2}G(t)$. By the standard parametrix construction of $G(t)$, we see that ${\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}_{L^2}G(t)\subset \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$ and ${\text{{\rm Ker}\;}}_{L^2}G(t)$ is of finite dimension. This implies $\pi(t)\in {\mathrm{Op}}S^{-\infty,-\infty}$. We define $\tilde{G}(t)=G(t)(I-\pi(t))+\pi(t)\in {\mathrm{Op}}S^{0,k+tm(x,\x)}$. We observe that $\tilde{G}(t):D_{G(t)}\to L^2$ is invertible. We set $R_1(t)=(I-G(t))\pi(t)\in {\mathrm{Op}}S^{-\infty,-\infty}$, then $\tilde{G}(t)=G(t)+R_1(t)$.
We show that $\tilde{G}(t)$ is invertible in $\mathcal{S}(\re^n)\to \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$. This map is injective since $\tilde{G}(t)$ is injective in $D_{G(t)}\to L^2$. Next, we prove that $\tilde{G}(t):\mathcal{S}(\re^n)\to \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$ is surjective. To see this, let $f\in \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$. Since $\tilde{G}(t):D_{G(t)}\to L^2$ is invertible, there exists $u\in D_{G(t)}$ such that $G(t)u=f$. By using existence of the parametrix of $\tilde{G}(t)$, we obtain $u\in \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$.
Finally, we show that the inverse of $\tilde{G}(t)$ belongs to ${\mathrm{Op}}S^{0,-k-tm(x,\x)}$ and its symbol is $G_{-k,-tm}+S^{-1,-k-1-tm(x,\x)+0}$. Let $Q(t)$ is the parametrix of $\tilde{G}(t)$: $Q(t)\tilde{G}(t)=I+R_2(t)$, where $R_2(t)\in {\mathrm{Op}}S^{-\infty,-\infty}$. Then the symbol of $Q(t)$ is $G_{-k,-tm}+S^{-1,-k-1-tm(x,\x)+0}$. Moreover, we observe $$\begin{aligned}
Q(t)=Q(t)\tilde{G}(t)\tilde{G}(t)^{-1}=\tilde{G}(t)^{-1}+R_2(t)\tilde{G}(t)^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ in $\mathcal{S}(\re^n)\to \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$. By the open mapping theorem, $\tilde{G}(t)^{-1}$ is continuous in $\mathcal{S}(\re^n)\to \mathcal{S}(\re^n)$. Thus we have $R_2(t)\tilde{G}(t)^{-1}\in {\mathrm{Op}}S^{-\infty,-\infty}$. We conclude that $\tilde{G}(t)=Q(t)-R_2(t)\tilde{G}(t)\in {\mathrm{Op}}S^{0,-k-tm(x,\x)}$ and its symbol is $G_{-k,-tm(x,\x)}+S^{-1,-k-1-tm(x,\x)+0}$.
Let $\tilde{G}_{k,tm}\in S^{0,k+tm(x,\x)}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ginvdef}
{\mathrm{Op}}(\tilde{G}_{k,tm})={\mathrm{Op}}(G_{k,tm})+R_1(t).\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma \[varinv\] and duality, ${\mathrm{Op}}(\tilde{G}_{k,tm}):\mathcal{S}'(\re^n)\to \mathcal{S}'(\re^n)$ is also invertible.
Now we define the variable order weighted $L^2$ space by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{vardef}
L^{2,k+tm(x,\x)}=\{u\in \mathcal{S}'(\re^n)\mid {\mathrm{Op}}(\tilde{G}_{k,tm})u\in L^2(\re^n) \}\end{aligned}$$ for $k\in \re$ and $|t|<1/2$ and its inner metric by $$\begin{aligned}
(u,v)_{L^{2,k+tm(x,\x)}}=({\mathrm{Op}}(\tilde{G}_{k,tm})u,{\mathrm{Op}}(\tilde{G}_{k,tm})v)_{L^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $L^{2,k+tm(x,\x)}$ is a Hilbert space.
We state some properties of $L^{2,k+tm(x,\x)}$.
\[varequi\]
- $(L^{2,k+tm(x,\x)})^*=L^{2,-k-tm(x,\x)}$.\
- For $u\in\mathcal{S}'(\re^n)$, $u\in L^{2,k+tm(x,\x)}$ if and only if ${\langle x \rangle}^ku\in L^{2,tm(x,\x)}$. Moreover, there exists $C>0$ such that $u\in L^{2,k+tm(x,\x)}$ $$\begin{aligned}
C^{-1}\|{\langle x \rangle}^ku\|_{L^{2,tm(x,\x)}}\leq \|u\|_{L^{2,k+tm(x,\x)}}\leq C\|{\langle x \rangle}^ku\|_{L^{2,tm(x,\x)}}.\end{aligned}$$
$(i)$ This follows from the fact that the symbol of the inverse of ${\mathrm{Op}}(\tilde{G}_{k,tm})$ belongs to $S^{0,-k-tm(x,\x)}$.
$(ii)$ Note that ${\mathrm{Op}}(\tilde{G}_{0,tm}){\langle x \rangle}^k{\mathrm{Op}}(\tilde{G}_{k,tm})^{-1}$ and ${\mathrm{Op}}(\tilde{G}_{k,tm}){\langle x \rangle}^{-k}{\mathrm{Op}}(\tilde{G}_{0,tm})^{-1}$ is bounded in $L^2$ by Lemma \[varinv\]. We are done.
[99]{}
D. Baskin, A. Vasy, J. Wunsch, Asymptotics of scalar waves on long-range asymptotically Minkowski spaces. Adv. Math. 328 (2018), 160–216.
J. F. Bony, R. Carles, D. Häfner, L. Michel, Scattering theory for the Schrödinger equation with repulsive potential. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 84 (2005), no. 5, 509–579.
S. Dyatlov, M. Zworski, [*Mathematical theory of scattering resonances*]{}, to appear in the AMS Graduate Studies in Mathematics series, (http://math.mit.edu/ dyatlov/res/).
F. Faure, N. Roy, J. Sjöstrand, Semi-classical approach for Anosov diffeomorphisms and Ruelle resonances. Open Math. J. 1 (2008), 35–81.
F. Faure, J. Sjöstrand, Upper bound on the density of Ruelle resonances for Anosov flows. Comm. Math. Phys. 308 (2011), no. 2, 325–364.
Y. Gâtel, D. Yafaev, On solutions of the Schrödinger equation with radiation conditions at infinity: the long-range case. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 49 (1999), no. 5, 1581–1602.
L. Hörmander, [*Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators*]{}, Vol. I-IV. Springer Verlag, 1983–1985.
H. Isozaki, Eikonal equations and spectral representations for long range Schrödinger Hmiltonians, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 20 (1980), 243–261.
K. Itakura, Rellich’s theorem for spherically symmetric repulsive Hamiltonians. Math. Z. (2018), (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00209-018-2219-6).
K. Itakura. K, Limiting absorption principle and radiation condition for repulsive Hamiltonians. Preprint, (2017), (https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.06156).
R. B. Melrose, Spectral and scattering theory for the Laplacian on asymptotically Euclidian spaces. Marcel Dekker, (1994), pp. 85–130.
Reed, M., Simon, B, [*The Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics*]{}, Vol. I–IV. Academic Press, 1972–1980.
A. Vasy, Microlocal analysis of asymptotically hyperbolic and Kerr-de Sitter spaces (with an appendix by Semyon Dyatlov). Invent. Math. 194 (2013), no. 2, 381–513.
A. Vasy, Essential self-adjointness of the wave operator and the limiting absorption principle on Lorentzian scattering spaces. Preprint, (2017), (https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.09650).
M. Zworski, [*Semiclassical analysis. Graduate Studies in Mathematics*]{}, 138. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, (2012).
M. Zworski, Resonances for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds: Vasy’s method revisited. J. Spectr. Theory 6 (2016), no. 4, 1087–1114.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this research, the aim is to develop a repetitive firing stopper mechanism using electrical fields exerted on the fiber. The Hodgkin Huxley nerve fiber model is used for modeling the membrane potential behavior. The repetitive firing of the nerve fiber can be stopped using approaches based on the control theory where the nonlinear Hodgkin Huxley model is used to achieve this goal. The effects of the electrical field are considered as an additive quantity over the equilibrium potentials of the cell membrane channels
*Keywords*: Squid Giant Axon, Hodgkin - Huxley Model, Electrical Field Stimulation, Bifurcation, Washout Filter, Projective Control
author:
- 'R. Ozgur Doruk'
title: Control of the repetitive firing in the squid giant axon using electrical fields
---
Middle East Technical University North Cyprus Campus, Kalkanli, Güzelyurt, Mersin 10, TURKEY (TR) e mail: [email protected]
Introduction
=============
The repetitive firing of the nerve fibers in the living beings is an important subject of the biophysical research since the phenomenon has various meanings. It may have a role in several diseases like epilepsy [\[]{}Pellock et.al (2001)[\]]{} but have also a role in the formation of heart beats where the oscillation frequency is in fact represents the heart rate. The Hodgkin Huxley nerve fiber model [\[]{}Hodgkin et.al (1952)[\]]{} provides a very useful framework for simulation based neurophysiologic studies where the variation of the membrane potential is modeled basically as a fourth order nonlinear differential equation. The basic model in [\[]{}Hodgkin et.al (1952)[\]]{} allows the external current injection as the system input whereas an additional cell membrane potential can also be considered as an input which is the case in [\[]{}Wang et.al. (2004)[\]]{}. The electrical fields around the nerve cell membranes can induce small electric potentials which may lead to different behaviors as stated in [\[]{}Wang et.al. (2004), Kotnik et.al (1998)[\]]{} however the potential induction mechanism can also be used as a repetitive firing control mechanism which is the main point of this research. The repetitive firing condition on the Hodgkin Huxley nerve fiber model is detected using a bifurcation discovery tool like MATCONT [\[]{}Dhooge et.al. (2003)[\]]{} and the washout filter [\[]{}Hassouneh et.al. (2004), Wang et.al. (2000)[\]]{} and projective control [\[]{}Medanic (1978)[\]]{} is integrated to derive a membrane additive voltage profile. This voltage profile is converted into an electrical field requirement profile using an approach derived from [\[]{}Kotnik et.al. (1998)[\]]{}. Using electrical energy in treatment of neurological disorders is a wide part of neurophysiology research where one of the most prominent applications is the deep brain stimulation which is used in the treatment of Parkinsons disease [\[]{}Moro et.al. (2006)[\]]{} and depression [\[]{}Mayberg et.al. (2005)[\]]{}. The mechanism is that a device implanted in the brain tissue sending electrical pulses to the brain. This can be taught as a current injection system whereas in this research the mechanism of electric field induction is used to obtain a response from the neurological tissue. The research can be a base point for further advancements in electrical field stimulation of the central nervous system. Using electrical energy in treatment of neurological disorders is a wide part of neurophysiology research where one of the most prominent applications is the deep brain stimulation which is used in the treatment of Parkinsons disease [\[]{}Moro et.al. (2006)[\]]{} and depression [\[]{}Mayberg et.al. (2005)[\]]{}. The mechanism is that a device implanted in the brain tissue sending electrical pulses to the brain. This can be taught as a current injection system whereas in this research the mechanism of electric field induction is used to obtain a response from the neurological tissue. The research can be a base point for further advancements in electrical field stimulation of the central nervous system. In this paper, first of all the Hodgkin Huxley model of nerve fibers together with the electrical field effects are reviewed and then the methods of projective control theory and washout filters are presented. Next the approach of this research is described in detail.
Materials and Methods
======================
Hodgkin Huxley Model and Electrical Field Interaction
------------------------------------------------------
Hodgkin Huxley model nerve fiber dynamics [\[]{}Hodgkin et.al. (1952)[\]]{} is a fourth order differential equation derived for modeling the behavior of the membrane potential as shown below:
$$\begin{aligned}
C_{m}\frac{dV}{dt} & = & -g_{Na}m^{3}h\left(V-V_{Na}\right)-g_{K}n^{4}\left(V-V_{K}\right)-g_{L}\left(V-V_{L}\right)+I_{ext}\label{hodgkin_huxley}\end{aligned}$$
$$\frac{dn}{dt}=\alpha_{n}\left(1-n\right)-\beta_{n}n$$
$$\frac{dm}{dt}=\alpha_{m}\left(1-m\right)-\beta_{m}m$$
$$\frac{dh}{dt}=\alpha_{h}\left(1-h\right)-\beta_{h}h$$
$$\alpha_{n}=\frac{0.1-0.01V}{exp\left(1-0.1V\right)-1},\,\beta_{n}=0.125exp\left(-\frac{V}{80}\right)$$
$$\alpha_{m}=\frac{2.5-0.1V}{exp\left(2.5-0.1V\right)-1},\,\beta_{m}=4exp\left(-\frac{V}{18}\right)$$
$$\alpha_{h}=0.07exp\left(-\frac{V}{20}\right),\,\beta_{h}=\frac{1}{exp\left(3-0.1V\right)-1}$$
The definitions of the parameters are:
V: the displacement of the cell membrane potential from its resting value in mV
n : is a dimensional variable which can vary between 0 and 1 representing the proportion of activating molecules of the potassium channel
m : same type of variable as n which represents the proportion of the activating molecules of the sodium channel
h : same type of variable as n which represents the proportion of the inactivating molecules of the sodium channel
$I_{ext}$ : external current injection in $\frac{\mu A}{cm^{2}}$
$g_{Na}$ : sodium channel conductance in $\frac{mS}{cm^{2}}$
$g_{K}$ : potassium channel conductance in $\frac{mS}{cm^{2}}$
$g_{L}$: leakage conductance in $\frac{mS}{cm^{2}}$ due to the chloride and other ions which leads to a leaking current flow. Because of that the behaviour is modeled as a conductance.
$C_{m}$: membrane capacitance in $\frac{\mu F}{cm^{2}}$
$V_{Na}:$ sodium channel resting potential in mV
$V_{K}:$ potassium channel resting potential in mV
$V_{L}:$ the level of potential where the leakage current reduces to zero
In the experimentation performed by Alan Hodgkin and his colleagues the nominal values determined are:
$$g_{Na}=36\frac{mS}{cm^{2}}\label{HH_parameters}$$
$$g_{K}=120\frac{mS}{cm^{2}}$$
$$g_{L}=0.3\frac{mS}{cm^{2}}$$
$$V_{K}=-12mV$$
$$V_{Na}=115mV$$
$$V_{L}=10.613mV$$
$$C_{m}=0.91\frac{\mu F}{cm^{2}}$$
In this work the external current injection is set to zero by default. It is to be used as an external stimulus for stabilizing the neuron with the washout filter. The external effect input to the model in our case is the external voltage induction on the cell membrane by the electric fields which is added to (2.1) as:
$$\begin{aligned}
C_{m}\frac{dV}{dt} & = & -g_{Na}m^{3}h\left(V+V_{E}-V_{Na}\right)-g_{K}n^{4}\left(V+V_{E}-V_{K}\right)-g_{L}\left(V+V_{E}-V_{L}\right)+I_{ext}\label{HH_Elec_Fields}\end{aligned}$$
$$\frac{dn}{dt}=\alpha_{n}\left(1-n\right)-\beta_{n}n$$
$$\frac{dm}{dt}=\alpha_{m}\left(1-m\right)-\beta_{m}m$$
$$\frac{dh}{dt}=\alpha_{h}\left(1-h\right)-\beta_{h}h$$
$$\alpha_{n}=\frac{0.1-0.01V}{exp\left(1-0.1V\right)-1},\,\beta_{n}=0.125exp\left(-\frac{V}{80}\right)$$
$$\alpha_{m}=\frac{2.5-0.1V}{exp\left(2.5-0.1V\right)-1},\,\beta_{m}=4exp\left(-\frac{V}{18}\right)$$
$$\alpha_{h}=0.07exp\left(-\frac{V}{20}\right),\,\beta_{h}=\frac{1}{exp\left(3-0.1V\right)-1}$$
The term $V_{E}$ is the potential induced on the cell membrane by any external effect which is the electrical field in this case. If this is due to a time varying electrical field relationship between $V_{E}$ and the exerting electrical field E is obtained from the solution of Laplaces partial differential equation which is used by [\[]{}Kotnik, 1998[\]]{} to obtain the following:
$$V_{E}=F\left(s\right)E\left(s\right)Rcos\left(\theta\right)\label{HH_E(s)}$$
where $E\left(s\right)$ is the electrical field time course defined in the Laplace domain, R is the radius of the cell soma and $\theta$ is the directional angle of the electrical field exerted upon the nerve fibers. Finally $F\left(s\right)$ is the transfer function defined as:
$$F\left(s\right)=\frac{a_{1}s^{2}+a_{2}s+a_{3}}{b_{1}s^{2}+b_{2}s+b_{3}}\label{HH_F(S)}$$
with its coefficients:
$$\begin{array}{l} a_1 = 3d\lambda _o \left( {\lambda _i \left( {3R^2 - 3dR + d^2 } \right) + \lambda _m \left( {3dR - d^2 } \right)} \right) \\ a_2 = 3d\left( {\left( {\lambda _i \varepsilon _o + \lambda _o \varepsilon _i } \right)\left( {3R^2 - 3dR + d^2 } \right) + \left( {\lambda _m \varepsilon _o + \lambda _o \varepsilon _m } \right)\left( {3dR - d^2 } \right)} \right) \\ a_3 = 3d\varepsilon _o \left( {\varepsilon _i \left( {3R^2 - 3dR + d^2 } \right) + \varepsilon _m \left( {3dR - d^2 } \right)} \right) \\ b_1 = 2R^3 \left( {\lambda _m + 2\lambda _o } \right)\left( {\lambda _m + \frac{1}{2}\lambda _i } \right) + 2\left( {R - d} \right)^3 \left( {\lambda _m - \lambda _o } \right)\left( {\lambda _i - \lambda _m } \right) \\ b_2 = 2R^3 \left( {\lambda _i \left( {\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon _m + \varepsilon _o } \right) + \lambda _m \left( {\frac{1}{2}\varepsilon _i + 2\varepsilon _m + 2\varepsilon _o } \right) + \lambda _o \left( {\varepsilon _i + 2\varepsilon _m } \right)} \right) + 2\left( {R - d} \right)^3 \\ \times \left( {\lambda _i \left( {\varepsilon _m - \varepsilon _o } \right) + \lambda _m \left( {\varepsilon _i - 2\varepsilon _m + \varepsilon _o } \right) - \lambda _o \left( {\varepsilon _i - \varepsilon _m } \right)} \right) \\ b_3 = 2R^3 \left( {\varepsilon _m + 2\varepsilon _o } \right)\left( {\varepsilon _m + \frac{1}{2}\varepsilon _i } \right) + 2\left( {R - d} \right)^3 \left( {\varepsilon _m - \varepsilon _o } \right)\left( {\varepsilon _i - \varepsilon _m } \right) \\ \end{array}$$
The parameters of (2.6) are defined in the following table in reference to [\[]{}Kotnik, 1998[\]]{}:
Parameter Definition Value
------------------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------
$\lambda _i $ Cytoplasmic conductivity $0.3\,S \cdot m^{ - 1} $
$\varepsilon _i $ Cytoplasmic permittivity $7.1 \cdot 10^{ - 10} \,A \cdot s \cdot V^{ - 1} \cdot m^{ - 1} $
$\lambda _m $ Membrane conductivity $3 \cdot 10^{ - 7} \,S \cdot m^{ - 1} $
$\varepsilon _m $ Membrane permittivity $4.4 \cdot 10^{ - 11} \,A \cdot s \cdot V^{ - 1} \cdot m^{ - 1} $
$\lambda _o $ Extracellular medium conductivity $3 \cdot 10^{ - 1} \,S \cdot m^{ - 1} $
$\varepsilon _o $ Extracellular medium permittivity $7.1 \cdot 10^{ - 10} \,A \cdot s \cdot V^{ - 1} \cdot m^{ - 1} $
$R$ Cell soma radius $10\,\mu m$
$d$ Membrane thickness $5\,nm$
: The values of electrical parameters for the considered cell membrane (values are from Kotnik et.al)
The relation in (2.4) is derived using admittivity operators. The details of derivations are given in the relevant research [\[]{}Kotnik et.al. (1998)[\]]{}. In order to obtain the level of electric field required for the intended operation the following can be derived:
$$E\left( s \right) = \frac{1}{{R\cos \left( \theta \right)}}\Phi \left( s \right)V_E$$
where,
$$\Phi \left( s \right) = \frac{{b_1 s^2 + b_2 s + b_3 }}{{a_1 s^2 + a_2 s + a_3 }}$$
The above can be written since the order of the numerator and denominator in (2.5) is same where the inversion does not change the properness of the function. For maximum efficiency the directional angle of the field $\theta$ should be zero.
Projective Control Theory
-------------------------
The projective control approach is a linear control methodology that derives an output feedback controller from a full state feedback design. The transformation from the full state feedback to the output feedback is performed through the orthogonal projection which operates on the closed loop eigenspectrum of the full state feedback design. Before going into the detail of the projective control approach a review of full state feedback control approach is given for convenience. Consider a linear system depicted by:
$$\label{linear_system} {\bf{\dot x}} = {\bf{Ax}} + {\bf{Bu}}$$
where
If one designs a full state feedback controller as $${\mathbf{u}} = - {\mathbf{Kx}}$$ the closed loop dynamics is now $${\mathbf{\dot x}} = \left( {{\mathbf{A}} - {\mathbf{BK}}} \right){\mathbf{x}}$$ The eigenspectrum of this closed loop dynamics is defined by the equation shown below:
$$\left( {{\mathbf{A}} - {\mathbf{BK}}} \right){\mathbf{V}} = {\mathbf{V\Lambda }}$$
where$\Lambda$ is the diagonal matrix with the entries of eigenvalues of the closed loop dynamics ( or the eigenvalues of ${\mathbf{A}} - {\mathbf{BK}} $ ) and is the matrix of the corresponding eigenvectors. If one is thinking of making a static output feedback from ${\mathbf{y}} = {\mathbf{Cx}}$ $\left( {{\mathbf{C}} \in \mathbb{R}^{q \times n} ,\,{\mathbf{y}} \in \mathbb{R}^q } \right)$ as $ {\mathbf{u}} = - {\mathbf{K}}_o {\mathbf{y}} = - {\mathbf{K}}_o {\mathbf{Cx}} $ . If this feedback is assumed to retain $q$ eigenvalues out of $\Lambda$ (denote this as $\Lambda_{q}$ and corresponding eigenvectors from $V$ as $V_{q}$ ) the following should also be written:
$$\left( {{\mathbf{A}} - {\mathbf{BKC}}} \right){\mathbf{V}}_q = {\mathbf{V}}_q {\mathbf{\Lambda }}_q$$
Combining (2.10) and (2.11) the following can be written:
$$\left( {{\mathbf{A}} - {\mathbf{BK}}} \right){\mathbf{V}} = \left( {{\mathbf{A}} - {\mathbf{BK}}_o {\mathbf{C}}} \right){\mathbf{V}}_q$$
This allows one to solve for $${\mathbf{K}}_o$$ as:
$$\mathbf{K}_o = {\mathbf{KV}}_q \left( {{\mathbf{CV}}_q } \right)^{ - 1}$$
For the nonlinear systems the model should be linearized using the Jacobian (or the Taylor series).
Linearization and Bifurcation
-----------------------------
As it is just stated the projective control approach requires linearization of the nonlinear model. For the case of a standard nonlinear system representation like ${\mathbf{\dot x}} = {\mathbf{f}}\left( {{\mathbf{x}},\,{\mathbf{u}}} \right)$ the following equations are written:
$$\begin{gathered} {\mathbf{\dot x}} = {\mathbf{Ax}} + {\mathbf{Bu}} + {\mathbf{H}}\left( {{\mathbf{x}},\,{\mathbf{u}}} \right) \hfill \\ {\mathbf{A}} = \left. {\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{f}}}} {{\partial {\mathbf{x}}}}} \right|_{{\mathbf{x}} = {\mathbf{x}}_0 } \hfill \\ {\mathbf{B}} = \left. {\frac{{\partial {\mathbf{f}}}} {{\partial {\mathbf{u}}}}} \right|_{{\mathbf{u}} = {\mathbf{u}}_0 } \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$
where ${\mathbf{x}} \in \mathbb{R}^n $ is the state of the system, ${\mathbf{u}} \in \mathbb{R}^m $ is the input and $ {\mathbf{H}}\left( {{\mathbf{x}},\,{\mathbf{u}}} \right) $ is the higher order nonlinear terms and ${\mathbf{x}}_0 $ is the equilibrium point. The eigenvalues of the matrix characterizes the stability of ${\mathbf{x}}_0 $ . If the instability of the system (2.13) is due to a single pair of complex conjugate eigenvalues the resultant event is called as Hopf bifurcation. On the other hand if there is a pair of eigenvalues with the same values and opposite signs the resultant issue is called as the saddle node bifurcation. For the Hodgkin Huxley model the repetitive firing in non stimulated (current or other external effects) is a result of the bifurcation phenomenon. The bifurcation characteristics of the system can be changed by using specially designed controllers. However, many of the controllers lead to a change in the position of the equilibrium point. This is not a problem in general but if the equilibrium point should not be changed one has to incorporate a washout filter which blocks the steady state (DC) inputs to the system. The washout filter itself is a linear high pass filter which can be mathematically defined as shown below:
$$\begin{gathered} {\mathbf{\dot z}} = {\mathbf{A}}_{\mathbf{w}} {\mathbf{z + B}}_{\mathbf{w}} {\mathbf{\xi }} \hfill \\ {\mathbf{\psi = A}}_{\mathbf{w}} {\mathbf{z + B}}_{\mathbf{w}} {\mathbf{\xi }} \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$
where ${\mathbf{z}} \in \mathbb{R}^p $ , ${\mathbf{\psi }} \in \mathbb{R}^p $, ${\mathbf{\xi }} \in \mathbb{R}^p $ , ${\mathbf{A}}_w \in \mathbb{R}^{p \times p} $ and ${\mathbf{B}}_w \in \mathbb{R}^{p \times p} $
If the above dynamics is expressed in the Laplace domain the following result can be obtained:
$${\mathbf{G}}\left( s \right) = \frac{{{\mathbf{\psi }}\left( s \right)}} {{{\mathbf{\xi }}\left( s \right)}} = {\mathbf{A}}_{\mathbf{w}} \left[ {s{\mathbf{I}}_{p \times p} - {\mathbf{A}}_{\mathbf{w}} } \right]^{ - 1} {\mathbf{B}}_{\mathbf{w}} + {\mathbf{B}}_{\mathbf{w}}$$
where $ {\mathbf{G}}\left( s \right) $ is the multi input and multi output transfer function from the input ${\mathbf{\xi }}$ to output $ {\mathbf{\psi }} $ . It is clearly noted that the following limit tends to zero.
$$\mathop {\lim }\limits_{s \to 0} {\mathbf{G}}\left( s \right) \to 0$$
The above result means that the system in (2.14) blocks the steady state inputs. This property is the core part of the control mechanisms aided with a washout filter.
Hodgkin Huxley Model and application
------------------------------------
For the Hodgkin Huxley model in consideration first of all a linearization should be done. So the linearization will lead to the linearized model in (\[linear\_system\]) with the matrix$A$ as:
$${\mathbf{A}} = \left. {\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\frac{{\partial \dot V}} {{\partial V}}} & {\frac{{\partial \dot V}} {{\partial n}}} & {\frac{{\partial \dot V}} {{\partial m}}} & {\frac{{\partial \dot V}} {{\partial h}}} \\ {\frac{{\partial \dot n}} {{\partial V}}} & {\frac{{\partial \dot n}} {{\partial n}}} & 0 & 0 \\ {\frac{{\partial \dot m}} {{\partial V}}} & 0 & {\frac{{\partial \dot m}} {{\partial m}}} & 0 \\ {\frac{{\partial \dot h}} {{\partial V}}} & 0 & 0 & {\frac{{\partial \dot h}} {{\partial h}}} \\
\end{array} } \right]} \right|_{V_E = 0} ,\,{\mathbf{x}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} V \\ n \\ m \\ h \\
\end{array} } \right]$$
$$\begin{gathered} \frac{{\partial \dot V}} {{\partial V}} = \frac{1} {{C_m }}\left( { - g_{Na} m^3 h - g_K n^4 - g_L } \right) \hfill \\ \frac{{\partial \dot V}} {{\partial n}} = - \frac{4} {{C_m }}g_K n^3 \left( {V - V_K } \right) \hfill \\ \frac{{\partial \dot V}} {{\partial m}} = - \frac{3} {{C_m }}g_{Na} m^2 h\left( {V - V_{Na} } \right) \hfill \\ \frac{{\partial \dot V}} {{\partial h}} = - \frac{1} {{C_m }}g_{Na} m^3 \left( {V - V_{Na} } \right) \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$
$$\begin{gathered} \frac{{\partial \dot n}} {{\partial V}} = - 1/100/(\exp (1 - 1/10V) - 1)(1 - n) + \hfill \\ 1/10 \times (1/10 - 1/100V)/(\exp (1 - 1/10V) - 1)^2 \times (1 - n)\exp (1 - 1/10V) + 1/640 \times \exp ( - 1/80V)n \hfill \\ \frac{{\partial \dot m}} {{\partial V}} = - 1/10/(\exp (5/2 - 1/10V) - 1)(1 - m) + \hfill \\ 1/10(5/2 - 1/10V)/(\exp (5/2 - 1/10V) - 1)^2 (1 - m) \times \exp (5/2 - 1/10V) + 2/9\exp ( - 1/18V)m \hfill \\ \frac{{\partial \dot h}} {{\partial V}} = - 7/2000\exp ( - 1/20V)(1 - h) - 1/10/(\exp (3 - 1/10V) + 1)^2 h \times \exp (3 - 1/10V) \hfill \\ \frac{{\partial \dot n}} {{\partial n}} = - \left( {\alpha _n + \beta _n } \right) \hfill \\ \frac{{\partial \dot m}} {{\partial m}} = - \left( {\alpha _m + \beta _m } \right) \hfill \\ \frac{{\partial \dot h}} {{\partial h}} = - \left( {\alpha _h + \beta _h } \right) \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$
The terms are given in Section 2.1. The input $u$ and the matrix $B$ is:
$${\mathbf{B}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\frac{1} {{C_m }}\left( { - g_{Na} m^3 h - g_K n^4 - g_L } \right)} \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\
\end{array} } \right],\,{\mathbf{u}} = V_E$$
In the next, the repetitive firing condition should be found which is done through bifurcation analysis using the MATCONT toolbox of MATLAB . For this purpose, we will analyze the case where there is a physiological condition on the sodium channel. That is the deviation in the equilibrium (rest) potential of the channel in which MATCONT provides the following data:
Parameter & Prop $V_{Na} = 199.134$
--------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eigenvalues $\begin{gathered} \lambda _1 = - 5.04011 \hfill \\ \lambda _2 = - 0.1257 \hfill \\ \lambda _3 = j0.3958 \hfill \\ \lambda _4 = - j0.3958 \hfill \\ \end{gathered} $
Equilibrium Points $\begin{gathered} V = 0.93404938 \hfill \\ n = 0.33208269 \hfill \\ m = 0.059059 \hfill \\ h = 0.5631245 \hfill \\ \end{gathered} $
Type of Bifurcation Hopf
: The repetitive firing condition as a result of deviation in the sodium channel
In order to continue the application, a washout filter should be proposed. The input of the washout filter should be a measurable variable which is in this case the membrane potential of the nerve fiber. So the washout filter will be of the following form:
$$\begin{gathered} \dot z = a_w z + b_w V \hfill \\ y = a_w z + b_w V \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$
In order to have a stable filter the condition $$a_w < 0$$ should be satisfied. For a practical case one can choose $a_w = - 0.01$ and $b_w = 1$ . The resultant filter is augmented into the linearized nerve model in (2.17) - (2.21) to obtain:
$$\begin{gathered} {\mathbf{\dot x}}_f = {\mathbf{A}}_f {\mathbf{x}}_f + {\mathbf{B}}_f V_E \hfill \\ {\mathbf{A}}_f = \left. {\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\frac{{\partial \dot V}} {{\partial V}}} & {\frac{{\partial \dot V}} {{\partial n}}} & {\frac{{\partial \dot V}} {{\partial m}}} & {\frac{{\partial \dot V}} {{\partial h}}} & 0 \\ {\frac{{\partial \dot n}} {{\partial V}}} & {\frac{{\partial \dot n}} {{\partial n}}} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ {\frac{{\partial \dot m}} {{\partial V}}} & 0 & {\frac{{\partial \dot m}} {{\partial m}}} & 0 & 0 \\ {\frac{{\partial \dot h}} {{\partial V}}} & 0 & 0 & {\frac{{\partial \dot h}} {{\partial h}}} & 0 \\ {b_w } & 0 & 0 & 0 & {a_w } \\
\end{array} } \right]} \right|_{V_E } ,\,{\mathbf{B}}_f = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\mathbf{B}} \\ 0 \\
\end{array} } \right],\,{\mathbf{x}}_f = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} V \\ n \\ m \\ h \\ z \\
\end{array} } \right] \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$
Numerical representation of the above matrix for the values given in the Table 2 is now:
$$\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {\dot V} \\ {\dot n} \\ {\dot m} \\ {\dot h} \\ {\dot z} \\
\end{array} } \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {{\text{ - 0}}{\text{.8261}}} & {{\text{ - 74}}{\text{.9539}}} & {{\text{154}}{\text{.0073}}} & {{\text{5}}{\text{.3840}}} & 0 \\ {{\text{0}}{\text{.0029}}} & {{\text{ - 0}}{\text{.1850}}} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ {{\text{0}}{\text{.0278}}} & 0 & {{\text{ - 4}}{\text{.0361}}} & 0 & 0 \\ {{\text{ - 0}}{\text{.0042}}} & 0 & 0 & {{\text{ - 0}}{\text{.1186}}} & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & { - 0.01} \\
\end{array} } \right]\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} V \\ n \\ m \\ h \\ z \\
\end{array} } \right] + \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {{\text{ - 0}}{\text{.8261}}} \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\
\end{array} } \right]V_E$$
The output feedback will be taken from the output of the washout filter so the output feedback matrix is $ {\mathbf{C}} = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & { - 0.01} \\
\end{array} } \right] $. In order to proceed, a full state feedback controller is necessary for the linear system presented in (2.23). This can be obtained using the linear quadratic theory (LQR) and the MATLABs lqr(A, B, Q, R) command directly results a full state feedback coefficient matrix ${\mathbf{K}}_f $ where $V_E = - {\mathbf{K}}_f {\mathbf{x}}$ . The obtained gain matrix ${\mathbf{K}}_f $ minimizes the infinite horizon quadratic gain index shown below:
$$J = \int\limits_0^\infty {\left( {{\mathbf{x}}^T {\mathbf{Qx}} + {\mathbf{u}}^T {\mathbf{Ru}}} \right)} dt$$
Taking ${\mathbf{Q}} = q{\mathbf{I}}_{4 \times 4} $ and ${\mathbf{R}} = 1$ considering the problem of this research the above index is rewritten as:
$$J = \int\limits_0^\infty {\left( {q\left[ {V^2 + n^2 + m^2 + h^2 } \right] + V_E^2 } \right)} dt$$
Substituting $q=100$ and invoking the necessary command the full state feedback gain coefficient yields:
$${\mathbf{K}}_f = \left[ {{\text{ - 10}}{\text{.5426 89}}{\text{.5670 - 133}}{\text{.4628 - 6}}{\text{.4330 - 9}}{\text{.8885}}} \right]$$
The closed loop spectrum $\left( {{\mathbf{A}}_f - {\mathbf{B}}_f {\mathbf{K}}_f } \right)$ for the new case is:
$${\mathbf{\Lambda }}_f = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c} {{\text{ - 8}}{\text{.8641}}} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & {{\text{ - 3}}{\text{.7002}}} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & {{\text{ - 1}}{\text{.0170}}} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & {{\text{ - 0}}{\text{.1849}}} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & {{\text{ - 0}}{\text{.1186}}} \\
\end{array} } \right]$$
And the corresponding eigenvectors are:
$${\mathbf{V}}_f = \left[ \begin{gathered} {\text{ 0}}{\text{.9937 - 0}}{\text{.9621 0}}{\text{.7096 0}}{\text{.0253 0}}{\text{.0011}} \hfill \\ {\text{ - 0}}{\text{.0003 0}}{\text{.0008 - 0}}{\text{.0024 0}}{\text{.9891 0}}{\text{.0000}} \hfill \\ {\text{ - 0}}{\text{.0057 - 0}}{\text{.0796 0}}{\text{.0065 0}}{\text{.0002 0}}{\text{.0000}} \hfill \\ {\text{ 0}}{\text{.0005 - 0}}{\text{.0011 0}}{\text{.0033 0}}{\text{.0016 - 1}}{\text{.0000}} \hfill \\ {\text{ - 0}}{\text{.1122 0}}{\text{.2607 - 0}}{\text{.7046 - 0}}{\text{.1448 - 0}}{\text{.0097}} \hfill \\ \end{gathered} \right]$$
The projective control law will make feedback only from the washout filter thus the dimension of the feedback is one and the number of guaranteed retainable eigenvalues is also equal to one. So it is best to retain the eigenvalue farthest from the imaginary axis which is the one at -8.8641 so the matrix $${\mathbf{V}}_q$$ is only a single column vector and found as:
$${\mathbf{V}}_q = \left[ \begin{gathered} {\text{ 0}}{\text{.99367}} \hfill \\ {\text{ - 0}}{\text{.00032859}} \hfill \\ {\text{ - 0}}{\text{.0057199}} \hfill \\ {\text{ 0}}{\text{.00048023}} \hfill \\ {\text{ - 0}}{\text{.11223}} \hfill \\ \end{gathered} \right]$$
Applying the projection equation in (2.12) gives the feedback gain from the washout filter output:
$$K_o = {\mathbf{KV}}_q \left( {{\mathbf{CV}}_q } \right)^{ - 1} = {\text{ - 8}}{\text{.6805}}$$
And applying the feedback as ${\mathbf{A}}_f - {\mathbf{B}}_f K_o {\mathbf{C}}$ yields the output feedback closed loop eigenvalues:
$$\left[ \begin{gathered} {\text{ - 8}}{\text{.8641}} \hfill \\ {\text{ - 3}}{\text{.1436}} \hfill \\ {\text{ - 0}}{\text{.0013609}} \hfill \\ {\text{ - 0}}{\text{.21673}} \hfill \\ {\text{ - 0}}{\text{.12075}} \hfill \\ \end{gathered} \right]$$
So the resultant closed loop is a stable system with the expected eigenvalue at -8.8641 in the right place. The control law together with the washout filter is:
$$\begin{gathered} \dot z = - 0.01z + V \hfill \\ V_E = - K_o \left( { - 0.01z + V} \right) \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$
Results and Discussion
======================
The uncontrolled nerve fiber model in (2.1) with the parameters in (2.2) except the deviated parameter which is given in Table 2 will yield a repetitive firing action potential as shown in Figure 1:
When the control law of (2.32) is applied through the external voltage input of the model in (2.3) the response of the nerve fiber becomes that of the Figure 2.
The required level of electrical field can be obtained using the inversion system presented in (2.7) with the parameters given in Table 1. Required level of electric field is presented in Figure 3.
As it is expected the level of electric field goes to zero since it stabilized the equilibrium condition on the nerve fiber. The steady state portion of the electric field is not allowed to pass from the washout filter and thus it stays at zero forever after the stabilization. This makes the electric field stimulation of the nerve fiber very short. This is a good advantage because of the fact that the level of electric field required is quite high as seen from Figure 3. In this research, we have presented a stabilization scheme for stopping the repetitive firing of the nerve fiber. In order to achieve the goal, the Hodgkin Huxley model of the squid giant axon is taken into consideration. A condition on the sodium channel is found where the fiber starts to produce repetitive firing and membrane potential is oscillating. After that, the model is linearized and augmented with a washout filter to obtain a high pass filtered structure. Finally the projective control approach is utilized to produce a static output negative feedback on the washout filter output to finish the application. The simulation results show that the control laws successfully stabilized the bifurcating nerve fibers with a short lasting electric field exertion on the fiber. The disadvantage of the method itself is that it requires the bifurcating conditions to be known. If a parameter identification method is proposed for the Hodgkin Huxley model by the measurement of the membrane potential for various types of nerve fibers. So if the model is properly identified, the research can be beginning point in the treatment of diseases based on repetitive firing. In the reverse direction, a stable fiber can be forced to repetitive firing condition by using approaches like this. For example, if the dendrite and soma membrane potentials can be separately measured a pair of pure complex conjugate eigenvalues can be placed so that the system is forced into a Hopf bifurcation condition. This will be required since in both Hopf and saddle node bifurcations a pair of eigenvalue at the specified properties are required.
[10]{} Dhooge A., Kovaerts W., Kuznetsov Y.A., MATCONT: A MATLAB package for numerical bifurcation analysis of ODEs. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 29, 2003, pp. 141-164
Hassouneh M.A., Lee H. and Abed E.H., Washout filters in feedback control: Benefits, limitations and extensions, American Control Conference, 2004, pp 3950-3955
Hodgkin A.L., Huxley A.F., A Quantitative Description Of Membrane Current And Its Application To Conduction And Excitation In Nerve, Journal Of Physiology-London, 117, 1952
Kotnik T., Miklavcic D., Slivnik T., Time course of transmembrane voltage induced by time-varying electric fieldsa method for theoretical analysis and its application, Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, 45, 1998, p.p 3-16
Mayberg H.S., Mayberg A.M., Voon V., McNeely H.E., Seminowicz D., Hamani C., Schwalb J.M., Kennedy S.H., Deep brain stimulation for treatment-resistant depression, Neuron. 45, 2005, pp. 651660
MEDANIC J., On stabilization and optimization by output feedback, Proc. 12th Asilomar Conf. Circ., Sys. Comp.,1978, pp. 412-416
Moro E., Lang A.E., Criteria for deep-brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease: review and analysis, Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 11, 2006, pp. 16951705
Pellock J.M., Dodson W.E., Bourgeois B.F.D., Pediatric Epilepsy, Second Edition, Demos Medical Publishing, 2001
Wang H.O., Chen D.S., Bushnell L.G., Dynamic feedback control of bifurcations, 39th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2000,pp. 1619-1624
Wang J., Kai T.M., Zhang H., Hopf bifurcation in the HodgkinHuxley model exposed to ELF electrical field, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 20, 2004, pp. 759-764
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Yuepeng Wang
- Xinyu Wang
- Isil Dillig
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: Relational Program Synthesis
---
<ccs2012> <concept> <concept\_id>10011007.10011006.10011050.10011056</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Software and its engineering Programming by example</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10011007.10011074.10011092.10011782</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Software and its engineering Automatic programming</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> <concept> <concept\_id>10003752.10003766</concept\_id> <concept\_desc>Theory of computation Formal languages and automata theory</concept\_desc> <concept\_significance>500</concept\_significance> </concept> </ccs2012>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recently, the formation of primordial black holes (PBHs) from the collapse of primordial fluctuations has received much attention. The abundance of PBHs formed during radiation domination is sensitive to the tail of the probability distribution of primordial fluctuations. We quantify the level of fine-tuning due to this sensitivity. For example, if the main source of dark matter is PBHs with mass $10^{-12}M_\odot$, then anthropic reasoning suggests that the dark matter to baryon ratio should range between 1 and 300. For this to happen, the has to be fine-tuned within a $7.1\%$ range. As another example, if the to be explained by PBHs, the corresponding degree of fine-tuning is $3.8\%$. fine-tunings can be relaxed if the primordial fluctuations are highly non-Gaussian, or if the PBHs are formed during an early-matter-dominated phase. We also note that no fine-tuning is needed for the scenario of a reheating of the universe by evaporated PBHs with Planck-mass relics as dark matter.'
author:
- Tomohiro Nakama
- Yi Wang
title: 'Do we need fine-tuning to create primordial black holes?'
---
=1
Introduction
============
Primordial black holes (PBHs) with a wide range of masses may have been generated in the early universe (see [@Carr:2009jm] and references therein). Among different mechanisms of PBH formation, the collapse of primordial fluctuations during radiation domination is most often discussed in the literature. When estimating the abundance of PBHs created by this mechanism, Gaussianity of primordial fluctuations is often assumed. Under these assumptions the abundance of PBHs is exponentially sensitive to the root-mean-square amplitude $\sigma$ of primordial fluctuations, and hence the generation of a significant amount of PBHs usually involves fine-tuning of $\sigma$, a naturalness problem[^1]. First we quantify the level of fine-tuning of $\sigma$ required to explain the totality of the cold dark matter by PBHs of $10^{-12}M_\odot$ as an example. We also discuss cases where PBHs of tens of solar masses comprise only part of the entire dark matter, which have recently attracted attention in the context of gravitational-wave astrophysics.
Two possible ways to the fine-tuning problem are discussed. First, the large spikes of primordial fluctuations usually accompany with large non-Gaussianities. With the presence of non-Gaussianity, the amount of fine-tuning is reduced. Second, PBHs could have been formed during an early-matter-dominated phase instead of formed during radiation domination. In this case the abundance of PBHs is expressed as power law of $\sigma$ [@Khlopov:1980mg; @Polnarev:1986bi; @Harada:2016mhb], instead of exponential, which reduces the degree of fine-tuning natural.
Finally, there is a situation where the universe was reheated by small PBHs, leaving Planck mass relics as dark matter [@MacGibbon:1987my; @Alexander:2007gj]. In this case, the amplitude of primordial fluctuations has just to be sufficiently large to overproduce PBHs, hence no fine-tuning of $\sigma$ is required.
PBHs formed from Gaussian fluctuations
======================================
PBHs formed during radiation domination
---------------------------------------
The baryon to photon ratio $\eta$ can be expressed as $$\eta\equiv\frac{n_{b,0}}{n_{\gamma,0}}=\frac{\pi^4g_0}{60\zeta(3)}\frac{\rho_{b,0}}{\rho_{r,0}}\frac{kT_{\gamma,0}}{m_pc^2},$$ where $\zeta(3)\simeq 1.202$, $g$ represents the effective relativistic degrees contributing the total radiation energy density and the subscripts 0 indicate present values. On the other hand, the fractional energy density $\beta$ of PBHs at some moment during radiation domination can be expressed as $$\beta=\frac{\rho_{\mathrm{PBH}}}{\rho_r}=\frac{g_0}{g}\left(\frac{g_s}{g_{s,0}}\right)^{4/3}\frac{\rho_{\mathrm{PBH},0}}{\rho_{r,0}}\frac{a}{a_0},$$ where entropy conservation has been used and $g_s$ is the effective relativistic degrees contributing to the entropy density. Then the baryon to dark matter ratio can be expressed as $$R=\frac{\rho_{b,0}}{\rho_{\mathrm{PBH},0}}=\frac{60\zeta(3)}{\pi^4g_{s,0}}\frac{m_pc^2}{kT}\frac{\eta}{\beta}.$$
Suppose $R$ needs to satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
R_m<R<R_M~. \end{aligned}$$ Let us consider the case where PBHs of $10^{-12}M_\odot$ comprise all the dark matter [@Inomata:2017vxo], which arose from a sharp spike in the power spectrum of Gaussian primordial fluctuations. The mass of PBHs formed by collapse of overdensities during radiation domination is in proportion to the age of the Universe, and it is $10^5M_\odot$ at $t=1s$ ($T=1$MeV) [@Carr:2009jm]. Hence, PBHs of $10^{-12}M_\odot$ formed when $T\sim 10^{8.5}$MeV, neglecting change in $g$ for simplicity, which wouldn’t change the discussion here much. The quantity $\beta$ for Gaussian fluctuations may be roughly estimated by $\beta=2^{-1}\mathrm{erfc}(\zeta_c/\sqrt{2}\sigma)$ [@Nakama:2017xvq], with PBH formation threshold chosen as $\zeta_c=0.67$ there. Then, the above condition for $R$ can be rewritten as the condition for $\sigma$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\!\!\!\!&\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\frac{\zeta_c}{\sqrt{2}}
\left[\mathrm{erfc}^{-1}\left(\frac{120\zeta(3)}{\pi^4g_{s,0}}\frac{m_pc^2}{kT}\frac{\eta}{R_M}\right)\right]^{-1}
<\sigma\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad\,\,\,\,\,\,
<\frac{\zeta_c}{\sqrt{2}}
\left[\mathrm{erfc}^{-1}\left(\frac{120\zeta(3)}{\pi^4g_{s,0}}\frac{m_pc^2}{kT}\frac{\eta}{R_m}\right)\right]^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ We use $g_{s,0}=3.909$ [@Husdal:2016haj], $\eta=6\times 10^{-10}$ [@Steigman:2014pfa], and also assume $R_m=1/300$ and $R_M=1$ [@Tegmark:2005dy]. This value of $R_m$ was estimated from the instability of our galactic disk, so that the disk fragments and star formation takes place. For the value of $R_M$, one may expect $R_M\sim 1$, since in a baryon-dominated Universe matter inhomogeneities on galactic scales are suppressed around the recombination due to Silk damping. This range of $R$ corresponds to $3.4\times 10^{-16}<\beta<1.0\times 10^{-13}$. Then we find $0.0830<\sigma<0.0912$.
It is convenient to introduce the degree of fine-tuning $\epsilon$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon=\frac{\sigma_M-\sigma_m}{(\sigma_M+\sigma_m)/2}. \end{aligned}$$ When $\epsilon \ll 1$, fine-tuning is needed and the value of $\epsilon$ indicates the amount of tuning needed. When $\epsilon\sim 1$, the scenario can be considered natural. In the example above, $\epsilon\simeq 0.094$, indicating the presence of a fine-tuning.
[@Yoo:2018kvb]. For a monochromatic spectrum of the primordial curvature perturbation $\beta\sim \mu_c^3/\sigma^4\exp(-3\mu_cg_c)\exp(-\mu_c^2/2\sigma^2)$, where $(\mu_c,g_c)=(0.52,-0.141)$. Using this formula we obtain the corresponding range of $\sigma$ as $0.0545<\sigma<0.0585$ ($\epsilon\simeq 0.071$).
To show how the fine-tuning of $\sigma$ propagates to inflationary model construction, let us consider a specific inflationary scenario[^2], discussed in Ref. [@Hertzberg:2017dkh]. The inflaton potential is $U(\phi)=U_0\Sigma_{n=0}^5c_n\phi^n/n!\Lambda^n$, $(c_0,c_2,c_4)=(1,0,1)$. They considered cases where the CMB scale leaves the horizon when $\phi$ is near the origin, and hence the amplitude and the spectral index of large-scale fluctuations are determined by the terms of up to the cubic order. these terms to match Planck data. As $\phi$ increases, the higher-order terms become important, and depending on $c_5$, perturbations can be enhanced on small scales. They showed there is some value $c_{5,\mathrm{cr}}$, at which small-scale power diverges. This value corresponds to a situation where $\phi$ becomes unable to roll over a small hill in the potential. The deviation $\delta c_5=|c_5-c_{5,\mathrm{cr}}|/|c_{5,\mathrm{cr}}|$ was shown to determine the amount of amplification of small-scale power, or the abundance of PBHs. They found the amplitude ${\cal P}_\zeta(\sim \sigma^2)$ to be ${\cal P}_\zeta/{\cal P}_{\zeta,\mathrm{CMB}}\sim \mathrm{Max}\{10^{-8}C/\delta c_5^2,1\}$, with ${\cal P}_{\zeta,\mathrm{CMB}}\sim 10^{-9}$ and $C\sim 10^{-2}$. Hence, $\sigma$ in this model is determined by $\delta c_{5}$ as $\sigma \sim 10^{-9.5}\delta c_5^{-1}$. For simplicity, let us assume Gaussianity and then the range of $\sigma$ we found in the previous paragraph corresponds to $5.40\times 10^{-9}<\delta c_5<5.80\times 10^{-9}$, which is a narrow range and thus the tuning of inflationary parameters is indeed needed. Strictly speaking, one would have to take into account non-Gaussianity in this case as well. We will comment on cases of non-Gaussianity later.
One may also find it useful to see the needed degree of tuning assuming some range for $R$ obtained by recent experiments such as the Planck satellite, instead of using a range for $R$ from an anthropic argument. Let us use $0.182<R<0.192$ [@Aghanim:2018eyx], then we find $0.055563<\sigma<0.055597$, with $\epsilon\simeq 0.00061$. PBHs have recently received renewed interests [@Bird:2016dcv; @Clesse:2016vqa; @Sasaki:2016jop] ever since the gravitational-event was detected by LIGO [@Abbott:2016blz]. In this case, $f=\Omega_{\mathrm{PBH}}/\Omega_{\mathrm{DM}}$ of much less than unity sufficient to account for the gravitational wave events [@Sasaki:2016jop]. In this case we construct an anthropic argument for $\Omega_\mathrm{PBH}$, unlike cases of $f=1$. Nevertheless, observational constraints suggest $10^{-3}<f<10^{-2}$ [@Sasaki:2016jop]. For this range of $f$, we use the improved formula for $\beta$ and also a relation $\beta\sim 10^{-8}f$ for PBHs with $\sim 30M_\odot$ [@Nakama:2016gzw]. As a result, $0.0624<\sigma<0.0648$ ($\epsilon\simeq 0.038$). If we have used a more conservative range $10^{-4}<f<10^{-1}$, we get $0.0604<\sigma<0.0674$ ($\epsilon\simeq 0.11$). : by widening the range of $f$ by two orders of magnitude, the amount of fine-tuning is only relaxed by three times.
PBHs formed during an early matter-dominated phase
--------------------------------------------------
PBH formation during an early matter era was originally discussed in Refs. [@Khlopov:1980mg; @Polnarev:1986bi], and recently reconsidered in Refs. [@Harada:2016mhb; @Harada:2017fjm]. Let us again consider PBHs of $10^{-12}M_\odot$, which was formed from fluctuations which reenter the horizon at $t_H\sim 10^{-17}$s. Let $\sigma$ denote the standard deviation of the density perturbation in the linear regime at horizon reentry as in Ref. [@Harada:2016mhb]. The scale factor $a_m$ at the average $t_m$ of the moment of maximum expansion satisfies $\sigma a_m/a_H=1$ [@Harada:2017fjm], where $a_H$ is the scale factor at $t_H$. Hence we find $t_m=\sigma^{-3/2}t_H$. PBHs would form at a moment not so later than $t_m$, and note that PBH formation takes place much later than the moment of horizon reentry of fluctuations under consideration, whereas PBHs formed during radiation domination form shortly after the horizon reentry. The abundance of PBHs was found to be $\beta\sim 0.05556\sigma^5$ [@Harada:2016mhb], so the dependence on $\sigma$ is power law instead of exponential, indicating less tuning. This formula was obtained by considering anisotropic collapse, and in addition PBH formation taking into account spins [@Harada:2017fjm] and inhomogeneity [@kokubu] was also considered. PBH formation from inflaton fragmentation into oscillons was discussed in Ref. [@Cotner:2018vug]. See also Refs. [@Carr:2017edp; @Carr:2018nkm] for PBH formation during an early matter-dominated era.
Let $t_r$ denote the moment of the reheating, and we need $t_r>t_m$ in order for PBHs to be formed before the end of the early matter-dominated phase. Hence, let us introduce $\gamma(>1)$ and write $t_r=\gamma t_m$. The Friedmann equation at $t_r$ is $$H_r^2=\frac{4}{9t_r^2}=\frac{\pi g}{30}T_r^4=\frac{\pi g}{30}t_P^{-2}\left(\frac{T_r}{T_P}\right)^4,$$ where $T_r$ is the reheating temperature, $t_P$ is the Planck time and $T_P$ is the Planck temperature. From this one finds $$T_r=\left(\frac{40}{3\pi g}\right)^{1/4}\sigma^{3/4}\gamma^{-1/2}\left(\frac{t_P}{t_H}\right)^{1/2}T_P.$$ Now we can compute the ratio $R$, introduced above, at the moment of reheating, assuming that the fraction of PBHs in the total matter is constant during the early-matter phase after their formation at $\sim t_m$, to discuss plausible ranges of $\sigma$. Whether many more PBHs are formed well after $t_m$ and before $t_r$ or not for a single spike in the primordial spectrum is not well known [@Harada:2016mhb]. If reheating happens soon after PBH formation, $\gamma= 1$, $0.00324<\sigma<0.00874$ ($\epsilon \simeq 0.92$), setting $g=106.75$. This shows that the amount of fine-tuning is significantly relaxed. The lower (upper) bound of $\sigma$ here corresponds to $T_r=5.3\times 10^6\, (1.1\times 10^7)$ MeV. The corresponding range for $\beta$ is $2.0\times10^{-14}<\beta<2.8\times10^{-12}$. We can also consider larger values of $\gamma$. For instance, when $\gamma=10^{15}$, we find $0.0591<\sigma<0.159$ ($\epsilon\simeq 0.92$), with $T_r=2.7\, (5.6)$ MeV, setting $g=10.75$. We observe that the naturnalness is not affected by changing $\gamma$. The corresponding range for $\beta$ is $4.0\times 10^{-8}<\beta<5.7\times 10^{-6}$.
PBHs formed from non-Gaussian fluctuations
==========================================
Often non-Gaussianity of primordial fluctuations is very important in estimating the abundance of PBHs formed by the collapse of non-linear initial fluctuations shortly after horizon reentry during radiation domination [@Franciolini:2018vbk], though Gaussianity is often assumed for simplicity. In the following we show that the inclusion of non-Gaussianity can improve the naturalness of PBH production.
First consider a phenomenological model for the non-Gaussian probability density function of the primordial curvature perturbation [@Nakama:2016kfq; @Nakama:2016gzw; @Nakama:2017xvq]: $$P(\zeta)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}\Tilde{\sigma}\Gamma(1+1/p)}\exp\left[-\left(\frac{|\zeta|}{\sqrt{2}\tilde{\sigma}}\right)^p\right].\label{pdf}$$ Here deviations of $p$ from 2 characterize the amount of non-Gaussianity. The mean-square amplitude is $$\sigma^2=\int_{-\infty}^\infty \zeta^2P(\zeta)d\zeta =\frac{2\Gamma(1+3/p)}{3\Gamma(1+1/p)}\tilde{\sigma}^2,$$ where $\Gamma(a)$ denotes the gamma function. The fraction of the universe collapsing to PBHs can be estimated by $$\beta\sim \int_{\zeta_c}^\infty P(\zeta)d\zeta=\frac{\Gamma(1/p,2^{-p/2}(\zeta_c/\tilde{\sigma})^p)}{2p\Gamma(1+1/p)},$$ where $\Gamma(a,z)$ is the incomplete gamma function. When $p=2$ this formula reduces to the simplistic formula used before, involving the complementary error function, giving $0.0830<\sigma<0.0912$ ($\epsilon\simeq 0.094$) as mentioned before.
In non-Gaussian cases, when $p=1$, we find $0.0271<\sigma<0.0324$ ($\epsilon\simeq 0.18$); whereas when $p=0.5$, we find $0.00492<\sigma<0.00684$ ($\epsilon\simeq 0.33$). That is, the amount of fine-tuning is less severe for smaller values of $p$. This is because $\beta$ is less sensitive to $\sigma$.
For local non-Gaussianity [@Byrnes:2012yx; @Nakama:2016gzw; @Nakama:2017xvq] $\zeta=\zeta_G+3f_{\mathrm{NL}}/5(\zeta_G^2-\sigma_G^2)$, where $\zeta_G$ is Gaussian, less tuning is needed . We find $0.0337<\sigma<0.0374$ ($\epsilon\simeq 0.10$) for $f_{\mathrm{NL}}=10$, $0.0175<\sigma<0.0203$ ($\epsilon\simeq 0.15$) for $f_{\mathrm{NL}}=100$ and $0.0146<\sigma<0.0175$ for $f_{\mathrm{NL}}=1000$ ($\epsilon\simeq 0.18$). The results become insensitive to $f_{\mathrm{NL}}$ for $f_{\mathrm{NL}}>1000$, since in this case $\zeta$ simply follows a $\chi$-square distribution [@Nakama:2016gzw].
For cubic non-Gaussianity [@Nakama:2016gzw; @Nakama:2017xvq] $\zeta=\zeta_G+g\zeta_G^3, \quad g\equiv 9g_{\mathrm{NL}}/25$, we find $0.0177<\sigma<0.0202$ ($\epsilon\simeq0.13$) for $g_{\mathrm{NL}}=10^3$, and $0.00498<\sigma<0.00660$ ($\epsilon\simeq 0.28$) for $g_{\mathrm{NL}}=10^{10}$. Again, the result becomes insensitive to $g_{\mathrm{NL}}$ for larger values of $g_{\mathrm{NL}}$ [@Nakama:2016gzw].
Reheating and Planck-mass relics dark matter
============================================
Hawking radiation of small PBHs may leave stable Planck mass relics cold dark matter [@MacGibbon:1987my]. If such small PBHs are created during radiation domination and if their mass satisfies $M\lesssim 10^6$g, $\beta$ has to be tiny for relics to account for the dark matter [@Carr:2009jm], which again implies possible fine-tuning. In this case, the energy density of particles emitted as Hawking radiation is negligible. On the other hand, if the initial mass of PBHs is larger, PBHs dominate the Universe before their evaporation, in order for relics to account for the dark matter. In this case, the reheating can also explained by their Hawking radiation [@Alexander:2007gj], for which the initial mass of PBHs has to lie in some interval, as discussed below.
Case Name Role $M/M_\odot$ $f=\Omega_{\mathrm{PBH}}/\Omega_{\mathrm{DM}}$ $\beta=\rho_{\mathrm{PBH}}/\rho_{\mathrm{r}}$ Era Stat. $\sigma$ range $\epsilon$
----------- ----------- ------------- ------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------- ----- ------- --------------------- ------------
DMRDG All DM $10^{-12}$ 1 $(3.4\times 10^{-16},1.0\times 10^{-13})$ RD G $(0.0545,0.0585)$ 0.071
GWRDG GW events $30$ $(10^{-3},10^{-2})$ $(10^{-11},10^{-10})$ RD G $(0.0624,0.0648)$ 0.038
DMeMDG All DM $10^{-12}$ 1 $(2.0\times10^{-14},2.8\times 10^{-12})$ eMD G $(0.00324,0.00874)$ 0.92
DMRDNG All DM $10^{-12}$ 1 $(3.4\times 10^{-16},1.0\times 10^{-13})$ RD NG $(0.00492,0.00684)$ 0.33
Quasars Quasars $10^9$ $(10^{-11},10^{-9})$ $(10^{-15},10^{-13})$ RD NG $(0.00263,0.00365)$ 0.32
This latter scenario may be more natural, since we just need to overproduce PBHs of some masses.
![For each case shown in TABLE \[tab:universe\], we plot the degree of fine-tuning $\epsilon$ (lower horizontal axis with blue color) and the required range of $\sigma$ (upper horizontal axis with orange color).[]{data-label="fig:universe"}](caseChart){width="8.5cm"}
That is, there is no need for fine-tuning of quantities controlling the production efficiency of PBHs, such as $\sigma$ for instance, for PBHs formed from the collapse of primordial fluctuations. The Universe did not have be radiation-dominated at their formation either. Let us assume PBHs with mass $M$ were created abundantly at some point in time, subsequently dominating the early Universe. Their lifetime is [@Carr:2009jm] $t_*\simeq 407(M/10^{10}\mathrm{g})^3s\simeq78t_P(M/M_P)^3$, where $t_P$ is the Planck time and $M_P$ is the Planck mass. This was obtained by summing up the contributions of all the standard model particles up to 1 TeV. For simplicity we assume when the age of the universe is $t_*$, these small PBHs evaporated instantaneously to leave Planck mass relics and reheat the universe with temperature $T_*$ and relativistic degrees $g$. The Friedmann equation is $$\begin{aligned}
H_*^2&=\frac{4}{9t_*^2}=\frac{8\pi}{3}GMn_*\nonumber\\
&=\frac{8\pi}{3}t_P^{-2}\frac{M}{M_P}\frac{n_*}{n_P}=\frac{\pi^2g}{30}t_P^{-2}\left(\frac{T_*}{T_P}\right)^4,\end{aligned}$$
where $T_P$ is the Planck temperature and $n_*$ is the number density of PBHs of mass $M$ slightly before $t_*$, which is equal to the number density of relics slightly after $t_*$ under our simplifying assumption. The number density $n_\gamma$ of photons created at $t_*$ is $n_\gamma=2\zeta(3)n_P/\pi^2(T_*/T_P)^3$, so the ratio $R_c=n_*/n_\gamma$ is obtained as $[\pi^3g/160\zeta(3)](M_P/M)(T_*/T_P)$. On the other hand, from the expression for the lifetime $t_*$ in terms of $M$ and the Friedmann equation, one finds $T_*/T_P\simeq0.038(g/106.75)^{-1/4}(M/M_P)^{-3/2}$. Then we find $$R_c=A\left(\frac{M}{M_P}\right)^{-5/2},\quad A\simeq0.65\left(\frac{g}{106.75}\right)^{3/4}.$$ Suppose $R_c$ needs to satisfy $R_{c,m}<R_c<R_{c,M}$, then $M$ needs to satisfy $(R_{c,M}/A)^{-2/5}<M/M_P<(R_{c,m}/A)^{-2/5}$. Previously we used $R_m<R<R_M$ for the baryon-to-dark-matter ratio, which can be rewritten as $R_M^{-1}\xi_b<\xi_c<R_m^{-1}\xi_b$, where $\xi_b=\rho_b/n_\gamma$ and $\xi_c=\rho_c/n_\gamma$. Here we fix $\xi_b=0.5\times 10^{-28}$ (in Planck unit) [@Tegmark:2005dy] for simplicity, and again use $(R_m,R_M)=(300^{-1},1)$. Then we find $1.8\times 10^{10}<M/M_P<1.8\times 10^{11}$ ($\epsilon\simeq 1.6$),
Discussion
==========
We have quantified the amount of fine-tuning in terms of the root-mean-square amplitude of primordial fluctuations. If PBHs comprise the totality of dark matter, an anthropic argument indicates that the primordial fluctuation amplitude has to be fine-tuned. For PBHs comprising a small part of dark matter, no anthropic argument is applicable, while to explain the using PBHs, a fine-tuning is also needed. In both cases it is assumed that PBHs are formed in the radiation dominated era. Non-Gaussianities or an early matter dominated era can make these scenarios more natural. We summarize these results in TABLE \[tab:universe\] and FIG. \[fig:universe\]. There we have also included a case where PBHs is responsible for explaining high redshift quasars, (see Ref. [@Nakama:2016kfq] and references therein). Though we have focused on fine-tuning of the amplitude of fluctuations, the scale of enhanced fluctuations, or the moment in time during inflation when enhancement of fluctuations takes place, may also need to be fine-tuned, if one wants to realize a sufficiently narrow mass function of PBHs, to be consistent with different observations. There many other possibilities where natural PBH formation can be achieved without fine-tuning. For example, in [@Alexander:2007gj] (see also [@Baumann:2007yr; @Fujita:2014hha; @Hook:2014mla; @Hamada:2016jnq]) the authors also proposed the idea of relating small PBHs to baryogenesis. The PBH sector and the baryon sector are thus more closely related and we cannot take $\eta$ and abundance of PBHs as independent parameters. It is interesting to study the naturalness issue in this situation.
, we have focused on PBHs formed by collapse of primordial fluctuations, are other types of mechanisms of PBH formation, which involve, for instance, vacuum bubbles or topological defects (see Ref. [@Carr:2005zd] and references therein). Different mechanisms of PBH formation have different relations between the model parameters involved and the resultant PBH abundance, which implies that the amount of fine-tuning would be different from mechanism to mechanism. One can extend our discussion to such mechanisms, which do not involve collapse of primordial fluctuations, and it would be instructive to evaluate different PBH formation mechanisms from the perspective of the amount of fine-tuning or naturalness.
We thank Jun’ichi Yokoyama for helpful input. The research is supported in part by ECS Grant 26300316 and GRF Grant 16301917 from the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong. YW would like to thank the participants of the advanced workshop “Dark Energy and Fundamental Theory" supported by the Special Fund for Theoretical Physics from the Natural Science Foundations of China with Grant No.11747606 for stimulating discussion.
[99]{} B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 104019 (2010) \[arXiv:0912.5297 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. F. Azhar and A. Loeb, arXiv:1809.06220 \[astro-ph.CO\].
M. Y. Khlopov and A. G. Polnarev, Phys. Lett. [**97B**]{}, 383 (1980). A. G. Polnarev and M. Y. Khlopov, Sov. Phys. Usp. [**28**]{}, 213 (1985) \[Usp. Fiz. Nauk [**145**]{}, 369 (1985)\]. T. Harada, C. M. Yoo, K. Kohri, K. i. Nakao and S. Jhingan, Astrophys. J. [**833**]{}, no. 1, 61 (2016) \[arXiv:1609.01588 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. J. H. MacGibbon, Nature [**329**]{}, 308 (1987). S. Alexander and P. Meszaros, hep-th/0703070 \[HEP-TH\]. K. Inomata, M. Kawasaki, K. Mukaida and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{}, no. 4, 043514 (2018) \[arXiv:1711.06129 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
T. Nakama, B. Carr and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{}, no. 4, 043525 (2018) \[arXiv:1710.06945 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. L. Husdal, Galaxies [**4**]{}, no. 4, 78 (2016) \[arXiv:1609.04979 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. G. Steigman and K. M. Nollett, Mem. Soc. Ast. It. [**85**]{}, 175 (2014) \[arXiv:1401.5488 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. M. Tegmark, A. Aguirre, M. Rees and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D [**73**]{}, 023505 (2006) \[astro-ph/0511774\]. C. M. Yoo, T. Harada, J. Garriga and K. Kohri, arXiv:1805.03946 \[astro-ph.CO\]. M. P. Hertzberg and M. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{}, no. 8, 083509 (2018) \[arXiv:1712.09750 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. M. Kawasaki and V. Takhistov, arXiv:1810.02547 \[hep-th\]. N. Aghanim [*et al.*]{} \[Planck Collaboration\], arXiv:1807.06209 \[astro-ph.CO\]. S. Bird, I. Cholis, J. B. Muñoz, Y. Ali-Haïmoud, M. Kamionkowski, E. D. Kovetz, A. Raccanelli and A. G. Riess, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, no. 20, 201301 (2016) \[arXiv:1603.00464 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. S. Clesse and J. García-Bellido, Phys. Dark Univ. [**15**]{}, 142 (2017) \[arXiv:1603.05234 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka and S. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, no. 6, 061101 (2016) Erratum: \[Phys. Rev. Lett. [**121**]{}, no. 5, 059901 (2018)\] \[arXiv:1603.08338 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. B. P. Abbott [*et al.*]{} \[LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, no. 6, 061102 (2016) \[arXiv:1602.03837 \[gr-qc\]\]. G. Franciolini, A. Kehagias, S. Matarrese and A. Riotto, JCAP [**1803**]{}, no. 03, 016 (2018) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/03/016 \[arXiv:1801.09415 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. T. Nakama, J. Silk and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D [**95**]{}, no. 4, 043511 (2017) \[arXiv:1612.06264 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. T. Harada, C. M. Yoo, K. Kohri and K. I. Nakao, Phys. Rev. D [**96**]{}, no. 8, 083517 (2017) \[arXiv:1707.03595 \[gr-qc\]\]. T. Kokubu, K. Kyutoku, K. Kohri and T. Harada, arXiv:1810.03490 \[astro-ph.CO\]. E. Cotner, A. Kusenko and V. Takhistov, Phys. Rev. D [**98**]{}, 083513 (2018) \[arXiv:1801.03321 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. B. Carr, T. Tenkanen and V. Vaskonen, Phys. Rev. D [**96**]{}, no. 6, 063507 (2017) \[arXiv:1706.03746 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. B. Carr, K. Dimopoulos, C. Owen and T. Tenkanen, Phys. Rev. D [**97**]{}, no. 12, 123535 (2018) \[arXiv:1804.08639 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. T. Nakama, T. Suyama and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D [**94**]{}, no. 10, 103522 (2016) \[arXiv:1609.02245 \[gr-qc\]\].
C. T. Byrnes, E. J. Copeland and A. M. Green, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 043512 (2012) \[arXiv:1206.4188 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. D. Baumann, P. J. Steinhardt and N. Turok, hep-th/0703250 \[HEP-TH\]. T. Fujita, M. Kawasaki, K. Harigaya and R. Matsuda, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, no. 10, 103501 (2014) \[arXiv:1401.1909 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. A. Hook, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, no. 8, 083535 (2014) \[arXiv:1404.0113 \[hep-ph\]\]. Y. Hamada and S. Iso, PTEP [**2017**]{}, no. 3, 033B02 (2017) \[arXiv:1610.02586 \[hep-ph\]\]. B. J. Carr, astro-ph/0511743.
[^1]: See also Ref. [@Azhar:2018lzd] for a general discussion of fine-tuning problems with PBH related tuning as an example.
[^2]: There is a recent debate that some swampland conjectures may render single-field inflation incompatible with the formation of PBHs [@Kawasaki:2018daf].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present the definition of a dedualizing complex of bicomodules over a pair of cocoherent coassociative coalgebras ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}$. Given such a complex ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$, we construct an equivalence between the (bounded or unbounded) conventional, as well as absolute, derived categories of the abelian categories of left comodules over ${{\mathcal C}}$ and left contramodules over ${{\mathcal D}}$. Furthermore, we spell out the definition of a dedualizing complex of bisemimodules over a pair of semialgebras, and construct the related equivalence between the conventional or absolute derived categories of the abelian categories of semimodules and semicontramodules. Artinian, co-Noetherian, and cocoherent coalgebras are discussed as a preliminary material.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel; and Laboratory of Algebraic Geometry, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow 119048; and Sector of Algebra and Number Theory, Institute for Information Transmission Problems, Moscow 127051, Russia; and Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Department of Algebra, Sokolovská 83, 186 75 Praha, Czech Republic'
author:
- Leonid Positselski
title: |
Dedualizing complexes of bicomodules\
and MGM duality over coalgebras
---
Introduction
============
In the classical homological algebra, one was not supposed to consider unbounded derived categories; certainly not when working with categories or functors of infinite homological dimension. Right derived functors were acting from bounded below derived categories, while left derived functors were defined on bounded above derived categories. Such derived functors were constructed using resolutions by complexes of injective or projective objects. More generally, one would consider resolutions by complexes with the terms adjusted to the particular functor in question, such as flat modules or flasque sheaves.
Everything changed after the watershed paper of Spaltenstein [@Spa], which explained, following the idea of Bernstein, how to work with unbounded complexes, particularly when constructing derived functors of infinite homological dimension. The key innovation was to strengthen the conditions imposed on resolutions and work with what came to be known as the *homotopy injective* or *homotopy projective* complexes. Unlike in the classical homological algebra, these are not termwise conditions: whether a complex is homotopy injective or homotopy projective depends on the differential in the complex and not only on its terms.
The unbounded derived category of modules over an associative ring turned out to be particularly well-behaved. In the subsequent work of Keller, Bernstein–Lunts, and Hinich [@Kel; @BL; @Hin], the theory was extended to DG[-]{}modules over DG[-]{}rings. The unbounded derived category of DG[-]{}modules ${{\mathsf D}}(A{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}})$ is compactly generated, and it only depends on the quasi-isomorphism class of a DG[-]{}ring $A$. One can generalize even further and replace an associative DG[-]{}ring $A$ with an $\mathrm{A}_\infty$[-]{}algebra.
The theory that grew out of Spaltenstein’s paper became so hugely popular that nowadays people use the homotopy injective and homotopy projective resolutions even when they are not actually relevant. That is what was happening in the case of the MGM (Matlis–Greenlees–May) duality/equivalence theory [@PSY]. In fact, in the MGM theory one deals with derived functors of finite homological dimension, and the use of complexes of adjusted objects, similar to that of (complexes of) flasque or soft sheaves in the computation of sheaf cohomology/derived direct images, is called for [@Pmgm].
The next development, which came about a decade later, was that people started to work with complexes viewed up to equivalence relations more delicate than the conventional quasi-isomorphism [@Hin2; @Lef; @Kel2]. In other words, triangulated categories in which some, though not too many, acyclic complexes survive as nonzero objects attracted a certain interest. In addition to the constructions of compact generators [@Jor; @Kra], one of manifestations of the phenomenon which the present author calls the *derived co-contra correspondence* was first noticed in the paper [@IK].
The present author’s own ideas about the subject were published with about a decade-long delay [@Psemi; @Pkoszul]. Developed originally in the context of derived nonhomogeneous Koszul duality, they proceed from the observation that replacing the conventional quasi-isomorphism of complexes with more delicate equivalence relations is a natural alternative to strengthening the conditions on resolutions when working with unbounded complexes. In the terminology going back to the classical paper [@HMS] (where *two kinds of differential derived functors* were introduced), this point of view came to be known as the distinction between *two kinds of derived categories*.
In the derived categories of the first kind, complexes are considered up to the conventional quasi-isomorphism (which does not depend on the module structure on the complexes, but only on their underlying complexes of abelian groups), which necessitates the use of homotopy adjusted complexes as resolutions (meaning the conditions on resolving complexes depending on the differentials and not only on the underlying graded object structures). In the derived categories of the second kind, some acyclic complexes survive as nonzero objects (and the equivalence relation on complexes depends on their module structures and not only on the underlying complexes of abelian groups), while the conditions on resolutions do not depend on the differentials on them (but only on their underlying graded objects).
Another advantage of derived categories of the second kind is that they are defined for *curved* differential graded (CDG) structures as well as for conventional differential graded structures [@Pkoszul]. Hence the important role that such derived category constructions play, in particular, in the theory of matrix factorizations [@Or; @EP; @BDFIK].
The conventional derived category is the derived category of the first kind. The two most important versions of derived categories of the second kind are the *coderived* and the *contraderived* category. In well-behaved situations, the coderived category of (curved) DG[-]{}modules is equivalent to the homotopy category of (curved) DG[-]{}modules whose underlying graded modules are injective, while the contraderived category of (curved) DG[-]{}modules is equivalent to the homotopy category of (curved) DG[-]{}modules whose underlying graded modules are projective.
It turned out that the conventional derived categories of DG[-]{}comodules over DG[-]{}coalgebras (over a field) are not as well-behaved as the derived categories of DG[-]{}modules. The derived category of DG[-]{}comodules over a DG[-]{}coalgebra can change when the DG[-]{}coalgebra is replaced by a quasi-isomorphic one [@Kal], [@Pkoszul Remark 2.4]. There are no obvious reasons why the derived category ${{\mathsf D}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})$ of DG[-]{}comodules over a DG[-]{}coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ (or even complexes of comodules over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$) should be compactly generated, though one can show that it is well-generated [@Pkoszul Section 5.5].
Perhaps one is not supposed to consider the conventional derived category of complexes of comodules (or DG[-]{}comodules) at all. The notion that one should work with the derived categories of modules and the coderived categories of comodules goes back to [@Lef; @Kel2]. The monograph [@Psemi] is based on the philosophy that one is supposed to take the derived category of modules, the coderived category of comodules, and the contraderived category of contramodules.
In fact, for any curved DG[-]{}coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ over a field $k$, the coderived category ${{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{co}}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})$ of left curved DG[-]{}comodules over ${{\mathcal C}}$ is compactly generated (by the bounded derived category of $k$[-]{}finite-dimensional CDG[-]{}comodules). The coderived category of CDG[-]{}comodules is also equivalent to the homotopy category of CDG[-]{}comodules with injective underlying graded comodules.
Furthermore, there is a natural equivalence between the coderived category of left CDG[-]{}comodules and the contraderived category of left CDG[-]{}contramodules over ${{\mathcal C}}$ [@Pkoszul Section 5]: $$\label{co-contra-correspondence}
{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{co}}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})\simeq{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{ctr}}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}).$$ The contraderived category of CDG[-]{}contramodules is equivalent to the homotopy category of CDG[-]{}contramodules with projective underlying graded contramodules. The triangulated equivalence is a principal example of what is called the *derived comodule-contramodule correspondence* phenomenon in [@Psemi; @Pkoszul].
Several words about the *contramodules* are due at this point. There are two abelian categories associated naturally with an associative ring $A$: the left $A$[-]{}modules and the right $A$[-]{}modules. In contrast, for a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ (say, over a field $k$) there are *four* such abelian categories: the left and the right *${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules*, and the left and the right *${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodules*. The categories of comodules have exact functors of filtered inductive limit and enough injective objects. The categories of contramodules have exact functors of infinite product and enough projective objects.
Let ${{\mathcal C}}^*$ denote the dual $k$[-]{}vector space to ${{\mathcal C}}$, endowed with its natural structure of a pro-finite-dimensional topological $k$[-]{}algebra. Then the ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules are the same thing as *discrete* ${{\mathcal C}}^*$[-]{}modules, while the ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodules form an “intermediate” category between arbitrary ${{\mathcal C}}^*$[-]{}modules and *pseudo-compact* (pro-finite-dimensional) topological ${{\mathcal C}}^*$[-]{}modules. The latter form a category equivalent to the opposite category to ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules. More precisely, there are natural forgetful functors $$({{\operatorname{\mathsf{comod--}}}}{{\mathcal C}})^{{\mathsf{op}}}{{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}}{{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}{{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}}{{\mathcal C}}^*{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}}$$ from the opposite category to right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules to left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodules and to left ${{\mathcal C}}^*$[-]{}modules (in addition to the fully faithful functor ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}^*{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}}$ identifying left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules with discrete left ${{\mathcal C}}^*$[-]{}modules).
In other words, ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodules can be viewed as a species of “complete” (as opposed to discrete) ${{\mathcal C}}^*$[-]{}modules. Nevertheless, contramodules carry no underlying topologies on them. Instead, they are discrete $k$[-]{}vector spaces endowed with *infinite summation operations* with the coefficients in ${{\mathcal C}}^*$ [@Prev].
As we have already mentioned, the coderived categories of comodules and the contraderived categories of contramodules are better behaved than the conventional (unbounded) derived categories of comodules or contramodules. In other words, considering derived categories of the first kind along the ring variables and derived categories of the second kind along the coalgebra variables produces the better behaved triangulated categories [@Psemi].
Still, there is something to be said about the conventional derived categories of DG[-]{}comodules and DG[-]{}contramodules, too. The following results can be found in [@Pkoszul Theorem 2.4 and Section 5.5] (for part (d), one has to look into the postpublication `arXiv` version of [@Pkoszul]).
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a DG[-]{}coalgebra over a field $k$. Then
the Verdier quotient functor ${{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{ctr}}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})
{\longrightarrow}{{\mathsf D}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})$ has a (fully faithful) left adjoint functor ${{\mathsf D}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{ctr}}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})$;
the essential image of the triangulated functor ${{\mathsf D}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{ctr}}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})$ is the minimal full triangulated subcategory in ${{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{ctr}}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})$ containing the left DG[-]{}contramodule $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal C}},k)$ over ${{\mathcal C}}$ and closed under infinite direct sums;
the Verdier quotient functor ${{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{co}}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})
{\longrightarrow}{{\mathsf D}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})$ has a (fully faithful) right adjoint functor ${{\mathsf D}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{co}}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})$;
assuming Vopěnka’s principle in set theory, the essential image of the triangulated functor ${{\mathsf D}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{co}}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})$ is the minimal full triangulated subcategory in ${{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{co}}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})$ containing the left DG[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal C}}$ over ${{\mathcal C}}$ and closed under infinite products.
It should be added that the triangulated equivalence takes the DG[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal C}}$ over ${{\mathcal C}}$ to the DG[-]{}contramodule $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal C}},k)$ over ${{\mathcal C}}$. Thus, assuming Vopěnka’s principle, the derived categories ${{\mathsf D}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})$ and ${{\mathsf D}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})$ are related as two full triangulated subcategories in the same triangulated category , generated by the same object in this category; but one of them is generated using shifts, cones, and infinite products, while the other one is generated using shifts, cones, and infinite direct sums. Both the (set-indexed) direct sums and products of arbitrary objects exist in the compactly generated triangulated category (but the object ${{\mathcal C}}\longleftrightarrow\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal C}},k)$ is not compact in this category).
The aim of this paper is to demonstrate a set of (admittedly, rather restrictive) assumptions and additional data allowing to construct an equivalence between the derived category of complexes of comodules over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ and the derived category of complexes of contramodules over another coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$, $$\label{mgm-equivalence}
{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})\simeq{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}).$$ Here the symbol ${\star}$ means that both the bounded and unbounded conventional derived categories are allowed, i. e., one can have ${\star}={{\mathsf{b}}}$, $+$, $-$, or $\varnothing$.
Moreover, the triangulated equivalence also holds for the *absolute derived categories* with the symbols ${\star}={{\mathsf{abs}}}+$, ${{\mathsf{abs}}}-$, or ${{\mathsf{abs}}}$, which are versions of the construction of derived categories of the second kind introducted in [@Pkoszul] and [@Pcosh Appendix A]. Unlike in , though, the derived category symbol must be the same in the left and the right-hand side of the equivalence .
The triangulated equivalence , connecting the conventional derived categories of comodules and contramodules, is a species of what can be called the “naïve derived co-contra correspondence”. In the present author’s work, it first appeared in the algebro-geometric setting as an equivalence between the derived categories of quasi-coherent sheaves and contraherent cosheaves over a quasi-compact semi-separated scheme [@Pcosh Section 4.6] (or alternatively, over a Noetherian scheme of finite Krull dimension [@Pcosh Theorem 5.8.1]). In the subsequent papers [@Pmgm; @PMat], the same principle was applied in order to formulate the *MGM duality/equivalence* and the *triangulated Matlis equivalence*.
The equivalence of categories can be called the “MGM duality for coalgebras”. A bit of history of the MGM duality is worth recalling in this connection. The three-letter abbreviation stands for *Matlis–Greenlees–May* [@Mat2; @GM]. The related chain of results can be further traced to the seminal paper of Harrison [@Har], where certain equivalences of additive subcategories in the category of abelian groups were constructed. Matlis extended these to equivalences between additive subcategories in the category of modules over an arbitrary commutative domain [@Mat1].
In the paper [@Mat2], which came more than a decade later, Matlis constructs an equivalence between certain additive subcategories in the category of modules over a commutative ring $R$ related to an ideal $I\subset R$ generated by a regular sequence. Greenlees and May [@GM] initiated the study of the derived functors of $I$[-]{}adic completion for an arbitrary finitely generated ideal $I$ in a commutative ring $R$. Dwyer and Greenlees [@DG] formulated the theory in the form of a triangulated equivalence between two full subcategories (of what we would now call the “$I$[-]{}torsion” and “$I$[-]{}complete” complexes) in the derived category ${{\mathsf D}}(R{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}})$ of modules over a commutative ring $R$ with a finitely generated ideal $I\subset R$. Porta, Shaul, and Yekutieli [@PSY] studied the case of a *weakly proregular* finitely generated ideal $I$.
The present author’s paper [@Pmgm], which formulated the theory in its state-of-the-art form, emphasized and discussed the role of what it called a *dedualizing complex* of $I$[-]{}torsion $R$[-]{}modules in the MGM duality theory. It also demonstrated the central role of the abelian category of *$I$[-]{}contramodule $R$[-]{}modules*, on par with the much more familiar dual-analogous abelian category of *$I$[-]{}torsion $R$[-]{}modules*, in the MGM duality.
The main results of the MGM duality theory, as formulated in [@Pmgm], are the following ones. Given a finitely generated ideal $I$ in a commutative ring $R$, denote by $R{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}}_{I{{\operatorname{\mathsf{-tors}}}}}$ and $R{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}}_{I{{\operatorname{\mathsf{-ctra}}}}}\subset R{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}}$ the abelian subcategories of $I$[-]{}torsion and $I$[-]{}contramodule $R$[-]{}modules. (See [@Pcta] for an introductory discussion of these subcategories.) Then for every conventional derived category symbol ${\star}={{\mathsf{b}}}$, $+$, $-$, or $\varnothing$ there is a natural triangulated equivalence $${{\mathsf D}}^{\star}_{I{{\operatorname{\mathsf{-tors}}}}}(R{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}})\simeq{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}_{I{{\operatorname{\mathsf{-ctra}}}}}(R{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}})$$ between the full subcategory of complexes of $R$[-]{}modules with $I$[-]{}torsion cohomology modules and the full subcategory of complexes of $R$[-]{}modules with $I$[-]{}contramodule cohomology modules in ${{\mathsf D}}^{\star}(R{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}})$.
Furthermore, assuming that the ideal $I\subset R$ is weakly proregular (which always holds, e. g., when the ring $R$ is Noetherian), for every derived category symbol ${\star}={{\mathsf{b}}}$, $+$, $-$, $\varnothing$, ${{\mathsf{abs}}}+$, ${{\mathsf{abs}}}-$, or ${{\mathsf{abs}}}$, there is a natural equivalence between the derived categories of the abelian categories $R{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}}_{I{{\operatorname{\mathsf{-tors}}}}}$ and $R{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}}_{I{{\operatorname{\mathsf{-ctra}}}}}$, $$\label{commutative-algebra-mgm-equivalence}
{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}(R{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}}_{I{{\operatorname{\mathsf{-tors}}}}})\simeq{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}(R{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}}_{I{{\operatorname{\mathsf{-ctra}}}}}).$$ The triangulated equivalence is a noncocommutative coalgebra version of the triangulated equivalence .
When $R$ is a finitely generated algebra over an algebraically closed field $k$ and $I$ is a maximal ideal in $R$, the equivalence becomes a particular case of the equivalence . (See the discussion in [@Pmgm Section 0.10] and generally in the introduction to [@Pmgm], where the conceptual importance of coalgebra-related considerations in the MGM duality theory is also emphasized.)
The triangulated equivalence depends on an additional piece of data called a *dedualizing complex of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}bicomodules* ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$. The definition of a dedualizing complex of bicomodules is dual to that of a dualizing complex of bimodules for a pair of associative rings [@Yek; @YZ; @Miy; @CFH; @Pfp].
A detailed discussion of the related philosophy can be found in the introduction to [@Pmgm]. To recall it very briefly here, let us mention that an associative ring $A$ is itself a dedualizing complex of $A$[-]{}$A$[-]{}bimodules. Given a *dualizing* complex of $A$[-]{}$B$[-]{}bimodules $D^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ for a pair of associative rings $A$ and $B$, one constructs a triangulated equivalence between the coderived and the contraderived category of modules $$\label{covariant-serre-grothendieck}
{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{co}}}(A{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}})\simeq{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{ctr}}}(B{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}}),$$ which can be called the *covariant Serre–Grothendieck duality* [@Pfp].
Conversely, a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ over a field $k$ is itself a *dualizing* complex of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}bicomodules; hence the triangulated equivalence . The datum of a *dedualizing* complex of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}bicomodules allows to construct a triangulated equivalence .
Furthermore, a (semiassociative and semiunital) *semialgebra* ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ over a field $k$ is an algebra object in the (noncommutative, but associative and unital) tensor category of bicomodules over ${{\mathcal C}}$ with respect to the operation of *cotensor product* ${\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}$. Just as for a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$, there are *four* module categories naturally assigned to a semialgebra ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$: the left and right *${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodules*, and the left and right *${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules*. The category of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}}$ is abelian and the forgetful functor ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}$ is exact if and only if ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is an injective right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule. The category of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}}$ is abelian and the forgetful functor ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}$ is exact if and only if ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is an injective left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule.
For any semialgebra ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ such that ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is an injective left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule and an injective right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule, there is a natural equivalence between the *semiderived categories* of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodules and left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules [@Psemi Sections 0.3.7 and 6.3]: $$\label{semico-semicontra}
{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{si}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}})\simeq{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{si}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}}).$$ The words “semiderived category” actually mean two dual constructions rather than one: the semiderived category of semimodules is what could be more precisely called their *semicoderived* category, while the semiderived category of semicontramodules could be called the *semicontraderived* category. These are certain mixtures of the constructions of co- or contraderived categories (taken “along ${{\mathcal C}}$”) and the conventional derived category (taken “in the direction of ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ relative to ${{\mathcal C}}$”).
Now let ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ be a semialgebra over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$ be a semialgebra over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$, both over the same field $k$. Let ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ be a dedualizing complex of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}bicomodules. In this paper we show that, given a certain further piece of data called *a dedualizing complex of ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}bisemimodules* ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$, one can construct a triangulated equivalence between the conventional derived category of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodules and the conventional derived category of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules, $$\label{semialg-conventional-derived}
{{\mathsf D}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}})\simeq{{\mathsf D}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}}).$$ Moreover, there are triangulated equivalences $$\label{semialg-mgm-equivalence}
{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}})\simeq{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}})$$ for all the conventional or absolute, bounded or unbounded derived category symbols ${\star}={{\mathsf{b}}}$, $+$, $-$, $\varnothing$, ${{\mathsf{abs}}}+$, ${{\mathsf{abs}}}-$, or ${{\mathsf{abs}}}$. These results can be called the *MGM duality/equivalence for semialgebras*.
The definition of a dedualizing complex of bisemimodules is dual to that of a dualizing complex of bicomodules for a pair of corings over associative rings [@Pcosh Section B.4].
The situation simplifies when the coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ has finite homological dimension (i. e., the abelian category ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}$ has finite homological dimension or, which is equivalent, the abelian category ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}$ has finite homological dimension).
In this case, there is no difference between the semiderived category ${{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{si}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}})$ and the conventional derived category ${{\mathsf D}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}})$, and also no difference between the semiderived category ${{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{si}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}})$ and the conventional derived category ${{\mathsf D}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}})$, $${{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{si}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}})={{\mathsf D}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}})\quad\text{and}\quad
{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{si}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}})={{\mathsf D}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}}).$$ The semialgebra ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ itself can be used as a dedualizing complex of ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}bisemimodules in this case, so becomes an instance of for ${{\mathcal C}}={{\mathcal D}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}={{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$.
In particular, one finds oneself in this situation in the theory of smooth duality for a $p$[-]{}adic Lie group with coefficients in a field of characteristic $p$ [@Psm].
Finally, let us say a few words about the finiteness conditions on coalgebras, comodules, and contramodules. One of the peculiarities of coalgebras is the difference between the classes of Artinian and co-Noetherian coalgebras or comodules. Any Artinian comodule is co-Noetherian, but the converse is not generally true. For a counterexample, one can consider the cosemisimple coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ that is the direct sum of an infinite number of copies of the coalgebra $k$ over $k$. Then ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a co-Noetherian ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule (i. e., all its quotient comodules are finitely cogenerated), but it is not an Artinian object of the abelian category ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}$.
The finiteness conditions on coalgebras were, of course, traditionally discussed in the language of comodules [@WW; @GTNT]. Some of the dual-analogous contramodule conditions lead to equivalent conditions on the coalgebra. In particular, any co-Artinian contramodule is Noetherian, but the converse is not necessarily true. A coalgebra is called *right Artinian* if any finitely cogenerated right comodule over it is Artinian; this is equivalent to any finitely generated left contramodule over it being co-Artinian. A coalgebra is *right cocoherent* if any finitely cogenerated quotient comodule of a finitely copresented right comodule over it is finitely copresented; this is equivalent to any finitely generated subcontramodule of a finitely presented left contramodule being finitely presented.
The finiteness conditions on coalgebras, comodules, and contramodules are discussed in Section \[coalgebra-finiteness\] of the present paper. The definition of a dedualizing complex for a pair of coalgebras is presented and the triangulated equivalence is constructed in Section \[dedualizing-bicomodules\]. The definition of a dedualizing complex for a pair of semialgebras is spelled out and the triangulated equivalence is constructed in Section \[dedualizing-bisemimodules\].
We refer to the overview paper [@Prev] and the references therein for detailed discusions of various kinds of contramodules, including first of all contramodules over coassociative coalgebras over a field. Semialgebras, semimodules, and semicontramodules are discussed in [@Prev Sections 2.6 and 3.5]. The structure theory of contramodules over a coalgebra over a field was studied in [@Psemi Appendix A]. The definitions of exotic derived categories used in this paper are introduced in [@Pcosh Appendix A]; they are also briefly recalled in [@Pmgm Appendix A]. Further discussions can be found in the introductions to [@Pmgm] and [@Pfp], and in the references therein.
**Acknowledgement.** The material in Sections \[coalgebra-finiteness\][-]{}-\[dedualizing-bicomodules\] of this paper was originally developed as a part of the paper [@Pmgm], but was later excluded from [@Pmgm] (to make [@Pmgm] a work in commutative algebra) and moved to this separate paper. The author was supported in part by a fellowship from the Lady Davis Foundation at the Technion while working on [@Pmgm] (including much of the material now forming the present paper). The author’s research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation grant \#446/15 and the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic under the grant P201/12/G028 while preparing the paper in its present form.
Coalgebras with Finiteness Conditions
=====================================
\[coalgebra-finiteness\]
This section contains a discussion of Artinian, co-Noetherian, and cocoherent coalgebras. Many of the results below are certainly not new; we present them here for the sake of completeness of the exposition.
We refer to the book [@Swe] and the survey paper [@Prev] for the definitions of coassociative coalgebras over fields, comodules and contramodules over them, and the related basic concepts. A discussion of *cosemisimple* and *conilpotent* coalgebras can be found in [@Swe Sections 9.0[-]{}-1] and (with a view towards contramodules and the terminology similar to the one in this paper) in [@Psemi Appendix A].
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a coassociative coalgebra (with counit) over a field $k$. For any $k$[-]{}vector space $V$ the left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}_kV$ is called the *cofree left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule cogenerated by $V$*. For any left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal L}}$, there is a natural isomorphism $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal L}}{,\medspace}{{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}_kV)\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal L}},V),$$ where for any two left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal L}}$ and ${{\mathcal M}}$ we denote by $\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal L}},{{\mathcal M}})$ the $k$[-]{}vector space of all morphisms ${{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal M}}$ in the abelian category of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}$. Hence cofree ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules are injective objects in ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}$. Cofree ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules are sufficiently many, so any injective ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule is a direct summand of a cofree one. In particular, the left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal C}}$ is called the *cofree ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule with one cogenerator*, and finite direct sums of copies of ${{\mathcal C}}$ are the *finitely cogenerated cofree ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules*.
A coassociative coalgebra is called *cosimple* if it has no nonzero proper subcoalgebras. The cosimple $k$[-]{}coalgebras are precisely the dual coalgebras to simple finite-dimensional $k$[-]{}algebras. A coassociative coalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}$ is called *cosemisimple* if it is a direct sum of cosimple coalgebras, or equivalently, if the category of left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodules is semisimple, or if the category of right ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodules is semisimple.
A coassociative coalgebra without counit ${{\mathcal C}}'$ is called *conilpotent* if for any element $c'\in{{\mathcal C}}'$ there exists an integer $n{\geqslant}1$ such that $c'$ is annihilated by the iterated coaction map ${{\mathcal C}}'{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}'{}^{{\otimes}n+1}$. Any coassociative coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ has a unique maximal cosemisimple subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$, which can be also defined as the (direct) sum of all cosimple subcoalgebras in ${{\mathcal C}}$, or as the minimal subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$ for which the quotient coalgebra without counit ${{\mathcal C}}/{{\mathcal E}}$ is conilpotent [@Swe Sections 9.0[-]{}-1].
For any subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$ and any left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal M}}$, we denote by ${}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal M}}$ the maximal ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}subcomodule in ${{\mathcal M}}$ whose ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule structure comes from an ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodule structure. In other words, ${}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal M}}\subset{{\mathcal M}}$ is the full preimage of the subspace ${{\mathcal E}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal M}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal M}}$ under the left coaction map ${{\mathcal M}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal M}}$. The following assertion is a dual version of Nakayama’s lemma for comodules.
\[comodule-nakayama\] Let ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$ be a subcoalgebra such that the quotient coalgebra without counit ${{\mathcal C}}/{{\mathcal E}}$ is conilpotent (i. e., ${{\mathcal E}}$ contains the subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$). Then the subcomodule ${}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal M}}$ is nonzero for any nonzero left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal M}}$.
It follows from the conilpotency condition that for every element $x\in{{\mathcal M}}$ there exists an integer $n{\geqslant}1$ such that $x$ is annihilated by the iterated coaction map ${{\mathcal M}}{\longrightarrow}({{\mathcal C}}/{{\mathcal E}})^{{\otimes}n}{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal M}}$. Hence the coaction map ${{\mathcal M}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}/{{\mathcal E}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal M}}$ cannot be injective for a nonzero left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal M}}$.
A left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule is said to be *finitely cogenerated* [@Tak Example 1.2] if it can be embedded as a subcomodule into a finitely cogenerated cofree left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule. Obviously, any subcomodule of a finitely cogenerated cofree ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule is finitely cogenerated. One easily checks that the class of finitely cogenerated left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules is closed under extensions in ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}$.
\[subcoalgebra-finitely-cogenerated\] For any finitely cogenerated left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal L}}$ and any subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$, the left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodule ${}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal L}}$ is finitely cogenerated.
The cofree left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}_kV$ with an infinite-dimensional vector space of cogenerators $V$ over a nonzero coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ is not finitely cogenerated.
For any subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$, a left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal L}}$ is finitely cogenerated if and only if it is finitely cogenerated as a left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule.
Let ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$ be a subcoalgebra such that the quotient coalgebra without counit ${{\mathcal C}}/{{\mathcal E}}$ is conilpotent. Then a left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal L}}$ is finitely cogenerated if and only if the left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodule ${}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal L}}$ is finitely cogenerated.
A left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal L}}$ is finitely cogenerated if and only if the left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodule ${}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal L}}$ for every cosimple subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$ is a finite direct sum of copies of the irreducible left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodule with the multiplicity of the irreducible left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodule in ${}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal L}}$ divided by its multiplicity in the left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal E}}$ bounded by a single constant uniformly over all the cosimple subcoalgebras ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$.
Part (a): obviously, for any injective morphism of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal M}}$, the induced morphism ${}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}{}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal M}}$ is also injective, so it remains to notice the natural isomorphism of ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodules ${}_{{\mathcal E}}({{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}_kV)\simeq{{\mathcal E}}{\otimes}_kV$ for any $k$[-]{}vector space $V$. Now it suffices to pick any nonzero finite-dimensional subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$ in order to deduce part (b) from the latter isomorphism and part (a). Part (c) follows from the same isomorphism.
Part (d): a morphism of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}_kV$ is uniquely determined by its composition with the map ${{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}_kV{\longrightarrow}V$ induced by the counit map ${{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}k$ of the coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$; and this composition can be an arbitrary $k$[-]{}linear map ${{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}V$. Suppose that we are given an injective morphism of ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodules ${}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal E}}{\otimes}_kV$, where $V$ is a finite-dimensional vector space. Consider the composition ${}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal E}}{\otimes}_kV{\longrightarrow}V$ and extend it arbitrarily to a $k$[-]{}linear map ${{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}V$. The corresponding ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule morphism ${{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}_kV$ forms a commutative diagram with the injective morphism ${}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal E}}{\otimes}_kV$ and the embeddings ${}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal L}}$ and ${{\mathcal E}}{\otimes}_k V{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}_kV$. Denote by ${{\mathcal K}}$ the kernel of the morphism ${{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}_kV$; then the submodule ${{\mathcal K}}\subset{{\mathcal L}}$ does not intersect the submodule ${}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal L}}\subset{{\mathcal L}}$, so one has ${}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal K}}=0$. By Lemma \[comodule-nakayama\], it follows that ${{\mathcal K}}=0$. To prove part (e), one applies part (d) to the subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$ and then decomposes ${{\mathcal C}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}$ into a direct sum of its cosimple subcoalgebras ${{\mathcal E}}$.
A ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule is called *co-Noetherian* if all its quotient ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules are finitely cogenerated [@WW]. The class of co-Noetherian left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules is closed under subobjects, quotient objects, and extensions in the abelian category ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}$ [@WW Proposition 4], so co-Noetherian left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules form an abelian category. Given a subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$, an ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodule is co-Noetherian if and only if it is co-Noetherian as a ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule.
A ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule is called *Artinian* if every descending chain of its subcomodules terminates. As the class of Artinian objects in any abelian category, the class of Artinian left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules is closed under subobjects, quotient objects, and extensions in the abelian category ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}$, so Artinian left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules form an abelian category. Given a subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$, an ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodule is Artinian if and only if it is Artinian as a ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule.
\[co-Noetherian-Artinian\] Any Artinian ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule is co-Noetherian.
If the subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$ is finite-dimensional, then any co-Noetherian ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule is Artinian.
This is a subset of results of [@GTNT Proposition 2.5]. Part (a): it suffices to show that any Artinian left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal L}}$ is finitely cogenerated. Pick a nonzero linear function $\phi_1{\colon}{{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}k$ and consider the related morphism of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules $f_1{\colon}{{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}$. Let ${{\mathcal L}}_1\subset{{\mathcal L}}$ denote the kernel of the morphism $f_1$. Pick a nonzero linear function ${{\mathcal L}}_1{\longrightarrow}k$ and extend it to a linear function $\phi_2{\colon}{{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}k$. Consider the related morphism of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules $f_2{\colon}{{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}$; let ${{\mathcal L}}_2\subset{{\mathcal L}}_1$ denote the intersection of the kernels of the morphisms $f_1$ and $f_2$, etc. According to the descending chain condition, this process must terminate, which can only happen if the intersection of the kernels of the morphisms $f_1$, …, $f_n$ is zero for some integer $n$. We have constructed an injective morphism of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}^{\oplus n}$.
Part (b): it suffices to show that any descending chain of subcomodules ${{\mathcal L}}\supset{{\mathcal L}}_1\supset{{\mathcal L}}_2\supset\dotsb$ with zero intersection $\bigcap_n{{\mathcal L}}_n=0$ terminates in a finitely cogenerated left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal L}}$. Indeed, by Lemma \[subcoalgebra-finitely-cogenerated\](a) together with the assumption of part (b) the subcomodule ${}_{{{\mathcal C}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}}{{\mathcal L}}\subset{{\mathcal L}}$ is finite-dimensional. Hence the chain of intersections ${}_{{{\mathcal C}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}}{{\mathcal L}}\cap{{\mathcal L}}_i$ stabilizes, and consequently, eventually vanishes, i. e., there exists $n$ for which ${}_{{{\mathcal C}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}}{{\mathcal L}}\cap{{\mathcal L}}_n=0$. Then it follows from Lemma \[comodule-nakayama\] that ${{\mathcal L}}_n=0$.
A *left contramodule* ${{\mathfrak P}}$ over a coassociative coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ over a field $k$ is a $k$[-]{}vector space endowed with a *left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contraaction* map $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak P}}$ satisfying the appropriate *contraassociativity* and *contraunitality* equations. Specifically, the two maps $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}})\simeq
\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal D}}{,\medspace}{{\mathfrak P}}){\rightrightarrows}\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}})$ induced by the comultiplication map ${{\mathcal D}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal D}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal D}}$ and the contraaction map should have equal compositions with the contraaction map $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak P}}$, $$\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}}))\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}}){\rightrightarrows}\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak P}},$$ while the composition of the map ${{\mathfrak P}}{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}})$ induced by the counit map ${{\mathcal D}}{\longrightarrow}k$ with the contraaction map should be equal to the identity map on the contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$, $${{\mathfrak P}}{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak P}}.$$ The natural isomorphism $\operatorname{Hom}_k(U,\operatorname{Hom}_k(V,W))\simeq
\operatorname{Hom}_k(V{\otimes}_kU{,\medspace}W)$ connecting the tensor product and Hom functors on the category of $k$[-]{}vector spaces is presumed in the first equation.
Left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules form an abelian category ${{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}$ with an exact forgetful functor to the category of $k$[-]{}vector spaces ${{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}{\longrightarrow}k{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--vect}}}}$, preserving infinite products but not infinite direct sums (see [@Prev Sections 1.1[-]{}-1.2] and the references therein). For any right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal N}}$ and $k$[-]{}vector space $V$, the vector space $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal N}},V)$ has a natural left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule structure. In particular, the left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},V)$ is called the *free left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule generated by $V$*. For any left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak Q}}$, there is a natural isomorphism $$\operatorname{Hom}^{{\mathcal D}}(\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},V),{{\mathfrak Q}})\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_k(V,{{\mathfrak Q}}),$$ where for any two left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules ${{\mathfrak P}}$ and ${{\mathfrak Q}}$ we denote by $\operatorname{Hom}^{{\mathcal D}}({{\mathfrak P}},{{\mathfrak Q}})$ the $k$[-]{}vector space of all morphisms ${{\mathfrak P}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak Q}}$ in the abelian category ${{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}$. Hence free ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules are projective objects in ${{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}$. There are enough of them, so any projective left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule is a direct summand of a free one. The left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},k)$ is called the *free ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule with one generator*, and the ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},V)$ with finite-dimensional $k$[-]{}vector spaces $V$ are the *finitely generated free ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules*.
For any subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal D}}$ and any left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$, we denote by ${}^{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathfrak P}}$ the maximal quotient ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule of ${{\mathfrak P}}$ whose ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule structure comes from an ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}contramodule structure. In other words, ${}^{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathfrak P}}$ is the cokernel of the composition $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}}/{{\mathcal E}},{{\mathfrak P}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak P}}$ of the embedding $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}}/{{\mathcal E}},{{\mathfrak P}}){\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}})$ with the contraaction map $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak P}}$. The following assertion is called the *Nakayama lemma for contramodules* over coalgebras over fields.
\[contramodule-nakayama\] Let ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal D}}$ be a subcoalgebra such that the quotient coalgebra without counit ${{\mathcal D}}/{{\mathcal E}}$ is conilpotent. Then the quotient contramodule ${}^{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathfrak P}}$ is nonzero for any nonzero left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$.
This is [@Psemi Lemma A.2.1]; see also [@Pweak Lemma 1.3.1] and [@Prev Lemma 2.1].
A left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule is said to be *finitely generated* if it is a quotient contramodule of a finitely generated free left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule. The class of finitely generated left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules is closed under extensions and the passages to quotient objects.
\[subcoalgebra-contramod-finitely-generated\] For any finitely generated left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak Q}}$ and any subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal D}}$, the left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}contramodule ${}^{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathfrak Q}}$ is finitely generated.
The free ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},V)$ with an infinite-dimensional vector space of generators $V$ over a nonzero coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ is not finitely generated.
For any subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal D}}$, a left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}contramodule is finitely generated if and only if it is finitely generated as a left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule.
Let ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal D}}$ be a subcoalgebra such that the quotient coalgebra without counit ${{\mathcal D}}/{{\mathcal E}}$ is conilpotent. Then a left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak Q}}$ is finitely generated if and only if the left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}contramodule ${}^{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathfrak Q}}$ is finitely generated.
A left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak Q}}$ is finitely generated if and only if the left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}contramodule ${}^{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathfrak Q}}$ for every simple subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal D}}$ is a finite direct sum of copies of the irreductive left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}contramodule with the multiplicity of the irreductible left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}contramodule in ${}^{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathfrak Q}}$ divided by its multiplicity in the left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathcal E}}^*=\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal E}},k)$ bounded by a single constant uniforly over all the simple subcoalgebras ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal D}}$.
The proof is dual-analogous to that of Lemma \[subcoalgebra-finitely-cogenerated\]. To prove parts (a[-]{}c), one notices the natural isomorphism ${}^{{\mathcal E}}\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},V)\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal E}},V)$ for any subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal D}}$ and $k$[-]{}vector space $V$. Part (d): given a surjective morphism of ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}contramodules $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal E}},V){{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}}{}^{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathfrak Q}}$ with a finite-dimensional vector space $V$, one considers the composition $V{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal E}},V){\longrightarrow}{}^{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathfrak Q}}$ and lifts it to a $k$[-]{}linear map $V{\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak Q}}$. The corresponding morphism of ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},V)
{\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak Q}}$ is surjective by Lemma \[contramodule-nakayama\], since one has ${}^{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathfrak K}}=0$ for its cokernel ${{\mathfrak K}}$. To prove part (e), one applies part (d) to the subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}\subset{{\mathcal D}}$ and applies [@Psemi Lemma A.2.2] in order to decompose the ${{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}$[-]{}contramodule ${}^{{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}}{{\mathfrak Q}}$ into a product of contramodules over the simple subcoalgebras ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}$.
A left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule is called *Noetherian* if all its subcontramodules are finitely generated. The class of Noetherian left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules is closed under subobjects, quotient objects, and extensions in the abelian category ${{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}$, so Noetherian left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules form an abelian category. Given a subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal D}}$, an ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}contramodule is Noetherian if and only if it is Noetherian as a ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule.
A ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule is called *co-Artinian* if every ascending chain of its subcontramodules terminates. As the similar class of objects in any abelian category, the class of co-Artinian left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules is closed under subobjects, quotient objects, and extensions in the abelian category ${{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}$, so co-Artinian left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules form an abelian category. Given a subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal D}}$, an ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}contramodule is co-Artinian if and only if it is co-Artinian as a ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule.
Any co-Artinian ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule is Noetherian.
If the subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}\subset{{\mathcal D}}$ is finite-dimensional, then any Noetherian ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule is co-Artinian.
Part (a): it suffices to show that any co-Artinian left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak Q}}$ is finitely generated. Pick an element $q_1\in{{\mathfrak Q}}$ and consider the related morphism of left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules $f_1{\colon}{{\mathcal D}}^*=\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},k){\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak Q}}$. Pick an element $q_2\in{{\mathfrak Q}}$ outside of the image of $f_1$, consider the related morphism $f_2{\colon}{{\mathcal D}}^*{\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak Q}}$, pick an element $q_3\in{{\mathfrak Q}}$ outside of the sum of the images of $f_1$ and $f_2$, etc. According to the ascending chain condition, this process must terminate, which means that the sum of the images of the morphisms $f_1$, …, $f_n$ is the whole of ${{\mathfrak Q}}$ for some integer $n$. We have constructed as surjective morphism of left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules ${{\mathcal D}}^*{}^{\oplus n}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak Q}}$.
Part (b): it suffices to show that an ascending chain of subcontramodules ${{\mathfrak Q}}_1\subset{{\mathfrak Q}}_2\subset\dotsb\subset{{\mathfrak Q}}$ terminates in a finitely generated left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak Q}}$ provided that there is no proper subcontramodule in ${{\mathfrak Q}}$ containing all the subcontramodules ${{\mathfrak Q}}_n$. Indeed, by Lemma \[subcoalgebra-contramod-finitely-generated\](a) together with the assumption of part (b) the maximal quotient ${{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}$[-]{}contramodule ${}^{{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}}{{\mathfrak Q}}$ of the ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak Q}}$ is finite-dimensional. Hence the chain of the images of the subcontramodules ${{\mathfrak Q}}_n\subset{{\mathfrak Q}}$ in ${}^{{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}}{{\mathfrak Q}}$ stabilizes, and consequently, eventually reaches the whole of ${}^{{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}}{{\mathfrak Q}}$, i. e., there exists $n$ for which the composition ${{\mathfrak Q}}_n{\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak Q}}{\longrightarrow}{}^{{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}}{{\mathfrak Q}}$ is surjective. Then one has ${}^{{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}}({{\mathfrak Q}}/{{\mathfrak Q}}_n)=0$, and it follows from Lemma \[contramodule-nakayama\] that ${{\mathfrak Q}}_n={{\mathfrak Q}}$.
\[co-Noetherian-Artinian-counterex\] Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be an infinite-dimensional cosemisimple coalgebra. Then the left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal C}}$ is co-Noetherian, but not Artinian. Similarly, the left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathcal C}}^*$ is Noetherian, but not co-Artinian. It follows that the classes of Artinian and co-Noetherian left comodules over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ coincide if and only if the classes of co-Artinian and Noetherian left contramodules over ${{\mathcal D}}$ coincide and if and only if the subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}\subset{{\mathcal D}}$ is finite-dimensional.
A left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule is said to be *finitely presented* if it is the cokernel of a morphism of finitely generated free left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules. Clearly, the cokernel of a morphism from a finitely generated left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule to a finitely presented one is finitely presented. It is easy to check that an extension of finitely presented left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules is finitely presented.
A left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule is said to be *finitely copresented* if it is the kernel of a morphism of finitely cogenerated cofree ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules. Clearly, the kernel of a morphism from a finitely copresented left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule to a finitely cogenerated one is finitely copresented; an extension of finitely copresented left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules is finitely copresented.
Part (a) of the next lemma can be found in [@WW Theorem 6].
\[finitely-presented\] The cokernel of an injective morphism from a finitely copresented ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule to a finitely cogenerated one is finitely cogenerated.
The kernel of a surjective morphism from a finitely generated ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule to a finitely presented one is finitely generated.
Part (a): let ${{\mathcal L}}$ be the kernel of a morphism of finitely cogenerated cofree ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal I}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal J}}$, let ${{\mathcal M}}$ be a finitely cogenerated ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule, and let ${{\mathcal L}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal M}}$ be an injective morphism with the cokernel ${{\mathcal K}}$. Denote by ${{\mathcal N}}$ the fibered coproduct of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal I}}$ and ${{\mathcal M}}$ over the ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal L}}$; then there are exact sequences of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules $0{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal M}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal N}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal J}}$ and $0{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal I}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal N}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal K}}{\longrightarrow}0$. Now the ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal N}}$ is finitely cogenerated as an extension of finitely cogenerated ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules; and the ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal K}}$ is a direct summand of ${{\mathcal N}}$, because the ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal I}}$ is injective. The proof of part (b) is analogous.
The dual vector space ${{\mathcal D}}^*$ to a coassociative coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ has a natural structure of topological associative algebra. There is but a slight ambiguity in its definition in that one has to make a decision about the order of the factors in the multiplication operation, i. e., which one of the two opposite algebras is to be denoted by ${{\mathcal D}}^*$ and which one by ${{\mathcal D}}^*{}^{{\mathrm{op}}}$. We prefer the convention according to which right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal N}}$ become discrete right ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}modules; then the dual vector space ${{\mathcal N}}^*$ is a left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}module (see [@Prev Sections 1.3[-]{}-4] for a further discussion). Any left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule has an underlying structure of left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}module (see [@Prev Section 2.3] and [@Psemi Section A.1.2]).
One observes that a left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule is finitely generated if and only if its underlying left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}module is finitely generated. It follows that a left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule is finitely presented if and only if its underlying left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}module is.
\[finitely-co-presented-hom\] The restrictions of the functor ${{\mathcal L}}\longmapsto{{\mathcal L}}^*=
\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal L}},k)$ and the forgetful functor ${{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal D}}^*{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}}$ provide an anti-equivalence between the additive category of finitely copresented right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules and the additive category of finitely presented left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules, and an isomorphism between the latter category and the additive category of finitely presented left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}modules.
For any right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal N}}$ and any finitely copresented right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal L}}$, the functor ${{\mathcal N}}\longmapsto{{\mathcal N}}^*=\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal N}},k)$ and the forgetful functor ${{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal D}}^*{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}}$ induce isomorphisms of the Hom spaces $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}}({{\mathcal N}},{{\mathcal L}})\simeq\operatorname{Hom}^{{\mathcal D}}({{\mathcal L}}^*,{{\mathcal N}}^*)\simeq
\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathcal D}}^*}({{\mathcal L}}^*,{{\mathcal N}}^*)$$ in the categories of right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules, left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules, and left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}modules.
Since the functor $\operatorname{Hom}$ preserves kernels in its second argument and transforms cokernels in its first argument into kernels, it suffices to prove part (b) for finitely generated cofree right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal L}}=V{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal D}}$, where $V$ is a finite-dimensional $k$[-]{}vector space. Then ${{\mathcal L}}^*\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},V^*)\simeq {{\mathcal D}}^*{\otimes}_k V^*$ is a finitely generated free left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule and a finitely generated free left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}module. One easily computes $\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}}({{\mathcal N}}{,\medspace}V{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal D}})\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal N}},V)$, $\operatorname{Hom}^{{\mathcal D}}(\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},V^*),{{\mathcal N}}^*)\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_k(V^*,{{\mathcal N}}^*)$, and $\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathcal D}}^*}({{\mathcal D}}^*{\otimes}_kV^*{,\medspace}{{\mathcal N}}^*)\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_k(V^*,{{\mathcal N}}^*)$, implying part (b). Part (a) immediately follows from the same computation of Hom spaces.
\[co-contra-Artinian-Noetherian\] A left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule is co-Artinian if and only if it is a Noetherian left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}module.
A right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal L}}$ is Artinian if and only if dual vector space ${{\mathcal L}}^*$ is a Noetherian left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}module.
A right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal L}}$ is co-Noetherian provided that its dual vector space ${{\mathcal L}}^*$ is a Noetherian left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule.
Part (a): one notices that a ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}module is Noetherian if and only if any ascending chain of its finitely generated submodules terminates. Similarly, a ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule is co-Artinian if and only if any ascending chain of its finitely generated subcontramodules terminates. Finally, the classes of finitely generated ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}submodules and finitely generated ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}subcontramodules in any given ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule coincide.
Part (b) is again a subset of [@GTNT Proposition 2.5]. To any descending chain of ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}subcomodules in ${{\mathcal L}}$ one can assign the ascending chain of their orthogonal complements, which are ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}submodules in ${{\mathcal L}}^*$. Conversely, in view of Proposition \[finitely-co-presented-hom\](b), any finitely generated ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}submodule in ${{\mathcal L}}^*$ is the orthogonal complement to a certain ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}subcomodule in ${{\mathcal L}}$. Part (c): for any quotient comodule of ${{\mathcal L}}$, there is its dual subcontramodule in ${{\mathcal L}}^*$. It remains to notice that a right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal N}}$ is finitely cogenerated if and only if its dual left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathcal N}}^*$ is finitely generated.
A finitely cogenerated left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule is called *cocoherent* if every its finitely cogenerated quotient comodule is finitely copresented. Using Lemma \[finitely-presented\](a), one can show that the class of cocoherent left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules is closed under the operations of the passage to the kernels, cokernels, and extensions in the abelian category ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}$; so cocoherent left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules form an abelian category.
Analogously, a finitely presented left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule is called *coherent* if every its finitely generated subcontramodule is finitely presented. Using Lemma \[finitely-presented\](b), one shows that the class of coherent left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules is closed under the passages to the kernels, cokernels, and extensions in the abelian category ${{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}$; so coherent left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules form an abelian category.
\[co-contra-coherent\] A left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule is coherent if and only if its underlying left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}module is coherent. The abelian categories of coherent left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules and coherent left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}modules are isomorphic.
A right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal L}}$ is cocoherent if and only if its dual left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}module ${{\mathcal L}}^*$ is coherent. The abelian categories of cocoherent right ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}comodules and coherent left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}modules are anti-equivalent.
In view of Proposition \[finitely-co-presented-hom\](a), it suffices to check the first assertion in each of the parts (a) and (b). In part (a), one uses the bijection between finitely generated ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}subcontramodules and finitely generated ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}submodules of a given ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule, together with the fact that a ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule is finitely presented if and only if it is finitely presented as a ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}module. In part (b), one uses the bijection between finitely cogenerated quotient ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}modules of ${{\mathcal L}}$ and finitely generated ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}submodules of ${{\mathcal L}}^*$, together with the fact that a ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule is finitely copresented if and only if its dual ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}module is finitely presented.
A coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ is called *left co-Noetherian* if any quotient comodule of a finitely cogenerated left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule is finitely cogenerated, or equivalently, if the left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal C}}$ is co-Noetherian [@WW Theorem 3]. Over a left co-Noetherian coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$, finitely cogenerated left comodules form an abelian category. By Lemma \[subcoalgebra-finitely-cogenerated\](c), any subcoalgebra of a left co-Noetherian coalgebra is left co-Noetherian. Any cosemisimple coalgebra is left and right co-Noetherian.
A coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ is called *right Artinian* if any finitely cogenerated right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule is Artinian, or equivalently, if the right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal D}}$ is Artinian, or if any finitely generated left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule is co-Artinian, or if the left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathcal D}}^*=\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},k)$ is co-Artinian (see Lemma \[co-contra-Artinian-Noetherian\](a[-]{}b) for a proof of the equivalence between the second and the fourth of these conditions). A coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ is right Artinian if and only if its dual algebra ${{\mathcal D}}^*$ is left Noetherian. Any subcoalgebra of a right Artinian coalgebra is right Artinian.
According to Lemma \[co-Noetherian-Artinian\] and Example \[co-Noetherian-Artinian-counterex\], any left Artinian coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ is left co-Noetherian, but the converse is not generally true. More precisely, a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ is left Artinian if and only if it is left co-Noetherian and its maximal cosemisimple subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}^{{\mathrm{ss}}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$ is finite-dimensional.
\[dual-to-taylor-series\] The functor ${{\mathcal C}}\longmapsto{{\mathcal C}}^*$ is an anti-equivalence between the category of coassociative coalgebras and the category of pro-finite-dimensional topological associative algebras, so one can describe coalgebras in terms of their dual topological algebras. In particular, the topological algebra of formal Taylor power series in commuting variables $k[[z_1,\dotsc,z_m]]$ corresponds to a certain cocommutative coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$. The algebra $k[[z_1,\dotsc,z_m]]$ is Noetherian, so the coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ is Artinian. Hence all the subcoalgebras of ${{\mathcal C}}$ are Artinian (and consequently, co-Noetherian), too. These are precisely the coalgebras dual to the topological algebras of functions on the formal completions of algebraic varieties over $k$ at their closed points defined over $k$. Given a field extension $k\subset\ell$, a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ over the field $k$ is Artinian or co-Noetherian whenever the coalgebra $\ell{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal C}}$ over the field $\ell$ is. Hence it follows that all the coalgebras dual to the topological algebras of functions on the formal completions of varieties over $k$ at their closed points are Artinian.
Moreover, there are many noncocommutative Artinian coalgebras, like, e. g., the coalgebra dual to the algebra of quantum formal power series $k\{\{z_1,\dotsb,z_m\}\}$ with the relations $z_iz_j=q_{i,j}z_jz_i$ for all $i<j$, with any constants $q_{i,j}\in k^*$.
A coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ is called *right cocoherent* if any finitely cogenerated quotient comodule of a finitely copresented right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule is finitely copresented, or equivalently, if the right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal D}}$ is cocoherent. Equivalently, a coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ is right cocoherent if any finitely generated subcontramodule of a finitely presented left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule is finitely presented, or if the left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathcal D}}^*$ is coherent. Over a right cocoherent coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$, both the finitely copresented right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules and the finitely presented left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules form abelian categories. A coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ is right cocoherent if and only if its dual algebra ${{\mathcal D}}^*$ is left coherent (see Lemma \[co-contra-coherent\]). Any left co-Noetherian coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ is left cocoherent, and any finitely cogenerated left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule is finitely copresented.
The *contratensor product* ${{\mathcal N}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\mathfrak P}}$ of a right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal N}}$ and a left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$ [@Prev Section 3.1] is a $k$[-]{}vector space constructed as the cokernel of (the difference of) the pair of maps $${{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_k\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}}){\rightrightarrows}{{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathfrak P}},$$ one which is induced by the ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contraaction in ${{\mathfrak P}}$, while the other one is the composition ${{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_k\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal D}}{\otimes}_k
\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathfrak P}}$ of the map induced by the right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}coaction map ${{\mathcal N}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal D}}$ and the map induced by the evaluation map ${{\mathcal D}}{\otimes}_k\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak P}}$. The functor of contratensor product of comodules and contramodules over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ is right exact.
For any right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal N}}$ and a $k$[-]{}vector space $V$ there is a natural isomorphism of $k$[-]{}vector spaces $${{\mathcal N}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},V)\simeq{{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_kV,$$ while for any right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal N}}$, any left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$, and a $k$[-]{}vector space $V$ there is a natural isomorphism of $k$[-]{}vector spaces $$\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal N}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\mathfrak P}}{,\medspace}V)\simeq\operatorname{Hom}^{{\mathcal D}}({{\mathfrak P}},\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal N}},V)).$$
The *cotensor product* ${{\mathcal N}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\mathcal M}}$ of a right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal N}}$ and a left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal M}}$ [@Prev Sections 2.5[-]{}-6] is a $k$[-]{}vector space constructed as the kernel of the pair of maps $${{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal M}}{\rightrightarrows}{{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal M}},$$ one of which is induced by the right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}coaction in ${{\mathcal N}}$ and the other one by the left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}coaction in ${{\mathcal M}}$. The functor of cotensor product of comodules over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ is left exact.
For any right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal N}}$, left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal M}}$, and $k$[-]{}vector space $V$ there are natural isomorphisms of $k$[-]{}vector spaces $${{\mathcal N}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}_k V)\simeq {{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_k V
\quad\text{and}\quad
(V{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal C}}){\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\mathcal M}}\simeq V{\otimes}_k {{\mathcal M}}.$$ For any left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal M}}$ and any subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$ there is a natural isomorphism of left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodules $${}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal M}}\simeq{{\mathcal E}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\mathcal M}},$$ where the left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodule structure on the cotensor product is induced by the left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodule structure on ${{\mathcal E}}$.
The $k$[-]{}vector space of *cohomomorphisms* $\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal D}}({{\mathcal M}},{{\mathfrak P}})$ from a left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal M}}$ to a left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$ is a $k$[-]{}vector space constructed as the cokernel of the pair of maps $$\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal M}}{,\medspace}{{\mathfrak P}})\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal M}},\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}}))
{\rightrightarrows}\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal M}},{{\mathfrak P}}),$$ one of which is induced by the left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}coaction in ${{\mathcal M}}$ and the other one by the left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contraaction in ${{\mathfrak P}}$. The functor of cohomomorphisms from left comodules to left contramodules over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ is right exact.
For any left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal M}}$, left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$, and $k$[-]{}vector space $V$ there are natural isomorphisms of $k$[-]{}vector spaces $$\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal D}}({{\mathcal D}}{\otimes}_kV{,\medspace}{{\mathfrak P}})\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_k(V,{{\mathfrak P}})
\ \ \text{and}\ \
\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal D}}({{\mathcal M}},\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},V))\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal M}},V).$$ For any left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$ and any subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal D}}$ there is a natural isomorphism of left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}contramodules $${}^{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathfrak P}}\simeq\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal D}}({{\mathcal E}},{{\mathfrak P}}),$$ where the left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}contramodule structure on the Cohom space is induced by the right ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodule structure on ${{\mathcal E}}$.
\[tensor-contratensor\] For any right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal N}}$ and any left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$ there is a natural surjective map of $k$[-]{}vector spaces from the tensor product over the algebra ${{\mathcal D}}^*$ to the contratensor product over the coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ $${{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_{{{\mathcal D}}^*}{{\mathfrak P}}{{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}}{{\mathcal N}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\mathfrak P}}.$$ This map is an isomorphism, at least, whenever either
the left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$ is finitely presented, or
the coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ is left co-Noetherian.
To construct the surjective $k$[-]{}linear map in question, one notices that the tensor product ${{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_{{{\mathcal D}}^*}{{\mathfrak P}}$ is the cokernel of a natural map ${{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal D}}^*{\otimes}_k{{\mathfrak P}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathfrak P}}$, while the contratensor product ${{\mathcal N}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\mathfrak P}}$ is the cokernel of a map ${{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_k\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathfrak P}}$. These two maps form a commutative diagram with the natural embedding $${{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal D}}^*{\otimes}_k{{\mathfrak P}}{{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}}{{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_k\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathfrak P}}).$$ To prove part (a), one considers the induced map of the dual vector spaces $$({{\mathcal N}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\mathfrak P}})^*\simeq\operatorname{Hom}^{{\mathcal D}}({{\mathfrak P}},{{\mathcal N}}^*){{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathcal D}}^*}({{\mathfrak P}},{{\mathcal N}}^*)\simeq({{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_{{{\mathcal D}}^*}{{\mathfrak P}})^*$$ and applies Proposition \[finitely-co-presented-hom\].
To prove part (b), notice that any right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal N}}$ is the union of its maximal ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}subcomodules ${{\mathcal N}}_{{\mathcal E}}$ over all the finite-dimensional subcoalgebras ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal D}}$. Since both the tensor and the contratensor products preserve inductive limits in their first arguments, it suffices to consider the case of a right ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal N}}={{\mathcal N}}_{{\mathcal E}}$. Then one has ${{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_{{{\mathcal D}}^*}{{\mathfrak P}}\simeq{{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_{{{\mathcal E}}^*}({{\mathcal E}}^*{\otimes}_{{{\mathcal D}}^*}{{\mathfrak P}})$ and ${{\mathcal N}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\mathfrak P}}\simeq{{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_{{{\mathcal E}}^*}{}^{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathfrak P}}$, so it remains to show that the natural map $${{\mathcal E}}^*{\otimes}_{{{\mathcal D}}^*}{{\mathfrak P}}{{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}}{}^{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathfrak P}}\simeq{{\mathcal E}}^*{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\mathfrak P}}\simeq\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal D}}({{\mathcal E}},{{\mathfrak P}})$$ is an isomorphism. For this purpose, one presents the left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal E}}$ as the kernel of a morphism of finitely cogenerated cofree left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules and uses the right exactness property of the functor $\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal D}}$ together with the natural isomorphism $${{\mathcal J}}^*{\otimes}_{{{\mathcal D}}^*}{{\mathfrak P}}=(V^*{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal D}}^*){\otimes}_{{{\mathcal D}}^*}{{\mathfrak P}}{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}\simeq{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal D}}({{\mathcal D}}{\otimes}_kV{,\medspace}{{\mathfrak P}})=\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal D}}({{\mathcal J}},{{\mathfrak P}})$$ for a finitely cogenerated cofree left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal J}}={{\mathcal D}}{\otimes}_kV$ and any left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$.
MGM Duality for Coalgebras
==========================
\[dedualizing-bicomodules\]
We start with several constructions and lemmas related to complexes of comodules and contramodules. These are purported to clear way to our key definition of a *dedualizing complex* of bicomodules over a pair of cocoherent coalgebras.
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}$ be two coassociative coalgebras (with counits) over the same field $k$. Given a derived category symbol ${\star}={{\mathsf{b}}}$, $+$, $-$, $\varnothing$, ${{\mathsf{abs}}}+$, ${{\mathsf{abs}}}-$, or ${{\mathsf{abs}}}$, we denote by ${{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})$ and ${{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})$ the corresponding (conventional or absolute) derived categories of the abelian categories ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}$ of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules and left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules (see [@Pcosh Appendix A] or [@Pmgm Appendix A] for the definitions).
For any subcoalgebra ${{\mathcal E}}$ in a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$, the maximal ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}subcomodule functor ${{\mathcal M}}\longmapsto{}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal M}}$ acting from the category of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules to the category of left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodules is left exact. The abelian category ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}$ has enough injective objects, which are precisely the direct summands of cofree ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules. So one can identify the bounded below derived category ${{\mathsf D}}^+({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})$ with the homotopy category of injective ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathsf{Hot}}}^+({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}_{{\mathsf{inj}}})$ and, applying the functor ${{\mathcal M}}\longmapsto{}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal M}}$ to complexes of injective ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules termwise, obtain the right derived functor $${{\mathcal M}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}\longmapsto{}_{{\mathcal E}}^{{\mathbb R}}{{\mathcal M}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\colon}\,
{{\mathsf D}}^+({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}){{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}}{{\mathsf D}}^+({{\mathcal E}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}).$$
\[finitely-cogenerated-complex\] Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a left co-Noetherian coalgebra and ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal C}}$ be a subcoalgebra such that the quotient coalgebra without counit ${{\mathcal C}}/{{\mathcal E}}$ is conilpotent. Then a complex ${{\mathcal L}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}\in{{\mathsf D}}^+({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})$ has finitely cogenerated ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules of cohomology if and only if the complex ${}_{{\mathcal E}}^{{\mathbb R}}{{\mathcal L}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}\in{{\mathsf D}}^+({{\mathcal E}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})$ has finitely cogenerated ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodules of cohomology.
Notice that the cohomology ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodules of the complex ${}_{{\mathcal E}}^{{\mathbb R}}{{\mathcal L}}$ are finitely cogenerated for any finitely cogenerated left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal L}}$ (viewed as a one-term complex of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules). Indeed, one can compute the derived category object ${}_{{\mathcal E}}^{{\mathbb R}}{{\mathcal L}}$ using a right resolution of the ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal L}}$ by finitely cogenerated cofree left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules (which exists since the class of finitely cogenerated left comodules over a left co-Noetherian coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ is closed under the passages to the cokernels of morphisms) and apply Lemma \[subcoalgebra-finitely-cogenerated\](a). Since the class of finitely cogenerated left ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodules is also closed under the kernels, cokernels, and extensions, the desired assertion now follows by induction in the cohomological degree from Lemma \[subcoalgebra-finitely-cogenerated\](d).
We recall from Section \[coalgebra-finiteness\] that finitely copresented left comodules over a left cocoherent coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ form an abelian category. Notice that this abelian category has enough injective objects, which are precisely the direct summands of finitely cogenerated cofree ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules.
\[finitely-cogenerated-cofree-complex\] Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a left cocoherent coalgebra, and let ${{\mathcal L}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ be a bounded below complex of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules with finitely copresented cohomology modules. Then there exists a bounded below complex of finitely cogenerated cofree left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ together with a quasi-isomorphism of complexes of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal L}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$.
This is a standard step-by-step construction (cf. [@Pfp Lemma 1.2] or the proof of [@Pmgm Lemma B.1(c)]).
A finite complex of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal L}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is said to have *projective dimension ${\leqslant}d$* if one has $\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{b}}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})}({{\mathcal L}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathcal M}}[n])=0$ for all left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal M}}$ and all the integers $n>d$. Similarly, a finite complex of left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules ${{\mathfrak Q}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is said to have *injective dimension ${\leqslant}d$* if one has $\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{b}}}({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})}({{\mathfrak P}},{{\mathfrak Q}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}[n])=0$ for all left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules ${{\mathfrak P}}$ and all $n>d$.
The bounded above derived category ${{\mathsf D}}^-({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})$ is equivalent to the homotopy category ${{\mathsf{Hot}}}^-({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}_{{\mathsf{proj}}})$ of bounded above complexes of projective left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules. Given a complex of right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ and a bounded above complex of left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules ${{\mathfrak P}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$, we denote by $\operatorname{Ctrtor}^{{\mathcal D}}_*({{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathfrak P}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}})$ the homology vector spaces $$\operatorname{Ctrtor}^{{\mathcal D}}_n({{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathfrak P}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}})=H^{-n}({{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\mathfrak F}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}})$$ of the contratensor product of the complex ${{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ with a bounded above complex of projective left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules ${{\mathfrak F}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ quasi-isomorphic to the complex ${{\mathfrak P}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$.
Here the bicomplex ${{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\mathfrak F}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is presumed to be totalized by taking infinite direct sums along the diagonals. For any complex of right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$, any bounded above complex of left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules ${{\mathfrak P}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$, and any $k$[-]{}vector space $V$ there are natural isomorphisms of $k$[-]{}vector spaces $$\operatorname{Hom}_k(\operatorname{Ctrtor}^{{\mathcal D}}_n({{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathfrak P}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}),V)\simeq
\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathsf D}}({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})}({{\mathfrak P}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},V)[n]).$$
A finite complex of right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is said to have *contraflat dimension ${\leqslant}d$* if one has $\operatorname{Ctrtor}_n^{{\mathcal D}}({{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathfrak P}})=0$ for all left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules ${{\mathfrak P}}$ and all the integers $n>d$. The contraflat dimension of a finite complex of right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is equal to the injective dimension of the finite complex of left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules ${{\mathfrak Q}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}=\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},V)$ for any $k$[-]{}vector space $V\ne0$.
\[contraflat-projective-dimension\] If the coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ is right cocoherent and left co-Noetherian, then the contraflat dimension of any finite complex of right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ does not exceed its projective dimension.
Let $d$ be the projective dimension of the complex of right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$. For any finitely copresented right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal L}}$ there are natural isomorphisms of complexes of vector spaces $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal D}}({{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathcal L}})\simeq\operatorname{Hom}^{{\mathcal D}}({{\mathcal L}}^*,{{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{}^*)
\simeq ({{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\mathcal L}}^*)^*$$ (see Proposition \[finitely-co-presented-hom\]), implying natural isomorphisms of cohomology spaces $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{b}}}({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})}({{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathcal L}}[n])\simeq
\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{b}}}({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})}({{\mathcal L}}^*,{{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{}^*[n])\simeq
\operatorname{Ctrtor}^{{\mathcal D}}_n({{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathcal L}}^*)^*.$$ Since any finitely presented left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$ has the form ${{\mathcal L}}^*$ for a certain finitely copresented right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathcal L}}$, it follows that the supremum of all integers $n$ for which there exists a finitely presented left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$ with $\operatorname{Ctrtor}^{{\mathcal D}}_n({{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathfrak P}})\ne0$ does not exceed $d$.
Furthermore, by Lemma \[tensor-contratensor\](b) the functor of contratensor product ${\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}$ is isomorphic to the tensor product functor ${\otimes}_{{{\mathcal D}}^*}$ over the algebra ${{\mathcal D}}^*$ on the whole categories of arbitrary right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules and left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules. Besides, the free ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules are the direct summands of infinite products of copies of the ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathcal D}}^*$. Since the coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ is left (co-Noetherian and consequently) cocoherent, the algebra ${{\mathcal D}}^*$ is right coherent, so infinite products of flat left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}modules are flat. In particular, projective left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules are flat as left modules over ${{\mathcal D}}^*$. It follows that the functor $\operatorname{Ctrtor}^{{\mathcal D}}$ is isomorphic to the derived functor $\operatorname{Tor}^{{{\mathcal D}}^*}$ of tensor product of (complexes of) ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}modules on the whole domain of definition of the former derived functor.
Finally, since the coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ is left cocoherent, the algebra ${{\mathcal D}}^*$ is right coherent and the abelian category of finitely presented left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}modules is isomorphic to the abelian category of finitely presented left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules. Any left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}module is a filtered inductive limit of finitely presented ones, and the functor of tensor product over ${{\mathcal D}}^*$ preserves filtered inductive limits. The homological dimension of the functor $\operatorname{Tor}^{{\mathcal D}}_*({{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{-})$ on the abelian category of finitely presented left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}modules does not exceed $d$, hence the homological dimension of this derived functor on the abelian category of arbitrary left ${{\mathcal D}}^*$[-]{}modules does not exceed $d$, either.
Now we finally come to the main definition of this section. Assume that the coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ is left cocoherent and the coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ is right cocoherent. A finite complex of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}bicomodules ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is called a *dedualizing complex* for the pair of coalgebras ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}$ if the following conditions hold:
1. the complex ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ has finite projective dimension as a complex of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules and finite contraflat dimension a complex of right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules;
2. the homothety maps ${{\mathcal C}}^*{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{b}}}({{\operatorname{\mathsf{comod--}}}}{{\mathcal D}})}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}[*])$ and ${{\mathcal D}}^*{}^{{\mathrm{op}}}{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{b}}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}[*])$ are isomorphisms of graded rings; and =1700
3. the bicomodules of cohomology of the complex ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ are finitely copresented left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules and finitely copresented right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules.
Here the notation ${{\operatorname{\mathsf{comod--}}}}{{\mathcal D}}$ stands for the abelian category of right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules, and ${{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{b}}}({{\operatorname{\mathsf{comod--}}}}{{\mathcal D}})$ is its bounded derived category. The dedualizing complex ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ itself is viewed as an object of the bounded derived category ${{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{b}}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod--}}}}{{\mathcal D}})$ of the abelian category ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod--}}}}{{\mathcal D}}$ of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}bicomodules.
The homothety maps are induced by the left action of the algebra ${{\mathcal C}}^*$ by right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule endomorphisms of (every term of) the complex ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ and the right action of the algebra ${{\mathcal D}}^*$ by left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule endomorphisms of ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$.
We refer to the paper [@Pfp] and the references therein for a discussion of the classical notion of a dualizing complex over a pair of noncommutative rings, after which the above definition is largely modelled. A discussion of bicomodules can be found in [@Prev Section 2.6] and the references therein.
\[gorenstein-coalgebra-example\] For any coassociative coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$, the homological dimensions of the abelian categories of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules, right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules, and left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodules coincide (see [@Pkoszul Section 4.5], cf. [@Pweak Corollary 1.9.4]). The common value of these three numbers (or infinity) is called the *homological dimension* of a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$.
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a left and right cocoherent coalgebra of finite homological dimension. For example, the coalgebra dual to the algebra of quantum formal power series from Examples \[dual-to-taylor-series\] satisfies these assumptions. Then the one-term complex ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}={{\mathcal C}}$ is a dedualizing complex for the pair of coalgebras $({{\mathcal C}},{{\mathcal C}})$, as the conditions (i[-]{}iii) are obviously true for ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$.
More generally, a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ is called *left Gorenstein* if it has finite projective dimension as a left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule and finite contraflat dimension as a right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule. (The second condition can be rephrased by saying that the injective dimension of the left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathcal C}}^*$ is finite.) For any left and right cocoherent, left Gorenstein coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$, the one-term complex ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}={{\mathcal C}}$ is a dedualizing complex for the pair of coalgebras $({{\mathcal C}},{{\mathcal C}})$.
\[dedualizing-comodule-example\] Let $R$ be a finitely generated commutative algebra over a field $k$ and $I\subset R$ be a maximal ideal. Then the quotient algebras $R/I^n$ are finite-dimensional, so their dual vector spaces are cocommutative coalgebras over $k$, as is their inductive limit ${{\mathcal C}}=\varinjlim_n (R/I^n)^*$. According to Examples \[dual-to-taylor-series\] or Lemma \[co-contra-Artinian-Noetherian\](b), this coalgebra is Artinian, and consequently, by Lemma \[co-Noetherian-Artinian\](a), co-Noetherian and cocoherent. The category of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules is isomorphic to the category of $I$[-]{}torsion $R$[-]{}modules in the sense of [@Pmgm Section 1], $\,{{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}\simeq R{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}}_{I{{\operatorname{\mathsf{-tors}}}}}$. Moreover, the category of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodules is isomorphic to the category of $I$[-]{}contramodule $R$[-]{}modules as defined in [@Pmgm Section 2], $\,{{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}\simeq R{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--mod}}}}_{I{{\operatorname{\mathsf{-ctra}}}}}$ (see [@Prev Sections 2.1[-]{}-2.3]).
Of course, the coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ is cocommutative. A complex of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is a dedualizing complex for the pair of coalgebras $({{\mathcal C}},{{\mathcal C}})$ in the sense of the above definition if and only if it is a dedualizing complex of $I$[-]{}torsion $R$[-]{}modules in the sense of the definition in [@Pmgm Section 4]. Indeed, the two conditions (i) are equivalent by Lemma \[contraflat-projective-dimension\]; the two conditions (ii) are equivalent because ${{\mathfrak R}}={{\mathcal C}}^*$, and the two conditions (iii) are equivalent since, the coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ being Artinian, a ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule is finitely copresented if and only if it is Artinian. In particular, the dedualizing complex of $I$[-]{}torsion $R$[-]{}modules constructed in [@Pmgm Example 4.8] provides an example of a dedualizing complex of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}bicomodules.
For any ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}bicomodule ${{\mathcal K}}$ and any left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal M}}$, the $k$[-]{}vector space $\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal K}},{{\mathcal M}})$ is endowed with the left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule structure of a subcontramodule of the ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal K}},{{\mathcal M}})$. Similarly, for any ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}bicomodule ${{\mathcal K}}$ and any left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$, the contratensor product ${{\mathcal K}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\mathfrak P}}$ is endowed with the left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule structure of a quotient comodule of the left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal K}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathfrak P}}$. For any ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}bicomodule ${{\mathcal K}}$, any left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal M}}$, and any left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$, there is a natural adjunction isomorphism of $k$[-]{}vector spaces [@Prev Section 3.1] $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal K}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\mathfrak P}}{,\medspace}{{\mathcal M}})\simeq\operatorname{Hom}^{{\mathcal D}}({{\mathfrak P}},\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal K}},{{\mathcal M}})).$$
The following theorem is the main result of this paper.
\[dedualizing-bicomodule-duality\] Given a dedualizing complex ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ for a left cocoherent coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ and a right cocoherent coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ over a field $k$, for any symbol ${\star}={{\mathsf{b}}}$, $+$, $-$, $\varnothing$, ${{\mathsf{abs}}}+$, ${{\mathsf{abs}}}-$, or ${{\mathsf{abs}}}$ there is an equivalence of derived categories $${{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})\simeq{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})$$ provided by mutually inverse functors ${{\mathbb R}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{-})$ and ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathbb L}}{-}$.
(Cf. the proofs of [@Pmgm Theorems 4.9 and 5.10].) Assume for simplicity of notation that the complex ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is concentrated in nonpositive cohomological degrees. Let $d$ be an integer greater or equal to both the projective dimension of the complex ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ viewed as a complex of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules and the contraflat dimension of ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ as a complex of right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules.
To construct the image of a complex of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal M}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ under the functor ${{\mathbb R}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{-})$, one has to choose an exact sequence of complexes of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules $0{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal M}}^{{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal J}}^{0,{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal J}}^{1,{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}}{\longrightarrow}\dotsb$ with injective left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal J}}^{j,i}$. Then one applies the functor $\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{-})$ to every complex $0{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal J}}^{0,i}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal J}}^{1,i}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal J}}^{2,i}{\longrightarrow}\dotsb$, obtaining a nonnegatively graded complex of left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules $0{\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak P}}^{0,i}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak P}}^{1,i}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak P}}^{2,i}{\longrightarrow}\dotsb$. According to the projective dimension condition on the dedualizing complex ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$, the complex ${{\mathfrak P}}^{{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},i}$ has zero cohomology contramodules at the cohomological degrees above $d$; so it is quasi-isomorphic to its canonical truncation complex $\tau_{{\leqslant}d}{{\mathfrak P}}^{{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},i}$. By the definition, one sets the object ${{\mathbb R}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathcal M}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}})$ in the derived category ${{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})$ to be represented by the total complex of the bicomplex $\tau_{{\leqslant}d}{{\mathfrak P}}^{{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}}$ concentrated in the cohomological degrees $0{\leqslant}j{\leqslant}d$ and $i\in{{\mathbb Z}}$.
Similarly, to construct the image of a complex of left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules ${{\mathfrak P}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ under the functor ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathbb L}}{-}$, one has to choose an exact sequence of complexes of left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules $\dotsb{\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak F}}^{-1,{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak F}}^{0,{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak P}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\longrightarrow}0$ with projective left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules ${{\mathfrak F}}^{j,i}$. Then one applies the functor ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}{-}$ to every complex $\dotsb{\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak F}}^{-2,i}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak F}}^{-1,i}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathfrak F}}^{0,i}{\longrightarrow}0$, obtaining a nonpositively graded complex of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules $\dotsb{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal M}}^{-2,i}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal M}}^{-1,i}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal M}}^{0,i}{\longrightarrow}0$. According to the contraflat dimension condition on the complex ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$, the complex ${{\mathcal M}}^{{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},i}$ has zero cohomology comodules at the cohomological degrees below $-d$; so it is quasi-isomorphic to its canonical truncation complex $\tau_{{\geqslant}-d}{{\mathcal M}}^{{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},i}$. One sets the object ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathbb L}}{{\mathfrak P}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ in the derived category ${{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})$ to be represented by the total complex of the bicomplex $\tau_{{\geqslant}-d}({{\mathcal M}}^{{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}})$ concentrated in the cohomological degrees $-d{\leqslant}j{\leqslant}0$ and $i\in{{\mathbb Z}}$.
These constructions of two derived functors are but particular cases of the construction of a derived functor of finite homological dimension spelled out in [@Pmgm Appendix B]. According to the results of that appendix, the above constructions produce well-defined triangulated functors ${{\mathbb R}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{-}){\colon}{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})$ and ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathbb L}}{-}
{\colon}{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})$ for any derived category symbol ${\star}={{\mathsf{b}}}$, $+$, $-$, $\varnothing$, ${{\mathsf{abs}}}+$, ${{\mathsf{abs}}}-$, or ${{\mathsf{abs}}}$. Moreover, the former functor is right adjoint to the latter one. All these assertions only depend on the first condition (i) in the definition of a dedualizing complex.
It remains to prove that the adjunction morphisms are isomorphisms. Since the total complexes of finite acyclic complexes of complexes are absolutely acyclic, in order to check that the morphism ${{\mathfrak P}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathbb R}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{,\medspace}{{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathbb L}}{{\mathfrak P}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}})$ is an isomorphism in the derived category ${{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})$ for all the ${\star}$[-]{}bounded complexes of left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules ${{\mathfrak P}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ it suffices to consider the case of a one-term complex ${{\mathfrak P}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}={{\mathfrak P}}$ corresponding to a single ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$. Furthermore, since a morphism in ${{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{b}}}({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})$ is an isomorphism whenever it is an isomorphism in ${{\mathsf D}}^-({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})$, one can view the one-term complex ${{\mathfrak P}}$ as an object of the bounded above derived category ${{\mathsf D}}^-({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})$ and replace it with a free ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule resolution ${{\mathfrak F}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ of the contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$. Applying the same totalization argument to the complex ${{\mathfrak F}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$, the question reduces to proving that the adjunction morphism ${{\mathfrak F}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathbb R}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{,\medspace}{{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathbb L}}{{\mathfrak F}})$ is an isomorphism in ${{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{b}}}({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})$ for any free left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak F}}$.
So let $V$ be a $k$[-]{}vector space and ${{\mathfrak F}}=\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},V)$ be the free left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule generated by $V$; then one has ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathbb L}}{{\mathfrak F}}={{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\mathfrak F}}={{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\otimes}_kV$. By the condition (iii) together with Lemma \[finitely-cogenerated-cofree-complex\], there exists a bounded below complex of finitely cogenerated cofree left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ together with a quasi-isomorphism of complexes of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$. We have to check that the natural map $$\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal D}},V){{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{,\medspace}{{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\otimes}_kV)$$ is a quasi-isomorphism of complexes of left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules.
The left-hand side is the projective limit of the vector spaces $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal E}},V)$ over all the finite-dimensional subcoalgebras ${{\mathcal E}}\subset{{\mathcal D}}$, while the right-hand side is the projective limit of the complexes of vector spaces $\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal E}}({}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{,\medspace}{}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\otimes}_kV)$. In particular, the map ${{\mathcal D}}^*{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}})$ is a morphism of complexes of profinite-dimensional topological vector spaces. Being a quasi-isomorphism of complexes of discrete/nontopological vector spaces (with the topologies forgotten) by the condition (ii), it is consequently also a quasi-isomorphism of complexes in the abelian category of profinite-dimensional topological vector spaces.
For any profinite-dimensional topological $k$[-]{}vector space $K$ and any discrete $k$[-]{}vector space $V$ one denotes by $K{\otimes}\sphat\,V$ the projective limit $$\textstyle
K{\otimes}\sphat\,V=\varprojlim_U K/U{\otimes}_kV$$ taken over all the open subspaces $U\subset K$ [@Prev Sections 2.3[-]{}4]. Equivalently, one can set $W^*{\otimes}\sphat\,V=\operatorname{Hom}_k(W,V)$ for any discrete $k$[-]{}vector spaces $W$ and $V$. Both the abelian categories of discrete and profinite-dimensional vector spaces being semisimple, the additive functor ${\otimes}\sphat\,$ is exact. Now one has $$\textstyle
\varprojlim_{{\mathcal E}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal E}}({}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{,\medspace}{}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\otimes}_kV)\simeq
\varprojlim_{{\mathcal E}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal E}}({}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{,\medspace}{}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}){\otimes}\sphat\,V,$$ since the complex of ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodules ${}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is finite, while the terms of the complex ${}_{{\mathcal E}}{{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ are finite-dimensional cofree ${{\mathcal E}}$[-]{}comodules. Finally, the morphism of complexes in question is obtained by applying the exact functor ${-}{\otimes}\sphat\,V$ to the quasi-isomorphism of complexes ${{\mathcal D}}^*{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}})$.
Similarly, in order to prove that the adjunction morphism ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathbb L}}{{\mathbb R}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathcal M}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}})\allowbreak{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal M}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is an isomorphism in the derived category ${{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})$ for any ${\star}$[-]{}bounded complex of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal M}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$, it suffices to check that this morphism is an isomorphism in ${{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{b}}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})$ for any cofree left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal I}}$ viewed as a one-term complex in ${{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{b}}}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})$. Let ${{\mathcal I}}={{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}_k V$ be a cofree left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule generated by a $k$[-]{}vector space $V$; then one has ${{\mathbb R}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathcal I}})=
\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathcal I}})=\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},V)$. Let ${{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ be a bounded below complex of finitely cogenerated cofree right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules endowed with a quasi-isomorphism of complexes of right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$. Then $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},V)$ is a bounded above complex of free left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules quasi-isomorphic to $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},V)$. We have to show that the map $${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},V){{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}}{{\mathcal C}}{\otimes}_kV$$ induced by the left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}coaction in ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is a quasi-isomorphism (of complexes of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules).
The functors on both sides of our map preserve infinite direct sums and inductive limits in the argument $V$, so it suffices to consider the case $V=k$. Passing to the dual vector spaces, we have to check that the map ${{\mathcal C}}^*{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Hom}^{{\mathcal D}}({{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{}^*{,\medspace}{{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{}^*)$ is a quasi-isomorphism. The latter map is the composition ${{\mathcal C}}^*{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathrm{op}}}}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}){\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Hom}^{{\mathcal D}}({{\mathcal J}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{}^*{,\medspace}{{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{}^*)$ of the homothety map of the condition (ii) and the map induced by the dualization functor ${{\mathcal N}}\longmapsto{{\mathcal N}}^*$. It remains to apply Proposition \[finitely-co-presented-hom\](b).
MGM Duality for Semialgebras
============================
\[dedualizing-bisemimodules\]
Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a coassociative coalgebra over a field $k$. Then the operation of cotensor product ${\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}$ (as defined in the end of Section \[coalgebra-finiteness\]) provides the category of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}bicomodules ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod--}}}}{{\mathcal C}}$ with an associative and unital tensor category structure. The ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}bicomodule ${{\mathcal C}}$ is the unit object. A (semiassociative and semiunital) *semialgebra* over ${{\mathcal C}}$ is an (associative and unital) algebra object in this tensor category. In other words, a semialgebra ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ over ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}bicomodule endowed with ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}bicomodule morphisms of *semiunit* ${{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ and *semimultiplication* ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ satisfying the conventional associativity and unitality axioms. We refer to [@Psemi Sections 0.3.1[-]{}-2 and 1.3.1] and [@Prev Sections 2.5[-]{}-6] for further details.
The cotensor product operation also provides the category of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}$ with the structure of left module category over the tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod--}}}}{{\mathcal C}}$ and the category of right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\operatorname{\mathsf{comod--}}}}{{\mathcal C}}$ with the structure of right module category over ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod--}}}}{{\mathcal C}}$. Furthermore, the functor of cohomomorphisms $\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal C}}$ (see Section \[coalgebra-finiteness\]) defined the structure of a right module category over ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod--}}}}{{\mathcal C}}$ on the category opposite to the category of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodules ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}^{{\mathsf{op}}}$. Given a semialgebra ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ over ${{\mathcal C}}$, one can consider module objects over the algebra object ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}\in{{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod--}}}}{{\mathcal C}}$ in the module categories ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}$, ${{\operatorname{\mathsf{comod--}}}}{{\mathcal C}}$, and ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}^{{\mathsf{op}}}$ over the tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod--}}}}{{\mathcal C}}$. This leads to the following definitions.
A *left semimodule* ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}}$ over ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is a left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule endowed with a left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule morphism of *left semiaction* ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}}$ satisfying the associativity and unitality equations. A *right semimodule* ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}$ over ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is a right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule endowed with a right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule morphism of *right semiaction* ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}$ satisfying the similar equations. Finally, a *left semicontramodule* ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}$ over ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is a left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodule endowed with a left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodule morphism of *left semicontraaction* ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}})$ satisfying the dual versions of the same equations. The details concerning semimodules can be found in the above references; and we refer to [@Psemi Sections 0.3.4[-]{}-5 and 3.3.1] and [@Prev Sections 2.5[-]{}-6] for further details about semicontramodules.
The $k$[-]{}vector space of all morphisms ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal L}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}}$ in the category of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}}$ is denoted by $\operatorname{Hom}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal L}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}})$. Given a left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal L}}$, the left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodule ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\mathcal L}}$ is called the left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodule *induced* from the left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal L}}$. For any left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodule ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}}$, there is a natural isomorphism of $k$[-]{}vector spaces $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\mathcal L}}{,\medspace}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}})\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal L}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}}).$$
The $k$[-]{}vector space of all morphisms ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak Q}}}$ in the category of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}}$ is denoted by $\operatorname{Hom}^{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak Q}}})$. For any right ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodule ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}$ and $k$[-]{}vector space $V$, the left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodule $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}},V)$ has a natural left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule structure. Given a left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak Q}}$, the left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodule $\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}},{{\mathfrak Q}})$ is endowed with a left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule structure as a quotient semicontramodule of the left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}},{{\mathfrak Q}})$. The left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule $\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}},{{\mathfrak Q}})$ is called the left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule *coinduced* from the left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak Q}}$. For any left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}$, there is a natural isomorphism of $k$[-]{}vector spaces $$\operatorname{Hom}^{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}},\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}},{{\mathfrak Q}}))\simeq\operatorname{Hom}^{{\mathcal C}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}},{{\mathfrak Q}}).$$
Our next aim is to define the operation of *contratensor product* ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}$ of a right ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodule ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}$ and a left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}$ [@Psemi Sections 0.3.7 and 6.1.1[-]{}-2]. The idea is that ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}$ is a $k$[-]{}vector space for which the natural isomorphism $$\label{contratensor-semicontramodule-hom}
\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}},\>V)\simeq\operatorname{Hom}^{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}},\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}},V))$$ holds for any $k$[-]{}vector space $V$. This condition determines the $k$[-]{}vector space ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}$ uniquely up to a natural isomorphism. The following explicit construction shows that such a vector space exists.
The contratensor product ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}$ is the cokernel of (the difference of) the pair of natural $k$[-]{}linear maps $$({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}){\odot}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}{\rightrightarrows}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}.$$ Here the first map is induced by the right ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semiaction morphism ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}$, while the second map is the composition of the left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semicontraaction morphism ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}})$ and the natural “evaluation” map $$\eta_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\colon}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}){\odot}_{{\mathcal C}}\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}){{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}.$$
The “evaluation” map is defined for any two coalgebras ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}$ over $k$, a ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}bicomodule ${{\mathcal K}}$, a right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal N}}$, and a left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodule ${{\mathfrak P}}$, $$\eta_{{\mathcal K}}{\colon}({{\mathcal N}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\mathcal K}}){\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal K}},{{\mathfrak P}}){{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}}{{\mathcal N}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\mathfrak P}},$$ and can be characterized by the condition that the dual map $\eta_K^*=\operatorname{Hom}_k(\eta_{{\mathcal K}},k)$ is equal to the map $$\operatorname{Hom}^{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathfrak P}},{{\mathcal N}}^*){{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}}\operatorname{Hom}^{{\mathcal D}}(\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal K}},{{\mathfrak P}}),\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal K}},{{\mathcal N}}^*))$$ provided by the functor $\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal K}},{-}){\colon}{{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}$. Even more explicitly, the $k$[-]{}linear map $\eta_{{\mathcal K}}$ is constructed as the unique map forming a commutative square with the composition of maps $$({{\mathcal N}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\mathcal K}}){\otimes}_k\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal K}},{{\mathfrak P}}){{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}}{{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathcal K}}{\otimes}_k\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\mathcal K}},{{\mathfrak P}})
{{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}\relbar\joinrel\relbar\joinrel\rightarrow{\text{$\mskip .5\thinmuskip$}}}{{\mathcal N}}{\otimes}_k{{\mathfrak P}}$$ and the natural surjections. We refer to [@Psemi Section 6.1.1] for further details.
For any right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule ${{\mathcal N}}$ and left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}$, there is a natural isomorphism of $k$[-]{}vector spaces [@Psemi Section 6.1.2] $$({{\mathcal N}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}){\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}\simeq{{\mathcal N}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}.$$
The category ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}}$ of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodules is abelian provided that ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is an injective right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule. In fact, ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is an injective right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule *if and only if* the category ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}}$ is abelian *and* the forgetful functor ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}$ is exact. Similarly, the category ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}}$ of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules is abelian provided that ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is an injective left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule. In fact, ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is an injective left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule *if and only if* the category ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}}$ is abelian *and* the forgetful functor ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}$ is exact. (See [@Prev Proposition 2.5] for a proof of the dual versions of these results.)
Let ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ be a semialgebra over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ over $k$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$ be a semialgebra over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ over $k$. An *${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}bisemimodule* ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$ is a ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}bicomodule endowed with a left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodule and a right ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semimodule structures such that the semiaction maps ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$ are morphisms of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}bicomodules which commute with each other in the sense that the two compositions ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$ coincide. Alternatively, one can define an ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}bisemimodule as a ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}bicomodule endowed with a *bisemiaction* map ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$, which must be a morphism of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}bicomodules satisfying the associativity and unitality axioms.
Let ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$ be an ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}bisemimodule and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}$ be a left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule. Assuming that ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is an injective right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule, the contratensor product ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}$ then has a natural left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodule structure. Similarly, let ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$ be an ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}bisemimodule and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}}$ be a left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodule. Assuming that ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$ is an injective left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule, the $k$[-]{}vector space of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodule morphisms $\operatorname{Hom}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}})$ has a natural left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule structure [@Psemi Section 6.1.3].
Whenever ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is an injective right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$ is an injective left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule, for any ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}bisemimodule ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}$, any left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodule ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}}$, and any right ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}$, there is a natural adjunction isomorphism of $k$[-]{}vector spaces [@Psemi Section 6.1.4] $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}},\>{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}})\simeq\operatorname{Hom}^{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}},\operatorname{Hom}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}})).$$
There are also some other situations in which there is a natural left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodule structure on the contratensor product ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}$ and a natural left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule structure on the space of homomorphisms $\operatorname{Hom}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}})$. The case of ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}={{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}={{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$ is of particular interest. For any semialgebra ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$, the functors $\Phi_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\colon}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}\longmapsto{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}$ and $\Psi_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\colon}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}}\longmapsto\operatorname{Hom}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}})$ establish an equivalence between the exact categories of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}injective left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodules and ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}projective left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules [@Psemi Section 6.2]. This equivalence forms a commutative square with the forgetful functors and the equivalence between the additive categories of injective left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules and projective left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodules ${{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}_{{\mathsf{inj}}}\simeq{{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}_{{\mathsf{proj}}}$ provided by the functors $\Phi_{{\mathcal C}}={{\mathcal C}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal C}}{-}$ and $\Psi_{{\mathcal C}}=\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal C}},{-})$.
Let ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ be a semialgebra over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ over $k$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$ be a semialgebra over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ over $k$. Assume that ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is an injective right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$ is an injective left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule. So the categories ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}}$ are abelian.
There are enough injective objects in the abelian category ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}}$. A left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodule is injective if and only if it is a direct summand of a left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodule of the form $\Phi_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}(\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}},V))$, where $V$ is a $k$[-]{}vector space. Furthermore, the forgetful functor ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}$ preserves injectives.
There are enough projective objects in the abelian category ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}}$. A left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule is projective if and only if it is a direct summand of a left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule of the form $\Psi_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{\otimes}_kV)$, where $V$ is a $k$[-]{}vector space. Furthermore, the forgetful functor ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}$ preserves projectives.
A proof of this result under slightly more restrictive assumptions (of a semialgebra injective over its coalgebra on both sides) can be found in [@Prev Proposition 3.5]. In the general case, there is an argument based on the results of [@Psemi Section 6.2], proceeding as follows.
Part (a): the forgetful functor ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}}$ preserves injectives, since it has an exact left adjoint functor ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{-}$ assigning to a left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule the induced left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodule. To prove that the left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodule ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}}={{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}},V)$ is injective, one first notices that $\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}},V)$ is a projective left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}contramodule, hence ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}}$ is an injective left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule and $\operatorname{Hom}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}})=\Psi_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}})\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}},V)$. Applying [@Psemi Proposition 6.2.2(a)] for ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}={{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}={{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$, one computes that $$\operatorname{Hom}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal L}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}})\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal L}}},V)$$ for any left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodule ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal L}}}$. This proves that ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}}$ is injective; and in order to show that ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal L}}}$ can be embedded into a left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodule of the form $\Phi_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}(\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}},V))$, it suffices to take $V={{\boldsymbol{\mathcal L}}}$.
Part (b): the forgetful functor ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}$ preserves projectives, since it has an exact right adjoint functor $\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal D}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}},{-})$ assigning to a left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule the coinduced left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule. To prove that the left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}=\operatorname{Hom}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}},\>{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{\otimes}_kV)$ is projective, one first notices that ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{\otimes}_kV$ is an injective left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule, hence ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}$ is a projective left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodule and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}=\Phi_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}})\simeq{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{\otimes}_kV$. Applying [@Psemi Proposition 6.2.3(a)] for ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}={{\boldsymbol{\mathcal K}}}={{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$, one computes that $$\operatorname{Hom}^{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak Q}}})\simeq\operatorname{Hom}_k(V,{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak Q}}})$$ for any left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak Q}}}$. This proves that ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}$ is projective; and in order to show that ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak Q}}}$ is a quotient object of a left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule of the form $\Psi_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{\otimes}_kV)$, it suffices to take $V={{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak Q}}}$.
A finite complex of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal L}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is said to have *projective dimension ${\leqslant}d$* if one has $\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{b}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}})}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal L}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}}[n])=0$ for all left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal M}}}$ and all the integers $n>d$. The projective dimension of the complex of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal L}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}={{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\mathcal L}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ induced from a finite complex of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal L}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ does not exceed the projective dimension of the complex of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal L}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$.
Similarly, a finite complex of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak Q}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is said to have *injective dimension ${\leqslant}d$* if one has $\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathsf D}}^{{\mathsf{b}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}})}({{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak Q}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}[n])=0$ for all left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}$ and all $n>d$. The injective dimension of the complex of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak Q}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}=\operatorname{Cohom}_{{\mathcal D}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}},{{\mathfrak Q}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}})$ induced from a finite complex of left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules ${{\mathfrak Q}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ does not exceed the injective dimension of the complex of left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules ${{\mathfrak Q}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$.
The bounded above derived category ${{\mathsf D}}^-({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}})$ is equivalent to the homotopy category ${{\mathsf{Hot}}}^-({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}}_{{\mathsf{proj}}})$ of bounded above complexes of projective left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules. Given a complex of right ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semimodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ and a bounded above complex of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$, we denote by $\operatorname{CtrTor}^{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}_*({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}})$ the homology vector spaces $$\operatorname{CtrTor}^{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}_n({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}})=H^{-n}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak F}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}})$$ of the contratensor product of the complex of right ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semimodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ with a bounded above complex of projective left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak F}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ quasi-isomorphic to ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$.
Here one totalizes the bicomplex ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak F}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ by taking infinite direct sums along the diagonals. For any complex of right ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semimodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$, any bounded above complex of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$, and a $k$[-]{}vector space $V$ there are natural isomorphisms of $k$[-]{}vector spaces $$\operatorname{Hom}_k(\operatorname{CtrTor}^{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}_n({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}),V)\simeq
\operatorname{Hom}_{{{\mathsf D}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}})}({{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},V)[n]).$$ Alternatively, the derived functor $\operatorname{CtrTor}^{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$ can be computed using ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}/{{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}projective (or ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}/{{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contraflat) resolutions of the first argument and ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}projective resolutions of the second argument [@Psemi Sections 6.4[-]{}-5].
A finite complex of right ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semimodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is said to have *contraflat dimension ${\leqslant}\nobreak d$* if one has $\operatorname{CtrTor}_n^{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}})=0$ for all left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak P}}}$ and all the integers $n>d$. The contraflat dimension of the complex of right ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semimodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}={{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$ induced from a finite complex of right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ does not exceed the contraflat dimension of the complex of right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal N}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$. The contraflat dimension of a finite complex of right ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semimodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is equal to the injective dimension of the finite complex of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak Q}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}=\operatorname{Hom}_k({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal N}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},V)$ for any $k$[-]{}vector space $V\ne0$.
Now we come to the main definition of this section. Let ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ be a semialgebra over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ over $k$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$ be a semialgebra over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ over $k$. Assume that ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is an injective right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule, ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$ is an injective left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule, the coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ is left cocoherent, and the coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ is right cocoherent. A *dedualizing complex* for ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$ is defined as a triple consisting of a finite complex of ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}bisemimodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$, a finite complex of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}bicomodules ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$, and a morphism of complexes of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}bicomodules ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ with the following properties:
1. ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is a dedualizing complex for the pair of coalgebras ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}$, that is the conditions (i[-]{}iii) of Section \[dedualizing-bicomodules\] are satisfied;
2. the morphism of complexes of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal C}}{{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ induced by the morphism of complexes of left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is a quasi-isomorphism;
3. the morphism of complexes of right ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semimodules ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\mathbin{\text{\smaller$\square$}}}_{{\mathcal D}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ induced by the morphism of complexes of right ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodules ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is a quasi-isomorphism.
It follows from the conditions (i) and (v) that the complex ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ has finite projective dimension as a complex of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodules. Similarly, it follows from the conditions (i) and (vi) that the complex ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ has finite contraflat dimension as a complex of right ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semimodules.
Abusing the terminology, we will sometimes say that the complex of ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}bisemimodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ is a dedualizing complex (for the semialgebras ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$).
Let ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ be a semialgebra over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ over $k$ such that the coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ is left and right cocoherent and left Gorenstein (see Example \[gorenstein-coalgebra-example\]), while the semialgebra ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is an injective left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule and an injective right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule. Then the triple consisting of the ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}bisemimodule ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ (viewed as a one-term complex of ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}bisemimodules), the ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}bicomodule ${{\mathcal C}}$ (also viewed as a one-term complex of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}bicomodules), and the semiunit morphism ${{\mathcal C}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is a dedualizing complex for the pair of semialgebras $({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}},{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}})$.
In particular, any semialgebra ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ over a cosemisimple coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ satisfies the above conditions (as cosemisimple coalgebras are co-Noetherian and of homological dimension $0$), so ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is a dedualizing complex of ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}bisemimodules. This situation is a rather trivial case for the following theorem, though, as in this case the *abelian* categories ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}}$ are already equivalent (the underived functors $\Psi_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}=\operatorname{Hom}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}},{-})$ and $\Phi_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}={{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{-}$ providing the equivalence).
For example, let $G$ be a locally compact totally disconnected (locally profinite) group and $H\subset G$ be a compact open subgroup. Let $k$ be a field. Then the $k$[-]{}vector space ${{\mathcal C}}=k(H)$ of locally constant $k$[-]{}valued functions on $H$ has a natural structure of coalgebra over $k$. Moreover, the $k$[-]{}vector space ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}=k(G)$ of compactly supported locally constant $k$[-]{}valued functions on $G$ has a natural structure of semialgebra over ${{\mathcal C}}$. The semialgebra ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is always an injective left and right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule. The category of (left or right) ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodules is isomorphic to the abelian category $G{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--smooth}}}}_k$ of smooth $G$[-]{}modules over $k$, while the category of (left or right) ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules is isomorphic to the abelian category $G{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}_k$ of $G$[-]{}contramodules over $k$ (see the introduction to [@Psm] and the references therein).
Assume that the proorder of the profinite group $H$ is not divisible by the characteristic of the field $k$. In particular, $G$ can be an arbitrary locally profinite group and $k$ a field of characteristic $0$, or $G$ can be a $p$[-]{}adic Lie group, $H\subset G$ an open pro-$p$-subgroup, and $k$ a field of characteristic different from $p$. Then the coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}=k(H)$ is cosemisimple. So the semialgebra ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}=k(G)$ is a dedualizing complex of bisemimodules over itself. Moreover, the abelian categories $G{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--smooth}}}}_k$ and $G{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}}_k$ of left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodules and left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules are equivalent.
The situation in the natural characteristic $p$ is more interesting. Let $G$ be a $p$[-]{}adic Lie group and $H\subset G$ be a compact open subgroup such that $H$ has no elements of order $p$. Let $k$ be a field of characteristic $p$. Then the coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}=k(H)$ is left and right Artinian, since its dual algebra ${{\mathcal C}}^*=k[[H]]$ is left and right Noetherian. Furthermore, the coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ has finite homological dimension (equal to the dimension of the group $G$). Thus the semialgebra ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}=k(G)$ is a dedualizing complex of ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}bisemimodules. Hence the following theorem applies (cf. [@Psm]).
Let ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ be a semialgebra over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$ be a semialgebra over a coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ over a field $k$. Assume that the coalgebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ is left cocoherent, the coalgebra ${{\mathcal D}}$ is right cocoherent, the semialgebra ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ is an injective right ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodule, and the semialgebra ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$ is an injective left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}comodule. Let ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ be a dedualizing complex for the semialgebras ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$. Then for any symbol ${\star}={{\mathsf{b}}}$, $+$, $-$, $\varnothing$, ${{\mathsf{abs}}}+$, ${{\mathsf{abs}}}-$, or ${{\mathsf{abs}}}$ there is an equivalence of triangulated categories $${{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}})\simeq{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}})$$ provided by mutually inverse functors ${{\mathbb R}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{-})$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}^{{\mathbb L}}{-}$.
The constructions of the derived functors ${{\mathbb R}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{-})$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}^{{\mathbb L}}{-}$ proceed exactly in the same way as in the proof of Theorem \[dedualizing-bicomodule-duality\] (with ${{\mathcal C}}$ replaced by ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$, left ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}comodules by left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}semimodules, ${{\mathcal D}}$ replaced by ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$, left ${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}contramodules by left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodules, and the complex of bicomodules ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ replaced by the complex of bisemimodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$). The only property of a finite complex of ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}bisemimodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ that is used in these constructions is the finiteness of the projective and contraflat dimensions. The result of [@Pmgm Appendix B] tells that the two derived functors so obtained are adjoint to each other.
Next it is noticed that the two pairs of adjoint derived functors corresponding to the complex of ${{\mathcal C}}$[-]{}${{\mathcal D}}$[-]{}bicomodules ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ and the complex of ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}$[-]{}${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}bisemimodules ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}$ form commutative diagrams with the forgetful functors (cf. the proof of [@Pfp Theorem 5.6]) $$\dgARROWLENGTH=4em
\!\!\!
\begin{diagram}
\node{{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}})}
\arrow[2]{e,t}{{{\mathbb R}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{-})}
\arrow{s}
\node[2]{{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}})} \arrow{s} \\
\node{{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})}
\arrow[2]{e,t}{{{\mathbb R}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{-})}
\node[2]{{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})}
\end{diagram}
\,
\begin{diagram}
\node{{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}})}
\arrow{s}
\node[2]{{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}})} \arrow{s}
\arrow[2]{w,t}{{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}^{{\mathbb L}}{-}} \\
\node{{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})}
\node[2]{{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})}
\arrow[2]{w,t}{{{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathbb L}}{-}}
\end{diagram}
\!\!\!$$ This follows from the conditions (v[-]{}vi); the argument is that the total complex of a finite acyclic complex of complexes is absolutely acyclic. The observation that the functor of contratensor product ${-}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak F}}}$ with a projective left ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semicontramodule ${{\boldsymbol{\mathfrak F}}}$ is exact on the abelian category of right ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$[-]{}semimodules ${{\operatorname{\mathsf{simod--}}}}{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}$ plays a role here (see the natural isomorphism ).
Finally, just as in the proof of Theorem \[dedualizing-bicomodule-duality\], checking that the adjunction morphisms for the derived functors ${{\mathbb R}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{-})$ and ${{\boldsymbol{\mathcal B}}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\circledcirc}_{{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}^{{\mathbb L}}{-}$ are isomorphisms reduces to the case of the bounded derived categories, ${\star}={{\mathsf{b}}}$. This is a conventional derived category; and for all the conventional derived categories (${\star}={{\mathsf{b}}}$, $+$, $-$, or $\varnothing$) the forgetful functors ${{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal S}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--simod}}}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal C}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--comod}}}})$ and ${{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\boldsymbol{\mathcal T}}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--sicntr}}}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathsf D}}^{\star}({{\mathcal D}}{{\operatorname{\mathsf{--contra}}}})$ are conservative. So it suffices to show that the images of the adjunction morphisms under the forgetful functors are isomorphisms. Similarly to the proof of [@Pfp Theorem 5.6], one observes that these images are nothing but the adjunction morphisms for the derived functors ${{\mathbb R}}\operatorname{Hom}_{{\mathcal C}}({{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}},{-})$ and ${{\mathcal B}}^{{\text{\smaller\smaller$\scriptstyle\bullet$}}}{\odot}_{{\mathcal D}}^{{\mathbb L}}{-}$. According to the result of Theorem \[dedualizing-bicomodule-duality\], we already know that the latter are isomorphisms.
[99]{}
M. Ballard, D. Deliu, D. Favero, M. U. Isik, L. Katzarkov. Resolutions in factorization categories. *Advances in Math.* **295**, p. 195–249, 2016. `arXiv:1212.3264 [math.CT]`
J. Bernstein, V. Lunts. Equivariant sheaves and functors. *Lecture Notes in Math.* **1578**, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994.
L. W. Christensen, A. Frankild, H. Holm. On Gorenstein projective, injective, and flat dimensions—A functorial description with applications. *Journ. of Algebra* **302**, \#1, p. 231–279, 2006. `arXiv:math.AC/0403156`
W. G. Dwyer, J. P. C. Greenlees. Complete modules and torsion modules. *American Journ. of Math.* **124**, \#1, p. 199–220, 2002.
A. I. Efimov, L. Positselski. Coherent analogues of matrix factorizations and relative singularity categories. *Algebra and Number Theory* **9**, \#5, p. 1159–1292, 2015. `arXiv:1102.0261 [math.CT]`
J. Gómez-Torrecillas, C. Năstăsescu, B. Torrecillas. Localization in coalgebras. Applications to finiteness conditions. *Journ. of Algebra and its Appl.* **6**, \#2, p. 233–243, 2007. `arXiv:math.RA/0403248`
J. P. C. Greenlees, J. P. May. Derived functors of $I$[-]{}adic completion and local homology. *Journ. of Algebra* **149**, \#2, p. 438–453, 1992.
D. K. Harrison. Infinite abelian groups and homological methods. *Annals of Math.* **69**, \#2, p. 366–391, 1959.
V. Hinich. Homological algebra of homotopy algebras. *Communications in Algebra* **25**, \#10, p. 3291–3323, 1997. `arXiv:q-alg/9702015`. Erratum, `arXiv:math.QA/0309453`.
V. Hinich. DG coalgebras as formal stacks. *Journ. of Pure and Appl. Algebra* **162**, \#2–3, p. 209–250, 2001. `arXiv:math.AG/9812034`
D. Husemoller, J. C. Moore, J. Stasheff. Differential homological algebra and homogeneous spaces. *Journ. of Pure and Appl. Algebra* **5**, \#2, p. 113–185, 1974.
S. Iyengar, H. Krause. Acyclicity versus total acyclicity for complexes over noetherian rings. *Documenta Math.* **11**, p. 207–240, 2006.
P. Jørgensen. The homotopy category of complexes of projective modules. *Advances in Math.* **193**, \#1, p. 223–232, 2005. `arXiv:math.RA/0312088`
D. Kaledin. Derived Mackey functors. *Moscow Math. Journ.* **11**, \#4, p. 723–803, 2011. `arXiv:0812.2519 [math.KT]`
B. Keller. Deriving DG-categories. *Ann. Sci. de l’École Norm. Sup. (4)* **27**, \#1, p. 63–102, 1994.
B. Keller. Koszul duality and coderived categories (after K. Lefèvre). October 2003. Available from `http://www.math.jussieu.fr/ keller/publ/index.html`.
H. Krause. The stable derived category of a Noetherian scheme. *Compositio Math.* **141**, \#5, p. 1128–1162, 2005. `arXiv:math.AG/0403526`
K. Lefèvre-Hasegawa. Sur les $\mathrm{A}_\infty$-catégories. Thèse de doctorat, Université Denis Diderot – Paris 7, November 2003. `arXiv:math.CT/0310337`. Corrections, by B. Keller. Available from `http://people.math.jussieu.fr/ keller/lefevre/publ.html`.
E. Matlis. Cotorsion modules. *Memoirs of the American Math. Society* **49**, 1964.
E. Matlis. The higher properties of $R$[-]{}sequences. *Journ. of Algebra* **50**, \#1, p. 77–112, 1978.
J. Miyachi. Derived categories and Morita duality theory. *Journ. of Pure and Appl. Algebra* **128**, \#2, p. 153–170, 1998.
D. Orlov. Matrix factorizations for nonaffine LG-models. *Mathematische Annalen* **353**, \#1, p. 95–108, 2012. `arXiv:1101.4051 [math.AG]`
M. Porta, L. Shaul, A. Yekutieli. On the homology of completion and torsion. *Algebras and Representation Theory* **17**, \#1, p. 31–67, 2014. `arXiv:1010.4386 [math.AC]`. Erratum in *Algebras and Representation Theory* **18**, \#5, p. 1401–1405, 2015. `arXiv:1506.07765 [math.AC]`
L. Positselski. Homological algebra of semimodules and semicontramodules: Semi-infinite homological algebra of associative algebraic structures. Appendix C in collaboration with D. Rumynin; Appendix D in collaboration with S. Arkhipov. Monografie Matematyczne vol. 70, Birkhäuser/Springer Basel, 2010. xxiv+349 pp. `arXiv:0708.3398 [math.CT]`
L. Positselski. Two kinds of derived categories, Koszul duality, and comodule-contramodule correspondence. *Memoirs of the American Math. Society* **212**, \#996, 2011. vi+133 pp. `arXiv:0905.2621 [math.CT]`
L. Positselski. Weakly curved A${}_\infty$-algebras over a topological local ring. Electronic preprint `arXiv:1202.2697 [math.CT]`.
L. Positselski. Contraherent cosheaves. Electronic preprint `arXiv:1209.2995 [math.CT]`.
L. Positselski. Contramodules. Electronic preprint `arXiv:1503.00991 [math.CT]`.
L. Positselski. Dedualizing complexes and MGM duality. *Journ. of Pure and Appl. Algebra* **220**, \#12, p. 3866–3909, 2016. `arXiv:1503.05523 [math.CT]`
L. Positselski. Coherent rings, fp[-]{}injective modules, dualizing complexes, and covariant Serre–Grothendieck duality. *Selecta Math. (New Ser.)* **23**, \#2, p. 1279–1307, 2017. `arXiv:1504.00700 [math.CT]`
L. Positselski. Contraadjusted modules, contramodules, and reduced cotorsion modules. *Moscow Math. Journ.* **17**, \#3, p. 385–455, 2017. `arXiv:1605.03934 [math.CT]`
L. Positselski. Triangulated Matlis equivalence. Electronic preprint `arXiv:1605.08018 [math.CT]`, to appear in *Journ. of Algebra and its Appl.*
=2100
L. Positselski. Smooth duality and co-contra correspondence. Electronic preprint `arXiv:1609.04597 [math.CT]`.
=10000
N. Spaltenstein. Resolutions of unbounded complexes. *Compositio Math.* **65**, \#2, p.121–154, 1988.
M. E. Sweedler. Hopf algebras. Mathematics Lecture Note Series, W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York, 1969.
M. Takeuchi. Morita theorems for categories of comodules. *Journ. of the Faculty of Science, the Univ. of Tokyo, Section IA, Math.* **24**, \#3, p. 629–644, 1977.
M. Wang, Z. Wu. Conoetherian coalgebras. *Algebra Colloquium* **5**, \#1, p. 117–120, 1998.
A. Yekutieli. Dualizing complexes over noncommutative graded algebras. *Journ. of Algebra* **153**, \#1, p. 41–84, 1992.
A. Yekutieli, J. J. Zhang. Rings with Auslander dualizing complexes. *Journ. of Algebra* **213**, \#1, p. 1–51, 1999. `arXiv:math.RA/9804005`
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study $\alpha$-cluster structure based on the geometric configurations with a microscopic framework, which takes full account of the Pauli principle, and which also employs an effective inter-nucleon force including finite-range three-body terms suitable for microscopic $\alpha$-cluster models. Here, special attention is focused upon the $\alpha$ clustering with a hollow structure; all the $\alpha$ clusters are put on the surface of a sphere. All the Platonic solids (five regular polyhedra) and the fullerene-shaped polyhedron coming from icosahedral structure are considered. Furthermore, two configurations with dual polyhedra, hexahedron-octahedron and dodecahedron-icosahedron, are also scrutinized. As a consequence, we insist on the possible existence of stable $\alpha$-clustering with a hollow structure for all the configurations. Especially, two configurations, that is, dual polyhedra of dodecahedron-icosahedron and fullerene, have a prominent hollow structure compared with other six configurations.'
author:
- Akihiro Tohsaki$^1$ and Naoyuki Itagaki$^2$
title: |
Alpha Clustering with a Hollow Structure\
[*— Geometrical Structure of Alpha Clusters from Platonic Solids to Fullerene Shape*]{}
---
Carbon atoms play an essential role in composing molecular structure related to geometric configuration in organic chemistry. It is plausible that $\alpha$-particles are in the same situation in nuclear structure as carbon atoms in molecular structure because of their strong binding energy and the dual role of the Pauli principle. When two $\alpha$-particles are at a distance each other, the Pauli principle works attractively; on the other hand, the strong repulsion acts on approaching two $\alpha$-particles. Not only cannot the $\alpha$ cluster easily break down but also two $\alpha$ particles have a resonance state around the threshold energy. We can point out that three $\alpha$ clusters are loosely bound in making Borromean nucleus, which was predicted to be $\alpha$-cluster condensation [@THSR].
Up to now, there have been many studies on the geometrical structure of $\alpha$ clusters based on the microscopic frameworks, which employ effective inter-nucleon forces and completely consider the Pauli principle simultaneously [@Fujiwara]. Especially, the Brink-Bloch model is one of the suitable tools for studying the geometric structure of $\alpha$-clustering [@Brink]. However, almost all the attempts have been restricted up to $4N$ nuclei of (0p)-shell region. Furthermore, the employed effective inter-nucleon force is different for every $\alpha$-type $4N$ nuclei because we do not have appropriate ones to reproduce the physical quantities in the wide mass number region from $\alpha$-particle to nuclear matter. For instance, the Volkov force [@Volkov], which is the most popular inter-nucleon force, includes the Majorana strength as an adjustable parameter for every nucleus. Nevertheless, the saturation property for the nuclear matter cannot be reproduced.
Fortunately, the introduction of the finite-range three-body inter-nucleon force can elegantly overcome the defects of inter-nucleon force only with the two-body terms. The overall saturation property in the wide mass number region of $4N$ nuclei is well explained by using an effective inter-nucleon force with finite-range three-body terms related to the density dependency. The concepts of deciding the parameters in the effective inter-nucleon force are as follows: 1) reasonable reproduction of the saturation property of $\alpha$, $^{16}$O, $^{40}$Ca and nuclear matter, 2) the reproduction of the phase shift of elastic $\alpha$-$\alpha$ scattering. In this report, we use Tohsaki F1 force [@Tohsaki] (we call F1). Recent report by one of the authors verifies the validity of the F1 force for the unified understanding of the $^{12}$C and $^{16}$O [@Itagaki-CO]. As a comparison, we show the results for the Brink-Boeker force [@BB] (referred as BB-force), which has also no adjustable parameter, but which cannot reproduce the saturation property except for $\alpha$ particle and nuclear matter. Therefore, we think that F1 force is more reliable than BB-force, but here we compare the results of two forces.
![ Schematic figures for the prepared configurations, where vertices on the polyhedra show the positions of the $\alpha$ clusters; (a) tetrahedron, (b) hexahedron (cube), (c) octahedron, (d) dodecahedron, (e) icosahedron, (f) hexahedron-octahedron, (g) dodecahedron-icosahedron, and (h) fullerene-shape polyhedron configurations. []{data-label="fullerene"}](schema-1.eps "fig:"){width="8.0cm"} ![ Schematic figures for the prepared configurations, where vertices on the polyhedra show the positions of the $\alpha$ clusters; (a) tetrahedron, (b) hexahedron (cube), (c) octahedron, (d) dodecahedron, (e) icosahedron, (f) hexahedron-octahedron, (g) dodecahedron-icosahedron, and (h) fullerene-shape polyhedron configurations. []{data-label="fullerene"}](schema-2.eps "fig:"){width="6.0cm"} ![ Schematic figures for the prepared configurations, where vertices on the polyhedra show the positions of the $\alpha$ clusters; (a) tetrahedron, (b) hexahedron (cube), (c) octahedron, (d) dodecahedron, (e) icosahedron, (f) hexahedron-octahedron, (g) dodecahedron-icosahedron, and (h) fullerene-shape polyhedron configurations. []{data-label="fullerene"}](schema-3.eps "fig:"){width="6.0cm"}
As for the geometric configurations, first of all, we consider five Platonic solids (five regular polyhedra), of which vertices are positions of $\alpha$ clusters. As schematically shown in Fig. 1, we prepare (a) tetrahedron, (b) hexahedron (cube), (c) octahedron, (d) dodecahedron, and (e) icosahedron configurations. They consists of 4, 8, 6, 20, and 12 $\alpha$ clusters corresponding to $^{16}$O, $^{32}$S, $^{24}$Mg, $^{80}$Zr, and $^{48}$Cr, respectively. In addition, we introduce their dual polyhedra, (f) hexahedron-octahedron and (g) dodecahedron-icosahedron; the latter is related to the rhombic triacontahedron, which is the basic seed of quasi-crystal. Here, hexahedron-octahedron is a combination of two Platonic solids, hexahedron and octahedron. In Fig. 1 (f), blue balls are $\alpha$ clusters at the vertices of hexahedron, and red balls are $\alpha$ clusters, which form pyramid shape together with the four nearest (blue) $\alpha$ clusters. There are six red balls corresponding to the number of faces of hexahedron, and these six points form an octahedron shape. In total, we have fourteen $\alpha$ clusters corresponding to $^{56}$Ni, and the distances from the origin are taken to be common for all the fourteen $\alpha$’s. Therefore, hexahedron and octahedron are inscribed in a common sphere. If we start with an octahedron shape and add $\alpha$ clusters at the centers of the faces, formation of completely the same solid is achieved, and hexahedron and octahedron are considered as a pair (dual polyhedra). Another one is dodecahedron-icosahedron, which is the combination of dodecahdron and icosahdron. In Fig. 1 (g), twenty blue balls are $\alpha$ clusters at the vertices of dodecahedron, and twelve red $\alpha$ clusters are added at the center of twelve faces, which form icosahedron shape. We have thirty two $\alpha$ clusters corresponding to $^{128}$Gd, and the distances from the origin are taken to be common for all the $\alpha$’s; dodecahedron and icosahedron are inscribed in a common sphere. If we start with an icosahedron shape and add $\alpha$ clusters at the centers of the faces, the same solid is formed, and dodecahedron and icosahedron are considered as a pair (dual polyhedra). Note that tetrahedron is a self-dual polyhedron. If we apply the same procedure for the tetrahedron (adding $\alpha$ clusters at the center of each surface and adjusting the distances from the origin to be the same as those of $\alpha$’s at vertices), it becomes hexahedron (cube), which is already included in the model as (b). Furthermore, we introduce (h) fullerene-shape polyhedron, which has sixty $\alpha$ clusters corresponding to $^{240}$120. The fullerene shaped nucleus, whose atomic number is 120, belongs to the ultra-super heavy region of nucleus. This is, of course, undiscovered until now. If the radius is very large, the configuration contains a big void inside of the sphere. In other words, we can imagine balloon-shaped nuclei and takes the rhombic triacontahedron and the fullerene configurations as their plausible candidates. In order to study the stability of the structure in this report, we show an adiabatic-energy curve with respect to the radius of the sphere, which is the only variational parameter to see the property of the breathing mode. Carrying out the angular momentum projection is unnecessary because of the symmetric shape of the sphere.
We employ Brink-Bloch type wave function, which takes complete account of the Pauli principle: $$\Psi (\rho) = {\cal A}
\{
\phi_1(\rho \bm R_1)
\phi_2(\rho \bm R_2)
\cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot
\phi_N(\rho \bm R_N)
\},
\label{total-wf}$$ where ${\cal A}$ is the anti-symmetrization operator among all the nucleons. The $N\alpha$ clusters are on the surface of the sphere with the radius $\rho$ (fm), and the vectors $\bm R_1, \cdots, \bm R_N$ are the parameters on the dimensionless unit sphere. The $k$-th $\alpha$ cluster ($k = 1, 2, \cdot \cdot N$) wave function is written by $$\phi(\rho \bm R_k) = \prod_{i,j=1,2}
\left(\frac{1}{\pi b^2} \right)^{\frac{3}{4}}
\exp \left[- {1 \over 2b^2} \left(\bm{r}^{ij}_k - \rho \bm{R}_k \right)^{2} \right] \chi^{ij}_k,
\label{Brink-wf}$$ where $b$ is the nucleon size parameter, and $\chi^{ij}_k$ is a spin isospin wave function. The vector $\bm{r}^{ij}_k$ is the real physical coordinate for the nucleon, and $i$ and $j$ are labels for the spin and isospin, respectively, for the four nucleons in the $k$-th $\alpha$ clusters. The four nucleons in the $k$-th $\alpha$ cluster share the common Gaussian center, $\rho \bm{R}_k$. We prepare eight sets of $\{ \bm R_1, \cdots, \bm R_N \}$ corresponding to the configurations in Fig. 1. It is pointed out that all the configurations in Fig. 1 inevitably contain their ground state components of harmonic oscillator wave functions at the small $\rho$ limit owing to the anti-symmetrization effect. This is the same as the $\alpha$-condensation wave function (so-called THSR wave function), which includes the ground state component for every corresponding nucleus [@Cond].
The norm and energy kernel matrix elements after carrying out the integration with respect to the real physical coordinates $\{ \bm{r}^{ij}_k \}$ are functions of variational parameter $\rho$: $\langle \Psi (\rho') | \Psi (\rho) \rangle$ and $\langle \Psi (\rho') |\hat{H}| \Psi (\rho) \rangle$, where the Hamiltonian is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H} = && -{\hbar^2 \over 2M}\sum_i \nabla^2_i - T_{cm} \nonumber \\
&& +{1 \over 2!} \sum_{i,j} v^{(c)}_{ij}
+{1 \over 2!} \sum_{i,j} v^{(2)}_{ij}
+ {1 \over 3!} \sum_{i,j,k} v^{(3)}_{ijk}.\end{aligned}$$ The first and the second terms are the kinetic operator and the center of mass (c.m.) energy. The third is the Coulomb operator running over the protons, and the fourth and the fifth terms are the effective inter-nucleon force separated by the two-body and three-body ones. The explicit form is written by the summation of Gaussian function: $$\begin{aligned}
v^{(2)}_{ij} =
\sum_{l=1}^3 && V^{(2)}_l
((1-m^{(2)}_l) - m^{(2)}_l) P^{\sigma}_{ij} P^{\tau}_{ij} \nonumber \\
&& \times \exp[- (\bm r_i - \bm r_j )^2 / \beta_l^2]
\label{2body}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
v^{(3)}_{ijk} =
\sum_{l=1}^3 && V^{(3)}_l
\{ (1-m^{(3)}_l) - m^{(3)}_l \} P^{\sigma}_{ij} P^{\tau}_{ij} \nonumber \\
&& \times \{ (1-m^{(3)}_l) - m^{(3)}_l \} P^{\sigma}_{jk} P^{\tau}_{jk} \nonumber \\
&& \times \exp[- (\bm r_i - \bm r_j )^2 / \beta_l^2- (\bm r_j - \bm r_k )^2 / \beta_l^2],\end{aligned}$$ where the exchange operators for the spin and isospin parts are expressed by $P^{\sigma}_{ij}$ and $P^{\tau}_{ij}$. The force strengths for two- and three-body are written by $V_l^{(2)}$ and $V_l^{(3)}$, where their range parameters are given by $\beta_l$, and the Majorana strengths are $m_l^{(2)}$ and $m_l^{(3)}$. The force parameters of F1 are listed in Table I, where not only two-body but also three-body are given by the finite three-range description unlike the $\delta$-type zero-range force. The parameters for the range of the inter-nucleon force are taken to be the same in two-body and three-body parts. The BB force, which does not have the three-body terms, is listed in Table II.
\(a) two-body part\
$l$ $\beta_l$ (fm) $v^{(2)}_l$ (MeV) $m^{(2)}_l$
----- ---------------- ------------------- -------------
1 2.5 $-5.00$ 0.75
2 1.8 $-43.51$ 0.462
3 0.7 $60.38$ 0.522
: Parameter set for F1 interaction [@Tohsaki].
\
(b) three-body part\
$l$ $\beta_l$ (fm) $v^{(3)}_l$ (MeV) $m^{(3)}_l$
----- ---------------- ------------------- -------------
1 2.5 $-0.31$ 0.000
2 1.8 7.73 0.000
3 0.7 219.0 1.909
: Parameter set for F1 interaction [@Tohsaki].
$l$ $\beta_l$ (fm) $v^{(2)}_l$ (MeV) $m^{(2)}_l$
----- ---------------- ------------------- -------------
1 1.4 $-140.6$ 0.4864
2 0.7 $389.5$ 0.5290
: Parameter set for Brink-Boeker interaction [@BB].
When all the position parameters $\{ \bm{R}_k \}$ are given a priori, after the integral with respect to the real physical coordinates $\{ \bm{r}^{ij}_k \}$, the Shrödinger equation changes into Hill-Wheeler equation written by $$\int
\{
\langle \Psi (\rho') |\hat{H}| \Psi (\rho) \rangle
-E\langle \Psi (\rho') | \Psi (\rho) \rangle
\} f(\rho) d\rho
= 0$$ where $f(\rho)$ is the weight function for the energy $E$. In this report, however, we focus upon the estimated adiabatic energy, $$E(\rho) =
{
\langle \Psi (\rho) |\hat{H}| \Psi (\rho) \rangle
\over
\langle \Psi (\rho) | \Psi (\rho) \rangle,
}$$ to find out the bulk property of the geometric configuration of $\alpha$-clustering with a hollow structure. The diagonal part of the norm kernel has the following property depending on the anti-symmetrization effect: $$\lim_{\rho \to 0} \langle \Psi (\rho) | \Psi (\rho) \rangle = 0$$ and we define the normalization as $$\lim_{\rho \to \infty} \langle \Psi (\rho) | \Psi (\rho) \rangle = 1.$$ Therefore, it is reasonable to define the Pauli index as $$p_i(\rho) = 1- \langle \Psi (\rho) | \Psi (\rho) \rangle
\label{Pauli}$$ for each configuration.
In Figs. 2 (for (a)-(e) in Fig. 1) and 3 (for (f)-(h) in Fig. 1), we show the adiabatic energy curves per $\alpha$ for the case of F1 force. The horizontal axis is the radius $\rho$ in Eq. \[total-wf\]. The size parameter of single nucleon wave function $b$ is chosen to be 1.415 fm leading to the minimum of the binding energy of $\alpha$ particle, 27.500 MeV, reasonable comparing with the experimental value of 28.294 MeV; however here the basis of the energy is taken as the $N\alpha$ break-up energy. In all cases, the adiabatic energy curves have the energy pocket at shorter distances and barrier at larger distances.
![ Energy for one $\alpha$ as a function of the radius ($\rho$ in the text), (a) tetrahedron, (b) hexahedron (cube), (c) octahedron, (d) dodecahedron, and (e) icosahedron. []{data-label="Platonic"}](platonic.eps){width="6.0cm"}
![ Energy for one $\alpha$ as a function of the radius ($\rho$ in the text), (f) hexahedron-octahedron, (g) dodecahedron-icosahedron, (h) fullerene. []{data-label="fullerene"}](fullerene.eps){width="6.0cm"}
\(a) Pocket\
$\rho$ (fm) s.d.(fm) depth (MeV) $p_i(\rho)$
------------ ------------- ---------- ------------- -------------
P04(4) 1.4 2.29 $-3.039$ 0.994
P08(6) 2.1 2.97 $-1.643$ 0.986
P06(8) 2.5 2.89 1.228 0.998
P20(12) 2.9 3.05 $-0.367$ 1.000
P12(20) 3.9 2.78 6.700 1.000
P08-06(14) 3.2 2.94 8.838 1.000
P12-20(32) 4.9 3.14 11.694 1.000
Ful(60) 7.7 3.11 18.868 1.000
: The physical quantities at the (a) energy pocket and (b) barrier positions calculated using F1 force. The radius ($\rho$ in the text), depth of the energy pocket and barrier, $p_i(\rho)$ in Eq. \[Pauli\] are listed. Here s.d. means the shortest distance of two $\alpha$ clusters at the fixed radius of $\rho$.
\(b) Barrier
$\rho$ (fm) s.d.(fm) depth (MeV) $p_i(\rho)$
------------ ------------- ---------- ------------- -------------
P04(4) 4.5 7.35 8.845 0.000
P08(6) 5.2 7.35 12.071 0.000
P06(8) 6.0 6.93 13.814 0.000
P20(12) 6.7 7.05 16.180 0.000
P12(20) 9.0 6.42 18.367 0.004
P08-06(14) 7.3 6.71 19.271 0.001
P12-20(32) 9.9 6.41 22.626 0.011
Ful(60) 14.2 5.73 24.180 0.094
: The physical quantities at the (a) energy pocket and (b) barrier positions calculated using F1 force. The radius ($\rho$ in the text), depth of the energy pocket and barrier, $p_i(\rho)$ in Eq. \[Pauli\] are listed. Here s.d. means the shortest distance of two $\alpha$ clusters at the fixed radius of $\rho$.
\(a) Pocket\
$\rho$ (fm) s.d.(fm) depth (MeV) $p_i(\rho)$
------------ ------------- ---------- ------------- -------------
P04(4) 2.0 3.27 3.200 0.732
P08(6) 2.3 3.25 4.732 0.936
P06(8) 2.8 3.23 8.458 0.972
P20(12) 3.1 3.26 7.841 0.999
P12(20) 4.9 3.50 15.803 0.997
P08-06(14) 3.6 3.31 16.079 0.998
P12-20(32) 5.3 3.40 18.540 1.000
Ful(60) 10.1 4.08 24.807 0.996
: The physical quantities at the (a) energy pocket and (b) barrier positions calculated using Brink-Boeker force. The radius ($\rho$ in the text), depth of the energy pocket and barrier, $p_i(\rho)$ in Eq. \[Pauli\] are listed. Here s.d. means the shortest distance of two $\alpha$ clusters at the fixed radius of $\rho$.
\(b) Barrier
$\rho$ (fm) s.d.(fm) depth (MeV) $p_i(\rho)$
------------ ------------- ---------- ------------- -------------
P04(4) 4.2 6.86 9.017 0.000
P08(6) 4.7 6.65 12.325 0.000
P06(8) 5.5 6.35 14.117 0.002
P20(12) 6.1 6.41 16.605 0.004
P12(20) 8.2 5.85 18.867 0.021
P08-06(14) 6.7 6.16 20.102 0.007
P12-20(32) 9.1 5.83 23.295 0.047
Ful(60) 12.7 5.13 25.189 0.384
: The physical quantities at the (a) energy pocket and (b) barrier positions calculated using Brink-Boeker force. The radius ($\rho$ in the text), depth of the energy pocket and barrier, $p_i(\rho)$ in Eq. \[Pauli\] are listed. Here s.d. means the shortest distance of two $\alpha$ clusters at the fixed radius of $\rho$.
In Table III, the physical quantities at these (a) energy pocket and (b) barrier positions in the case of F1 force are listed. Here, the acronym s.d. means the shortest distance of two $\alpha$ clusters at the fixed radius of $\rho$, and P04(4), P08(6), P06(8), P20(12), P08-06(14), P12-20(32), and Ful(60) are configurations (a)-(h) in Fig. 1, where the values in the parentheses show the numbers of $\alpha$ clusters. The characteristic features are the following; 1) there are stable energy pockets in all the cases, 2) the energy pocket is protected by the competition of the Coulomb repulsion and the Pauli principle, 3) the values of s.d. are almost the same for all the cases of energy pocket and barrier, but the rhombic triacontahedron and the fullerene shape have comparably large distance of two $\alpha$ particles, 4) the Pauli index becomes almost 1 around the energy pocket, and the increase starts at the barrier position where the index is 0. All the quantities inevitably include the spurious c.m. energy of each $\alpha$ particle to be removed due to the adiabatic treatment. The removal procedure is not so easy but possible. We think, however, that it is useful to see the general trends of the configuration via the adiabatic energy curves.
Especially, the fullerene shape can exist stably, but its radius is very large, around 7.7 fm. We predict a big void surrounded by 60 $\alpha$ particles, but we see that the gap of the barrier height and the pocket decreases when the number of $\alpha$ particles increases. Note again that every shape of geometric configuration inevitably includes the ground state component for every corresponding nucleus. Therefore, it is desired to quantitatively scrutinize the stability of the balloon structure of $\alpha$ particles by using more reliable wave function. One of the candidates of the wave function is to employ the THSR ansatz, which reasonably describes the $\alpha$ condensation.
We show the same quantities for the case of BB force in Table IV. The $b$ parameter is taken to be 1.409 fm which gives the binding energy of 27.375 MeV for $\alpha$ particle. Surprisingly enough, even fullerene shaped $\alpha$ clustering has an energy pocket; however slightly shallower than the case of F1 force. On the other hand, the barrier position shifts inside. The general trends do not change so much comparing with the case of F1 force, but physical quantities largely change. For instance, the tetrahedron shape correctly represents the ground state of $^{16}$O, which is well reproduced by the F1 force, but this configuration gives very much underbinding in the BB force case; the energy shows the value of unbound region.
In this report, full microscopic calculations are carried out for the balloon shaped $\alpha$ clustering; typical eight examples, five Platonic solids, two cases of dual polyhedra, and fullerene shape are examined. All the configurations have the energy pocket with respect to the balloon radius in the F1 force cases and even in the BB force cases. It is pointed out that an exotic nucleus beyond super-heavy region, that is, fullerene shaped configuration of α clusters is stable. Here we avoid studying individual nuclei, because it is necessary to dynamically consider each nucleus, and this is another task. Namely, the next step of this investigation is to come into the clarification of the properties on individual nuclei. Is it crazy to imagine balloon nuclei which consist of $\alpha$-clusters? Our answer is ‘No’. Reliable effective inter-nucleon force and the complete consideration of the Pauli principle make it possible to give a correct answer. Surprisingly enough, the present report is to predict that even ultra-super heavy nuclei can exist in such a presence form as a geometric structure with a void, which requires us to revise the empirical formula for the nuclear radius.
One of the authors (A.T) has discussed the fullerene shaped $\alpha$-clusters with the late W. Greiner, for whom the authors are now grateful. We also thank H. Horiuchi, Y. Funaki, P. Schuck and G. Röpke for their fruitful discussions. Numerical calculation has been performed at Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17K05440.
A. Tohsaki, H. Horiuchi, P. Schuck and G. Röpke, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{}, 192501 (2001).
Y. Fujiwara [*et al.,*]{} Supple. of Prog. Theor. Phys. [**68**]{} 29 (1980).
D.M. Brink, in [*Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” Course XXXVI*]{}, edited by C. Bloch (Academic, New York, 1966), p. 247.
A. B. Volkov, Nucl. Phys. **74**, 33 (1965).
Akihiro Tohsaki, Phys. Rev. C [**49**]{}, 1814 (1994).
N. Itagaki, Phys. Rev. C [**94**]{}, 064324 (2016).
D.M. Brink and E. Boeker, Nucl. Phys. [**A91**]{}, 1 (1967).
Y. Funaki, H. Horiuchi, and A. Tohsaki, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys [**82**]{}, 78 (2015).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
title: 'Detection of vertical muons with the HAWC water Cherenkov detectors and it’s application to gamma/hadron discrimination'
---
Introduction
============
The High-Altitude Water Cherenkov (HAWC) observatory is an instrument located 4100 m a.s.l in Puebla, Mexico, with the mission of studying gamma-rays up to the very-high-energy domain (E > 100 GeV). The detector is an array of 300 Water Cherenkov Detectors (WCDs) or tanks, each one 4.5 m high, 7.3 m diameter and a volume containing 200 000 L of purified water. There are also four photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) anchored at the bottom of each tank: a high-quantum efficiency detector or PMT$\_$C (10-inch diameter) centrally located, surrounded by three equally spaced (8-inch diameter) PMTs (A, B, D); all upward facing (Fig.\[Fig1\]) [@Smith].
The operating principle of HAWC is to sample air-shower particles by recording the Cherenkov light produced when they pass through the water. This coherent radiation is emitted into a forward cone (opening angle $\sim$ 41$^{\circ}$) that surrounds the direction of motion of the charged particle. Because the Cherenkov cone in water is so large, nearly every charged particle that enters the tank should be observed by at least one of the four PMTs, which converts the light into an electrical signal measurable by the data acquisition system. The output data corresponding to charge and time of the triggered PMTs, is later used for the shower’s parameters reconstruction (e.g. core position, arrival direction and energy of the primary, event classification: gamma or hadron).
![\[Fig1\] WCD setup, where the passage of a charged particle emitting Cherenkov photons is illustrated. ](wcdsetup.png)
A common issue of experiments like this is dealing with a large background originated by hadronic primary cosmic-rays. Such noise can be thousands of times greater than gamma signals (air-shower trigger rate in HAWC: $\sim$ 25 kHz), hence new methods for gamma/hadron separation are needed in order to increase the HAWC’s sensitivity to new gamma-ray sources. Motivated by the fact that muon content is quite different in gamma-induced (poor in muons) and hadronic-induced (rich in muons) air-showers [@Grieder; @Shapiro; @Stanev], we study the idea of formulating a new variable for background reduction related with counting the number of muons candidates present in the showers. To reach that goal, we first identified the signature of muons using only time information between photomultiplier tubes.
Muon time signature in HAWC
===========================
Muons are the most abundant charged particle at the HAWC altitude and arrive mainly with some GeV of energy. They are originated from the charged meson decays ($\pi$, K) in air-showers, following approximately straight trajectories through the atmosphere and even inside WCD. Depending on the area where a muon travels it can trigger a specific number of PMTs, this is called multiplicity (M). In this work, we concentrate on vertical muons which travel close to the central light-sensor (PMT$\_$C), the region with the highest probability of having four multiplicities.
Analysis of single muons in raw data
------------------------------------
To choose muon candidates, first, we used a sample of raw data. This refers to the processed signal of the hit PMTs before the multiplicity trigger criterion for air-showers selection is applied. We considered all those tanks with four detections (M = 4) within a 15 ns time window. The previous selection might include the signal of electrons (e$^{-}$), positrons (e$^{+}$) and low energy gammas ($\gamma$) which triggered as well all 4-PMTs inside a WCD but to help in differentiation we perform Monte Carlo simulations of vertical electrons and muons in a single tank. The energy for particles was: electrons with 1 - 500 MeV and muons with 1 - 15 GeV. Then we analyzed the time difference distributions of the PMT$\_$C relative to the peripherals one (t$_{A}$ - t$_{C}$, t$_{B}$ - t$_{C}$, t$_{D}$ - t$_{C}$). Figure\[Fig2\] shows that the raw data and vertical muon distribution present a similar shape. The mean value (displaced to the right side = time C often smaller) is approximately 5 ns, a characteristic time in which the laterals PMTs see the Cherenkov light after the central detector does. However, the electron distribution is different with a time difference average value near 0 ns, meaning that the PMTs see the light practically at the same time. This happens because electrons stop quickly in the first meter of the water and then the light travels to the bottom falling promptly over all the detectors. On the contrary, muons reach the bottom triggering the PMT$\_$C first and later the lateral PMTs.
![\[Fig2\] Comparison of the time difference distributions between PMTs for electrons (red), muons (green) and raw data (blue). ](plot_diffTime1D-1.png)
Analysis in showers data
------------------------
Like gamma showers are mainly electromagnetic (containing a lot of e$^{-}$, e$^{+}$ and $\gamma$), they must exhibit a time difference close to 0 ns. In order to test this hypothesis, we compared simulation data of gamma-induced showers developed by the HAWC collaboration and real showers data which passed the trigger condition ( $>$ 28 hit PMTs within 150 ns).
In the simulation, the energy of gamma primaries range: 5 GeV - 500 TeV and their arrival direction: 0 - 75 degrees from zenith. Such data have an extended format, allowing to use the time of each triggered PMT in a shower. Likewise, the information of real cascades was extended data and they are presumably background due to their huge rate. We set the same restrictions to both kind of data (core inside the HAWC array, all available WCDs with M = 4, nearby vertical ($\pm$10$^{\circ}$) showers and time differences with respect to PMT$\_$C). Figure\[Fig3\] shows the time difference distributions produced by showers with unequal muon content. The shower data is rich in muons, this is the reason why the time differences tend to about 5 ns.
![\[Fig3\] Comparison, using time difference distributions, of showers data (red) and gamma simulated data (black) for tanks with multiplicity 4.](diffShowers.pdf)
Since the selection of muon candidates is based on identifying the tanks with M = 4, it is extremely important to have a notion of the frequency they have per event. We determined this frequency using data (Fig.\[Fig4\]). In the previous figure, most of the cascades always hit between 45 and 70 tanks. Furthermore, the number of WCDs with M = 4 increase with the size of the showers, but the periodicity of such events is very low. It is common for cascades of up to 150 tanks to have less than 20 tanks with M = 4.
![\[Fig4\] Number of tanks with multiplicity 4 as a function of the shower size (\# triggered tanks).](m4.png)
Definition of a new muon-content-based discrimination parameter
===============================================================
By making an overlap of the signals with two time differences (Fig.\[Fig5\] - left), it can be seen that gammas (black dots) have a circular concentration whose center is close to zero, whereas the noise data (red dots) has an elliptical form, spread towards more large values in time difference. The idea of the variable born out of agglutinating the coincident data within a cutting sphere with a specific radius **R** (Fig.\[Fig5\] - right). All those red dots outside the sphere are the signals occasioned by muons. Each WCD with M = 4 is a point in the space of the three time differences at a distance **$r_{i}$** from origin:
$$r_{i} = \sqrt{(t_{A} - t_{C})^{2} + (t_{B} - t_{C})^{2} + (t_{D} - t_{C})^{2} }$$
In Fig.\[Fig6\] it is shown the distribution of **$r_{i}$** for simulated gamma and measured hadronic showers. The value of **R** was set to 7 ns, such cut maximizes the number of muons out. Therefore, using the restriction **$r_{i}$** $>$ 7 ns were picked out the muon candidates. The new discrimination parameter named MUDECIDER, records the number of times the condition is met per event (overall number of muons) and its higher values correspond to hadronic-induced showers.
![Left: two-dimensional plot created with two time differences, it includes the signal of simulated gamma (black dots) and real showers (red dots). Right: region of the cutting sphere with a defined radius **R**. []{data-label="Fig5"}](difftimes2d.png "fig:"){width="35.00000%"} ![Left: two-dimensional plot created with two time differences, it includes the signal of simulated gamma (black dots) and real showers (red dots). Right: region of the cutting sphere with a defined radius **R**. []{data-label="Fig5"}](difftimes2dnew.png "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}
![\[Fig6\] Histogram of **$r_{i}$** for both gamma and real-showers data.](radesf.png)
Adding a new project to the HAWC software the variable was implemented. Three types of reconstructed data which include the output information of MUDECIDER were generated. Cutting with the *nHit* parameter (number of PMTs with signal within the trigger window), we obtained a normal reconstruction with the minimum threshold established by HAWC ($>$ 28 hit PMTs) and two others corresponding to showers where recorded Cherenkov light more than 300 and 750 PMTs (Fig.\[Fig7\]). The bunches of data allowed to understand the variable’s behavior as a function of larger and energetic events.
![\[Fig7\] Distributions of MUDECIDER output values as a function of *nHit*.](MUval.png)
It should be noted that increasing *nHit* more muon candidates are registered, the maximum number seen range between 200 - 230 candidates per shower.
In order to verify MUDECIDER effectiveness, significance maps of the Crab Nebula were compared with and without using it. This astronomical object is the standard candle in TeV gamma-ray astronomy and HAWC observes it daily.
For the analysis in HAWC, cascade events are classified by their size into nine bins [@crab], depending on the fraction of PMTs registering light in the detector. To visualize the Crab, the second set of reconstructed data was employed (*nHit* $>$ 300) and correspond to the bins 4 - 9. A first map (Fig.\[Fig8\] - left) was created using the official gamma filters, PINCness (Pin) and Compactness (Com); later a second map including MUDECIDER (MU) was built (Fig.\[Fig8\] - right).
In the normal map (Pin + Com) the maximum significance was 18.53$\sigma$ and the minimum was -3.63$\sigma$; on the other hand, when the variable (MU + Pin + Com) was included, a maximum significance of 19.20$\sigma$ was achieved and the minimum value was -3.66$\sigma$. For both maps, the maximum was found in the position (83.58$^{\circ}$, 22.02$^{\circ}$) and the minimum in (82.18$^{\circ}$, 19.63$^{\circ}$). The increase in significance was 0.67$\sigma$ and represents approximately 3.5%. The maps have a duration of 555.28 hours and comprise the information of the bins together. It must be pointed out that the map with MUDECIDER contains fewer events. The cut values of the variable were established per bin analyzing the amount of signal/background in comparison to those produced in the bins of the normal map. The next step is to perform the optimization process of MUDECIDER.
![Significance maps of the Crab Nebula without (left) and using (right) MUDECIDER. There is a slight increase in the signal employing the new variable. []{data-label="Fig8"}](crab.pdf "fig:"){width="47.00000%"} ![Significance maps of the Crab Nebula without (left) and using (right) MUDECIDER. There is a slight increase in the signal employing the new variable. []{data-label="Fig8"}](crabMU.pdf "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}
Conclusion
==========
In the presented work, we analyzed the trail of vertical muons in the HAWC array using only time information. By performing time differences between photomultiplier tubes, we looked for muons with trajectories near the central area of tanks which induce multiplicity 4. Normally, they bring out a characteristic time difference of $\sim$ 5 ns between the PMT$\_$C relative to those peripherals, this due to the well-known geometry of the Cherenkov light emission and the arrangement of the PMTs in the WCD. Then it was defined a new (under study) gamma/hadron separation variable based on the muon content of air-showers. Visualizing significance maps of the Crab Nebula, we showed promising results of this variable.
Acknowledgments
===============
We acknowledge the support from: the US National Science Foundation (NSF); the US Department of Energy Office of High-Energy Physics; the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program of Los Alamos National Laboratory; Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT), M[é]{}xico (grants 271051, 232656, 260378, 179588, 239762, 254964, 271737, 258865, 243290, 132197), Laboratorio Nacional HAWC de rayos gamma; L’OREAL Fellowship for Women in Science 2014; Red HAWC, M[é]{}xico; DGAPA-UNAM (grants IG100317, IN111315, IN111716-3, IA102715, 109916, IA102917); VIEP-BUAP; PIFI 2012, 2013, PROFOCIE 2014, 2015; the University of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation; the Institute of Geophysics, Planetary Physics, and Signatures at Los Alamos National Laboratory; Polish Science Centre grant DEC-2014/13/B/ST9/945; Coordinaci[ó]{}n de la Investigaci[ó]{}n Científica de la Universidad Michoacana. Thanks to Luciano Díaz and Eduardo Murrieta for technical support.
[99]{}
**HAWC** Collaboration, A. Smith, HAWC: Design, Operation, Reconstruction and Analysis, in Proc. 34th ICRC, (The Hague, The Netherlands), August 2015.
P. Grieder. *Extensive Air Showers*. In: Gamma Ray and Electron Initiated Air Showers (pp. 20). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2010. eBook ISBN: 978-3-540-76941-5.
M.M. Shapiro, T. Stanev, and J.P. Wefel, editors. *Astrophysical Sources of High Energy Particles and Radiation*. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht, 2001. Volume 44 of Series II: Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry.(pp. 177 - 178)
T. Stanev. *Are deep underground detectors good $\gamma$-ray telescopes?*, Physical Review D. **33:9**, pp. 2740-2743, 1986.
A. Abeysekara et al., *Observation of the Crab Nebula with the HAWC Gamma-Ray Observatory*, *The Astrophysical Journal*. **843:39** (17pp), 2017.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have computed linear non-adiabatic oscillations of luminous red giants using a non-local and anisotropic time-dependent theory of convection. The results show that low-order radial modes can be self-excited. Their excitation is the result of radiation and the coupling between convection and oscillations. Turbulent pressure has important effects on the excitation of oscillations in red variables.'
author:
- |
D. R. Xiong,$^{1}$ L. Deng,$^{2}$ and C. Zhang$^{2}$\
$^{1}$Purple Mountain Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Nanjing 210008, China\
$^{2}$Key Laboratory of Optical Astronomy, National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China
date: 'Accepted 2018 July 16. Received 2018 July 12; in original form 2017 July 24'
title: 'Turbulent convection and pulsation stability of stars – III. Non-adiabatic oscillations of red giants'
---
\[firstpage\]
stars:late-type – stars: oscillations – stars: variables: general – Magellanic Clouds – convection
Introduction {#sec1}
============
In the H-R diagram, there are a lot of pulsating red variables in the low-temperature area to the right of the Cepheid instability strip. They have the largest number among all known types of pulsating variables, and yet we know little about them. In the General Catalogue of Variable Stars [@GCVS], luminous red variables, usually known as long-period variables (LPVs), are divided into three types according to the regularity of their light curves: Miras, semi-regular variables (SRVs) and irregular variables. The study of red variables has made considerable progress in the past two decades with the help of photometric observations from projects like MACHO, OGLE and 2MASS. @Wood1999 and @Wood2000 found 5 ridges (sequences A–E) in the period-luminosity (PL) diagram of luminous red variables in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). OGLE observations showed more complex structures in the PL diagram, and at least 14 ridges could be defined [@KB2003; @WEP2004; @SUK2004; @SUK2005; @SDU2007]. @SUK2004 found that stars with the primary periods on sequence A rarely had their second and third dominant periods on sequences C and C$'$, and stars with the primary periods on sequence C rarely had their second and third dominant periods on sequence A. This indicates that stars with their primary periods on sequence A are a special type of red variables. They are named OGLE Small Amplitude Red Giants (OSARGs), but their origin is still unclear.
At first @Wood1999 thought that variable luminous red giants in MACHO observations were asymptotic-giant-branch (AGB) stars, but later @KB2003 and @ITM2004 found evidence showing that there were luminous red variables on both the AGB and the red-giant branch (RGB). Their PL sequences were parallel with slight offsets.
@TSI2013 compared observed period ratios of luminous red giants with theoretical ones and concluded that OSARGs were radial and non-radial p modes. @Wood2015 reached a similar conclusion, and identified the stars on sequences C and C$'$ as predominantly radial pulsators; the radial pulsation modes associated with A$'$, A, B, C$'$ and C were the fourth, third, second and first overtones and the fundamental modes, respectively. However, @Trabucchi2017 found that both sequences B and C$'$ corresponded to first-overtone pulsation.
For a long time, convection has been considered to be a pure damping mechanism of stellar oscillations. The excitation mechanism of pulsating red variables has been a long-standing theoretical problem. There are two different opinions regarding the excitation mechanism of OSARGs. The prevailing opinion is that they are stochastically excited, just like solar-like oscillations [@CDKM2001; @SDU2007; @TSI2013]. However, @XD2013 came to the conclusion that there were no essential differences between the excitation mechanisms of oscillations in OSARGs and Miras. They were both the results of radiation and convective coupling. In this paper, we aim at probing the excitation mechanism for luminous red giants observed by MACHO and OGLE. In section \[sec2\], we briefly introduce theoretical stellar models and the scheme of computation. The results of computation of linear non-adiabatic oscillations are given in section 3, and the excitation mechanism of oscillations is discussed in section 4. We summarize our results in section 5.
Theoretical models and scheme of computation {#sec2}
============================================
It is well known that traditionally there are 4 equations for stellar structure: the conservation of mass, momentum and energy, and the equation of radiative transfer. Convection is treated with the mixing-length theory [MLT; @MLT]. MLT is a phenomenological theory based on the analogy between turbulent convection and kinetic theory of gas molecules. In fact turbulence is much more complex than motions of gas molecules. Most of the time, gas molecules are free except when they collide. Their mean free path is far less than the characteristic length of the average fluid field change. Therefore, the molecule transport process (molecular viscosity, molecular heat conduction, molecular diffusivity, **etc.**) can be treated with a local theory. On the contrary, turbulent elements are in continuous interaction, and the characteristic length of turbulent elements and the average field change are comparable. Therefore, the convective transport process is a non-local phenomenon. Nonlinearity and non-locality of fluid motions are two main difficulties in the study of convection. The fundamental shortcoming of the local MLT is that it is not a dynamic theory following the hydrodynamic equations, therefore it cannot correctly describe the dynamic behaviours of turbulent convection. This shortcoming is very serious, or even intolerable, in dealing with dynamic problems of non-local and time-dependent convection. To solve this problem, we have developed a non-local and anisotropic time-dependent theory of convection based on hydrodynamic equations and turbulence theory [@X1989; @XCD1997; @DXC2006]. There are 8 partial differential equations in our complete set of equations for chemically homogeneous stellar structure and oscillations. 4 of them are the equations of mass conversation, momentum conversation, energy conversation, and radiative transfer. When convection sets in, the second-order auto-correlation of turbulent velocity (the Reynolds stress) emerges in the momentum conversation equation, and the second-order cross-correlation of turbulent velocity and temperature (the convective enthalpy flux) appears in the energy conversation equation. The other 4 equations are the dynamic equations of the auto- and cross-correlations of turbulent velocity and temperature. There are 3 convective parameters ($c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$), which are connected to dissipation, diffusion and anisotropy of turbulent convection, respectively. These parameters can be calibrated by using the structure of the solar convection zone, the turbulent velocity and temperature fields of the solar atmosphere, the solar lithium abundance and numerical simulations of hydrodynamics. From a pure theoretical point of view, these parameters cannot be a group of constants. They depend not only on stellar luminosity and effective temperature, but also on depth (radius) inside stars. Fortunately, our study shows that adopting a group of parameters ($c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$)=(0.64, 0.32, 3.0) as calibrated using the Sun, we can reproduce almost all of the instability strips of pulsating stars in the H-R diagram. Moreover, within a wide range of these parameters stellar pulsation stability is not sensitive to the change of parameters, and is almost independent of the specific values of ($c_1$, $c_2$, $c_3$) [@tcpss1; here after Paper I].
We have calculated both the radial and nonradial oscillations of luminous red giants. In the present paper we discuss only the radial oscillations. The nonradial oscillations will be studied in detail in future work. For stellar radial oscillations, the effects of the core area can be neglected except for its gravity field. Therefore, envelope models are enough for our analysis. The number of equations for static structures and linear radial non-adiabatic oscillations in term of completely non-local and anisotropic theory is 12, while the number of equations for linear nonradial non-adiabatic oscillations is 16. In Paper I we gave the complete set of equations for stellar structure and oscillations as well as a brief description of our non-local and anisotropic time-dependent theory of convection. For detailed derivations of the equations please refer to our previous work [@X1989; @XCD1997; @DXC2006].
Computing envelope models in the completely non-local and anisotropic convection theory is very difficult and time-consuming. We use quasi-anisotropic non-local convection models as equilibrium models for pulsation calculations. Our study shows that not only quasi-anisotropic non-local convection models approach the completely anisotropic ones very well in terms of the $T-P$ structure and turbulent velocity-temperature fields, but also their results of pulsation stability are consistent (see Paper I).
Results of theoretical computation {#sec3}
==================================
![RGB (black solid lines) and AGB (red dotted lines) evolutionary tracks with $M=0.8$, $1.0$, $1.4$ and $1.8\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ in the H-R diagram. Pluses mark the positions of the $M=1.0\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ equilibrium models in Figure \[fig2\].[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.jpg){width="\columnwidth"}
Adopting the scheme described in last section, we computed the radial and non-radial linear non-adiabatic oscillations of RGB and AGB models. The evolutionary models were from the Padova code [@Padova2008; @Padova2009], as shown in Figure \[fig1\]. The initial chemical abundances of LMC were $Y$=0.26, $Z$=0.008. Considering the lack of models in the thermal pulsating AGB (TP-AGB) phase and the uncertainty of mass loss, AGB models only included those from the horizontal branch to the beginning of the TP-AGB. The high-luminosity AGB stars with $L/\mathrm{L}_\odot \ga 3.3$ were extrapolated into the TP-AGB phase without mass loss. Therefore the results of oscillation computations of high-luminosity AGB stars are not very reliable, and can only be used as reference. We computed 150 non-local convective envelope models along each evolutionary track, then calculated their linear non-adiabatic oscillations for luminous RGB and AGB models of 0.8–1.8$\mathrm{M}_\odot$. The surface boundary of static envelop models and oscillation computations was at $\tau=10^{-3}$, where $\tau$ is the optical depth. The bottom boundary was set deep enough: the bottom temperature $T_\mathrm{b} \sim 8\times 10^6\,\mathrm{K}$ or fractional radius $r_\mathrm{b}/R_0 \sim 0.01$. A slightly modified version of the Mihalas-Hummer-Däppen (MHD) equation of state [@MHD1; @MHD2; @MHD3], and OPAL tabular opacity [@OPAL92] complemented by low-temperature tabular opacity [@LTO94] were adopted. All the computations of static models and oscillations followed the Henyey’s algorithm [@HFG1964].
![Sequences of LMC LPVs in the $W_I-\log P$ plane (panel a) and $K_\mathrm{S}-\log P$ plane (panel b). Stars on sequences A$'$, A, B, C$'$, and C are shown as cyan, blue, green, orange, and red points, respectively. Sequence D is not shown. The filled and open black symbols show the theoretical PL relations for $1.0\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ and $1.8\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ evolutionary models, respectively. Circles, triangles, inverse triangles, squares, and diamonds are the pulsationally unstable radial fundamental modes, the first, second, third, and fourth overtones, respectively. []{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.jpg){width="\columnwidth"}
In order to compare with observations, stellar parameters were converted to $UBVRIJHK$ magnitudes using the transformation program provided by @WL2011. The $JHK$ colors were then converted to the 2MASS system using transformations given by @Carpenter2001. The adopted LMC distance module was 18.5 mag [@PGG2013].
The observed sequences of luminous red variables in the LMC are shown in Figure \[fig2\] using data from the OGLE-III catalogue of LPVs in the LMC [@SUS2009]. The abscissas are the logarithmic period (in days) $\log P$. The ordinate in panel a is the reddening-free Wesenheit index $W_I$, defined as $$W_I=I-1.55(V-I).
\label{eq1}$$ The ordinate in panel b is the 2MASS magnitude $K_\mathrm{S}$. The catalogue contains 79200 OSARGs, 11128 SRVs and 1667 Miras. In Figure \[fig2\] only the primary period of each star is plotted. Stars on sequences A$'$, A, B, C$'$, and C are shown as cyan, blue, green, orange and red points, respectively. The subscripts O and C in panel a are used to distinguish between oxygen-rich and carbon-rich SRVs and Miras.
The theoretical PL relations of low-order radial modes for $M=1.0\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ and $1.8\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ evolutionary models are shown in Figure \[fig2\] as filled and open symbols, respectively. Circles, triangles, inverse triangles, squares, and diamonds represent the pulsationally unstable radial fundamental modes, the first, second, third, and fourth overtones, respectively. In our computation of non-adiabatic radial oscillations, almost all of the p1–p39 modes of all the RGB and AGB models converged successfully without difficulty. Only for high-luminosity AGB models, the non-adiabatic oscillations of the fundamental modes were often nonconvergent, leading to the missing modes in Figure \[fig2\]. We are still not very clear whether the non-convergence of the fundamental modes came from numerical calculations or had other causes. If the reason is the former, it it very difficult to explain why the non-convergence only existed in the calculations of the fundamental modes, while the other modes converged exceptionally well.
As can be seen in Figure \[fig2\], the theoretical period ranges of low-order radial oscillations are approximately consistent with the observed period ranges of the LPV sequences. However, there are systematic differences between the observed and theoretical PL relations. The main reasons are as follows.
1. Uncertainties in the transformation from theoretical stellar parameters ($M$, $L$, $T_\mathrm{e}$) to observed magnitudes ($V$, $I$, $K_\mathrm{S}$).
The uncertainties are more significant for luminous RGB and AGB stars, which have extended dust envelopes. By comparing Figures \[fig2\]a & b, it is can be seen that the differences between theoretical and observed PL relations in $K_\mathrm{S}$ are clearly larger than those in $W_I$. It seems that the long-wavelength end is more affected by the dust envelopes.
2. Uncertainties in stellar evolutionary models.
Compared with normal-mass stars in their early evolutionary stages, the evolutions of RGB and AGB stars are subject to uncertainties from mass loss, convection treatment, and low-temperature opacity.
3. Mass variations.
The luminous red variables observed by MACHO and OGLE are a group of stars with certain mass, age, and metallicity distributions, while our theoretical stellar models shown in Figure \[fig2\] are RGB and AGB models with $M=1.0\,\mathrm{M}_\odot$ and $Z=0.008$. Therefore differences between theory and observation are expected. Using a modified Petersen diagram, @Wood2015 found that the stars on sequences A$'$–C have different masses.
Excitation mechanism {#sec4}
====================
We have long known that Cepeheid and Cepeheid-like variables are driven by radiative $\kappa$ mechanism, and the existence of the red edge of the Cepheid instability strip is due to convective damping. Therefor for a long time convection is believed to be a pure damping mechanism of oscillations. However, why are there still various types of red variables in the low-temperature area beyond the Cepheid instability strip? @XDC1998 studied non-adiabatic oscillations of luminous red variables, and pointed out the existence of a Mira instability strip in the low-temperature area beyond the Cepheid instability strip.
In low-temperature red variables, convection replaces radiation as the dominant means of energy transport. Radiation is still an important driving and damping mechanism of oscillations in red variables, but it works together with convection, instead of being the dominant mechanism in high-temperature variables. Radiative transfer is a well-know physical process, while the coupling between convection and oscillations remains a major difficulty in the study of red variables [@HD2015]. Therefore it is fair to say that convection is the key to solve the problem of the excitation of oscillations in red variables. Unfortunately, so far there has not been a widely accepted stellar convection theory. Therefore, controversies are unavoidable about the excitation mechanism of oscillations in red variables. The following discussions represent the theoretical interpretations of this problem within the framework of our non-local and time-dependent convection theory [@tcpss1]
Accumulated work is a convenient and useful way in studying the excitation mechanisms of pulsating variables. It not only gives quantitatively estimate of the plusational amplitude growth rate, but also shows the locations of the driving and damping. The total accumulated work can be written as $$W=W_{P_\mathrm{g}}+W_{P_\mathrm{t}}+W_\mathrm{vis},
\label{eq:w}$$ where $W_{P_\mathrm{g}}$, $W_{P_\mathrm{t}}$, and $W_\mathrm{vis}$ are the gas pressure component, the turbulent pressure component, and the turbulent viscosity component, respectively. $$W_{P_\mathrm{g}}=-\frac{\pi}{2E_\mathrm{k}}\int_0^{M_0}\mathrm{I}_\mathrm{m}\left\{\frac{P}{\rho}\frac{\delta P}{P}\frac{\delta\rho^*}{\rho}\right\}\mathrm{d}M_r,
\label{eq:wpg}$$ $$W_{P_\mathrm{t}}=-\frac{\pi}{2E_\mathrm{k}}\int_0^{M_0}\mathrm{I}_\mathrm{m}\left\{\rho x^2\frac{\delta x}{x}\frac{\delta\rho^*}{\rho}\right\}\mathrm{d}M_r,
\label{eq:wpt}$$ $$W_\mathrm{vis}=-\frac{\pi}{2E_\mathrm{k}}\int_0^{M_0}\mathrm{I}_\mathrm{m}\left\{\rho \chi^{1}_{1}\frac{\delta\chi_{1}^{1*}}{\chi_1^1}\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\ln r}\left(\frac{\delta r^*}{r}\right)\right\}\mathrm{d}M_r,
\label{eq:wvis}$$ where $$E_\mathrm{k}=\frac{1}{2}\int_0^{M_0}\rho\omega^2\delta r\delta r^*\mathrm{d}M_r,
\label{eq:ek}$$ and $\omega$ is the circular frequency of the oscillation mode. $\rho g^{ij}x^2$ and $\rho\chi^{ij}$ are the isotropic and anisotropic components of the turbulent Reynolds stress and are expressed in tensor form with $g^{ij}$ being the metric tensor (see Paper I and @ZDX2017 for related definitions and discussions).
Convection drives mixing of material and transport and exchange of energy and momentum in stellar interiors, and therefore affects the structure, evolution, and pulsation stability of stars. Equations \[eq:wpt\] and \[eq:wvis\] are the work contributions by the Reynolds stress by means of momentum exchange, i.e. the dynamic coupling between convection and oscillations. Due to the inertia of turbulent motions, the variation of the turbulent pressure $\rho x^2$ in stellar oscillations always lags slightly behind the variation of density. As a result, a positive Carnot cycle is formed in the pressure-volume ($P_\mathrm{t}-V$) diagram, converting irregular turbulent kinetic energy into regular kinetic energy of stellar oscillations. Therefore, turbulent pressure is always a driving mechanism of oscillations. It has important effects on the excitation of stellar oscillations [@XD2013; @tcpss2; @Antoci2014].
The anisotropic component $\chi^{ij}$ represents shear motions of the fluid, converting regular kinetic energy of oscillations into irregular turbulent kinetic energy. This process takes place at low wave numbers (large-scale turbulence) of the turbulent energy spectrum. The energy is then gradually shifted to high wave numbers (small-scale turbulence) as a result of turbulence cascade, and is eventually converted into thermal energy by molecular viscosity. Therefore, turbulent viscosity is always a damping mechanism against oscillations.
The gas pressure component of the accumulated work in equation \[eq:wpg\] includes the contributions from both the radiative and convective energy transfer. We can separate the contributions from the radiative flux, the turbulent thermal flux, and the turbulent kinetic energy flux one by one in the average energy equation [@XD2010; @XD2013]. They are closely coupled to each other; variation in one causes compensating variations in the others. In the deep interior of the convection zone, the convective flux dominates. Our study shows that the variation of the turbulent thermal flux is usually synchronized with the variation of density (with a slight phase lag). This means that in stellar oscillations thermal convection takes out more energy at high-temperature high-density phase, and blocks in more energy at low-temperature low-density phase. This mechanism works like a refrigerating machine, converting pulsation kinetic energy into thermal energy. Therefore, turbulent thermal convection is usually a damping mechanism against oscillations.
![Sketch of the frequency dependence of the effects of turbulent pressure (solid line), turbulent thermal flux (dashed line), and turbulent viscosity (dotted line).[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.jpg){width="\columnwidth"}
![Accumulated work and its components as a function of depth $\log T$ for a low-luminosity red giant. The solid lines are the total accumulated work $W$. The dashed, long-dashed, and dotted lines are the gas component $W_{P_\mathrm{g}}$, turbulent pressure component $W_{P_\mathrm{t}}$, and turbulent viscosity component $W_\mathrm{vis}$, respectively. The dash-dotted lines are the fractional radiative flux $\log L_\mathrm{r}/L$. The horizontal lines indicate the locations of the ionization regions of hydrogen and helium. Panel a: p0 mode. Panel b: p9 mode.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.jpg){width="\columnwidth"}
![The same as Figure \[fig3\] but for a high-luminosity red giant.[]{data-label="fig5"}](fig5.jpg){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig3\] is a sketch showing the turbulent pressure component $W_{P_\mathrm{t}}$, the turbulent viscosity component $W_\mathrm{vis}$, and the turbulent thermal convection component $W_{P_\mathrm{gc}}$ as a function of $\omega\tau_\mathrm{c}$, where $\tau_\mathrm{c}$ is the dynamic time scale of convective motions [@XD2013]. As stellar parameters ($M$, $L$, $T_\mathrm{e}$, $X$, $Y$, $Z$) and oscillation frequencies vary, the relative sizes of the contributions from radiation, turbulent pressure, turbulent thermal convection, and turbulent viscosity also vary. The combined effect is that the total accumulated work $W$ sometimes is positive, and sometimes is negative, corresponding to unstable and stable oscillations, respectively. Therefore a star shows different oscillation characteristics in different evolutionary stages. Figure \[fig4\] and \[fig5\] show the accumulated work $W$ (solid lines) and the components $W_{P_\mathrm{g}}$ (dashed lines) $W_{P_\mathrm{t}}$ (long-dashed lines) $W_\mathrm{vis}$ (dotted lines) of the fundamental modes (panels a) and the ninth overtones (panels b) as a function of depth for a low-luminosity red giant and a high-luminosity red giant, respectively. The fractional radiative flux $\log L_\mathrm{r}/L$ (dashed-dotted lines) and the hydrogen and helium ionization zones (thick horizontal lines) are also plotted. In the low-luminosity red giant, the fundamental mode (Figure \[fig4\]a) is stable due to the damping mainly from turbulent viscosity, but the ninth overtone (Figure \[fig4\]b) is unstable with the driving contributed by both the gas pressure and turbulent pressure components. However, we see the opposite results in the high-luminosity red giant. The fundamental mode (Figure \[fig5\]a) is pulsationally unstable due to the dominating driving effect from turbulent pressure; while the ninth overtone (Figure \[fig5\]b) becomes stable because the damping effects from both turbulent thermal convection and turbulent viscosity overtake the driving effect from turbulent pressure.
Figure \[fig6\] shows the numerical results of linear non-adiabatic oscillations for $1.0\mathrm{M}_\odot$ stellar models. The small dots are pulsationally stable modes, and the open circles are unstable modes. The sizes of the open circles are proportional to the logarithms of the amplitude growth rates. It can be clearly seen that low-order modes are pulsationally stable in low-luminosity red giants, while the mid- to high-order modes are pulsationally unstable. Therefore low-luminosity red giants show characteristics of solar-like oscillations. As luminosity increases, pulsationally unstable modes shift to lower radial orders. In high-luminosity red giants, only a few low-order modes are pulsationally unstable, while all the mid- to high-order modes become pulsationally stable. Therefore high-luminosity red giants show typical characteristics of Mira-like oscillations.
![Pulsationally stable (small dots) and unstable (open circles) radial modes in the $\log L/\mathrm{L}_\odot-n_\mathrm{r}$ plane for AGB models. The sizes of the open circles are proportional to the logarithms of the amplitude growth rates of the modes.[]{data-label="fig6"}](fig6.jpg){width="\columnwidth"}
Summary {#sec5}
=======
We have computed the linear non-adiabatic oscillations of evolutionary models of low-mass red giants. The main results can be summarized as follows.
1. Sequences A–C of luminous red variables in LMC of MACHO and OGLE observations are low-order radial modes of low-mass RGB and AGB stars.
2. Oscillations in Miras and OSARGs can be self-excited as a result of radiation and the coupling between convection and pulsation. Turbulent pressure has important effects on the excitation of oscillations in low-temperature red variables.
3. Our study shows that for low-luminosity red giants, the low-order modes are stable, while the intermediate- and high-order modes are unstable. These stars show characteristics of solar-like oscillations. As the luminosity increases, unstable modes move towards lower orders. In luminous red giants, only a few low-order radial modes are unstable, while all of the intermediate- and high-order modes become stable. These stars show characteristics of Mira-like oscillations.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) through grants 11373069, 11473037, and 11403039.
[99]{} Alexander D. R., Ferguson J. W., 1994, , 437, 879
Antoci V., Cunha M., Houdek G., et al., 2014, , 796, 118
Bertelli G., Girardi L., Marigo P., Nasi E., 2008, , 484, 815
Bertelli G., Nasi E., Girardi L., Marigo P., 2009, , 508, 355
B[ö]{}hm-Vitense, E. 1958, , 46, 108
Carpenter J. M., 2001, , 121, 2851
Christensen-Dalsgaard J., Kjeldsen H., Mattei J. A., 2001, , 562, L141
Däppen W., Mihalas D., Hummer D. G., Mihalas B. W., 1988, , 332, 261
Deng L., Xiong D. R., Chan K. L., 2006, , 643, 426
Henyey L. G., Forbes J. E., Gould N. L., 1964, , 139, 306
Houdek G., Dupret M.-A., 2015, Living Rev. Solar Phys., 12, 8
Hummer D. G., Mihalas D., 1988, , 331, 794
Ita Y., Tanabé T., Matsunaga N., et al., 2004, , 347, 720
Kholopov P. N., Samus N. N., Frolov M. S., et al., 1985–1988, General Catalogue of Variable Stars 4th edn. Nauka, Moscow
Kiss L. L., Bedding T. R., 2003, , 343, L79
Mihalas D., Däppen W., Hummer D. G., 1988, , 331, 815
Pietrzyński G., Graczyk D., Gieren W., et al., 2013, , 495, 76 Rogers F. J., Iglesias C. A., 1992, ApJS, 79, 507
Soszyński I., Dziembowski W. A., Udalski A., et al., 2007, , 57, 201
Soszyński I., Udalski A., Kubiak M., et al., 2004, , 54, 129
Soszyński I., Udalski A., Kubiak M., et al., 2005, , 55, 331
Soszyński I., Udalski A., Szymański M. K., et al., 2009, , 59, 239
Takayama M., Saio H., Ita Y., 2013, , 431, 3189
Trabucchi M., Wood, P. R., Montalbán J., et al., 2017, , 847, 139
Wood P. R., 2000, , 17, 18
Wood P. R., 2015, , 448, 3829
Wood P. R., Alcock C., Allsman R. A., et al., 1999, in Le Betre T., Lebre A., Waelkens C., eds, Proc. IAU Symp. 191, Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars. Kluwer, Dordrecht, p. 151
Worthey G., Lee H.-C., 2011, , 193, 1
Wray J. J., Eyer L., Paczyński B., 2004, , 349, 1059
Xiong D. R., 1989, , 209, 126
Xiong D. R., Deng L., 2010, , 405, 2759
Xiong D. R., Deng L., 2013, Res. in Astron. and Astrophys., 13, 1269
Xiong D. R., Cheng Q. L., Deng L., 1997, , 108, 529
Xiong D. R., Deng L., Cheng Q. L., 1998, , 499, 355
Xiong D. R., Deng L., Zhang C., 2015, , 451, 3354 (Paper I)
Xiong D. R., Deng L., Zhang C., Wang K., 2016, , 457, 3163
Zhang C., Deng L., Xiong D. R., RAA, 17, 29
\[lastpage\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the problem of shot noise in resonant tunneling through double quantum dots in the case of interacting particles. Using a many-body quantum mechanical description we evaluate the energy dependent transmission probability, the total average current and the shot noise spectrum. Our results show that the obtained reduction of the noise spectrum, due to Coulomb interaction, can be interpret in terms of non–interacting particles with fractional charge like behavior.'
author:
- |
Brahim Elattari$^{1}$ and S.A. Gurvitz $^2$\
$^1$Universität Essen, Fachbereich 7, 45117 Essen, Germany\
$^2$Weizmann Institute of Science, Department of Particle Physics\
76100 Rehovot, Israel
title: 'Shot noise in coupled dots and the “fractional charges”'
---
PACS: 73.23.Hk, 73.23.-b
The notion of quasi–particles of fractional charge has been introduced for almost two decades to explain the Fractional Quantum Hall (FQH) effect[@laughlin]. Yet, despite intensive efforts, the nature of these quasi–particles is not completely understood. An important progress, however, has been made in this direction with experiments on quantum shot-noise [@rez; @sami; @grif] leading to direct measurement of the quasi–particle fractional charge. In fact, for non-interacting particles of charge $q$ the zero frequency spectral density at zero temperature is given by[@les]
$$S(0)=2qI(1-t)\ ,
\label{a0}$$
where $I$ is the current and $t$ is the transmission coefficient through the device. In the FQH regime $q$ is given by the quasi–particle charge, $e^*$.
For a proper understanding of the fractional charge, which appears in the shot noise, it is necessary to investigate a possible modification of Eq. (\[a0\]) due to electron-electron interaction. Since the exact treatment of Coulomb interaction in FQH is a very complicated problem, it would be interesting to investigate the shot noise in different transport processes, where the Coulomb interaction can be treated. These processes can be found, for example, in resonant tunneling structures, which are important not only from a fundamental, but also from an applied point of view. For instance, in was demonstrated that shot noise in the resonant tunneling diode, biased in the negative differential resistance region may be described in terms of independent quasi-particles of charge up to $6.6q$[@inna1].
In this Letter we consider resonant transport through a two-level system, represented by two coupled dots, as shown schematically in Fig. 1, using a microscopic many-body description. The strong Coulomb inter-dot repulsion prevents two electrons to occupy simultaneously the system. Hence an electron, entering this system turns to a linear superposition of the states of the two dots. The main question which we are going to consider is how the Coulomb interaction, which generates a partial occupation of the states of the system, affects the shot noise given by Eq. (\[a0\]). To answer of this question we apply our new method for a determination of the transmission $t$ in a case of interacting electrons. We show that for symmetric dots the effect of the Coulomb interaction leads to a simple modification of Eq. (\[a0\]), in which the penetration coefficient $t$ is replaced by $kt$, where $k$ is some fractional or integer factor, depending on a particular system of dots. Comparing with Eq. (\[a0\]) for non-interacting case we find that our result can be described by this equation, but assuming a fractional charge like behavior, similar to that observed in the FQH regime. Even though this system is very different from that of FQH, the similarity in the behavior of shot-noise in different transport processes would be useful to understand the nature of the fractional charge quasi-particles[@jack].
Let us consider resonant tunneling through two levels of coupled quantum dots connected to two separate reservoirs of very dense states, as shown in Fig. 1. The reservoirs are taken at zero temperature and are filled up to the Fermi energy levels $\mu_L$ and $\mu_R$, respectively, with $\mu_L > \mu_R$. As a result the current flows from left to the right reservoirs.
[**Fig. 1:**]{} Resonant tunneling through coupled dots.
\
\
The dynamics of the system is described by the following tunneling Hamiltonian, where for simplicity we have omitted the spin variables $$\begin{aligned}
H &=& \sum_l E_{l}a^{\dagger}_{l}a_{l} +
E_1 a_1^{\dagger}a_{1} + E_2 a_2^{\dagger}a_{2}+
\sum_r E_{r}a^{\dagger}_{r}a_{r}
+\sum_l \Omega_{l}(a^{\dagger}_{l}a_1
+a^{\dagger}_{1}a_{l})\nonumber\\
&&+ \sum_r \Omega_{r}(a^{\dagger}_{r}a_2 +
a^{\dagger}_{2}a_{r})
+\Omega_0(a_1^{\dagger}a_{2}+a_2^{\dagger}a_{1})
+Ua_1^{\dagger}a_1a_2^{\dagger}a_2 \ .
\label{b1} \end{aligned}$$ The operators $a_i^{\dagger}$ ($a_i$) create (annihilate) an electron in the corresponding state $i$. The $\Omega_l$ and $\Omega_r$ are the hopping amplitudes between the states $E_l$, $E_1$ and $E_r$,$E_2$, respectively. These amplitudes are found to be directly related to the tunneling rate of the electrons out of the quantum dots, $\Gamma_{L,R}=2\pi\Omega^2_{L,R}\rho_{L,R}$, where $\Omega_{L,R}=\Omega_{l,r}(E_{1,2})$ and $\rho_{L}$ ($\rho_{R}$) is the density of states in the left (right) reservoir. The $\Omega_0$ is the hopping amplitude between the dots. The Coulomb interaction between the two dots is given by the last term in Eq. (\[b1\]). The intra-dot Coulomb repulsion is assumed to be very large, so that only one electron may occupy a dot.
It was demonstrated in Ref.[@gp] that in the case of large bias, $\mu_L-\mu_R\gg\Gamma_{L,R}, \Omega_0$, the time dependent Schrödinger equation $i|\dot\Psi(t)>=H|\Psi(t)$, where $|\Psi>$ is the many-body wave function of the above system, can be transformed to a set of rate equations for the corresponding density matrix, $\sigma^{(n)}_{ij}(t)$. This density matrix, gives the probability of finding $n$ electrons in the collector by time $t$, where the indices $i,j=\{0,1,2,3\}$ denote the different possibilities of occupation of the states of the dots, namely: $\sigma_{00}^{(n)}$ is the probability of finding both dots unoccupied, $\sigma_{11}^{(n)}$, $\sigma_{22}^{(n)}$, $\sigma_{33}^{(n)}$ are the probabilities of finding the first, the second, and both of the dots occupied, respectively; $\sigma_{12}^{(n)}(t)=\sigma_{21}^{* (n)}(t)$ denote the off-diagonal density-matrix elements (the “coherencies”).
Consider first the non-interacting case, $U=0$ in Eq. (\[b1\]). Using our approach we derive the following Bloch-type rate equations for $\sigma^{(n)}_{ij}(t)$, which have a simple interpretation in term of the “loss” and “gain” contributions[@gp]
\[b2\] $$\begin{aligned}
\dot\sigma_{00}^{(n)} & = & -\Gamma_L\sigma_{00}^{(n)}
+\Gamma_R\sigma_{22}^{(n-1)}\;, \label{b2a}\\
\dot\sigma_{11}^{(n)} & = & \Gamma_L\sigma_{00}^{(n)}
+\Gamma_R\sigma_{33}^{(n-1)}+i\Omega_0(\sigma_{12}^{(n)}-\sigma_{21}^{(n)})\;,
\label{b2b}\\
\dot\sigma_{22}^{(n)} & = & -\Gamma\sigma_{22}^{(n)}
+i\Omega_0(\sigma_{21}^{(n)}-\sigma_{12}^{(n)})\;,
\label{b2c}\\
\dot\sigma_{33}^{(n)} & = & -\Gamma_R\sigma_{33}^{(n)}
+\Gamma_L\sigma_{22}^{(n)}\;,
\label{b2d}\\
\dot\sigma_{12}^{(n)} & = & i\epsilon\sigma_{12}^{(n)}+
i\Omega_0(\sigma_{11}^{(n)}-\sigma_{22}^{(n)})
-\Gamma\sigma_{12}^{(n)}\ ,
\label{b2e}\end{aligned}$$
where $\epsilon =E_2-E_1$ and $\Gamma =(\Gamma_L+\Gamma_R)/2$.
The stationary current flowing in the system is then given by: $$\left. I=e{d\over dt}\sum_nnP_n(t)\right |_{t\to\infty},
\label{b3}$$ where $P_n(t)=\sum_{i=0}^{i=3}\sigma^{(n)}_{ii}(t)$ is the total probability of finding $n$ electrons in the collector by time $t$. The zero frequency component of the noise spectrum is defined by $P_n(t)$ as well[@chen]: $$S(0)=2e^2\left.{d\over dt}\left [\sum_nn^2P_n(t)-(\sum_nnP_n(t))^2\right ]
\right |_{t\to\infty}
\label{b5}$$
Solving Eqs. (\[b2\]) in the limit of $t\to\infty$ and using Eqs. (\[b3\]), (\[b5\]) one finds the following expressions for the averaged current and the shot noise power, respectively $$\begin{aligned}
I&=&e{2\Gamma_L\Gamma_R\Gamma\Omega_0^2\over
(4\Omega_0^2+\Gamma_L\Gamma_R)\Gamma^2
+\epsilon^2\Gamma_L\Gamma_R}\ ,
\label{b4}\\\noalign{\vskip7pt}
S(0)&=&2eI\bigg (1-\Gamma_L\Gamma_R\Omega_0^2
{\epsilon^2(\Gamma_L^3+\Gamma_R^3)
+2\Gamma^3(4\Gamma^2+\Gamma_L\Gamma_R+4\Omega_0^2)\over
\Gamma [(4\Omega_0^2+\Gamma_L\Gamma_R)\Gamma^2
+\epsilon^2\Gamma_L\Gamma_R]^2}\bigg ).
\label{b7} \end{aligned}$$
Since Eqs. (\[b4\]) and (\[b7\]) correspond to the non-interacting case, $U=0$, one can show that the same expressions for $I$ and $S(0)$ can be obtained in an alternative way using the Landauer formula for $I$ and the Khlus-Lesovik formula for $S(0)$, $$\begin{aligned}
I&=&e\int {dE\over 2\pi} t(E)\ ,
\label{b88}\\
S(0)&=&2e^2\int
{dE\over 2\pi}t(E)(1-t(E))\ .
\label{b8}\end{aligned}$$ Here $t(E)$ is the transmission probability through the sample, given by the Breit-Wigner formula for coupled resonances[@sum] $$t(E)={\Gamma_L\Gamma_R\Omega_0^2\over \left |\left
(E-E_1+i{\Gamma_L\over 2}\right ) \left (E-E_2+i{\Gamma_R\over 2}\right
)-\Omega_0^2\right |^2} .
\label{b9}$$
In the case of small coupling with the reservoirs, $\Gamma_{L,R}\ll\Omega_0$ and $\epsilon \ll \Omega_0$ , the transmission $t(E)$ shows two pronounced peaks at $E=E_\pm$, corresponding to the two eigenstates of the double-dot system. One easily finds that in this limit Eq. (\[b7\]) for the shot noise becomes $$S(0)=2eI( 1-\bar t/2) ,
\label{nb}$$ where $\bar t=t(E_\pm )=4\Gamma_L\Gamma_R/(\Gamma_L+\Gamma_R)^2$ is the maximum value of the transmission probability. Hence, Eq. (\[nb\]) predicts a maximum suppression of one half of the Poissonian noise (for $\Gamma_L=\Gamma_R$), in agreement with the known results[@ian] for independent particle models.
Let us apply our approach to the case where $U\to\infty$ in Eq. (\[b1\]). This corresponds to strong interdot Coulomb repulsion, which prevents simultaneous occupation of the two quantum dots. As a result the associated rate equations become [@gp]:
\[b10\] $$\begin{aligned}
\dot\sigma_{00}^{(n)} & = & -\Gamma_L\sigma_{00}^{(n)}
+\Gamma_R\sigma_{22}^{(n-1)}\;, \label{b10a}\\
\dot\sigma_{11}^{(n)} & = &
\Gamma_L\sigma_{00}^{(n)} +i\Omega_0(\sigma_{12}^{(n)}-\sigma_{21}^{(n)})\;,
\label{b10b}\\
\dot\sigma_{22}^{(n)} & = & -\Gamma_R\sigma_{22}^{(n)}
+i\Omega_0(\sigma_{21}^{(n)}-\sigma_{12}^{(n)})\;,
\label{b10c}\\
\dot\sigma_{12}^{(n)} & = & i\epsilon\sigma_{12}^{(n)}+
i\Omega_0(\sigma_{11}^{(n)}-\sigma_{22}^{(n)})
-\frac{1}{2}\Gamma_R\sigma_{12}^{(n)}\;.
\label{b10d}\end{aligned}$$
Solving Eqs. (\[b10\]) in the limit of $t\to\infty$ and using Eq. (\[b3\]) we find the following expression for the total current, in the case of Coulomb interdot blockade[@gp; @naz]: $$I_c=e{4\Gamma_L\Gamma_R\Omega_0^2\over
4\Omega_0^2(2\Gamma_L+\Gamma_R)+\Gamma_L\Gamma_R^2
+4\epsilon^2\Gamma_L}.
\label{b11}$$ The corresponding shot noise spectrum, $S_c(0)$, is obtained in an analogous way by Eq. (\[b5\]), leading to $$\begin{aligned}
S_c(0)=2eI_c\bigg (1-8\Gamma_L\Omega_0^2
{4\epsilon^2(\Gamma_R-\Gamma_L)+
\Gamma_R(3\Gamma_L\Gamma_R+\Gamma_R^2+8\Omega_0^2)\over
[4\Omega_0^2(2\Gamma_L+\Gamma_R)+\Gamma_L\Gamma_R^2
+4\epsilon^2\Gamma_L]^2}\bigg )\ .
\label{b12}\end{aligned}$$
Now, it is interesting to compare $S_c(0)$, given by Eq. (\[b12\]), with that obtained from the Khlus-Lesovik formula Eq. (\[b8\]). The crucial problem, however, is an evaluation of the transmission coefficient for interacting electrons, $t_c(E)$, given by the ratio between the conductance and the quantum conductance[@rez]. Thus, $t_c(E)={\cal I}(E)/e$, where ${\cal I}(E)$ is the current density ($I_c=\int {\cal I}(E)dE/2\pi$), represented by the operator $ie[H,a_r^\dagger a_r]=
ie\Omega_r(a^\dagger_2a_r-a^\dagger_ra_2)$, where $E=E_r$ is the corresponding energy level in the collector. One finds $${\cal I}(E_r)=ie\Omega_r [\sigma_{r2}(t)-\sigma_{2r}(t)]|_{t\to\infty},
\label{bbb12}$$ where $\sigma_{r2}(t)=\langle \Psi (t)|a^\dagger_2a_r|\Psi (t)\rangle$ are the off-diagonal density-matrix elements describing an electron in the linear superposition between the states $E_2$ and $E_r$. Such terms cannot be determined by the rate equations (\[b10\]), where all the reservoir states $E_{l,r}$ were traced out. Yet, it was recently found that our method can be generalized, by avoiding any tracing of the collector states, $E_r$[@eg]. Finally we arrive to extended quantum rate equations, which determine the off-diagonal terms, $\sigma_{r2}(t)=\sigma^*_{2r}(t)$ and $\sigma_{r1}(t)=\sigma^*_{1r}(t)$:
\[b14\] $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\sigma}_{r1}&=&i(E_1-E_r)\sigma_{r1}+i\Omega_0\sigma_{r2}
-i\Omega_r\sigma_{21}-{\Gamma_L\over 2}\sigma_{r1}
\label{b14a}\\
\dot{\sigma}_{r2}&=&i(E_2-E_r)\sigma_{r2}
+i\Omega_0\sigma_{r1}-i\Omega_r\sigma_{22}
-\Gamma\sigma_{r2}\ ,
\label{b14b}\end{aligned}$$
where $\sigma_{21}=\sum_n\sigma_{21}^{(n)}$ and $\sigma_{22}=\sum_n\sigma_{22}^{(n)}$ are given by Eqs. (\[b10\]). The detailed derivation of these equations will be given elsewhere. Here we only mention that these equations resembles the Bloch equation, with some modifications, since the states $E_r$ belong to continuum[@eg].
Solving Eqs. (\[b10\]), (\[b14\]) and using Eq. (\[bbb12\]) we obtain for the current density the following result $${\cal I}(E)={\Gamma_L[(E-E_2)^2+\Gamma^2]
+2\Omega_0^2\Gamma\over \left |
\left (E-E_1+i{\Gamma_L\over 2}\right )
\left (E-E_2+i\Gamma\right )-\Omega_0^2\right |^2}I_c ,
\label{b15}$$ where $I_c$ is the total current, given by Eq. (\[b11\]). Similar to the previous case of non-interacting electrons, Eq. (\[b9\]), the transmission coefficient $t_c(E)={\cal I}(E)/e$ shows two peaks in the limit of weak coupling of the quantum dots with the reservoirs, $\Gamma_{L,R}\ll \Omega_0$, and $\epsilon\ll\Omega_0$. Each of these peaks is well reproduced by a Lorentzian given by $$t_c(E)={\Gamma_L\Gamma_R/4
\over (E-E_{\pm})^2
+\left ({2 \Gamma_L +\Gamma_R \over 4}\right )^2}\ ,
\label{bb15}$$ as one can show directly from Eq. (\[b15\]) in this limit. However, in the limit of strong coupling or $\epsilon\gg\Omega_0$, the transmission coefficient is rather flat. This is demonstrated in Fig. 2, which shows $t_c(E)$ for a symmetric system ($\Gamma_L=\Gamma_R =\Gamma$, $E_1=E_2=0$). It is important to note that in contrast to non-interacting electrons, the height of the peaks is always smaller than $1$, since the interdot interaction does not allow simultaneous occupation of both quantum dots.
[**Fig. 2:**]{} Transmission $t_c(E)$ for a symmetric coupled-dot in the case of interacting electrons ($U\to\infty$). The solid line corresponds to $\Gamma =0.1\Omega_0$, whereas the dashed line corresponds to $\Gamma =10\Omega_0$.
\
\
Substituting $t_c={\cal I}/e$ given by Eq. (\[b15\]) into Eq. (\[b8\]) and comparing the result with $S_c(0)$, Eq. (\[b12\]) for $\epsilon\ll \Omega_0$, we find a further suppression of the shot noise due to Coulomb interaction with respect to that obtained from the Khlus-Lesovik formula. This is demonstrated in Fig. 3, where we plot the shot-noise as a function of $\epsilon$. With an increase of $\epsilon$, however, the opposite effect takes place, and the non-interacting formula Eq. (\[b8\]) shows suppression of the shot noise with respect to the interacting case. For $\epsilon\to \infty$ both Eq. (\[b8\]) and Eq. (\[b12\]) reach the same Poissonian limit.
[**Fig. 3:**]{} The shot-noise power as a function of $\epsilon =E_1-E_2$ for $U\to\infty$ and $\Gamma_L=\Gamma_R=0.1\Omega_0$, The solid line corresponds to Eq (\[b12\]), the dashed line is the Schottky noise, and the dotted line is given by Eqs. (\[b8\]), (\[b15\]).
\
\
The additional reduction of the shot noise due to Coulomb repulsion, with respect to the non-interacting case, can be seen from the simple analytical results obtained in the limit of weak coupling with the reservoirs, $\Gamma_{L,R}\ll \Omega_0$ and $\epsilon\ll\Omega_0$. One finds from Eq. (\[b12\]) $$S_c(0)=2eI_c( 1-\bar t_c) ,
\label{ni}$$ where $\bar t_c$ is the peak value of the transmission probability $$\bar t_c=t(E_\pm )={4\Gamma_L/\Gamma_R\over (2\Gamma_L/\Gamma_R+1)^2}
\label{bb16}$$ On the other hand the Khlus-Lesovik formula (\[b8\]) and Eq. (\[b15\]) give in the same limit $$S_0(0)=2eI_c( 1-\bar t_c/2) ,
\label{ni1}$$ Comparing Eqs. (\[ni\]) and (\[ni1\]), it follows that an additional reduction of the shot-noise due to Coulomb blockade can by effectively accounted for by a factor $k$ in the second term of the Khlus-Lesovik formula, i.e. by replacing $(1-t)$ in Eq. (\[b8\]) by $(1-kt)$. We suggest that this result would be valid in the general case of different configurations and number of quantum dots. Since this reduction of the shot noise is associated to a partial occupation of the available states, we can expect that $k$ is always given by an integer or fraction.
Now we are going to investigate whether one could interpret the result given by Eq. (\[b12\]) in terms of non-interacting particles with a fractional charge $e^*$. To answer this question, let as compare Eq. (\[b12\]) with Eq. (\[b8\]), where in the latter the electron charge $e$ is replaced by the quasi-particle charge $e^*$. Respectively, the transmission $t(E)$ is replaced by ${\cal I}(E)/e^*$ with the same quasi-particle charge $e^*$. This allows us to determine the transmission via the current, as in the measurements[@rez; @sami; @grif]. Thus Eq. (\[b8\]) can be rewritten as $$S_0(0)=2e^*\int {\cal I}(E)\left [1-{{\cal I}(E)\over e^*}\right ]
{dE\over 2\pi}
\label{bb12}$$
Consider again the limit of $\Gamma_{L,R},\epsilon\ll\Omega_0$. Then using Eg. (\[bb15\]), we find from Eq. (\[bb12\]) that $S_0(0)$ is given by Eq. (\[ni1\]) with $e\to e^*$ and $\bar t_c\to (e/e^*)\bar t_c$. To determine the value of the charge $e^*$, we require this expression to be identical with the one given by Eq. (\[ni\]). We then obtain the following expression for $e^*/e$ as a function of the transmission $t^*={\cal I}(E_\pm )/e^*=(e/e^*)\bar t_c$, $$\frac{e^*}{e}=\frac{1}{1+pt^*} ,
\label{n4}$$ where $p=1/2$. It follows from Eq. (\[bb16\]) that the value of $t^*$ depends on the ratio $\Gamma_L/\Gamma_R$, but cannot exceed $t^*_{max}=2/3$. This corresponds to the fractional charge $e^*/e=3/4$. In general, $t^*_{max}$, as well as the factor $p$ in Eq. (\[n4\]) depend on the particular geometry (whether the dots are in sequel or in parallel) and on the number of coupled dots. We thus would assume that Eq. (\[n4\]) holds in the general case, where only the coefficient $p$ is different. Since the latter is related to partial occupation of the states, we expect it to be either an integer or a fractional number.
It is very interesting that Eq. (\[n4\]) for $p=2$ is rather close to the experimental results for the measurement of the fractional charge[@grif] in the FQH at filling factor $\nu =1/3$, as shown in Fig. 4. Although the processes are very different, a resemblance between Eq. (\[n4\]) and the data might indicate the importance of partial occupation of available states in FQH effect.
In conclusion, we have given a microscopic description of the shot noise in resonant structures in the presence of Coulomb interaction. Our results show that for symmetric dots Coulomb interaction decreases the noise in comparison to the non-interacting case and the obtained shot noise can be interpret in terms of non-interacting particles with fractional charge due to a partial occupation of the quantum dots states.
[**Fig. 4:**]{} The quasi-particle charge in FQH as a function of transmission. The solid line corresponds to Eq. (\[n4\]) for $p=2$.
\
\
BE knowledges fruitful discussions with G. Hackenbroich and would like to thank the Albert Einstein Minerva Center for Theoretical Physics for the financial support.
R.B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**50**]{} (1982) 1395. R. de-Picciotto, M. Reznikov, M. Heiblum, V. Umansky, G. Bunin and D. Mahalu, Nature, [**389**]{} (1997) 162. L. Saminadayar, D. C. Glattli, Y. Jin, B. Etienne, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{} (1997) 2526. T.G. Griffiths, E. Comforti, M. Heiblum, A. Stern, and V. Umansky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{} (2000) 3918. V.A. Khlus, Sov. Phys. JETP [**66**]{}, 1243 (1987); G.B. Lesovik, JETP Lett. [**49**]{} (1989) 592. G. Iannaccone, G. Lombardi, M. Macucci and B. Pellegrini, Nanotechnology [**10**]{} (1999) 97. R. Jackiw, C. Rebbi and J.R. Schrieffer, cond-mat/0012370. S.A. Gurvitz and Ya.S. Prager, Phys. Rev. B[**53**]{} (1996) 15932; S.A. Gurvitz , Phys. Rev. [**B57**]{} (1998) 6602. L.Y. Chen and C.S. Ting, Phys. Rev. B[**46**]{} (1992) 4714. M.Yu. Sumetskii and M.L. Fel’shtyn, JETP Lett. [**53**]{} (1991) 24. G. Iannaccone, M. Macucci and B. Pellegrini, Phys. Rev. B[**55**]{} (1997) 4539. T.H. Stoof and Yu.V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{} (1996) 1050. B. Elattari and S.A. Gurvitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{} (2000) 2047; B. Elattari and S.A. Gurvitz, Phys. Rev. A[**62**]{} (2000) 032102.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Understanding the physical mechanisms behind thermal effects in phosphors is crucial for white light-emitting diodes (WLEDs) applications, as thermal quenching of their photoluminescence might render them useless. The two chemically close Eu-doped [Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{12}$N$_{2}$ ]{}and [Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{9}$N$_{4}$ ]{}crystals are typical phosphors studied for WLEDs. The first one sustains efficient light emission at 100$^{\circ}$C while the second one emits very little light at that temperature. Herein, we analyze from first principles their electronic structure and atomic geometry, before and after absorption/emission of light. Our results, in which the Eu-5d levels are obtained inside the band gap thanks to the removal of an electron from the 4f$^7$ shell, attributes the above-mentioned experimental difference to an auto-ionization model of the thermal quenching, based on the energy difference between Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ and the conduction band minimum. For both Eu-doped phosphors, we identify the luminescent center, and we show that the atomic relaxation in their excited state is of crucial importance for a realistic description of the emission characteristics.'
author:
- 'S. Poncé'
- 'Y. Jia'
- 'M. Giantomassi'
- 'M. Mikami'
- 'X. Gonze'
bibliography:
- 'BSON\_v18.bib'
title: 'Understanding thermal quenching of photoluminescence from first principles.'
---
White light-emitting diodes (WLEDs) are seen as the most promising light source to replace incandescent and ultraviolet (UV) lamps. The phosphor-converted WLEDs rely on multiple layers of rare-earth (RE) doped photoluminescent materials called “phosphors" to down-convert (Stokes shift) the monochromatic UV or blue light from an electroluminescent diode into a broad-spectrum white light. The photoluminescent properties in RE-doped phosphors are most often based on radiative 5d-4f transition of the dopant. Phenomenological models of the luminescence and Stokes shift of such phosphors are based on configurational diagrams [@Henry1968; @Barnett1970] (see Fig. \[fig:Config\_Doren\]). In the case of RE-doped phosphors, one electron is excited from the RE-4f band into the excited RE-5d band by a UV/blue photon coming from the diode (absorption). Such excited RE-5d electron modifies the forces inside the material, changing the average atomic positions from $X_0$ to $X_0^*$. After dissipation of the energy as phonons, the excited electron spontaneously emits light and the crystal returns to its original ground-state geometry after yet another relaxation.
Unfortunately for the WLEDs industry, other non-radiative mechanisms allow the RE-5d electron to relax to the ground state. For example, the electron can lose entirely its energy as heat by emitting phonons or transfer its energy to impurities or defects called “killer-center" via, for example, photo-ionization [@Khan2015]. A phosphor can have high photoluminescence efficiency at low temperature but little at working temperature. The existence of such thermal quenching seem to be sensitive to minute details of the host material and RE dopants.
A striking example is given by two chemically close oxynitride materials: [Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{12}$N$_{2}$:Eu ]{}and [Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{9}$N$_{4}$:Eu ]{}(named generically BSON compounds). The two hosts materials have very similar electronic and structural properties [@Bertrand2013] but when doped with Eu, they exhibit different luminescence properties and temperature behavior. The green phosphor [Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{12}$N$_{2}$:Eu]{} [@Uheda2007; @Mikami2009; @Zhang2010; @Braun2010; @Tang2011; @Porob2011; @Song2011; @Kang2012; @Chen2013; @Chen2013a; @Li2014] has an intensity that stays almost constant with temperature up to its working temperature, while [Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{9}$N$_{4}$:Eu ]{}is a bluish-green phosphor [@Stadler2006; @Mikami2009; @Song2013; @Li2013; @Kim2013] that exhibits an unfavorable decrease of the luminescence intensity with temperature.
The experimental absorption and emission spectra as well as their temperature dependence have been measured experimentally [@Uheda2007] and lead to a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the two emission curves at 4 K of 1500 cm$^{-1}$ and 1300 cm$^{-1}$ for Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{12}$N$_{2}$:Eu and Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{9}$N$_{4}$:Eu, respectively. These two FWHM are considered rather narrow and therefore it is expected that the luminescence in both compounds only comes from one luminescent center (one non-equivalent crystallographic position), despite the existence of several Ba inequivalent sites (two in [Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{12}$N$_{2}$:Eu ]{}and three in [Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{9}$N$_{4}$:Eu ]{}), where substitution by Eu might occur.
In this paper, we clarify the physical origin of the thermal quenching in these RE-doped oxynitrides, by complementing the available experimental data with first-principle results. Additionally, we confirm the uniqueness of non-equivalent luminescent sites that are present in both doped materials, and identify them. We believe our results are general and concern other RE-doped phosphors. Due to the size of the cells needed to represent the doped materials, the Bethe-Salpeter equation (BSE) [@Onida2002], presently the best technique to predict optical properties in solids, could not be straightforwardly used. We rely instead on a simpler mean-field approach, in which a fixed 4f hole is introduced, either frozen in the core by means of a pseudopotential, or artificially forced inside the band gap so that the Eu$_{5d}$ electron is located inside the band gap. This approach allows us to draw, for the first time, a global and coherent picture of the absorption/emission, the geometry relaxation and the temperature effect on the luminescence.
![\[fig:Config\_Doren\] Comparison between the 4f-5d crossing and the Dorenbos auto-ionization model to explain the thermal quenching. ](Images1.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
#### Models for the thermal quenching.
The 5d-4f crossing decay model (Fig. \[fig:Config\_Doren\]a) predicts that large atomic geometry changes lead to the crossing of the Eu$_{5d}$ and Eu$_{4f}$ configurational energy curves. If the temperature is large enough, the excited electron of the 5d band overcome the activation energy barrier $E_A$ and decays non-radiatively to the ground state. Based on this model, Blasse and Grabmaier [@Blasse1994] made predictions about the thermal quenching: stronger non-radiative decays occur when the zero phonon line energy difference $E_2-E_0$ is small and the parabola offset as well as the vibrational frequencies are important. As pointed out by Mikami and co-worker [@Mikami2009; @Mikami2011; @Mikami2013], the Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{12}$N$_2$:Eu compound has a smaller zero phonon line, equivalent parabola offset and larger phonon frequencies than Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{9}$N$_4$:Eu, in contradiction to the observed thermal quenching.
In contrast, Dorenbos [@Dorenbos2005c] proposed an auto-ionization model, see Fig. \[fig:Config\_Doren\]b, arguing that the Eu$_{5d}$ comes close to the conduction band minimum (CBM) from the host material well before the 5d-4f crossing point. We will show later that indeed this situation can be inferred from first-principles calculations. At working temperature, the Eu$_{5d}$ electron is transferred to the conduction band, becomes delocalized and mobile, and undergoes energy dissipation through other non-radiative mechanisms (trapping, killer centers such as defects, lattice vibration ...). Based on this model, the smaller the Eu$_{\text{5d}}$-CBM gap, the larger is the thermal quenching. Dorenbos’ empirical formula [@Dorenbos2005c] $\text{CBM}-\text{Eu}_{5d} =\frac{T_{0.5}}{680} eV$ links the size of this gap to the quenching temperature T$_{0.5}$, at which the emission intensity has dropped by 50% from its low temperature value. From experimental thermal quenching data of the emission spectrum, Mikami *et al.* [@Mikami2011] could estimate the Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ to CBM gap to be approximatively 0.6 and 0.2 eV for Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{12}$N$_2$:Eu and Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{9}$N$_4$:Eu, respectively.
To validate the Dorenbos’ model, we have gathered experimental data and employed accurate many-body $G_0W_0$ *ab-initio* bandgaps of 6.88 eV and 6.45 eV for the two host materials [@Bertrand2013]. This allowed us to build a global picture of the level positions for the absorption and emission in the two compounds, see Fig. \[fig:Dorenbos\_model\]. For the absorption, the 4f-5d gaps of 310 nm (4 eV) and 440 nm (2.8 eV) in Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{12}\-$N$_2$:Eu come from the peak and shoulder positions of the experimental absorption spectrum [@Uheda2007]. The equivalent 4f-5d gap in Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{9}\-$N$_4$:Eu is located at 340 nm (3.65 eV). Similar consideration leads us to 5d-4f gaps of 535 nm (2.32 eV) and 480 nm (2.6 eV) for Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{12}\-$N$_2$:Eu and Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{9}\-$N$_4$:Eu, respectively. There is an additional blue shift of 0.06 eV at 300 K in the emission curve in the case of Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{12}\-$N$_2$:Eu [@Uheda2007]. Fig. \[fig:Dorenbos\_model\] is then confirmed and completed (in red) by our first-principles results, as explained below.
However, let us emphasize the meaning of the energy changes that are gathered in Fig. \[fig:Dorenbos\_model\]. At variance with standard density-functional theory (DFT) band structures [@Martin2004] or even $GW$ quasi-particle band structures [@Aulbur1999], the levels inside the gap are not associated to the removal or addition of an electron but instead to neutral excitations. The Eu$_{\text{4f}}$ level is occupied by seven electrons in the ground state (half-filled shell). The absorption of a photon leaves a hole in this Eu$_{\text{4f}}$ shell and the electron that is transferred in the 5d lower levels or in the CBM feels the attractive potential of the hole, which is absent in traditional band structure methods. On the other hand, the band edges keep their usual significance: they weakly feel the localized 4f hole, since the corresponding electron (or hole) band edge states are delocalized.
![\[fig:Dorenbos\_model\] Absorption and emission levels (eV) of the two BSON luminescent centers from experimental data or $G_0W_0$ calculations (in black) and present calculations (in red). The horizontal band positions at 0 K are shown in black, and at 300 K are shown in green (sometimes superimposed when there is no thermal effect).](Images2.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
#### The ground state.
The crystal structure of the two hosts, where the Ba atom has two inequivalent positions in [Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{12}$N$_{2}$ ]{}and three in Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{9}$N$_{4}$, is presented in Ref. [@Bertrand2013]. By replacing one Ba atom of the primitive cell by an Eu one, the doping concentration is 33%, much higher than the 2-10% experimental doping [@Li2014]. Therefore, we relied on doped supercells that are three times larger than the primitive ones, [Eu$_1$Ba$_8$Si$_{18}$O$_{36}$N$_{6}$ ]{}and [Eu$_1$Ba$_8$Si$_{18}$O$_{27}$N$_{12}$]{}, leading to an Eu doping concentration of 11%. More details on the five supercell models are given in the Supplemental Material at \[URL will be inserted by publisher\]. The latter also contains a detailed description of the methodology and numerical parameters of the calculations, whose brief description is given hereafter.
The ground state calculations using the generalized gradient approximation (GGA) [@Perdew1996] +U (U=7.5 eV and J=0.6 eV) [@Liechtenstein1995; @Amadon2008] lead to Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ bands that are not localized inside the bandgap of the host material, in contradiction to both the 5d-4f crossing decay model and the Dorenbos auto-ionization model. For [Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{12}$N$_{2}$:Eu]{}, this had already been noticed in Ref. [@Tang2013].
#### Depletion of the 4f shell.
As already mentioned, the presence of Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ states inside the band gap in Fig. \[fig:Dorenbos\_model\] is due to the hole left by the Eu$_{\text{4f}}$ to Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ transition, creating an attractive center for the Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ electron. The Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ electron and the Eu$_{\text{4f}}$ hole are strongly correlated and their description would require a cumbersome treatment at the BSE level. To make the problem tractable, we use two simpler mean-field approaches that allow us to describe the Coulomb effect of the hole while the Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ state is occupied. In the first one, the pseudopotential core-hole approach (see for example Ref. [@Pehlke1993]), a 4f$^6$ shell is frozen in the pseudopotential, instead of the ground state 4f$^7$ shell. In the second approach, the Eu$_{\text{4f}}$ hole is treated explicitly in the valence manifold through forced occupation numbers of the Eu$_{\text{4f}}$ orbitals (equal occupation numbers). This approach is called “constrained DFT” (CDFT) and has been applied successfully to a wide range of materials [@Dederichs1984; @Wu2005a; @Wu2006; @Kaduk2012], including rare-earth doped solid-state compounds, by Canning and coworkers, to study the luminescence in Ce-doped [@Canning2011; @Chaudhry2011] and Eu-doped [@Chaudhry2014] inorganic scintillators. In both approaches, the Coulomb interaction is correctly treated between the Eu core and the explicitly treated Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ electron, as well as between the electrons and the other nuclei, allowing to include the most relevant physics in the computation of the forces, and thus yielding reasonable atomic geometries. We have used the pseudopotential core-hole approach to relax the geometries from first principles.
#### Self-interaction in the excited state.
However, for the comparison of the 5d electronic level with the CBM, both approaches are quite deceiving, as they include a non-physical self-interaction of the excited electron in the Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ and they poorly describe many-body effects in both Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ and the CBM. The self-interaction overscreens the electronic properties and push the Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ too high in energy, comparatively to the CBM.
In order to describe the electronic properties properly, a self-interaction free method has to be used. We found out that even the simple Kohn-Sham band structure obtained with the depleted Eu$_{\text{4f}}$ shell charge density, but *without occupying the Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ orbitals, nor the conduction band minimum* has no (or little) self-interaction bias between these states.
Moreover, the use of GGA+U is not enough to localize the Eu$_{\text{4f}}$ states inside the bandgap when an electron is removed. An additional atomic potential energy shift of 0.3 Ha for Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{12}$N$_2$ and 0.28 Ha for Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{9}$N$_4$ has to be applied on the Eu$_{\text{4f}}$ states in order to reproduce the known experimental data shown in Fig. \[fig:Dorenbos\_model\]. Since this additional atomic potential is applied in the same way for the two sets, we can still discuss their relative difference. We propose to name our hybrid method “depleted-shifted 4f approach” as we remove one electron and apply an additional atomic potential energy to those 4f states. An homogeneous negative background is also added to preserve charge neutrality.
In order to validate it, we have performed tests, for the primitive cell only, based on the BSE and the GW methodology. In particular, we note that the BSE builds an effective Hamiltonian that takes into account two Feynman diagrams: the direct (attractive Coulomb interaction) diagram and the exchange diagram [@Onida2002]. The attractive screened Coulomb interaction obtained from the BSE is accounted for to a large extend in the core-hole and depleted-shifted 4f techniques because the change of the electronic potential resulting from the hole in the pseudopotential is computed self-consistently within DFT (screened electron-hole interaction) and because all 4f states are strongly localized. In contrast, the exchange term $V_{xc}$ within DFT is only a one-point function and therefore does not have the adequate form to reproduce the four-point kernel function of the BSE. To evaluate the crudeness of the mean-field approach, we have computed in a restricted space of valence and conduction states, the Bethe-Salpeter exchange term for the Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{12}$N$_2$:Eu compounds. We have obtained that the effect of the exchange could be as large as 0.25 eV in high-lying excitonic states, but the lowest transitions were nearly unaffected (0.02 eV). Also, we have performed GW calculations on the doped primitive cell, with the core-hole Eu pseudopotential. The relative changes, between the Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ and the conduction band minimum, compared to the Kohn-Sham eigenenergies, were much smaller than the GW corrections for the valence to conduction band gap of the host materials. The latter corrections were on the order of 2.1-2.2 eV for the host materials [@Bertrand2013], while the GW correction to the Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ to CBM gap were only on the order of 0.2-0.3 eV.
{width="100.00000%"}
#### The 5d and conduction band levels in the case of neutral excitations.
The 5d and conduction band levels, obtained with a mean-field 4f hole in the depleted-shifted 4f approach, were computed for the rhombohedral Eu-doped supercells with different geometries. The results with ground-state atomic positions (absorption) are shown in Figs. \[fig:Ab\_em\](a)-(e), while those associated with the emission process, computed at the relaxed atomic positions, are presented in Figs. \[fig:Ab\_em\](f)-(j). The differences between ground-state and excited geometries are large, and crucial to correctly describe the emission process: in all five cases, the absorption geometry leads to one (or two) Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ level(s) below the CBM (dispersive band), while this only happens in two cases for the relaxed geometry. The contraction of the O cage around the Eu atom can be extremely important for some bonds, e.g. up to 16% contraction of the Eu-O bond length with respect to the undoped case. This level of additional contraction is well in line with the change of cation radii associated with the change of oxidation state for the Eu atom that we describe. Indeed, the experimental Eu cation radius goes from 131 pm for Eu$^{2+}$ to 108.7 pm for Eu$^{3+}$ [@Shannon1976]. From the analysis of the emission in Fig. \[fig:Ab\_em\], we conclude that the two Eu$_{\text{I}}$ substitutions in Ba$_9$Si$_{18}$O$_{36}$N$_{6}$ and Ba$_9$Si$_{18}$O$_{27}$N$_{12}$ are the only luminescent centers due to the position of their Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ band below the CBM, as expected from the small FWHM. We found out that the two gaps are 0.52 eV and 0.37 eV for Eu$_{\text{I}}$Ba$_8$Si$_{18}$O$_{36}$N$_6$ and Eu$_{\text{I}}$Ba$_8$Si$_{18}$O$_{27}$N$_{12}$, respectively.
For the two luminescent centers, the 4f states (not shown in figure \[fig:Ab\_em\]), went up by 2.5 eV and 1.5 eV, due to atomic relaxation. Although the absolute position of the 4f state depends on the value of the U and the 4f potential shift, the comparison made here is relevant since the only difference between the absorption and emission calculations are the atomic positions. To strengthen our analysis, we notice that the lowest conduction bands of the three non-luminescent centers are spin degenerate because the delocalized states are far from the Eu atom and therefore do not react to its magnetic moment. We have also made an analysis of the change of 4f state energy with respect to the 5d-CBM gap, for intermediate geometries. We observe that the 5d-CBM gap closes well before the 4f energy comes close to the 5d energy, supporting the Dorenbos model.
#### The temperature dependence.
Finally, we also studied the effect of temperature on the CBM of the two BSON host materials, using the static Allen-Heine-Cardona (AHC) theory [@Ponce2014; @Ponce2014a; @Antonius2014; @Marini2015; @Ponce2015; @Antonius2015], leading to a similar renormalization of -0.17 eV for both compounds at 300 K. At present, AHC calculations for the doped materials are out of reach computationally. Still, we do not expect large relative differences between the two materials, and in any case much smaller than the -0.17 eV renormalization of the CBM.
#### Conclusion.
All of the above mentioned results allow us to complete our schematic drawing of Fig. \[fig:Dorenbos\_model\], yielding a global picture on which theory and experiment agree. From Fig. \[fig:Ab\_em\] we also identify the only active luminescent center in both [Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{12}$N$_{2}$ ]{}and [Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{9}$N$_{4}$]{}. The three other non-equivalent centers have their Eu$_{\text{5d}}$ states completely above the CBM level of the host material therefore leading to non-radiative emissions. This confirms the experimental results that show narrow and well resolved emission peaks for the two BSON compounds. Fig. \[fig:Ab\_em\] has been obtained through the depleted-shifted 4f scheme, whose validity was checked by comparing it to the Bethe-Salpeter theory in a simplified case. As seen in Figure \[fig:Ab\_em\], the relaxation of the Eu doped excited state is of crucial importance as there are major changes in the electronic bandstructure before and after Stokes shifts. We confirm the Dorenbos auto-ionization model: the Eu$_{\text{5d}}$-CBM gap is 0.09 eV larger in [Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{12}$N$_{2}$:Eu ]{}than in [Ba$_3$Si$_6$O$_{9}$N$_{4}$:Eu]{}. This energy difference is enough to show significant thermal quenching behavior differences [@Dorenbos2005c]. The techniques that we have used, for the ground-state, the excited state, and finally, for the study of the gap with the conduction band, should be widely applicable for realistic models of phosphors at a much lower computational cost than the much more expensive BSE technique
#### Acknowledgments.
We acknowledge discussions with B. Bertrand, D. Waroquiers, and thank J.-M. Beuken for computational help. This work has been supported by the Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FRS-FNRS Belgium) through a FRIA fellowship (S.P.) and the PdR Grant No. T.0238.13 - AIXPHO. Computational ressources have been provided by the supercomputing facilities of the Université catholique de Louvain (CISM/UCL) and the Consortium des Equipements de Calcul Intensif en Fédération Wallonie Bruxelles (CECI) funded by the FRS-FNRS under Grant No. 2.5020.11.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we propose a meshfree approximation method for the implicit filter developed in [@Bao-implicit], which is a novel numerical algorithm for nonlinear filtering problems. The implicit filter approximates conditional distributions in the optimal filter over a deterministic state space grid and is developed from samples of the current state obtained by solving the state equation implicitly. The purpose of the meshfree approximation is to improve the efficiency of the implicit filter in moderately high-dimensional problems. The construction of the algorithm includes generation of random state space points and a meshfree interpolation method. Numerical experiments show the effectiveness and efficiency of our algorithm.'
author:
- 'Feng Bao[^1]'
- 'Yanzhao Cao[^2]'
- 'Clayton G. Webster'
- Guannan Zhang
title: 'An efficient meshfree implicit filter for nonlinear filtering problems[^3]'
---
Nonlinear filtering, implicit algorithm, meshfree approximation, Shepard’s method
Introduction
============
Nonlinear filters are important tools for dynamical data assimilation with applications in a variety of research areas, including biology [@Baker2013; @Little-Jones2013], mathematical finance [@Bensoussan2009; @Elliott2013], signal processing [@Hairer2011; @Little-Jones2013; @Stannat2011], image processing [@Singh2013], and multi-target tracking [@Kim2013; @Yang2012]. To put it succinctly, nonlinear filtering is an extension of the Bayesian framework to the estimation and prediction of nonlinear stochastic dynamics. In this effort, we consider the following nonlinear filtering model $$\label{State:Cont}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
{\frac}{d X_t}{dt} &= f(t, X_t; W_t), \quad \text{(state)}\\
Y_t &= g(t, X_t) + V_t, \;\;\; \text{(observation)}
\end{aligned}\right.$$ where $f$ and $g$ are two nonlinear functions, $\{X_t \in \mathbb{R}^d,t \geq 0 \}$ and $\{{Y}_t \in \mathbb{R}^q, t \geq 0\}$ are the stochastic state and observation processes, respectively, $\{W_t \in \mathbb{R}^{r}, t \ge 0\}$ is a random vector representing the uncertainty in $X_t$, and $\{V_t \in \mathbb{R}^{s}, t\ge 0\}$ denotes the random measurement error in $Y_t$. In the discrete setting, the nonlinear filtering model in takes the form $$\label{eq:State}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
{X}_{k} &= f_{k}({X}_{k-1}, w_{k-1}), \quad \text{(state)}\\
{Y}_{k} &= g_{k}({X}_{k}) + v_{k}, \;\;\qquad \text{(observation)}
\end{aligned}\right.$$ where $\{w_k\}_{k \in \mathbb{N}^{+}} \in \mathbb{R}^{r}$ and $\{v_k\}_{k \in \mathbb{N}^{+} } \in \mathbb{R}^{s}$ are mutually independent white noises. Let ${Y}_{1:k} := \sigma\{{Y}_1, {Y}_2, \cdots, {Y}_k \}$ denote the $\sigma$ filed generated by the observational data up to the step $k$. The goal of nonlinear filtering is to find the posterior probability density function (PDF) of the state ${X}_k$, given the observation data $Y_{1:k}$, so as to compute the quantity of interest (QoI), given by $$\mathbb{E}[\Phi({X}_k) | Y_{1:k} ] = \inf\left\{ \mathbb{E}[ | \Phi({X}_k) - Z |^2 ]; Z \in \mathcal{Z}_k \right\},$$ where $\Phi(\cdot)$ is a test function, and $\mathcal{Z}_k$ denotes the space of all $Y_{1:k}$-measurable and square integrable random variables.
Tremendous efforts have been made to solve nonlinear filtering problems in the last few decades. Two of the well-known Bayesian filters are extended Kalman filters (EKFs) [@EKF-tracking; @Dun-EKF; @EKF; @Julier-EKF; @Kulikov-EKF], and particle filters [@particle-filter-resample; @Crisan-PF; @Crisan-Xiong-PF; @particle-filter]. The key ingredient of the EKFs is the linearization of both $f$ and $g$ in , so that the standard Kalman filter can be applied directly. Thus, if the nonlinearity of the state and the observation systems is not severe, then the EKFs can provide efficient and reasonable inferences about the state, otherwise, the performance of the EKFs can be very poor. For particle filters, the central theme is to approximate the desired posterior PDF of the state by the empirical distribution of a set of adaptively selected random samples (referred to as “particles”). The particle filter method is essentially a sequential Monte Carlo approach, which requires no assumption on the linearity of the underlying system. As such, with sufficiently large number of particles, it is capable of providing an accurate approximation of the posterior PDF for a highly nonlinear filtering problems. However, there are some fundamental issues concerning the efficiency and robustness of particle filters [@cd2002]. For example, since the empirical PDF is constructed based on particles with equal weights after resampling, the particle filter still needs a lot of samples in order to accurately approximate the target distribution.
To overcome such a disadvantage, the authors proposed a new nonlinear filter named “implicit filter" [@Bao-implicit] . This approach adopts the framework of Bayesian filtering, which has two stages at each time step, i.e., prediction and update. At the prediction stage, we estimate the prior PDF $p(X_k | Y_{1:k-1} )$ of the future state $X_{k}$ given the current available observation information $Y_{1:k-1}$; at the update stage, we update the prior PDF by assimilating the newly received data $Y_{k}$ to obtain the estimate of the posterior PDF $p(X_k | Y_{1:k})$. The implicit filter is distinguished from the particle filters by the use of interpolatory approximations to the prior and posterior PDFs. Specifically, in the particle filter, $p(X_k | Y_{1:k-1} )$ is approximated by [*explicitly*]{} propagating the samples of the current state $X_{k-1}|Y_{1:k-1}$ through the nonlinear state equation ${X}_{k} = f_{k}({X}_{k-1}, w_{k-1})$, and constructing the empirical PDF of $X_{k}|Y_{1:k-1}$. In the implicit filter, the interpolation of $p(X_k | Y_{1:k-1} )$ requires its function values at a set of grid points of the future state $X_k$. Under the condition that $X_k = x \in \mathbb{R}^d$, we solve [*implicitly*]{} the state equation $x = f_{k}({X}_{k-1}, w_{k-1})$ given a set of Monte Carlo samples of $w_{k-1}$, so that the value of $p(X_k=x | Y_{1:k-1} )$, at the grid point of $x$, can be estimated by averaging the function values of $p(X_{k-1}|Y_{1:k-1})$ at all the solutions of the state equation. As an implicit scheme, the implicit filter has a stabilizing effect which provides more accurate numerical approximations to the solution of the nonlinear filtering problem than the particle filter method [@Bao-implicit].
The main challenge of the implicit filter method is that the conditional PDF of the nonlinear filtering solution is estimated at grid points. As such the method suffers the so called “the curse of dimensionality” when the dimension of the state variable is high. In addition, the efficiency of the method may be significantly reduced when the domain of the PDF is unbounded. In this paper, we propose to construct a meshfree implicit filter algorithm to alleviate the aforementioned challenges. Motivated by the particle filter method, we first generate a set of random particles and propagate these particles through the system model and use these particles to replace the grid points in the state space. After that we generate other necessary points through the Shepard’s method which constructs the interpolant by the weighted average of the values on state points [@Fasshauer2007]. In order to prevent particle degeneracy in the generation of random state points, we introduce a resample step in the particle propagation. In addition we choose state points according to the system state, which make them adaptively located in the high probability region of the PDF of state. In this way, we solve the nonlinear filtering problem in a relatively small region in the state space at each time step and approximate the solution on a set of meshfree state points distributed adaptively to the desired PDF of the state. Furthermore, since we approximate the PDF as a function on each state point, instead of using state points themselves to describe the empirical distribution, the implicit filter algorithm requires much fewer points than the particle filter method to depict the PDF of the state.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In §\[BF\], we introduce the mathematical framework of the Bayesian optimal filter. In §\[Algorithm\], we construct meshfree implicit algorithm. In §\[sec:ex\], we demonstrate the efficiency and accuracy of our algorithm through numerical experiments. Finally, §\[sec:con\] contains conclusions and directions for the future research.
Bayesian optimal filter {#BF}
=======================
For $m,n \in \mathbb{N}^{+}$, let $X_{m:n}$ and $Y_{m:n}$ denote the $\sigma$ fields generated by $\{X_m, X_{m+1}, \ldots, X_n\}$ and $\{Y_m, Y_{m+1}, \ldots, Y_n\}$, respectively. For $k = \mathbb{N}^{+}$, we use $x_k$ to represent a realization of the random variable $X_k$, and define $$p(x_{k}|\cdot) := p( X_k=x_k|\cdot)$$ for notational simplicity. It is easy to see that the dynamical model in is Markovian in the sense that $$p(x_k | X_{1 : k-1}, Y_{1 : k-1}) = p(x_k | X_{k-1}).$$ We also know that the measurements are conditionally independent given $x_k$, i.e., $$p(Y_k | X_{1 : k}, Y_{1 : {k-1}}) = p(Y_k | x_k).$$ The Bayesian optimal filter constructs the conditional distribution $p( x_k | Y_{1:k} )$ recursively in two stages: prediction stage and update stage.
For $k=1, 2, \cdots$, assume that $p(x_{k-1} | Y_{1:k-1})$ is given. In the prediction stage $p(x_k | Y_{1:k-1})$ is evaluated through the Chapman-Kolmogorov formula: $$p(x_k | Y_{1:k-1}) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}} p(x_k | x_{k-1}) p(x_{k-1} | Y_{1:k-1}) d x_{k-1}. \label{prediction_bayes}$$ In the update stage, the prior PDF obtained in is used to obtain the posterior PDF $p(x_k | Y_{1:k} )$ via the Bayes’ formula: $$p(x_k | Y_{1:k} ) = {\frac}{p(Y_k | x_k) p(x_k | Y_{1:k-1} )}{p(Y_k | Y_{1:k-1} )} = {\frac}{p(Y_k | x_k) p(x_k | Y_{1:k-1} )}{\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}} p(Y_k | x_k) p(x_k | Y_{1:k-1} )\, d x_{k}}. \label{bayes}$$
The meshfree implicit filter {#Algorithm}
============================
In this section, we construct the meshfree implicit filter algorithm. The algorithm is based the implicit filter algorithm on grid points [@Bao-implicit]. The implicit filter algorithm introduced in [@Bao-implicit] is developed from the general framework of the Bayesian optimal filter discussed above, in which the primary computational challenge is the numerical approximation of the term $ p(x_k | x_{k-1}) $ in .
The prediction stage {#Prediction}
--------------------
For $k=1, 2, \cdots$, the goal of this stage is to approximate the prior distribution $p(x_k | Y_{1:k-1})$ of the state $X_k$, given the posterior distribution $p(x_{k-1} | Y_{1:k-1} )$ of the state $X_{k-1}$. Due to the the fact that $$p(x_k | x_{k-1}) = \mathbb{E}_{w}[p(x_k | x_{k-1} , w_{k-1})] = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{r}} p(x_k | x_{k-1}, w_{k-1}) \cdot p(w_{k-1}) d w_{k-1} ,$$ the prior PDF $p(x_k | Y_{1:k-1} ) $ derived in identity can be rewritten as $$\label{predic}
\begin{aligned}
p(x_k | Y_{1:k-1} ) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}} \mathbb{E}_w[p(x_k | x_{k-1} , w_{k-1})] p(x_{k-1} | Y_{1:k-1} ) d x_{k-1},
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbb{E}_w[\cdot]$ represents the expectation with respect to the white noise $w_{k-1}$, and the PDF $p(x_k | x_{k-1}, w_{k-1})$ is $$\label{ppp}
p(x_k | x_{k-1}, w_{k-1}) = \left\{
\begin{aligned}
\infty, \;\;\; x_k = f_k(x_{k-1}, w_{k-1}),\\
0, \;\;\; x_k \neq f_k(x_{k-1}, w_{k-1}),
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ with $\int_{\mathbb{R}^d} p(x_k | x_{k-1}, w_{k-1}) d{x_{k}} = 1$ for any $x_{k-1} \in \mathbb{R}^d$ and $w_{k-1}\in \mathbb{R}^r$. The definition in can be viewed as a generalization of the Dirac delta function in the space $\mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R}^d \times \mathbb{R}^r$, where the mass is located according to the state equation $x_k = f_k(x_{k-1}, w_{k-1})$.
Note that the estimation of requires an approximation to the expectation $ \mathbb{E}_w[p(x_k | x_{k-1} , w_{k-1})] $. To this end, we first draw $M$ independent samples $\{w_{k-1}^{j}\}_{j = 1}^M$ of the white noise $w_{k-1}$, and define an approximation to $p(x_k | x_{k-1}, w_{k-1})$ as $$\label{PPPI}
\begin{aligned}
\pi^{M} (x_k| x_{k-1}, w_{k-1}) & := \sum_{j=1}^M \delta_{w_{k-1}^{j}}(x_k| x_{k-1}, w_{k-1}), \\
\end{aligned}$$ with $$\delta_{w_{k-1}^{j}}(x_k| x_{k-1}, w_{k-1}) := \left\{
\begin{aligned}
\infty, &\;\;\; w_{k-1} = w_{k-1}^j \text{ and } x_k = f_k(x_{k-1}, w_{k-1}^j),\\
0, &\;\;\; \text{otherwise},\\
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ which is essentially a restriction of $p(x_k| x_{k-1}, w_{k-1})$ in the subset $\{w_{k-1}^{j}\}_{j = 1}^M$. Therefore, the expectation $\E_w[p(x_k | x_{k-1} , w_{k-1})]$ in can be approximated by $$\label{Exp:empirical}
\begin{aligned}
\E_w[p(x_k | x_{k-1} ,w_{k-1})] & \approx \mathbb{E}_w\left[\pi^M(x_k | x_{k-1} , w_{k-1})\right], \\
& = \sum_{j=1}^M \int_{\mathbb{R}^r} \delta_{w_{k-1}^{j}}(x_k| x_{k-1}, w_{k-1}) p(w_{k-1})dw_{k-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ To construct an interpolation of $p( x_k | Y_{1:k-1})$, the next step is to approximate $p( x_k | Y_{1:k-1})$ at a point set $\mathcal{H}_k := \{x_k^{i}\}_{i=1}^N \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ with $N \in \mathbb{N}^+$. By substituting $x_k = x_k^i$ into -, we have $$p( x_k^i | Y_{1:k-1} ) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}} \E_w\left[\pi^M( x_k^i | x_{k-1} , w_{k-1})\right] p(x_{k-1} | Y_{1:k-1} ) d x_{k-1} + \mathcal{R}_{k | k-1}^i, \label{integ}$$ where $\mathcal{R}_{k | k-1}^i := p( x_k^i | Y_{1:k-1} ) - \int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}} \E_w[\pi^M( x_k^i | x_{k-1} , w_{k-1})] p(x_{k-1} | Y_{1:k-1} ) d x_{k-1}$ is the approximation error. Then, by further fixing $w_{k-1} = w_{k-1}^{j}$, the location of the mass of $\delta_{w_{k-1}^{j}}(x_k^i| x_{k-1}, w_{k-1}^j)$ in the space of $x_{k-1}$, denoted by $x^{i,j}_{k-1}$, can be obtained by [*implicitly*]{} solving the state equation $$f_k\left(x^{i,j}_{k-1}, w_{k-1}^{j}\right) = x_k^i , \quad j = 1, \cdots, M,$$ which is the reason we named the approach the implicit filter. Now substituting $x_{k}^i$ into , and using the same sample set $\{w_{k-1}^{j}\}_{j=1}^M$ as above to approximate the integral on the right hand side of , we obtain $$\label{bbb}
\begin{aligned}
\E_w\left[\pi^M\left( x_k^i | x_{k-1}, w_{k-1}\right)\right] & = \sum_{j=1}^M \left({\frac}{1}{M}\sum_{j'=1}^M \delta_{w_{k-1}^{j}}(x_k^i| x_{k-1}, w_{k-1}^{j'})\right)\\
& = {\frac}{1}{M}\sum_{j=1}^M \delta_{w_{k-1}^{j}}\left(x_k^i| x_{k-1}, w_{k-1}^{j}\right),
\end{aligned}$$ then replacing $\E_w[\pi^M( x_k^i | x_{k-1} , w_{k-1})] $ in with , we have $$\label{scheme:predict}
\begin{aligned}
p( x_k^i | Y_{1:k-1} ) & = {\displaystyle}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}} \left[{\frac}{1}{M}\sum_{j=1}^M \delta_{w_{k-1}^{j}}\left(x_k^i| x_{k-1}, w_{k-1}^{j}\right)\right] p(x_{k-1} | Y_{1:k-1} ) d x_{k-1} + \mathcal{R}_{k | k-1}^i\\
& = {\frac}{1}{M}\sum^M_{j=1} p \left( x^{i,j}_{k-1} \Big| Y_{1:k-1} \right) + \mathcal{R}_{k | k-1}^i,
\end{aligned}$$ where $ p( x^{i, j}_{k-1} | Y_{1:k-1})$ is the value of $p \left( x_{k-1} | Y_{1:k-1} \right)$ at $x^{i, j}_{k-1}$. Neglecting the error term $\mathcal{R}_{k | k-1}^i$ in , we obtain the following iterative numerical scheme for constructing an approximation, denoted by $\varrho(x_{k}^i | Y_{1:k-1} )$, of the prior PDF $p( x_k^i | Y_{1:k-1} )$, i.e., $$\label{scheme:a}
\varrho(x_{k}^i | Y_{1:k-1} ) = {\frac}{1}{M}\sum^M_{j=1} \varrho ( x^{i,j}_{k-1} | Y_{1:k-1} ).$$
In our previous work [@Bao-implicit], the subsets $\mathcal{H}_k$, for $k = 0, 1, \ldots$, were defined by a full tensor product mesh, denoted by $$\label{mesh:a}
\mathcal{M} := \mathcal{M}^{(1)} \times \mathcal{M}^{(2)} \times \cdots \mathcal{M}^{(d)},$$ on a $d$-dimensional hyper-cube $[a_1, b_1] \times \cdots \times [a_d, b_d]$, where $\mathcal{M}^{(m)}, m = 1, \dots, d$, is a uniform partition of the interval $[a_m, b_m]$ with $N^{(m)}$ grid points. It is simple to implement but has several significant disadvantages. First, at each time step, one needs to approximate the prior PDF $p( x_k | Y_{1:k-1} )$ at a total of $N^{(1)} \times \cdots \times N^{(d)}$ grid points which grows exponentially as the dimension $d$ increases. This is also known as “the curse of dimensionality”. On the other hand, since the construction of $\mathcal{M}$ is not informed by the target PDF, the domain $[a_1, b_1] \times \cdots \times [a_d, b_d]$ needs to be defined sufficiently large, so as to capture the statistically significant region of the PDF. This may lead to a great waste of computation effort in the low probability region of $p( x_k | Y_{1:k-1} )$.
To alleviate such disadvantages, we propose to develop a distribution-informed meshfree interpolation approach to efficiently approximate the prior PDF. The central idea of the generation of random points for the state variable is to build a set of points, denoted by $\mathcal{H}_k$, according to the state distribution. To begin with, we generate $\mathcal{H}_0=\{\xi^{i}\}_{i = 1}^{N}$ of $N$ random samples from the initial PDF $p_0$ of the initial state: $$\mathcal{H}_0 := \{x_0^{i}\}_{i = 1}^N = \{\xi^{i}\}_{i=1}^N, \ \text{with} \ x_0^{i} = \xi^{i} .$$ If the initial PDF $p_0$ is close to the true state distribution, it’s obvious that our random state points are more concentrated near the target state. For $k = 1, 2, \cdots, K$, we propagate points $\{ x_{k-1}^{i}\}_{i = 1}^N$ to $\{ x_{k}^{i}\}_{i = 1}^N$ through the state equation : $$x_{k}^{i} = f_{k-1}(x_{k-1}^{i}, \tilde{w}_{k-1}^{i}), \quad i = 1, 2, \cdots, N,$$ where $\{\tilde{w}_{k-1}^{i}\}_{i = 1}^N$ are $N$ random samples according to the PDF of $w_{k-1}$. Denote $\mathcal{H}_k := \{x_k^{i}\}_{i = 1}^N $ and approximate the conditional PDF $p(x_k | Y_{1:k-1} )$ on $\mathcal{H}_k$ with the scheme given by . In this way, the random points in $\mathcal{H}_k$ move according to the state model. As opposed to particle filter methods, which use the number of particles to represent empirical distributions and require a large number of particles to follow the state distribution, in the implicit filter method we provide an approximation of the value of the PDF at each state point. Therefore, much fewer points are needed to describe the state PDF and the random state points are not necessary to accurately follow the state distribution.
The update stage {#Update}
----------------
By incorporating the new data $Y_{k}$, we update the prior PDF $p(x_k | Y_{1:k-1})$ at each grid point $x_{k}^i$, using the Bayesian formula, to obtain $$\label{scheme:update}
\begin{aligned}
p( x_k^i | Y_{1:k} ) =& \ {\frac}{1}{C_k} p(Y_k | x_k^i ) p(x_k^i | Y_{1:k-1} ) \\
=& \ {\frac}{1}{C_k} p(Y_k | x_k^i) \varrho(x_k^i | Y_{1:k-1} ) + \mathcal{R}_{k | k}^i,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\varrho(x_k^i | Y_{1:k-1} ) $ is given in , $C_k$ is the normalization factor, and $\mathcal{R}_{k | k}^i := {\frac}{1}{C_k} p(Y_k | x_k^i) \big( p(x_k^i | Y_{1:k-1} ) - \varrho(x_k^i | Y_{1:k-1} ) \big) $ is the approximation error. By neglecting the error term $\mathcal{R}_{k | k}^i$ in $\eqref{scheme:update}$, we obtain the following iterative numerical scheme for the update stage on $\mathcal{H}_k$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\varrho( x_k^i | Y_{1:k} ) &=& {\frac}{1}{C_k} p(Y_k | x_k^i) \varrho(x_k^i | Y_{1:k-1} ) \label{scheme:b},\end{aligned}$$ where $\varrho( x_k^i | Y_{1:k})$ is desired the approximation of the posterior PDF $p( x_k^i | Y_{1:k} )$.
Next, we use interpolation methods to construct the approximation $\varrho(x_{k} | Y_{1:k} )$ of $p(x_{k} | Y_{1:k} )$ from values $\{\varrho( x_k^i | Y_{1:k} )\}_{x_k^i \in \mathcal{H}_k }$ via $$\label{Interpolation}
\varrho(x_{k} | Y_{1:k} ) = \sum_{x_k^i \in \mathcal{H}_k} \varrho( x_k^i | Y_{1:k} ) \phi^{i}(x_k),$$ where $\{\phi^{i}\}_{i=1}^{N_k}$ is the set of basis functions. Since the state points in $\mathcal{H}_k$ are generated randomly in the meshfree framework, standard polynomial interpolation [@Bao-implicit] is unstable due to the uncontrollable Lebesgue constant. Instead, we propose to use the Shepard’s method [@Fasshauer2007], which is an efficient meshfree interpolation technique, to construct the interpolant $\varrho(x_{k} | Y_{1:k} )$. The basic idea of the Shepard’s method is to use the weighted average of $\{\varrho(x_{k}^i | Y_{1:k} )\}_{x_{k}^i \in \mathcal{H}_{k}}$ in the interpolating approximation. Specifically, for a given point $x_{k} \in \mathbb{R}^{d}$, we re-order the points in $\mathcal{H}_{k}$ by the distances to $x_{k}$ to get a sequence $\{ x_{k}^{(l)} \}_{l = 1}^{N_k}$ such that $$\|x_{k} - x_{k}^{(l_1)} \| \leq \| x_{k} - x_{k}^{(l_2)} \| , \ \text{if} \ l_1 < l_2,$$ where $\| \cdot \|$ is the Euclidean norm in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. Then, for a pre-chosen integer $L$ we use the first $L$ values in $\{\varrho( x_{k}^{(l)} | Y_{1:k} )\}_{l=1}^N$ to approximate $\varrho(x_{k} | Y_{1:k} )$ as follows $$\label{Approximation:Prob}
\varrho(x_{k} | Y_{1:k} ) = \sum_{l = 1}^{L} \varrho( x_{k}^{(l)} | Y_{1:k} ) \cdot h_l(x_{k}) ,$$ where the weight $h_l(x_{k})$ is defined by $$h_l(x_{k}) := {\frac}{\|x_{k} - x_{k}^{(l)} \| }{\sum_{l = 1}^{L} \|x_{k} - x_{k}^{(l)} \| }.$$ Note that $\sum_{l = 1}^{L} h_l(x_{k}) = 1$. From , we have $$\begin{aligned}
\varrho(x_k | Y_{1:k} ) - p(x_k | Y_{1:k} ) = & \ \sum_{l = 1}^{L} \left( \varrho( x_{k}^{(l)} | Y_{1:k} ) - p( x_{k}^{(l)} | Y_{1:k} ) \right) \cdot h_l(x_{k}) \\
& \ + \sum_{l = 1}^{L} p( x_{k}^{(l)} | Y_{1:k} ) \cdot h_l(x_{k})- p( x_{k} | Y_{1:k} ) ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{Approximation:Error}
\sum_{l = 1}^{L} p( x_{k}^{(l)} | Y_{1:k} ) \cdot h_l(x_{k})- p( x_{k} | Y_{1:k} ) = \sum_{l = 1}^{L} \left( p( x_{k}^{(l)} | Y_{1:k} ) - p( x_{k} | Y_{1:k} ) \right) \cdot h_l(x_{k})$$ is the error of the Shepard’s interpolation. We assume that $p(x_{k} | Y_{1:k} )$ has bounded first order derivative. For each pair $p( x_{k} | Y_{1:k} )$ and $p(x_{k}^{(l)} | Y_{1:k} )$ the approximation error $ | p( x_{k}^{(l)} | Y_{1:k} ) - p( x_{k} | Y_{1:k} ) | $ is controlled by the distance $\| x_{k} - x_{k}^{(l)} \|$ and the derivative $p^{\prime}(z | Y_{1:k})$, where $z$ is a point between $x_{k}$ and $x_{k}^{(l)}$. It is reasonable to assume that in high probability region of the derivative $p^{\prime}(z | Y_{1:k})$ is large. It’s worth pointing out that the random state points generated in this algorithm are concentrated in the high probability region. Thus, if $x_{k}$ lies in the high probability region, the distance $\| x_{k} - x_{k}^{(l)} \|$ is small, which balances the error brought by the large derivative. On the other hand, if $x_{k}$ lies in the low probability region, although the distance $\| x_{k} - x_{k}^{(l)} \|$ is relatively large, the approximation error is still small due to the small value of the derivative $p^{\prime}(z | Y_{1:k})$.
Resampling {#Resampling}
----------
Similar to the particle filter method, the above random state points generation suffers from the degeneracy problem for long term simulations, especially for high-dimensional problems. After several time steps, the probability density tends to concentrate on a few points which dramatically reduces the number of effective sample points in $\mathcal{H}_k$.
In this work, we propose an occasional resampling procedure to address these problems and rejuvenate the random points cloud. At the time step $k-1$, the resampling procedure takes place after we obtain $\varrho(x_{k-1} | Y_{1:k-1})$, in order to remove the degenerated points in $\mathcal{H}_{k-1}$ using the information provided by $\varrho(x_{k-1} | Y_{1:k-1})$. Specifically, the first step is to develop a degeneracy metric to determine the necessity of doing resampling. To this end, we define the following degenerated subset $\mathcal{S}_{k-1} \subset \mathcal{H}_{k-1}$, $$\label{sss}
\mathcal{S}_{k-1} = \left\{ x_{k-1}^{i} \big| x_{k-1}^{i} \in \mathcal{H}_{k-1}, \varrho(x_{k-1}^{i} | Y_{1:k-1} ) < \varepsilon \right\},$$ where $\varepsilon > 0$ is a user-defined threshold. We also define $$\mathcal{J}(\mathcal{S}_{k-1}):= \{i = 1, \ldots, N | x_{k-1}^i \in \mathcal{S}_{k-1}\}$$ to be the index set of $\mathcal{S}_{k-1}$. Then, the degeneracy of $\mathcal{H}_{k-1}$ can be measured by the ratio $\#(\mathcal{S}_{k-1}) / \#(\mathcal{H}_{k-1}) \in [0,1]$, where $\#(\cdot)$ denotes the number of points in a set. If the ratio is smaller than a threshold $\tau \in [0, 1]$, then we will skip the resampling step and propagate $\mathcal{H}_{k-1}$ to get $\mathcal{H}_{k}$; otherwise, the set $\mathcal{H}_{k-1}$ is considered degenerated, and the resampling procedure is needed.
In resampling, instead of propagating $\mathcal{H}_{k-1} $ to $\mathcal{H}_{k} $, we aim at constructing an intermediate point set, denoted by $\mathcal{H}_{k-{\frac}{1}{2}} := \{ x^i_{k-{\frac}{1}{2}}\}_{i=1}^N$ and propagate $\mathcal{H}_{k-{\frac}{1}{2}}$ through the state model to obtain $\mathcal{H}_{k}$. According to the definition of $\mathcal{S}_{k-1}$ in , we consider the state points in $\mathcal{H}_{k-1} \backslash \mathcal{S}_{k-1}$ are in the statistically significant region of $\varrho(x_{k-1} | Y_{1:k-1} ) $, so that we first put those points in $\mathcal{H}_{k-{\frac}{1}{2}}$, i.e., $$x_{k-\frac{1}{2}}^i = x_{k-1}^i\; \text{ for } \; i \notin \mathcal{J}(\mathcal{S}_{k-1}).$$ For the state points in $\mathcal{S}_{k-1}$, we replace them by generating new samples from $\varrho(x_{k-1} | Y_{1:k-1} )$ using the importance sampling [@Budhiraja-Survey], i.e., $$x_{k-\frac{1}{2}}^i \sim \varrho(x_{k-1} | Y_{1:k-1} )\; \text{ for } \; i \in \mathcal{J}(\mathcal{S}_{k-1}).$$ As a result, the resampling procedure helps us remove the state points with low probabilities, and makes the state point set $\mathcal{H}_{k}$ concentrated in the high probability region of the posterior PDF $\varrho(x_{k-1} | Y_{1:k-1} )$ at each time step.
Summary of the algorithm
------------------------
Finally, we summarize the entire meshfree implicit filter algorithm introduced in §\[Prediction\]-§\[Resampling\] in Algorithm 1 below.
[p[0.95]{}]{} : [*The meshfree implicit filter algorithm*]{}\
[1.1]{}
\[algorithm2\] : set the number of samples $M$ for estimating $\mathbb{E}_w[\cdot]$, the number of state points $N$, the resampling thresholds $\varepsilon$ and $\tau$ Compute the ratio ${\#(\mathcal{S}_{k-1})}/{\#(\mathcal{H}_{k-1})}$ Propagate $\mathcal{H}_{k-1}$ through the state model to obtain $\mathcal{H}_{k}$ Resample and construct the intermediate state set $\mathcal{H}_{k-{\frac}{1}{2}}$ Propagate $\mathcal{H}_{k-{\frac}{1}{2}}$ through the state model to obtain $\mathcal{H}_{k}$ : solve $\varrho(x_{k}| Y_{1:k-1} )$ using , at each point in $\mathcal{H}_k$ : solve $\varrho(x_{k}| Y_{1:k} )$ using and
\
Numerical experiments {#sec:ex}
=====================
In this section, we present two numerical examples to examine the performance of our meshfree implicit filter method. In Example 1, we use a two dimensional nonlinear filtering problem to show the distributions of the random points $\mathcal{H}_k$. In Example 2, we solve a three dimensional bearing-only tracking problem, which is a six dimensional nonlinear filtering problem. For this higher dimensional problem, we compare the accuracy and efficiency of our meshfree implicit filter method with the extended Kalman filter and the particle filter.
Example 1 {#Ex1 .unnumbered}
---------
In this example, we consider the two dimensional noise perturbed tumoral growth model [@2D_PopulationModel]
$$\label{Eq:Ex1:Cont}
d \bm{X}_t = F(\bm{X}_t) dt + \bm{\sigma} \cdot dW_t,$$
where $W_t$ is a two dimensional standard Brownian motion and $\bm{\sigma} = (0.01, 0.01)^T$. The state process $\bm{X}_t = (X_t^1, X_t^2)^T$ is a two dimensional vector, $F(\bm{X}_t) := ( f_1(\bm{X}_t), f_2(\bm{X}_t) )^T $ is defined as $$f_1(\bm{X}_t) = \alpha_1 X_t^1 \cdot \ln({\frac}{X_t^2}{X_t^1})$$ and $$f_2(\bm{X}_t) = \alpha_2 X_t^1 - \alpha_3 X_t^2 \cdot (X_t^1)^{{\frac}{2}{3}}.$$ Here, $f_1$ models the Gompertzian growth rate of the tumor and $f_2$ gives the degree of vascularization of the tumor which is also called “ angiogenic capacity”.
To approximate the state variables, we discretize the dynamic system in time and obtain a discrete state model $$\label{Eq:Ex1:Discrete}
\bm{X}_k = F(\bm{X}_{k-1}) \cdot \Delta + \bm{\sigma} \cdot \bm{\omega}_{k-1}.$$ Here, $\bm{\omega}_k$ is a two dimensional zero mean Gaussian white noise process with covariance $Q = I\Delta$, where $I$ is the $2 \times 2$ identity matrix and $\Delta$ is the time partition stepsize.
The measurement of the state model is given by $$Y_k =\left( X_k^1, X_k^2 \right)^T + \bm{R} \cdot \bm{v}_k,$$ where $\bm{v}_k$ is a two dimensional zero mean Gaussian white noise process with covariance $\Lambda = I \Delta$, $I$ is a $2 \times 2$ identity matrix and $\bm{R} = (0.1, 0.1)^T$.
In the numerical experiment, we use uniform time partition with stepsize $\Delta = 0.2$ and simulate the state process for $K = 40$ with initial state $\bm{X}_0 = ( 0.8, 0.3 )^T$ and parameters $\alpha_1 = 1$, $\alpha_2 = 0.2$, $\alpha_3 = 0.2$. At time step $k = 0$, we initialize the prior PDF $p_0$ by $N(\tilde{\bm{X}}_0, \Sigma)$, where $\tilde{\bm{X}}_0 = (0.78, 0.32)^T$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ex1:Ini_sigma}
\Sigma = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0.05^2 & 0 \\
0& 0.1^2 \\
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$
\[scatter\_1\] \[scatter\_2\]\
\[scatter\_3\] \[scatter\_10\]\
\[scatter\_20\] \[scatter\_40\]\
In Figure \[scatter\_0\], we plot $1500$ random samples generated from the initial PDF $p_0$, which are our initial random points $\mathcal{H}_0$. Figure \[2D\_Grids\] illustrates the behavior of random state points $\mathcal{H}_k$ at time steps $k = 1, 2, 3, 10, 20, 40$, respectively. In Figure \[2D\_Grids\], the blue dots in each figure plot the random state points obtained by using the dynamic state points generation method introduced in Section \[Algorithm\] and the red cross in each figure gives the true state $\bm{X}_k$ at the corresponding time step. From the figures we can see that all the points are moving according to the state model and are concentrated around the true state.
To present the accuracy of the algorithm, we show the simulation of the tumoral growth states in Figure \[2D\_Simulation\]. The black curves are the true $X^1$ and $X^2$ coordinate values of the tumoral growth states, respectively. The blue curves show the simulated states obtained by using the meshfree implicit filter method.
\[2D\_Simulation\_X1\] \[2D\_Simulation\_X2\]
Example 2 {#example-2 .unnumbered}
---------
In this example, we study a six dimensional target tracking problem. In Figure \[Model\_6D\], the target, denoted by the red line, moves in the three dimensional space and two platforms on the ground, denoted by pentagons, take angular observations of the moving target.
The state process $\bm{X}_k = (X^1_k, X^2_k, X^3_k, X^4_k, X^5_k, X^6_k)^T$ is described by the following dynamic model $$\label{Eq:Ex3:State}
\bm{X}_k = f(\bm{X}_{k-1}) + \bm{\sigma} \cdot \bm{\omega}_{k-1},$$ where $(X^1, X^2, X^3)$ describes the position of the moving target which is controlled by parameters $(X^4, X^5, X^6)$. The system noise $\bm{\omega_{k}} = (\omega^1_{k}, \omega^2_{k}, \omega^3_{k}, \omega^4_{k}, \omega^5_{k}, \omega^6_{k})^T$ is a zero mean Gaussian white noise process with covariance $Q \doteq I \Delta $, $I$ is the $6 \times 6$ identity matrix and $\Delta$ is a given time period, $ \bm{\sigma} = (0.1, 0.1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.01, 0.01 )^T$ is a constant vector and $f$ is given by $$\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
f(\bm{X}_k) = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
X_{k-1}^1 + X_{k-1}^4 \Delta \\
X_{k-1}^2 + \sin( \alpha X_{k-1}^5) \Delta \\
X_{k-1}^3 + (X_{k-1}^6)^2 \Delta \\
X_{k-1}^4 + v_1 \Delta \\
X_{k-1}^5 + v_2 \Delta \\
X_{k-1}^6 + v_3 \Delta
\end{array}\right).$$
The measurements $\bm{Y}_k$ of the state process from the two locations are given by $$\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\bm{Y}_k = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\arctan\left( {\frac}{X_k^3}{ \sqrt{( X_k^1 - a_1)^2 + ( X_k^2 - b_1 )^2} } \right) \\
\arctan\left( {\frac}{X_k^3}{ \sqrt{( X_k^1 - a_2)^2 + ( X_k^2 - b_2 )^2} } \right) \\
\arctan\left( {\frac}{X_k^1 - a_1}{ X_k^2 - b_1 } \right) \\
\arctan\left( {\frac}{X_k^1 - a_2}{ X_k^2 - b_2 } \right)
\end{array}\right) + \bm{R} \bm{v}_k,$$ where $\bm{v}_k$ is a 4 dimensional zero mean Gaussian white noise process with covariance $\Lambda = I \Delta$, $I$ is a $4 \times 4$ identity matrix, $\bm{R} = (0.6, 0.6, 0.6, 0.6)^T$, $(a_1, b_1)$ and $(a_2, b_2)$ are locations of two observers.
\[Com\_6D\_X1\] \[Com\_6D\_X2\]\
\[Com\_6D\_X3\] \[Com\_6D\_X4\]\
\[Com\_6D\_X5\] \[Com\_6D\_X6\]\
We choose $\Delta = 0.3$, $\alpha = 3$, $v_1 = v_2 = v_3 = 0.05$ . Also, we assume that platforms are located at $(a_1, b_1) = (16, 6)$, $(a_2, b_2) = (8, 15)$ and the initial sate is given by a Gaussian $N( \bm{X}_0, \Sigma)$ where $\bm{X}_0 = ( 2, 2, 1, 0.4, 0.4, 0 )^T$ and
$$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma = \left(
\begin{array}{cccccc}
1^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1^2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0.2^2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.2^2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0.2^2
\end{array}
\right).\end{aligned}$$
The target will be observed over the time period $0\leq t \leq 15$. In the numerical experiments, we compare the performance of our meshfree implicit filter with the extended Kalman filter and the particle filter. In particular, we compare the estimated mean values of the states process along each dimension in Figure \[6D\_State\_Comparison\]. In the particle filter method, we choose $15,000$ particles. In the meshfree implicit filter method, we choose the number of state points to be $N = 4,000$ and the number of random samples in the implicit filter Monte Carlo simulation to be $M = 6$. The black curves in Figure \[6D\_State\_Comparison\] show the real states process along each direction, the green curves give the estimated means obtained by the extended Kalman filter method, the red curves give the estimated means obtained by the particle filter method, and the blue curves give the estimated means obtained by the meshfree implicit filter. We also plot the $L^2$ error $err_k$ corresponding to all three methods in figure \[6D\_L2\]. As we can see from figure \[6D\_State\_Comparison\] and \[6D\_L2\], the implicit filter and the particle filter are much more accurate than the extended Kalman filter and the implicit filter is the most accurate approximation in this experiment.
To further compare the efficiency between the meshfree implicit filter and the particle filter, we repeat the above experiment over $50$ realizations and show the average CPU time and the corresponding global root mean square error $err_G$ defined by $$err_G^2 = {\frac}{1}{50}{\frac}{1}{K} \sum_{j=1}^{50}\sum_{k = 1}^{K} err_k(j)^2$$ where $err_k(j)$ is the $L^2$ error of the $j$-realization at time step $k$. In table \[efficiency\], we can see that with $15,000$ particles, the CPU time of the particle filter method is comparable to that of the implicit filter with $4,000$ random state points, but the global RMSE of the particle filter is more than doubled the RMSE of the implicit filter. With $25,000$ particles, the particle filter method achieves an accuracy comparable to the implicit filter, but at a significantly higher cost.
Methods CPU time (seconds) $err_G$
----------------------------------------- -------------------- ----------
Implicit filter ($4,000$ state points ) $83.14$ $0.0924$
Particle filter ($15,000$ particles) $82.89$ $0.2545$
Particle filter ($20,000$ particles) $ 142.61$ $0.1687$
Particle filter ($25,000$ particles) $ 209.27$ $0.1057$
: Example 2: Efficiency comparison[]{data-label="efficiency"}
Conclusions {#sec:con}
===========
In this work, we proposed an efficient meshfree implicit filter algorithm by evaluating the conditional PDF on meshfree points in the state space. These meshfree points are chosen adaptively according to the system state evolution. We also apply Shepard’s method as the meshfree interpolation method to compute interplants with random state points. In order to address the degeneracy of the random points, we use importance sampling method to construct a resample step. Numerical examples demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of our algorithm. In the future, we plan to perform a rigorous numerical analysis for the meshfree implicit filter algorithm.
[10]{}
Syed Baker, Hart Poskar, Falk Schreilber, and Bjorn Junker. An improved constraint filtering technique for inferring hidden states and parameters of a biological model. , 29:1052–1059, 2013.
F. Bao, Y. Cao, and X. Han. An implicit algorithm of solving nonlinear filtering problems. , 16(2):382–402, 2014.
Yaakov Bar-Shalom and Thomas E. Fortmann. , volume 179 of [*Mathematics in Science and Engineering*]{}. Academic Press Inc., San Diego, CA, 1988.
Alain Bensoussan, Jussi Keppo, and Suresh P. Sethi. Optimal consumption and portfolio decisions with partially observed real prices. , 19(2):215–236, 2009.
Miodrag Boli[ć]{}, Petar M. Djuri[ć]{}, and Sangjin Hong. Resampling algorithms and architectures for distributed particle filters. , 53(7):2442–2450, 2005.
Amarjit Budhiraja, Lingji Chen, and Chihoon Lee. A survey of numerical methods for nonlinear filtering problems. , 230(1-2):27–36, 2007.
D. Crisan and O. Obanubi. Particle filters with random resampling times. , 122(4):1332–1368, 2012.
Dan Crisan and Jie Xiong. A central limit type theorem for a class of particle filters. , 1(1):103–122, 2007.
Crisan D. and Doucet A. A survey of convergence results on particle filtering methods for practitiners.
Jind[ř]{}ich Dun[í]{}k, Miroslav [Š]{}imandl, and Ond[ř]{}ej Straka. Unscented [K]{}alman filter: aspects and adaptive setting of scaling parameter. , 57(9):2411–2416, 2012.
Robert J. Elliott and Tak Kuen Siu. Option pricing and filtering with hidden [M]{}arkov-modulated pure-jump processes. , 20(1):1–25, 2013.
Gregory F. Fasshauer. . Interdisciplinary Mathematical Sciences (Book 6). World Scientific Publishing Company, 2007.
N.J Gordon, D.J Salmond, and A.F.M. Smith. Novel approach to nonlinear/non-gaussian bayesian state estimation. , 140(2):107–113, 1993.
M. Hairer, A. Stuart, and J. Voss. Signal processing problems on function space: [B]{}ayesian formulation, stochastic [PDE]{}s and effective [MCMC]{} methods. , pages 833–873, 2011.
G. Huang and P. Mehta. Joint probabilistic data association-feedback particle filter with applications to multiple target tracking. , 2012.
Adrew H. Jazwinski. , volume 64. Academic Press, New York, 1973.
Simon J. Julier and Joseph J. LaViola, Jr. On [K]{}alman filtering with nonlinear equality constraints. , 55(6, part 2):2774–2784, 2007.
D. Kim, T. Song, and D. Musicki. Highest probability data association for multi-target particle filtering with nonlinear measurements. , E96-B (1):281–290, 2013.
Gennady Yu. Kulikov and Maria V. Kulikova. Accurate numerical implementation of the continuous-discrete extended [K]{}alman filter. , 59(1):273–279, 2014.
Max A. Little and Nick S. Jones. Signal processing for molecular and cellular biological physics: an emerging field. , 371(1984):20110546, 18, 2013.
Benzekry Sebastien. Mathematical analysis of a two-dimensional population model of metastatic growth including angiogenesis. , 11:187–213, 2011.
S. Singh, S. Digumarthy, A. Back, J. Shepard, and Kalra M. Radiation dose reduction for chest ct with non-linear adaptive filters. , 55(2):169–174, 2013.
W. Stannat. Stability of the optimal filter for nonergodic signals—a variational approach. , pages 374–399, 2011.
[^1]: Department of Computational and Applied Mathematics, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 ([[email protected]]{}, [[email protected]]{}, [[email protected]]{}).
[^2]: Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, 36849 ([[email protected]]{}).
[^3]: This material is based upon work supported in part by the U.S. Air Force of Scientific Research under grant numbers 1854-V521-12 and FA9550-11-1-0149; by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research, Applied Mathematics program under contract and award numbers ERKJ259, ERKJE45, and DE-SC0010678; and by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development program at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is operated by UT-Battelle, LLC., for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-00OR22725.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present multi-wavelength analysis around mid-infrared (MIR) bubble N14 to probe the signature of triggered star formation as well as the formation of new massive star(s) and/or cluster(s) on the borders of the bubble by the expansion of the H[ii]{} region. [*Spitzer*]{}-IRAC ratio maps reveal that the bubble is traced by the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) emission following an almost circular morphology except in the south-west direction towards the low molecular density environment. The observational signatures of the collected molecular and cold dust material have been found around the bubble. We have detected 418 young stellar objects (YSOs) in the selected region around the bubble N14. Interestingly, the detected YSO clusters are associated with the collected molecular and cold dust material on the borders of the bubble. One of the clusters is found with deeply embedded intermediate mass and massive Class I YSOs associated with one of the dense dust clumps in the east of the bubble N14. We do not find a good agreement between the dynamical age of the H[ii]{} region and the fragmentation time of the accumulated molecular materials to explain possible “collect-and-collapse" process around the bubble N14. Therefore, we suggest the possibility of triggered star formation by compression of the pre-existing dense clumps by the shock wave and/or small scale Jeans gravitational instabilities in the collected materials. We have also investigated 5 young massive embedded protostars (8 to 10 M$_{\odot}$) and 15 intermediate mass (3 to 7 M$_{\odot}$) Class I YSOs which are associated with the dust and molecular fragmented clumps at the borders of the bubble. We conclude that the expansion of the H[ii]{} region is also leading to the formation of these intermediate and massive Class I YSOs around the bubble N14.'
author:
- |
L. K. Dewangan$^{1,2}$[^1], & D. K. Ojha$^{1}$[^2]\
$^1$Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India.\
$^{2}$Centro de Astrofísica da Universidade do Porto, Rua das Estrelas, 4150-762 s/n Porto, Portugal.
date:
title: 'Multi-wavelength study of triggered star formation around mid-infrared bubble N14'
---
=1
\[firstpage\]
dust, extinction – H[ii]{} regions – ISM: bubbles – ISM: individual objects (IRAS 18134-1652) – stars: formation – stars: pre–main sequence
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Massive stars (M $>$ 8 M$_{\odot}$) have the ability to interact with the surrounding cloud with their energetic wind, UV ionizing radiation and an expanding H[ii]{} region [@zinnecker07]. In recent years, MIR shells or bubbles around the expanding H[ii]{} regions are recognised as the sites to observationally investigate the conditions of sequential/triggered star formation [@elmegreen77; @elmegreen10 and references therein] and the formation of new massive star(s) and/or cluster(s) as well. Two mechanisms have been proposed to explain the observed star formation due to influence of massive star(s): “collect and collapse" [@elmegreen77; @whitworth94] and radiation-driven implosion [RDI; @bertoldi89; @lefloch94]. In the “collect and collapse" scenario, the H[ii]{} region expands and accumulates molecular material between the ionization and the shock fronts. With time the collected material becomes unstable and fragments into several clumps and lead to the formation of new generation of stars, as an effect of the shocks. In the RDI model, the expanding H[ii]{} region supply enough external pressure to initiate collapse of a pre-existing dense clump in the molecular material.\
\
In this work, we present a multi-wavelength study of a MIR bubble N14 associated with IRAS 18134-1652, from the catalog of @churchwell06 [@churchwell07] around the Galactic H[ii]{} region G014.0-00.1. The bubble N14 is situated at a near distance of 3.5 kpc [@beaumont10] and is associated with the water maser near ($\sim$ 33 arcsec) to the IRAS position [@codella94]. @lockman89 reported the velocity of ionized gas (v$_{LSR}$) to be about 36 km s$^{-1}$ near to the IRAS position, using a hydrogen recombination line study. @beaumont10 and @deharveng10 studied several MIR bubbles including the N14 using James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT) $^{12}$CO(J=3-2) line and APEX Telescope Large Area Survey of the Galactic plane at 870 $\mu$m (ATLASGAL) 870 $\mu$m continuum observations, respectively. @beaumont10 also reported 20 cm Multi-Array Galactic Plane Imaging Survey (MAGPIS) radio continuum data around the N14. @beaumont10 estimated molecular gas velocity to be about 40.3 km s$^{-1}$ associated with the bubble N14 with velocity dispersion of 2.8 km s$^{-1}$. They also listed about six O9.5 stars to produce observed MAGPIS 20 cm integrated flux ($\sim$ 2.41 Jy) for the H[ii]{} region associated with the bubble N14. @deharveng10 found three dense clumps around the bubble N14 and stated that the bubble is broken in the direction of the low density region.\
\
Previous studies on this region therefore clearly reveal the presence of molecular, cold dust as well as ionized emissions in the bubble. In this paper, we present multi-wavelength observations to study the interaction of H[ii]{} region with the surrounding interstellar medium (ISM). Our study will allow us to investigate the star formation especially the identification of embedded populations and also explore whether there is any evidence to form stars by the triggering effect of the H[ii]{} region around the bubble N14.\
\
In Section \[sec:obser\], we introduce the archival data and data reduction procedures used for the present study. In Section \[sec:data\], we examine the structure of the MIR bubble N14 in different wavelengths and the interaction of massive stars with its environment using various [*Spitzer*]{} MIR ratio maps. In this section, we also describe the selection of young population, their distribution around the bubble, identification of ionizing candidates and discuss the triggered star formation scenario on the borders of the bubble. In Section \[sec:conc\], we summarize our conclusions.
Available data and data reduction {#sec:obser}
=================================
Archival deep near-infrared (NIR) HK$_{s}$ images and a catalog around the bubble N14 were obtained from the UKIDSS 6$^{th}$ archival data release (UKIDSSDR6plus) of the Galactic Plane Survey (GPS) [@lawrence07]. It is to be noted that there is no GPS J band observation available for the bubble N14. UKIDSS observations were made using the UKIRT Wide Field Camera [WFCAM; @casali07] and fluxes were calibrated using Two Micron All Sky Survey [2MASS; @skrutskie06]. The details of basic data reduction and calibration procedures are described in @dye06 and @hodgkin09, respectively. Magnitudes of bright stars (H $\leqslant$ 11.5 mag and K$_{s}$ $\leqslant$ 10.5 mag) were obtained from the 2MASS, due to saturation of UKIDSS bright sources. Only those sources are selected for the study which have photometric magnitude error of 0.1 and less in each band to ensure good photometric quality.\
We obtained narrow-band molecular hydrogen (H$_{2}$; 2.12 $\mu$m; 1 - 0 S(1)) imaging data from UWISH2 survey [@froebrich11]. We followed a procedure similar to that described by @varricatt11 to obtain the final continuum-subtracted H$_{2}$ image using GPS K$_{s}$ image.\
The [*Spitzer*]{} Space Telescope Infrared Array Camera [IRAC (Ch1 (3.6 $\mu$m), Ch2 (4.5 $\mu$m), Ch3 (5.8 $\mu$m) and Ch4 (8.0 $\mu$m); @Fazio04] and Multiband Imaging Photometer [MIPS (24 $\mu$m); @rieke04] archival images were obtained around the N14 region from the “Galactic Legacy Infrared Mid-Plane Survey Extraordinaire” [GLIMPSE; @benjamin03; @churchwell09] and “A 24 and 70 Micron Survey of the Inner Galactic Disk with MIPS” [MIPSGAL; @carey05] surveys. MIPSGAL 24 $\mu$m image is saturated close to the IRAS position inside the bubble N14. We used GLIMPSE-I Spring ’07 highly reliable Point-Source Catalog and also performed aperture photometry on all the GLIMPSE images (plate scale of 0.6 arcsec/pixel) using a 2.4 arcsec aperture and a sky annulus from 2.4 to 7.3 arcsec using IRAF for those sources detected in images but the photometric magnitudes are not available in the GLIMPSE-I catalog. The IRAC/GLIMPSE photometry is calibrated using zero magnitudes including aperture corrections, 18.5931 (Ch1), 18.0895 (Ch2), 17.4899 (Ch3) and 16.6997 (Ch4), obtained from IRAC Instrument Handbook (Version 1.0, February 2010).\
We obtained 20 cm radio continuum map (resolution $\sim$ 6 arcsec) from Very Large Array MAGPIS survey [@helfand06] to trace the ionized region around the N14. The molecular $^{12}$CO(J=3-2) (rest frequency 345.7959899 GHz) spectral line public processed archival data was also utilized in the present work. The CO observations (project id: M10BD02) were taken on 22 August 2010 at the 15 m JCMT using the HARP array. Archival BOLOCAM 1.1 mm [@aguirre11] image (with effective FWHM Gaussian beam size of $\sim$ 33 arcsec) was also used in the present work.
Results and Discussion {#sec:data}
======================
Multi-wavelength view of the bubble N14 {#subsec:morpho}
---------------------------------------
Figure \[fig1\] shows the selected region ($\sim$ 12 $\times$ 8.6 arcmin$^{2}$) around the bubble N14, made of the 3-color composite image using GLIMPSE (8.0 $\mu$m (red) & 4.5 $\mu$m (green)) and UKIDSS K$_{s}$ (blue). The 8 $\mu$m band contains the two strongest PAH features at 7.7 $\mu$m and 8.6 $\mu$m, which are excited in the photodissociation region (or photon-dominated region, or PDR). The PDRs are the interface between neutral & molecular hydrogen and traced by PAH emissions. PAH emission is also known to be the tracer of ionization fronts. The positions of IRAS 18134-1652 (+) and water maser ($\times$) [@codella94] are marked in the figure. Figure \[fig1\] displays an almost circular morphology of the MIR bubble N14 prominently around the IRAS 18134-1652. These bubble structures are not seen in any of the UKIDSS NIR images, but prominently visible in all GLIMPSE images. JCMT molecular gas (JCMT CO 3-2) emission contours are also overlaid on the Fig. \[fig1\] with 20, 40, 60, 80 and 95 % of the peak value i.e. 60.43 K km s$^{-1}$. The peak positions of the three detected 870 $\mu$m dense clumps [@deharveng10] are also marked by a big star symbol in the figure. Figure \[fig2\] shows a color composite image made using MIPSGAL 24 $\mu$m (red), GLIMPSE 8 $\mu$m (green), and 3.6 $\mu$m (blue) images, overlaid by BOLOCAM 1.1 mm emission by solid yellow contours. MIPS 24 $\mu$m image is saturated near to the IRAS position, but a few point sources are also seen around the bubble. MAGPIS 20 cm radio continuum emission is also overlaid in Figure \[fig2\] by black contours. The cold dust emission at 1.1 mm is very dense and prominent at the borders of the bubble. It is clearly seen that the peaks of 870 $\mu$m, 1.1 mm dust emission and CO molecular gas emissions are spatially coincident along the borders of the bubble (see Figs. \[fig1\] & \[fig2\]). The 24 $\mu$m and 20 cm images trace the warm dust and ionized gas in the region, respectively. It is obvious from Figure \[fig2\] that the PDR region (traced by 8 $\mu$m) encloses 24 $\mu$m dust and 20 cm ionized emissions inside the bubble and indicates the presence of dust and gas in and around the H[ii]{} region [see e. g. @watson08 for N10, N21, and N49 bubbles].
{width="13cm"}
{width="13cm"}
PAH emission and the Collected material {#subsec:ratmap}
---------------------------------------
In recent years, [*Spitzer*]{}-IRAC bands and ratio maps are utilized to study the interaction of massive stars with its immediate environment [@povich07]. The IRAC bands contain a number of prominent atomic and molecular lines/features such as H$_{2}$ lines in all channels [see Table 1 from @smith05], Br$\alpha$ 4.05 $\mu$m (Ch2), Fe[ii]{} 5.34 $\mu$m (Ch3), Ar[ii]{} 6.99 $\mu$m and Ar[iii]{} 8.99 $\mu$m (Ch4) [see @reach06]. We know that the [*Spitzer*]{}-IRAC bands, Ch1, Ch3 and Ch4, contain the PAH features at 3.3, 6.2, 7.7 and 8.6 $\mu$m, whereas Ch2 (4.5 $\mu$m) does not include any PAH features. Therefore, IRAC ratio (Ch4/Ch2, Ch3/Ch2 and Ch1/Ch2) maps are being used to trace out the PAH features in massive star forming (MSF) regions [e.g. @povich07; @watson08; @kumarld10; @dewangan12] due to UV radiation from massive star(s). In order to make the ratio maps, we generate residual frames for each band removing point sources by choosing an extended aperture (12.2 arcsec) and a larger sky annulus [14.6 - 24.4 arcsec; @reach05] in IRAF/DAOPHOT software [@stetson87]. These residual frames are then subjected to median filtering with a width of 4 pixels and smoothing by 9 $\times$ 9 pixels using the boxcar algorithm. Figures \[fig3\]a and \[fig3\]b represent the IRAC ratio maps, Ch3/Ch2 and Ch4/Ch2 around the bubble N14, respectively. The ratio contours are also overlaid on the maps for better clarity and insight (see Fig. \[fig3\]). Both the ratio maps clearly trace the prominent PAH emissions and subsequently the extent of PDRs in the region. IRAC ratio maps reveal that the bubble is traced by the PAH emission following an almost circular morphology except in south-west direction towards the low molecular density environment, which was also reported by @deharveng10.\
The emission contours of dust (ATLASGAL 870 $\mu$m and BOLOCAM 1.1 mm) and molecular gas (JCMT CO 3-2) exhibit the evidence of collected material along the bubble (see Figs. \[fig1\], \[fig2\] and \[fig3\]). @deharveng10 tabulated the positions of three 870 $\mu$m dust condensations with their respective molecular velocity using the NH$_{3}$(1,1) inversion line between 39 to 41.5 km s$^{-1}$. These values are also consistent with @beaumont10, who also reported velocity for the bubble N14 ($\sim$ 40.3 km s$^{-1}$). These velocity ranges of molecular gas are also compatible with the ionized gas velocity ($\sim$ 36 km s$^{-1}$) obtained by the hydrogen recombination line study around the H[ii]{} region [@lockman89], which confirms the physical association of the molecular material and the H[ii]{} region. It is also to be noted that the peaks of cold dust and molecular gas emission at different locations possibly indicate the fragmentation of collected materials into different individual clumps around the bubble. The evidence of collected material along the bubble is further confirmed by the detection of the H$_{2}$ emission (see Figure \[fig4\]). Figure \[fig4\] represents the continuum-subtracted H$_{2}$ image at 2.12 $\mu$m and reveals that the H$_{2}$ emission surrounds the H[ii]{} region along the bubble, forming a PDR region, which may be collected due to the shock. In brief, the PAH emission, cold dust emission, molecular CO gas and shocked H$_{2}$ emissions are coincident along the bubble.
{width="13cm"}
{width="13cm"}
Photometric analysis of point-like sources towards N14
------------------------------------------------------
In order to trace ongoing star formation activity around the bubble N14, we have identified YSOs using NIR and GLIMPSE data.
### Selection of YSOs {#subsec:phot1}
We have used @gutermuth09 criteria based on four IRAC bands to identify YSOs and various possible contaminants (e.g. broad-line AGNs, PAH-emitting galaxies, shocked emission blobs/knots and PAH-emission-contaminated apertures). These YSOs are further classified into different evolutionary stages (i.e. Class I, Class II, Class III and photospheres) using slopes of the IRAC spectral energy distribution (SED). Fig. \[fig5\]a shows the IRAC color-color (\[3.6\]-\[4.5\] vs \[5.8\]-\[8.0\]) diagram for all the identified sources. We find 33 YSOs (15 Class 0/I; 18 Class II), 621 photospheres and 78 contaminants in the selected region around the bubble N14. The details of YSO classifications can be found in @dewangan11. We have also applied criteria (\[3.6\]-\[4.5\] = 0.7 and \[4.5\]-\[5.8\] = 0.7; @hartmann05 [@getman07]) to identify protostars (Class I) among the sources, which are detected in three IRAC/GLIMPSE bands, but not in the 8.0 $\mu$m band and rest of the remaining sources are subjected to SED criteria [see @dewangan11] to select the Class II and Class III sources. We identify 186 additional YSOs (10 Class 0/I; 176 Class II) through color-color diagram using three GLIMPSE bands in the region (see Fig. \[fig5\]b).\
GLIMPSE 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m bands are more sensitive for point sources than GLIMPSE 5.8 and 8.0 $\mu$m images. Therefore, a larger number of YSOs can be identified using a combination of UKIDSS NIR HK$_{s}$ photometry with GLIMPSE 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m (i.e. NIR-IRAC) photometry, where sources are not detected in IRAC 5.8 and/or 8.0 $\mu$m band [@gutermuth09]. We followed the criteria given by @gutermuth09 to identify YSOs using H, K$_{s}$, 3.6 and 4.5 $\mu$m data. We have found 199 additional YSOs (185 Class II and 14 Class I) using NIR-IRAC data (see Fig. \[fig5\]c).\
Finally, we have obtained a total of 418 YSOs (379 Class II and 39 Class I) using NIR and GLIMPSE data in the region.
{width="\textwidth"}
### Spatial distribution of YSOs {#subsec:surfden}
To study the spatial distribution of YSOs, we generated the surface density map of all YSOs using a 5 arcsec grid size, following the same procedure as given in @gutermuth09. The surface density map of YSOs is constructed using 6 nearest-neighbor (NN) YSOs for each grid point. Fig. \[fig5\]d shows the spatial distribution of all identified YSOs (Class I and Class II) in the region. The contours of YSO surface density are also overlaid on the map. The levels of YSO surface density contours are 6 (2.1$\sigma$), 9 (3.2$\sigma$), 14 (4.9$\sigma$), 20 (7.0$\sigma$) and 26 (9.1$\sigma$) YSOs/pc$^{2}$, increasing from the outer to the inner region. We have also calculated the empirical cumulative distribution (ECD) as a function of NN distance to identify the clustered YSOs in the region. Using the ECD, we estimate the distance of inflection $d_{c}$ = 0.54 pc (0.0088 degrees at 3.5 kpc) for the region for a surface density of 6 YSOs/pc$^{2}$ [see @dewangan11 for details of $d_{c}$ and ECD]. We find that about 23% (98 out of 418) YSOs are present in clusters. Figure \[fig5\]d reveals that the distribution of YSOs is mostly concentrated in and around the bubble, having peak density of about 20 YSOs/pc$^{2}$ (see also Figure \[fig6\]), while YSO density of about 8 YSOs/pc$^{2}$ (2.8$\sigma$) is also seen around the east and west regions close to the low density molecular gas and dust emission (see Figure \[fig6\]). It is also to be noted that the YSOs clustering is seen along the PDR region, on the borders of the bubble. The correlation of cold dust, molecular gas, ionized gas and YSO surface density is shown in Figure \[fig6\]. The association of YSOs with the collected materials around the region further reveals the ongoing star formation on the borders of the bubble.\
\
In addition, we have checked the possibility of intrinsically “red sources” contamination, such as asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars in our YSO sample. Recently, @Robitaille08 prepared an extensive catalog of such red sources based on the [*Spitzer*]{} GLIMPSE and MIPSGAL surveys. They showed that two classes of sources are well separated in the \[8.0 - 24.0\] color space such that YSOs are redder than AGB stars in this space [see also @Whitney08]. Firstly, we applied red source criteria for all our selected YSOs having 4.5 $\mu$m and 8.0 $\mu$m detections. We find 19 out of 33 YSOs ($\sim$ 57%) as possible intrinsically “red sources” and then further utilized \[8.0 - 24.0\] color space to identify the AGB contaminations from selected “red sources”. We have taken MIPS 24 $\mu$m magnitude for our selected sources from @Robitaille08, wherever it is available and also extracted a few more sources from archival MIPSGAL 24 $\mu$m image. We performed aperture photometry on MIPSGAL 24 $\mu$m image using IRAF with a 7 arcsec aperture & a sky annulus from 7 to 13 arcsec. Zero points and aperture corrections were adopted from MIPS Instrument Handbook Version 3, March 2011, for selected aperture. MIPS 24 $\mu$m image is saturated close to the IRAS position, however, a few point sources are seen around the bubble. Therefore, we obtained MIPS 24 $\mu$m magnitudes for only 9 YSOs (7 Class I and 2 Class II) identified as red sources. Finally, we identified two likely AGB contaminations out of 9 red sources, following the criteria suggested by @Robitaille08, which are located away from the identified YSO clusters (see Figure \[fig6\]). We have not considered these likely AGB contaminations for further analysis.
{width="13cm"}
### SED modeling of Class I YSOs {#subsec:sed}
In this subsection, we present SED modeling of all 37 identified Class I YSOs (designated as s1,.....,s37) as well as two selected YSOs (s38 and s39) associated with the peak of molecular gas and dust clumps around the bubble, in our selected region around N14, to derive their various physical parameters using an on-line SED modeling tool [@Robit06; @Robit07]. It is interesting to note that “s39" is a deeply embedded source (prominently seen in 24 $\mu$m image), detected only in 5.8 $\mu$m and longer wavelength bands. NIR and [*Spitzer*]{} IRAC/GLIMPSE photometric magnitudes for these selected YSOs are listed in Table \[tab1\] along with IRAC spectral indices ($\alpha_{IRAC}$) and are also labeled in Fig. \[fig6\]. [*Spitzer*]{} 24 $\mu$m magnitudes are also listed for selected YSOs, wherever it is available. Figs. \[fig7\]a and \[fig7\]b show the zoomed-in 3 color composite image using GLIMPSE (5.8 $\mu$m (red) & 4.5 $\mu$m (green)) and UKIDSS K$_{s}$ (blue) around the east of the bubble close to the peak of a dense clump and around the bubble, respectively. Fig. \[fig7\]a clearly exhibits the location of a deeply embedded source “s39" along with other identified Class I sources close to the peak of a cold dust emission.
{width="11cm"}
Fig. \[fig7\]b presents the zoomed-in view around the bubble with the positions of a few identified YSOs (such as s17, s18 and s38, along with other identified Class I YSOs).\
IRAC spectral indices were calculated using a least squares fit to the IRAC flux points in a log($\lambda$) versus log($\lambda$F$_{\lambda}$) diagram for those sources that are detected in atleast 3 IRAC bands [see @dewangan11 for details]. The SED model tool requires a minimum of three data points with good quality as well as the distance to the source and visual extinction value. These models assume an accretion scenario with a central source associated with rotationally flattened infalling envelope, bipolar cavities, and a flared accretion disk, all under radiative equilibrium. The model grid consists of 20,000 models of two-dimensional Monte Carlo simulations of radiation transfer with 10 inclination angles, resulting in a total of 200,000 SED models. The grid of SED models covers the mass range from 0.1 to 50 M$_{\odot}$. Only those models are selected that satisfy the criterion $\chi^{2}$ - $\chi^{2}_{best}$ $<$ 3, where $\chi^{2}$ is taken per data point. The plots of SED fitted models are shown in Fig. \[fig8\] for 9 out of 39 selected YSOs associated with the molecular and dust clumps. The weighted mean values of the physical parameters (mass and luminosity) along with the standard deviations derived from the SED modeling for all the selected sources are given in Table \[tab1\]. The SED results clearly show that the YSOs having higher luminosity represent more massive candidates. The table also contains the number of models that satisfy the $\chi^{2}$ criterion as mentioned above. The derived SED model parameters show that the average values of mass and luminosity of the 39 selected sources are about 4.8 M$_{\odot}$ and 1817.1 L$_{\odot}$, respectively. Our SED result shows that the source “s4" is the most luminous and massive YSO ($\sim$ 20.5 M$_{\odot}$) among all selected YSOs away from the bubble and is saturated in the GLIMPSE 8 $\mu$m image. It is however tabulated as an OH selected AGB/post-AGB candidate by @sevenster02 using 1612 MHz masing OH line profile. The YSO surface density contours clearly trace a clustering of Class I YSOs (s27-28, s30-33 and s39) with $\sim$ 20 YSOs/pc$^{2}$ associated with the dense dust clump at the eastern border of the bubble N14 along with other peaks of YSO surface density (see Figs \[fig6\], \[fig7\]a and Table \[tab1\]). It is found that about 5 young massive embedded YSOs (s6, s18, s23, s28 and s31) with a mass range of 8 to 10 M$_{\odot}$ and about 15 intermediate mass YSOs (s7, s9-10, s12, s14, s16-17, s19, s22, s25-26, s30, s33, s38-39) with mass range of 3 to 7 M$_{\odot}$ are associated with the molecular and dust fragmented clumps at the borders of the bubble (see Figs. \[fig6\], \[fig7\] and Table \[tab1\]). It is interesting to note that the sources s18, s28, s31, s38 and s39 are associated with the peak of dust clumps at the border of the bubble and three of them (s18, s28 and s31) are possibly young massive protostars. Finally, the SED modeling results favor ongoing star formation around the region with detection of YSOs as well as some massive protostars in their early phase of formation.\
\
Recently, @kryukova12 studied a relationship between bolometric luminosity and MIR luminosity (integrated from 1.25 $\mu$m to 24 $\mu$m) of [*Spitzer*]{} identified protostars in nine nearby molecular clouds, independent of SED modeling. We have also computed the MIR luminosity (L$_{MIR}$) of our selected sources from integrating the SED using their available photometric infrared data (see Table \[tab1\] for L$_{MIR}$). However, the estimated MIR luminosity of our selected sources is underestimated because of the lack of 24 $\mu$m and longer wavelength data for most of the sources. Therefore, we prefer to use model derived SED physical parameters (like mass and luminosity) over luminosity derived independently of SED modeling for our selected sources. It is known that the physical parameters obtained from SED modeling are not unique but indicative. We therefore used only mass of selected sources for their relative comparison in terms of mass.
{width="\textwidth"}
### Ionizing Candidates {#subsec:ostar}
The presence of both PAH emission around the bubble and radio emission inside the bubble clearly suggest the presence of the ionizing source(s) with UV radiation close to the centre of the bubble. One can find more details regarding identification of ionizing candidate(s) inside the bubble in @pomares09 and @ji12. It is to be noted that no ionizing stars are reported for this bubble. @beaumont10 listed about six O9.5 stars to produce observed 20 cm integrated flux ($\sim$ 2.41 Jy) for the H[ii]{} region associated with the bubble N14. Therefore, we followed suggestions of @pomares09 and @ji12 to trace the ionizing candidate(s) inside the bubble N14 using 2MASS and GLIMPSE photometric magnitudes. We selected 8 candidates (designated as \#1,.....,\#8) to search for O-type star(s) inside the bubble based on their detections in J band to 5.8 $\mu$m or longer wavelength bands (see Fig. \[fig7\]b and Table \[tab2\]). All selected candidates are marked and labeled in Fig. \[fig7\]b. We calculated the absolute JHK$_{s}$ magnitude for each candidate using their 2MASS apparent J, H, and K$_{s}$ magnitudes. 2MASS photometry is used here due to non availability of GPS J band photometry. We used a distance of 3.5 kpc and estimated the extinction for each source from the NIR color color diagram (CC-D). We followed the extinction law given by @indebetouw05 (A$_{J}$/A$_{V}$ = 0.284, A$_{H}$/A$_{V}$ = 0.176 and A$_{K}$/A$_{V}$ = 0.114) and used the intrinsic colors (J - H)$_{0}$ (= -0.11) and (H - K)$_{0}$ (= -0.10) obtained from @martins06. We compared the derived absolute JHK$_{s}$ magnitudes with those listed by @martins06 for our selected candidates, and found two O-type candidates (\#4 and \#6) inside the bubble. We also checked their evolutionary stages using CC-D (see subsection \[subsec:phot1\]) and found that all the sources are main sequence stars except source \#3, which is identified as a Class I YSO and designated as s14 in Table \[tab1\]. The positions of the 8 selected candidates are tabulated in Table \[tab2\] with their 2MASS NIR & GLIMPSE apparent magnitudes, calculated visual extinction, estimated absolute JHK$_{s}$ magnitudes and the possible spectral class obtained from the comparison of absolute magnitude of each candidate with the listed values of @martins06.
Star formation scenario
-----------------------
We have found evidence of collected material along the bubble and also ongoing formation of YSOs on the borders of the bubble. The YSO clusters and embedded YSOs discovered are associated with the peak of molecular and cold dust material collected on the borders of the bubble. The morphology and distribution of YSOs suggest that the bubble N14 is a site of star formation possibly triggered by the expansion of the H[ii]{} region. In recent years, the triggered star formation process, especially “collect and collapse” mechanism has been studied extensively on the borders of many H[ii]{} regions such as Sh 2-104, RCW 79, Sh 2-212, RCW 120, Sh 2-217, G8.14+0.23 [@deharveng03; @deharveng08; @deharveng09; @zavagno06; @zavagno10; @brand11; @dewangan12]. In order to check the “collect and collapse" process as the triggering mechanism around N14, we have calculated the dynamical age (t$_{dyn}$) of the H[ii]{} region and compared it with an analytical model by @whitworth94. We have estimated the age of the H[ii]{} region at a given radius R, using the following equation [@dyson80]: $$t_{dyn} = \left(\frac{4\,R_{s}}{7\,c_{s}}\right) \,\left[\left(\frac{R}{R_{s}}\right)^{7/4}- 1\right]$$ where c$_{s}$ is the isothermal sound velocity in the ionized gas (c$_{s}$ = 10 km s$^{-1}$) and R$_{s}$ is the radius of the Strömgren sphere, given by R$_{s}$ = (3 N$_{uv}$/4$\pi n^2_{\rm{0}} \alpha_{B}$)$^{1/3}$, where the radiative recombination coefficient $\alpha_{B}$ = 2.6 $\times$ 10$^{-13}$ (10$^{4}$ K/T)$^{0.7}$ cm$^{3}$ s$^{-1}$ [@kwan97]. In this calculation, we have used $\alpha_{B}$ = 2.6 $\times$ 10$^{-13}$ cm$^{3}$ s$^{-1}$ for the temperature of 10$^{4}$ K. N$_{uv}$ is the total number of ionizing photons per unit time emitted by ionizing stars and “n$_{0}$” is the initial particle number density of the ambient neutral gas. We have adopted the Lyman continuum photon flux value (N$_{uv}$ =) of 2.34 $\times$ 10$^{48}$ ph s$^{-1}$ (logN$_{uv}$ = 48.36) from @beaumont10 for an electron temperature, distance and integrated 20 cm (1.499 GHz) flux density of 10$^{4}$ K, 3.5 kpc, and 2.41 Jy respectively. We calculated the mean H$_{2}$ number density near the H[ii]{} region using archival $^{12}$CO zeroth moment map or column density map. In general, the zeroth moment map (in unit of K km s$^{-1}$) is created by integrating the brightness temperature over some velocity range. We derived the column density using the formula $N_{\rm H_{2}}$ (cm$^{-2}$) = $X$ $\times$ $W_{\rm CO}$, assuming the molecular clumps/cores are approximately spherical in shape. We used the CO–H$_{2}$ conversion factor (also called $X$ factor) for dense gas as 6 $\times$ 10$^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ K$^{-1}$ km$^{-1}$ s from @shetty11. We find almost a closed circular structure of integrated CO line emission ($W_{\rm CO}$) (typical value of $\sim$ 23.43 K km s$^{-1}$) using archival column density map, which traces well the bubble around the H[ii]{} region. The mean H$_{2}$ number density is obtained to be 2071.5 cm$^{-3}$ using the relation $N_{\rm H_{2}}$ (cm$^{-2}$)/$L$ (cm), where $L$ is the molecular core size of about 6.79 $\times$ 10$^{18}$ cm ($\sim$ 2.2 pc) near the H[ii]{} region. The estimated mean H$_{2}$ number density could be under-estimated because of not considering the fact that the $^{12}$CO (3–2) transition can be (partly) optical thick in nature and also assuming a spherical structure in the calculation. Using N$_{uv}$, a radius of the H[ii]{} region (R =) 2.48 pc, and n$_{0}$ = 2071.5 cm$^{-3}$, we have obtained t$_{dyn}$ $\sim$ 0.74 Myr using Equation 1. The timescale of H[ii]{} region expansion is actually not an easy issue. There is the long-standing problem of the lifetime of Galactic ultra-compact (UC) H[ii]{} regions. @wood89 observationally reported that the typical lifetime of UC H[ii]{} regions is about 10$^{5}$ years, but the lifetime of an expanding UC H[ii]{} region (i.e. the timescale to reach pressure equilibrium with the surrounding environment) is estimated to be about 10$^{4}$ years, for 10 km s$^{-1}$ expansion velocity of ionized gas, with a typical radius of $\sim$ 0.1 pc. So, the difference between these timescales is known as the lifetime problem of UC H[ii]{} regions. This lifetime problem might have implications in the present case even if it is only the UC H[ii]{} region which is living too long. Therefore, our estimated timescale should be considered with a caution. Following, the @whitworth94 analytical model for the “collect and collapse" process, we have estimated a fragmentation time scale (t$_{frag}$) of 1.27 - 2.56 Myr for a turbulent velocity (a$_{s}$) of 0.2 - 0.6 km s$^{-1}$ in the collected layer. We find that the dynamical age is smaller than the fragmentation time scale for n$_{0}$ = 2071.5 cm$^{-3}$. We have checked the variation of t$_{frag}$ and t$_{dyn}$ with initial density (n$_{0}$) of the ambient neutral medium and found that if t$_{dyn}$ is larger than t$_{frag}$, then ambient density (n$_{0}$) should be larger than 3610, 5710, 6700 and 7700 cm$^{-3}$ for different turbulent velocity (a$_{s}$) values of 0.2, 0.4, 0.5 and 0.6 km s$^{-1}$ respectively. We have also estimated the kinematical time scale of the molecular bubble of about 1.57 Myr ($\sim$ 4.5 pc/ 2.8 km s$^{-1}$), assuming bubble size of about 4.5 pc and velocity dispersion $\sim$ 2.8 km s$^{-1}$ from $^{12}$CO(J=3-2) map [see @beaumont10]. The comparison of the dynamical age of the H[ii]{} region with the kinematical time scale of expanding bubble and the fragmentation time scale, does not support the fragmentation of the molecular materials into clumps due to “collect and collapse” process around the bubble. Also, the average age of Class 0/I sources is reported to be about 0.10–0.44 Myr [see @evans09], which is less than the fragmentation time scale of the molecular materials into clumps. Therefore, we suggest the possibility of triggered star formation by compression of the pre-existing dense clumps by the shock wave and/or small scale Jeans gravitational instabilities in the collected materials. The YSO surface density contours clearly trace a clustering of Class I YSOs (s27-28, s30-33 and s39), with three intermediate mass (s30, s33 and s39) and two massive embedded sources (s28 and s31) associated with the dense dust clump at the eastern border of the bubble N14 (see Fig. \[fig7\]a and Table \[tab1\]). We have also found that the s18 & s38 sources are also associated with the peak of different dust clumps around the bubble and the source “s18" is identified as a new young massive protostar.
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
We have explored the triggered star formation scenario around the bubble N14 and its associated H[ii]{} region using multi-wavelength observations. We find that there is a clear evidence of collected material (molecular and cold dust) along the bubble around the N14 region. The surface density of YSOs reveals ongoing star formation and clustering of YSOs associated with the borders of the bubble. We conclude that the YSOs are being formed on the border of the bubble possibly by the expansion of the H[ii]{} region. We further investigated the “collect-and-collapse” process for triggered star formation around N14 using the analytical model of @whitworth94. We have found that the dynamical age ($\sim$ 0.74 Myr) of the H[ii]{} region is smaller, and the kinematical time scale of the bubble ($\sim$ 1.57 Myr) is comparable to the fragmentation time scale ($\sim$ 1.27 - 2.56 Myr) of accumulated gas layers in the region for 2071.5 cm$^{-3}$ ambient density. The comparison of the dynamical age with the kinematical time scale of expanding bubble and the fragmentation time scale does not support the fragmentation of the molecular materials into clumps due to the “collect and collapse” process around N14, but suggests the possibility of triggered star formation by compression of the pre-existing dense clumps by the shock wave and/or small scale Jeans gravitational instabilities in the collected materials. The YSO surface density contours clearly trace a clustering of Class I YSOs ($\sim$ 7 Class I sources with $\sim$ 20 YSOs/pc$^{2}$) associated with the dense dust clump at the eastern border of the bubble N14. Also 5 young massive embedded protostars (about 8 to 10 M$_{\odot}$) and 15 intermediate mass (about 3 to 7 M$_{\odot}$) Class I YSOs are associated with the dust and molecular fragmented clumps at the borders of the bubble. It seems that the expansion of the H[ii]{} region is also leading to the formation of these intermediate and massive Class I YSOs around the bubble N14.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank the anonymous referee for a critical reading of the paper and several useful comments and suggestions, which greatly improved the scientific content of the paper. This work is based on data obtained as part of the UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey and UWISH2 survey. This publication made use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey (a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center / California Institute of Technology, funded by NASA and NSF), archival data obtained with the [*Spitzer*]{} Space Telescope (operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA). We thank Dirk Froebrich for providing the narrow-band H$_{2}$ image through UWISH2 survey. We acknowledge support from a Marie Curie IRSES grant (230843) under the auspices of which some part of this work was carried out.
-------- ------------- ------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------- --------------- ------------------- ---------------- -------- -- --
Source RA Dec J H K$_{s}$ \[3.6\] \[4.5\] \[5.8\] \[8.0\] \[24.0\] $\alpha_{IRAC}$ $L_{MIR}$ $L_*$ $M_*$ No. of
\[2000\] \[2000\] mag mag mag mag mag mag mag mag (L$_{\odot}$) (L$_{\odot}$) (M$_{\odot}$) models
s1 18:16:05.87 -16:51:15.3 — — — 14.27$\pm$0.19 12.33$\pm$0.11 10.45$\pm$0.07 9.72$\pm$0.09 – 2.45 0.97 252.66$\pm$7.42 5.43$\pm$4.25 1331
s2 18:16:09.55 -16:55:25.5 — 14.66$\pm$0.01 14.34$\pm$0.01 14.10$\pm$0.10 13.30$\pm$0.16 — — – – 0.54 4.53$\pm$4.72 1.51$\pm$1.17 6763
s3 18:16:11.33 -16:48:22.6 — 14.55$\pm$0.01 14.23$\pm$0.01 14.03$\pm$0.09 12.75$\pm$0.07 — — – – 0.62 97.25$\pm$2.04 3.78$\pm$1.41 104
s4 18:16:11.37 -16:48:00.7 — 16.89$\pm$0.05 11.92$\pm$0.00 5.61$\pm$0.05 4.17$\pm$0.08 3.52$\pm$0.04 — – 1.13 551.42 48662.94$\pm$1.37 20.46$\pm$3.54 44
s5 18:16:12.35 -16:48:08.8 — 13.28$\pm$0.00 12.92$\pm$0.00 12.12$\pm$0.03 11.34$\pm$0.04 — — – – 2.18 34.29$\pm$4.34 2.78$\pm$1.64 5334
s6 18:16:18.09 -16:52:25.7 — — 13.21$\pm$0.07 10.51$\pm$0.20 10.44$\pm$0.12 7.26$\pm$0.05 5.74$\pm$0.09 2.14 3.28 36.39 1835.19$\pm$1.12 8.98$\pm$0.15 2
s7 18:16:18.71 -16:51:25.5 — 17.10$\pm$0.06 15.46$\pm$0.04 14.43$\pm$0.18 13.25$\pm$0.14 — — – – 0.17 95.50$\pm$2.88 3.45$\pm$1.31 192
s8 18:16:19.12 -16:53:22.0 — — — 10.07$\pm$0.06 8.79$\pm$0.06 7.57$\pm$0.05 6.73$\pm$0.05 3.82 1.03 19.20 532.61$\pm$2.51 5.03$\pm$1.78 79
s9 18:16:19.17 -16:50:20.6 — 14.84$\pm$0.09 13.73$\pm$0.06 11.83$\pm$0.07 11.11$\pm$0.07 10.40$\pm$0.11 8.70$\pm$0.03 – 0.72 2.75 122.35$\pm$3.73 3.78$\pm$1.71 908
s10 18:16:19.81 -16:50:33.7 — 16.74$\pm$0.04 14.69$\pm$0.02 11.44$\pm$0.10 10.70$\pm$0.14 9.25$\pm$0.12 — – 1.37 2.32 263.30$\pm$3.46 4.85$\pm$2.15 1253
s11 18:16:21.18 -16:50:57.3 — 14.64$\pm$0.01 13.50$\pm$0.01 12.83$\pm$0.11 11.84$\pm$0.06 — — – – 0.96 38.41$\pm$3.70 2.98$\pm$1.82 612
s12 18:16:21.85 -16:50:44.9 — — — 12.15$\pm$0.06 11.05$\pm$0.07 10.20$\pm$0.07 9.89$\pm$0.19 – -0.26 1.50 137.40$\pm$2.59 4.55$\pm$1.94 1358
s13 18:16:22.29 -16:50:34.7 — — — 13.17$\pm$0.08 12.36$\pm$0.16 11.29$\pm$0.22 — – 0.77 0.39 46.25$\pm$4.21 2.87$\pm$2.11 10000
s14 18:16:22.51 -16:51:05.8 13.07$\pm$0.03 11.84$\pm$0.02 11.32$\pm$0.02 10.77$\pm$0.09 10.43$\pm$0.12 9.68$\pm$0.12 7.39$\pm$0.06 – 1.05 14.79 138.00$\pm$1.88 4.33$\pm$1.33 71
s15 18:16:23.62 -16:50:26.4 — 15.34$\pm$0.01 14.15$\pm$0.01 12.87$\pm$0.12 12.08$\pm$0.08 — — – – 0.63 24.30$\pm$3.02 2.41$\pm$1.37 7464
s16 18:16:24.32 -16:50:20.2 — — — 12.18$\pm$0.17 11.17$\pm$0.13 9.40$\pm$0.11 — – 2.52 1.59 492.39$\pm$4.20 6.28$\pm$3.31 3801
s17 18:16:24.50 -16:51:37.1 — — — 10.55$\pm$0.02 10.06$\pm$0.02 9.05$\pm$0.09 7.47$\pm$0.11 1.83 0.78 20.14 170.49$\pm$1.92 4.66$\pm$1.33 312
s18 18:16:24.65 -16:50:00.9 — — — 9.55$\pm$0.10 7.84$\pm$0.06 6.65$\pm$0.06 6.13$\pm$0.09 0.59 1.05 76.03 953.65$\pm$2.89 7.28$\pm$2.95 14
s19 18:16:24.66 -16:50:25.4 — — — 13.09$\pm$0.11 12.20$\pm$0.09 10.38$\pm$0.18 — – 2.38 0.64 173.07$\pm$3.01 4.34$\pm$2.21 1985
s20 18:16:24.84 -16:52:21.5 — 14.58$\pm$0.01 14.16$\pm$0.01 14.21$\pm$0.29 13.07$\pm$0.15 — — – – 0.60 6.52$\pm$4.66 1.65$\pm$1.23 4776
s21 18:16:26.13 -16:54:04.5 — — — 13.98$\pm$0.12 13.02$\pm$0.18 12.01$\pm$0.22 — – 0.94 0.20 20.91$\pm$4.46 2.11$\pm$1.96 10000
s22 18:16:26.51 -16:51:23.8 — — 13.55$\pm$0.05 10.74$\pm$0.05 10.29$\pm$0.06 9.70$\pm$0.13 8.37$\pm$0.06 – -0.12 4.33 595.87$\pm$3.31 6.97$\pm$2.09 15
s23 18:16:27.67 -16:51:46.5 — — — 6.70$\pm$0.00 5.83$\pm$0.00 4.58$\pm$0.00 4.28$\pm$0.00 – 0.06 236.40 8286.71$\pm$1.48 10.83$\pm$1.68 125
s24 18:16:28.92 -16:52:20.0 — — — 12.62$\pm$0.07 10.94$\pm$0.07 9.56$\pm$0.06 8.90$\pm$0.11 – 1.43 2.38 65.29$\pm$1.57 1.97$\pm$0.77 6
s25 18:16:29.99 -16:50:41.1 — — — 12.52$\pm$0.14 11.08$\pm$0.16 9.52$\pm$0.03 — – 2.93 1.45 109.25$\pm$2.21 3.02$\pm$1.42 2068
s26 18:16:30.46 -16:50:48.1 — 15.86$\pm$0.02 13.81$\pm$0.01 11.87$\pm$0.09 10.96$\pm$0.08 10.48$\pm$0.17 — – -0.20 1.47 100.25$\pm$2.47 3.66$\pm$1.26 4548
s27 18:16:32.19 -16:51:29.3 — — — 13.02$\pm$0.07 12.15$\pm$0.09 11.44$\pm$0.12 — – 0.17 0.41 47.17$\pm$2.37 2.77$\pm$1.01 10000
s28 18:16:32.86 -16:51:21.1 — — — 14.16$\pm$0.14 11.56$\pm$0.16 10.49$\pm$0.10 — – 4.12 0.65 5310.55$\pm$2.63 10.67$\pm$2.45 65
s29 18:16:32.92 -16:50:16.2 — — — 13.90$\pm$0.16 12.76$\pm$0.14 11.45$\pm$0.22 — – 1.87 0.28 56.93$\pm$4.69 2.88$\pm$2.23 9071
s30 18:16:33.00 -16:51:02.5 — — 13.67$\pm$0.03 11.93$\pm$0.07 11.07$\pm$0.07 10.45$\pm$0.11 8.97$\pm$0.08 – 0.48 2.24 77.69$\pm$3.02 3.26$\pm$1.59 877
s31 18:16:33.09 -16:51:18.3 — — — 10.54$\pm$0.10 8.91$\pm$0.08 7.96$\pm$0.04 7.70$\pm$0.04 – 0.35 10.48 971.52$\pm$1.62 7.81$\pm$0.88 51
s32 18:16:33.38 -16:51:15.2 15.16$\pm$0.04 14.37$\pm$0.03 13.97$\pm$0.08 13.56$\pm$0.15 12.79$\pm$0.16 — — – – 1.08 9.48$\pm$4.94 1.95$\pm$1.22 8747
s33 18:16:33.60 -16:51:42.7 — — — 13.81$\pm$0.10 12.45$\pm$0.10 11.60$\pm$0.14 — – 1.38 0.29 118.41$\pm$7.00 4.24$\pm$3.11 4351
s34 18:16:35.60 -16:55:25.2 — 16.14$\pm$0.02 15.81$\pm$0.04 13.28$\pm$0.09 13.00$\pm$0.13 — — – – 0.27 18.00$\pm$2.69 1.76$\pm$1.41 53
s35 18:16:39.07 -16:52:20.5 14.25$\pm$0.03 13.65$\pm$0.00 13.19$\pm$0.00 11.32$\pm$0.10 10.66$\pm$0.09 10.13$\pm$0.09 — – -0.55 3.57 92.18$\pm$2.87 3.41$\pm$1.14 247
s36 18:16:39.74 -16:51:32.2 — — — 13.15$\pm$0.08 12.36$\pm$0.09 11.59$\pm$0.17 10.89$\pm$0.27 – -0.23 0.50 22.89$\pm$2.23 2.04$\pm$1.19 5010
s37 18:16:41.64 -16:50:18.7 — 14.53$\pm$0.01 15.02$\pm$0.02 13.52$\pm$0.08 13.32$\pm$0.13 — — – – 0.54 58.42$\pm$1.41 4.28$\pm$0.36 4
s38 18:16:23.62 -16:51:50.0 — — — 9.81$\pm$0.02 9.18$\pm$0.01 7.75$\pm$0.05 — 1.95 1.13 20.74 597.35$\pm$2.50 5.43$\pm$1.73 1118
s39 18:16:32.99 -16:51:23.1 — — — — — 10.05$\pm$0.07 8.18$\pm$0.05 1.71 – 17.08 228.59$\pm$1.48 5.32$\pm$0.95 158
-------- ------------- ------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------- ----------------- --------------- ------------------- ---------------- -------- -- --
---- ------------- ------------- ------- ------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ------------- -------------
ID RA Dec J H K$_{s}$ \[3.6\] \[4.5\] \[5.8\] \[8.0\] A$_{V}$ M$_{J}$ M$_{H}$ M$_{K_{s}}$ O-type star
\[2000\] \[2000\] mag mag mag mag mag mag mag mag
1 18:16:18.79 -16:50:55.2 14.78 13.30 12.68 12.01 11.72 10.12 — 13.14 -1.67 -1.73 -1.53 —
2 18:16:22.14 -16:50:19.8 13.24 12.02 11.45 11.03 10.89 10.45 — 11.52 -2.75 -2.73 -2.58 —
3 18:16:22.50 -16:51:05.5 13.07 11.84 11.32 10.77 10.43 9.68 7.39 11.15 -2.82 -2.84 -2.67 —
4 18:16:19.98 -16:50:57.3 12.64 10.90 10.09 9.47 9.32 9.39 — 15.89 -4.59 -4.62 -4.44 O5V–O4V
5 18:16:16.86 -16:50:34.2 15.95 11.59 9.45 7.95 7.84 7.40 7.61 38.69 -7.76 -7.94 -7.67 —
6 18:16:21.36 -16:51:04.2 12.05 10.90 10.33 9.84 9.71 9.62 8.21 11.19 -3.85 -3.79 -3.66 O8V–O7.5V
7 18:16:22.15 -16:50:02.1 9.31 7.77 7.08 6.83 6.71 6.51 6.54 13.98 -7.38 -7.41 -7.23 —
8 18:16:21.50 -16:51:44.9 15.35 14.33 13.80 11.68 11.20 9.57 — 10.27 -0.29 -0.20 -0.09 —
---- ------------- ------------- ------- ------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ------------- -------------
[99]{}
Aguirre J. E., Ginsburg A. G., Dunham M. K., et al., 2011, ApJS, 192, 4
Beaumont C. N., Williams J. P., 2010, ApJ, 709, 791
Bertoldi F., 1989, ApJ, 346, 735
Benjamin R. A.,Churchwell E., Babler B. L., et al., 2003, PASP, 115, 953
Brand J., Massi F., Zavagno A., Deharveng L., Lefloch B., 2011, A&A, 527, 62
Carey S. J., et al., 2005, BAAS, 37, 1252
Casali M., Adamson A., Alves de Oliveira C., Almaini O., Burch K., Chuter T., Elliot J., et al., 2007, A&A, 467, 777
Churchwell E., Povich M. S., Allen D., et al., 2006, ApJ, 649, 759
Churchwell E., Watson D. F., Povich M. S., et al., 2007, ApJ, 670, 428
Churchwell E.,Babler B. L., Meade M. R., et al., 2009, PASP, 121, 213
Codella C., Felli M., Natale V., Palagi F., Palla F., 1994, A&A, 291, 261
Deharveng L., Lefloch B., Zavagno A., et al., 2003, A&A, 408, L25
Deharveng L., Lefloch B., Kurtz S., et al., 2008, A&A, 482, 585
Deharveng L., Zavagno A., Schuller F., et al., 2009, A&A, 496, 177
Deharveng L., Schuller F., Anderson L. D. et al., 2010, A&A, 523, 6
Dewangan L. K., Anandarao B. G, 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1526
Dewangan L. K., Ojha D. K., Anandarao B. G., Ghosh S. K., Chakraborti S., 2012, accepted in ApJ, arXiv:1207.6842
Dye S., Warren S. J., Hambly N. C., Cross N. J. G., Hodgkin S. T., Irwin M. J., Lawrence A., et al., 2006, MNRAS, 372, 1227
Dyson J. E., Williams D. A., 1980, Physics of the interstellar medium (New York, Halsted Press, p. 204)
Fazio G. G. et al., 2004, ApJS, 154, 10
Elmegreen B. G., 2010, Ecole Evry Schatzman (EAS) Publications Series, 51, 45
Elmegreen, B. G., Lada, C. J., 1977, ApJ, 214, 725
Evans, N. J., II, Dunham, M. M., J$\o{}$rgensen, J. K., et al., 2009, ApJS, 181, 321
Flaherty K. M., Pipher J. L., Megeath S. T., Winston E. M., Gutermuth R. A., Muzerolle J., Allen L. E., Fazio, G. G., 2007, ApJ, 663, 1069
Froebrich D., Davis C. J., Ioannidis G., et al., 2011, MNRAS, 413, 480
Hartmann L., Megeath S. T., Allen L., et al., 2005, ApJ, 629, 881
Helfand D. J., Becker R. H., White R. L., Fallon A., Tuttle S., 2006, AJ, 131, 2525
Hodgkin S. T., Irwin M. J., Hewett P. C., Warren S. J., 2009, MNRAS, 394, 675
Getman K. V., Feigelson E. D., Garmire G., Broos P., Wang J., 2007, ApJ, 654, 316
Gutermuth R. A., Megeath S. T., Myers P. C., Allen L. E., Pipher J. L., Fazio G. G., 2009, ApJS, 184, 18
Indebetouw R., Mathis J. S., Babler B. L., et al., 2005, ApJ, 619, 931
Ji W.-G., Zhou J.-J, Esimbek J., et al., 2012, arXiv:1206.2762v1
Kumar Dewangan Lokesh, Anandarao B. G., 2010, MNRAS, 407, 1170
Kryukova, E.,Megeath, S. T., Gutermuth, R. A, et al., 2012, ApJ, 144, 31
Kwan J., 1997, ApJ, 489, 284
Lawrence A., Warren S. J., Almaini O., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599
Lefloch, B., Lazareff, B. 1994, A&A, 289, 559
Lockman F. J., 1989, ApJS, 71, 469
Martins F., Plez B., 2006, A&A, 457, 637
Pomarés M., Zavagno A., Deharveng L., et al., 2009, A&A, 494, 987
Povich M. S., Stone J. M., Churchwell E., et al., 2007, ApJ, 660, 346
Reach W. T., Megeath S. T., Cohen M., et al. 2005, PASP, 117, 978
Reach W. T., Rho J., Tappe A., et al., 2006, AJ, 131, 1479
Rieke G. H. et al., 2004, ApJS, 154, 25
Robitaille T. P., Whitney B. A., Indebetouw R., Wood K., Denzmore P., 2006, ApJS, 167, 256
Robitaille T. P., Whitney B. A., Indebetouw R., Wood K., 2007, ApJS, 169, 328
Robitaille T. P., Meade M. R., Babler B. L., et al., 2008, AJ, 136, 2413
Sevenster M. N., 2002, ApJ, 123, 2772
Shetty, R., Glover, S. C., Dullemond, C. P., Klessen, R. S., 2011, MNRAS, 412, 1686
Skrutskie M. F., Cutri R. M., Stiening R., Weinberg M. D., Schneider S., Carpenter J. M., Beichman C., et al., 2006, AJ, 131, 1163
Smith M. D., Rosen A., 2005, MNRAS, 357, 1370
Stetson P. B., 1987, PASP, 99, 191
Varricatt W. P., 2011, A&A, 527, 97
Watson C., Povich M. S., Churchwell E. B., et al., 2008, ApJ, 681, 1341
Whitworth A. P., Bhattal A. S., Chapman S. J., Disney M. J., Turner J. A., 1994b, MNRAS, 268, 291
Whitney B. A., Sewilo M., Indebetouw R., et al., 2008, AJ, 136, 18
Wood, D. O. S., Churchwell, E., 1989, ApJS, 69, 831
Zavagno A., Deharveng L., Comeron F., et al., 2006, A&A, 446, 171
Zavagno A., Russeil D., Motte F., et al., 2010, A&A, 518, L81
Zinnecker H., Yorke H. W., 2007, ARA&A, 45, 481
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Let $X$ be a compact Kähler manifold and $\om$ a smooth closed form of bidegree $(1,1)$ which is nonnegative and big. We study the classes ${\mathcal E}_{\chi}(X,\om)$ of $\om$-plurisubharmonic functions of finite weighted Monge-Ampère energy. When the weight $\chi$ has fast growth at infinity, the corresponding functions are close to be bounded.
We show that if a positive Radon measure is suitably dominated by the Monge-Ampère capacity, then it belongs to the range of the Monge-Ampère operator on some class ${\mathcal E}_{\chi}(X,\om)$. This is done by establishing a priori estimates on the capacity of sublevel sets of the solutions.
Our result extends U.Cegrell’s and S.Kolodziej’s results and puts them into a unifying frame. It also gives a simple proof of S.T.Yau’s celebrated a priori ${\mathcal C}^0$-estimate.
author:
- 'S.BENELKOURCHI & V.GUEDJ & A.ZERIAHI'
title: 'A priori estimates for weak solutions of complex Monge-Ampère equations'
---
[ 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:]{} [*32W20, 32Q25, 32U05*]{}.
Introduction
============
Let $X$ be a compact connected Kähler manifold of dimension $n \in \N^* $. Throughout the article $\om$ denotes a smooth closed form of bidegree $(1,1)$ which is nonnegative and [*big*]{}, i.e. such that $\int_X \om^n >0$. We continue the study started in [@GZ; @2], [@EGZ] of the complex Monge-Ampère equation $$\! \! \!\! \! \! \!\! \! \! \!\! \! \! \!\! \! \! \!\!
\! \! \!\! \! \! \!\! \! \! \!\! \! \! \!\! \! \! \!\!
\! \! \!\! \! \! \!\! \! \! \!\! \! \! \!\! \! \! \!\!
\! \! \!\! \! \! \!\! \! \! \!\!
\mbox{(MA)}_\mu \hskip3cm (\om +dd^c \f )^n = \mu ,$$ where $\f$, the unknown function, is $\om$-plurisubharmonic: this means that $\f \in L^1(X)$ is upper semi-continuous and $\om + dd^c \f \ge 0$ is a positive current. We let $PSH(X, \om )$ denote the set of all such functions (see [@GZ; @1] for their basic properties). Here $\mu $ is a fixed positive Radon measure of total mass $\mu(X) = \int _X\om ^n $, and $d=\partial+\overline{\partial}$, $d^c=\frac{1}{2i\pi}(\partial-\overline{\partial})$.
Following [@GZ; @2] we say that a $\om$-plurisubharmonic function $\f$ has finite weighted Monge-Ampère energy, $\f \in {\mathcal E}(X,\om)$, when its Monge-Ampère measure $(\om + dd^c\f )^n $ is well defined, and there exists an increasing function $\chi :\ \R^- \to \R^- $ such that $\chi ( -\infty) = -\infty $ and $ \chi \circ \f \in L^1((\om + dd^c \f )^n) $. In general $\chi $ has very slow growth at infinity, so that $\f $ is far from being bounded.
The purpose of this article is twofold. First we extend one of the main results of [@GZ; @2] by showing .2cm
[**THEOREM A.**]{} [*There exists $\f \in {\mathcal E}(X,\om)$ such that $\mu=(\om+dd^c \f)^n$ if and only if $\mu$ does not charge pluripolar sets.* ]{} .2cm
This results has been established in \[GZ 2\] when $\om$ is a Kähler form. It is important for applications to complex dynamics and Kähler geometry to consider as well forms $\om$ that are less positive (see \[EGZ\]).
We then look for conditions on the measure $\mu$ which insure that the solution $\f$ is almost bounded. Following the seminal work of S. Kolodziej \[K 2,3\], we say that $\mu $ is dominated by the Monge-Ampère Capacity $Cap _{\om}$ if there exists a function $ F : \R^+ \to \R^+ $ such that $\lim_{t \to 0^+} F(t)=0$ and $$\tag{\dag}
\mu(K ) \le F(Cap_{\om} (K) ), \quad \mbox{for all Borel subsets } \ K \subset X.$$ Here $ Cap _\om $ denotes the global version of the Monge-Ampère capacity introduced by E.Bedford and A.Taylor [@BT] (see section 2).
Observe that $\mu $ does not charge pluripolar sets since $F(0)=0.$ When $F(x) \lesssim x^\alpha $ vanishes at order $\alpha >1$ and $ \om$ is Kähler, S. Kolodziej has proved [@K; @2] that the solution $\f \in PSH(X, \om ) $ of (MA)$_\mu$ is [*continuous*]{}. The boundedness part of this result was extended in [@EGZ] to the case when $\om$ is merely big and nonnegative. If $F(x) \lesssim x^\alpha $ with $0< \alpha <1 ,$ two of us have proved in [@GZ; @2] that the solution $\f $ has finite $\chi -$energy, where $\chi (t) = -(-t)^p , \ p=p(\alpha )>0$. This result was first established by U. Cegrell in a local context [@Ce].
Another objective of this article is to fill in the gap inbetween Cegrell’s and Kolodziej’s results, by considering all intermediate dominating functions $F.$ Write $ F_\e (x) = x [\e( -\ln (x) /n)]^n$ where $\e:\R \rightarrow [0 ,\infty [$ is nonincreasing. Our second main result is: .2cm
[**THEOREM B.**]{} [*If $\mu(K) \leq F_{\e}(Cap_{\om}(K))$ for all Borel subsets $K \subset X$, then $\mu=(\om+dd^c \f)^n$ where $\f \in PSH(X,\om)$ satisfies $\sup _X \f = 0$ and $$Cap_{\om}(\f<-s) \leq \exp (-nH^{-1}(s)).$$ Here $H^{-1}$ is the reciprocal function of $H(x) =
e \int_{0}^x \e (t) dt + s_0 ,$ where $s_0 = s_0 ( \e , \om) \ge 0 $ only depends on $\e $ and $\om .$* ]{} .2cm
This general statement has several useful consequences:
- if $ \int_0^{+\infty } \e (t) dt <+\infty , $ then $H^{-1}(s)= +\infty $ for $s \ge s_\infty := e \int_{0}^{+\infty } \e (t) dt+s_0,$ hence $Cap _\om (\f < -s ) =0.$ This means that $\f $ is bounded from below by $-s_{\infty} .$ This result is due to S. Kolodziej \[K 2,3\] when $\om$ is Kähler, and [@EGZ] when $\om \geq 0$ is merely big;
- the condition () is easy to check for measures with density in $L^p$, $p>1$. Our result thus gives a simple proof (Corollary 3.2), following the seminal approach of S. Kolodziej (\[K2\]), of the $\m C^0 $-a priori estimate of S.T. Yau [@Y], which is crucial for proving the Calabi conjecture (see [@T] for an overview);
- when $ \int_0^{+\infty } \e (t) dt = +\infty ,$ the solution $\f $ is generally unbounded. The faster $\e(t)$ decreases towards zero, the faster the growth of $H^{-1}$ at infinity, hence the closer is $\f $ from being bounded;
- the special case $\e \equiv 1$ is of particular interest. Here $\mu (\cdot) \le Cap_\om (\cdot)$, and our result shows that $Cap_\om (\f <-s )$ decreases exponentially fast, hence $\f $ has “ loglog-singularities”. These are the type of singularities of the metrics used in Arakelov geometry in relation with measures $\mu = f d V $ whose density has Poincaré-type singularities (see \[Ku\], \[BKK\]).
We prove Theorem B in [*section 3*]{}, after establishing Theorem A in [*section 2.1*]{} and recalling some useful facts from \[GZ 2\], \[EGZ\] in [*section 2.2*]{}. We then test the sharpness of our estimates in [*section 4*]{}, where we give examples of measures fulfilling our assumptions: these are absolutely continuous with respect to $\om^n$, and their density do not belong to $L^p$, for any $p>1$.
Weakly singular quasiplurisubharmonic functions
===============================================
The class ${\mathcal E}(X,\om)$ of $\om$-psh functions with finite weighted Monge-Ampère energy has been introduced and studied in [@GZ; @2]. It is the largest subclass of $PSH(X,\om)$ on which the complex Monge-Ampère operator $(\om+dd^c \cdot)^n$ is well-defined and the comparison principle is valid. Recall that $\f \in {\mathcal E}(X,\om)$ if and only if $(\om+dd^c \f_j)^n(\f \leq -j) \rightarrow 0$, where $\f_j:=\max(\f,-j)$.
The range of the Monge-Ampère operator
--------------------------------------
The range of the operator $(\om+dd^c \cdot)^n$ acting on ${\mathcal E}(X,\om)$ has been characterized in \[GZ 2\] when $\om$ is a [*Kähler*]{} form. We extend here this result to the case when $\om$ is merely nonnegative and big.
Assume $\om$ is a smooth closed nonnegative (1,1) form on $X$, and $\mu$ is a positive Radon measure such that $\mu(X)=\int_X \om^n>0$.
Then there exists $\f \in {\mathcal E}(X,\om)$ such that $\mu=(\om+dd^c \f)^n$ if and only if $\mu$ does not charge pluripolar sets.
We can assume without loss of generality that $\mu $ and $\om $ are normalized so that $\mu (X) = \int_X\om ^n =1.$ Consider, for $A>0$, $$\m C _A(\om ): = \{ \nu\ \text{probability measure } / \ \nu (K) \le A \cdot Cap_\om (K),
\text{for all }\ K\subset X \},$$ where $Cap_\om $ denotes the Monge-Ampère capacity introduced by E.Bedford and A.Taylor in \[BT\] (see [@GZ; @1] for this compact setting). Recall that $$Cap _\om (K) : = \sup \left\{ \int _K (\om + dd^c u )^n \ / \ u\in PSH(X, \om), \ 0
\le u \le 1 \right\}.$$
We first show that a measure $\nu \in \m C _A(\om ) $ is the Monge-Ampère of a function $ \psi \in \m E^p (X , \om ) , $ for any $0<p <1$, where $$\m E^p (X , \om) := \{ \psi \in {\mathcal E}(X, \om)\ / \ \psi \in L^p \big ( (\om + dd^c \p)^n \big )\}.$$
Indeed, fix $\nu \in \m C _A(\om ), \ 0<p<1,$ and $\om_j : = \om + \e_j {\Omega}$, where ${\Omega}$ is a kähler form on $X$, and $\e_j>0 $ decreases towards zero. Observe that $PSH(X, \om ) \subset PSH(X, \om_j ),$ hence $ Cap _\om (.) \le Cap _{\om_j} (.),$ so that $\nu \in \m C _A(\om_j ).$ It follows from Proposition 3.6 and 2.7 in [@GZ; @1] that there exists $C_0 >0$ such that for any $v \in PSH(X, \om_j )$ normalized by $\sup _X v = -1,$ we have $$Cap _{\om_j} (v<-t) \le \frac{C_0}{t}, \ \text{for all } t\ge 1.$$ This yields $ \m E^p (X , \om_j) \subset L^p (\nu )$: if $v\in \m E^p (X , \om_j)$ with $\sup _X v = -1,$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\int _X (-v)^p d \nu &=& p\cdot \int_0 ^{+\infty} t^{p-1} \nu (v < -t)dt \\
&\le & p A \cdot \int_1 ^{+\infty} t^{p-1} Cap _\om (v < -t)dt + C_p\\
& \le & \frac{pA C_0}{1-p} + C_p <+\infty.\end{aligned}$$ It follows therefore from Theorem 4.2 in [@GZ; @2] that there exists ${\varphi}_j \in \m E^p (X , \om_j) $ with $\sup_X {\varphi}_j =-1$ and $(\om_j +dd^c {\varphi}_j)^n = c_j \cdot \nu ,$ where $c_j = \int_X\om_j ^n \ge 1$ decreases towards 1 as $\e_j $ decreases towards zero. We can assume without loss of generality that $1\le c_j \le 2.$ Observe that the ${\varphi}_j$’s have uniformly bounded energies, namely $$\int_X (-\f_j)^p (\om_j +dd^c {\varphi}_j)^n \le 2 \int_X (-\f_j)^p d\nu
\le 2 \left[\frac{pAC_0}{1-p} +C_p \right].$$ Since $\sup_X\f_j =-1 ,$ we can assume (after extracting a convergent subsequence) that $\f_j \to \f $ in $ L^1(X),$ where $\f \in PSH(X, \om ), \ \sup_X \f =-1.$
Set $\phi _j : = (\sup_{l\ge j} \f_l)^* .$ Thus $\phi_j \in PSH(X, \om_j),$ and $\phi_j $ decreases towards $\f .$ Since $\phi_j \ge \f_j,$ it follows from the “fundamental inequality” (Lemma 2.3 in [@GZ; @2]) that $$\int_X (-\phi_j)^p (\om_j +dd^c \phi_j)^n \le 2^n \int_X (-\f_j)^p (\om_j +dd^c \f_j)^n
\le C^\prime <+\infty.$$ Hence it follows from stability properties of the class $\m E^p (X , \om) $ that $\f \in \m E^p (X , \om)$ (see Proposition 5.6 in [@GZ; @2]). Moreover $$(\om_j +dd^c \phi_j)^n \ge \inf_{l\ge j}(\om_l +dd^c \f_l)^n \ge \nu ,$$ hence $(\om +dd^c {\varphi})^n = \lim (\om_j +dd^c \phi_j)^n \ge \nu.$ Since $\int_X \om^n = \nu(X) = 1,$ this yields $\nu = (\om +dd^c {\varphi})^n$ as claimed above.
We can now prove the statement of the theorem. One implication is obvious: if $\mu =(\om +dd^c {\varphi})^n, \ \f \in {\mathcal E}( X, \om),$ then $\mu $ does not charge pluripolar sets, as follows from Theorem 1.3 in [@GZ; @2].
So we assume now $\mu$ that does not charge pluripolar sets. Since $\m C _1(\om ) $ is a compact convex set of probability measures which contains all measures $(\om +dd^c u)^n$, $ u\in PSH(X, \om ), \ 0\le u\le 1,$ we can project $\mu $ onto $\m C_1(\om ) $ and get, by a generalization of Radon-Nikodym theorem (see \[R\], \[Ce\]), $$\mu = f\cdot \nu , \ \nu \in \m C_1(\om ) , \ 0\le f \in L^1(\nu ).$$ Now $ \nu = (\om +dd^c \psi)^n $ for some $\psi \in \m E^{1/2} (X , \om), \ \psi \le 0 ,$ as follows from the discussion above. Replacing $\psi$ by $e^\psi $ shows that we can actually assume $\psi $ to be bounded (see Lemma 4.5 in \[GZ 2\]). We can now apply line by line the same proof as that of Theorem 4.6 in [@GZ; @2] to conclude that $\mu = (\om + dd^c \f )^n $ for some $\f \in {\mathcal E}(X, \om ).$
High energy and capacity estimates
----------------------------------
Given $\chi:\R^- \rightarrow \R^-$ an increasing function, we consider, following [@GZ; @2], $$\E:=\left\{ \f \in {\mathcal E}(X,\om) \, / \,
\int_X (-\chi) (-|\f|) \, (\om+dd^c \f)^n <+\infty \right\},$$ Alternatively a function $\f \leq 0$ belongs to $\E$ if and only if $$\sup_j \int_X (-\chi) \circ \f_j \, (\om+dd^c \f_j)^n <+\infty,
\text{ where } \f_j:=\max(\f,-j)$$ is the [*canonical approximation*]{} of $\f$ by bounded $\om$-psh functions. When $\chi(t)=-(-t)^p$, $\E$ is the class ${\mathcal E}^p(X,\om)$ used in previous section.
The properties of classes $\E$ are quite different whether the weight $\chi$ is convex (slow growth at infinity) or concave. In previous works \[GZ 2\], two of us were mainly interested in weights $\chi$ of moderate growth at infinity (at most polynomial). Our main objective in the sequel is to construct solutions $\f$ of $(MA)_{\mu}$ which are “almost bounded”, i.e. in classes $\E$ for concave weights $\chi$ of arbitrarily high growth.
For this purpose it is useful to relate the property $\f \in \E$ to the speed of decreasing of $Cap_{\om}(\f<-t)$, as $t \rightarrow +\infty$. We set $$\hat{{\mathcal E}}_{\chi}(X,\om):=\left\{ \f \in PSH(X,\om) \, / \,
\int_0^{+\infty} t^n \chi'(-t) Cap_{\om}(\f<-t) dt<+\infty \right\}.$$
An important tool in the study of classes $\E$ are the “fundamental inequalities” (Lemmas 2.3 and 3.5 in \[GZ 2\]), which allow to compare the weighted energy of two $\om$-psh functions $\f \leq \p$. These inequalities are only valid for weights of slow growth (at most polynomial), while they become immediate for classes $\hat{{\mathcal E}}_{\chi}(X,\om)$. So are the convexity properties of $\hat{{\mathcal E}}_{\chi}(X,\om)$. We summarize this and compare these classes in the following:
The classes $\hat{{\mathcal E}}_{\chi}(X,\om)$ are convex and stable under maximum: if $\hat{{\mathcal E}}_{\chi}(X,\om) \ni \f \leq \p \in PSH(X,\om)$, then $\p \in \hat{{\mathcal E}}_{\chi}(X,\om)$.
One always has $\hat{{\mathcal E}}_{\chi}(X,\om) \subset \E$, while $${\mathcal E}_{\hat{\chi}}(X,\om) \subset \hat{{\mathcal E}}_{\chi}(X,\om),
\text{ where } \chi'(t-1)=t^n \hat{\chi}'(t).$$
Since we are mainly interested in the sequel in weights with (super) fast growth at infinity, the previous proposition shows that $\hat{{\mathcal E}}_{\chi}(X,\om)$ and $\E$ are roughly the same: a function $\f \in PSH(X,\om)$ belongs to one of these classes if and only if $Cap_{\om}(\f<-t)$ decreases fast enough, as $t \rightarrow +\infty$.
The convexity of $\hat{{\mathcal E}}_{\chi}(X,\om)$ follows from the following simple observation: if $\f,\p \in \hat{{\mathcal E}}_{\chi}(X,\om)$ and $0 \leq a \leq 1$, then $$\left\{ a\f+(1-a)\p <-t \right\} \subset
\left\{ \f<-t \right\} \cup \left\{ \p <-t \right\}.$$ The stability under maximum is obvious.
Assume $\f \in \hat{{\mathcal E}}_{\chi}(X,\om)$. We can assume without loss of generality $\f \leq 0$ and $\chi(0)=0$. Set $\f_j:=\max(\f,-j)$. It follows from Lemma 2.3 below that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_X (-\chi) \circ \f_j \, (\om+dd^c \f_j)^n &=&
\int_0^{+\infty} \chi'(-t) (\om+dd^c\f_j)^n(\f_j < -t) dt \\
&\leq& \int_0^{+\infty} \chi'(-t) t^n Cap_{\om}(\f<-t) dt
<+\infty, \end{aligned}$$
This shows that $\f \in \E$. The other inclusion goes similarly, using the second inequality in Lemma 2.3 below.
If $\f \in \E$ (or $\hat{{\mathcal E}}_{\chi}(X,\om)$), then the bigger the growth of $\chi$ at $-\infty$, the smaller $Cap_{\om}(\f<-t)$ when $t\rightarrow +\infty$, hence the closer $\f$ is from being bounded. Indeed $\f \in PSH(X,\om)$ is bounded iff it belongs to $\E$ for all weights $\chi$, as was observed in \[GZ 2\], Proposition 3.1. Similarly $$PSH(X,\om) \cap L^{\infty}(X)=\bigcap_{\chi} \hat{{\mathcal E}}_{\chi}(X,\om),$$ where the intersection runs over all concave increasing functions $\chi$. .2cm
We will make constant use of the following result:
Fix $\f \in {\mathcal E}(X,\om)$. Then for all $s>0$ and $0 \leq t \leq 1$, $$t^n Cap_{\om}(\f<-s-t) \leq \int_{(\f<-s)} (\om+dd^c \f)^n \leq s^n Cap_{\om}(\f<-s),$$ where the second inequality is true only for $s \geq 1$. \[ine\]
The proof is a direct consequence of the comparison principle (see Lemma 2.2 in \[EGZ\] and \[GZ 2\]).
Measures dominated by capacity
==============================
From now on $\mu$ denotes a positive Radon measure on $X$ whose total mass is $Vol_\om (X)$: this is an obvious necessary condition in order to solve $(MA)_{\mu}$. To simplify numerical computations, we assume in the sequel that $\mu $ and $\om $ have been normalized so that $$\mu(X) =Vol_\om (X) =\int_X \om^n =1.$$
When $\mu=e^h \om^n$ is a smooth volume form and $\om$ is a Kähler form, S.T.Yau has proved \[Y\] that $(MA)_{\mu}$ admits a unique [*smooth*]{} solution $\f \in PSH(X,\om)$ with $\sup_X \f=0$. Smooth measures are easily seen to be nicely dominated by the Monge-Ampère capacity (see the proof of Corollary 3.2 below).
.1cm
Measures dominated by the Monge-Ampère capacity have been extensively studied by S.Kolodziej in \[K 2,3,4\]. Following S. Kolodziej (\[K3\], \[K4\]) with slightly different notations, fix $\e:\R \rightarrow [0 ,
\infty [$ a continuous decreasing function and set
$$F_{\e}(x):=x [\e(-\ln x/n)]^{n}, x > 0.$$ We will consider probability measures $\mu$ satisfying the following condition : for all Borel subsets $K \subset X$, $$\mu(K) \leq F_{\e}(Cap_{\om}(K)).$$ The main result achieved in \[K 2\], can be formulated as follows: If $\om$ is a Kähler form and $\int_0^{+\infty} {\e(t)}dt <+\infty$ then $\mu=(\om+dd^c \f)^n$ for some [*continuous*]{} function $\f \in PSH(X,\om)$.
.1cm
The condition $\int_0^{+\infty} {\e(t)}dt <+\infty$ means that $\e$ decreases fast enough towards zero at infinity. This gives a quantitative estimate on how fast $\e( -\ln Cap_{\om}(K)/n)$, hence $\mu(K)$, decreases towards zero as $Cap_{\om}(K) \rightarrow 0$.
When $\int_0^{+\infty} \e(t)dt=+\infty$, it follows from Theorem 2.1 that $\mu=(\om+dd^c \f)^n$ for some function $\f \in {\mathcal E}(X,\om)$, but $\f$ will generally be unbounded. Our second main result measures how far $\f$ is from being bounded:
\[subest\] Assume for all compact subsets $K \subset X$, $$\mu(K) \leq F_{\e}(Cap_{\om}(K)).
\label{dom}$$ Then $\mu=(\om+dd^c \f)^n$ where $\f \in {\mathcal E}(X,\om)$ is such that $\sup _X \f = 0$ and $$Cap_{\om}(\f<-s) \leq \exp (-nH^{-1}(s)),
\text{ for all } s>0.$$ Here $H^{-1}$ is the reciprocal function of $H(x) =e \int_{0}^x \e(t) dt + s_0$, where $s_0 = s_0 ( \e , \om ) \ge 0 $ is a constant which only depends on $\e $ and $\om .$
In particular $\f \in \E$ where $-\chi(-t)=\exp ( n H^{-1}(t)/2)$.
Recall that here, and troughout the article, $\om \geq 0$ is merely big.
Before proving this result we make a few observations.
- It is interesting to consider as well the case when $\e(t)$ increases towards $+\infty$. One can then obtain solutions $\f$ such that $Cap_{\om}(\f<-t)$ decreases at a polynomial rate. When e.g. $\om$ is Kähler and $\mu(K) \leq Cap_\om(K)^{\a}$, $0<\a<1$, it follows from Proposition 5.3 in \[GZ 2\] that $\mu=(\om+dd^c \f)^n$ where $\f \in {\mathcal E}^p(X,\om)$ for some $p=p_{\a}>0$. Here $ {\mathcal E}^p(X,\om)$ denotes the Cegrell type class $ {\mathcal E}_\chi (X,\om),$ with $\chi(t) = -(-t)^p.$
- When $\e(t) \equiv 1$, $F_{\e}(x)= x$ and $H(x) \asymp e.x$. Thus Theorem \[subest\] reads $ \mu \leq Cap_{\om} \Rightarrow \mu=(\om+dd^c \f)^n$, where $$Cap_{\om}(\f<-s) \lesssim \exp\left( -n s/e \right).$$ This is precisely the rate of decreasing corresponding to functions which look locally like $-\log(-\log||z||)$, in some local chart $z \in U \subset \C^n$. This class of $\om$-psh functions with “loglog-singularities” is important for applications (see \[Ku\], \[BKK\]).
- If $\e(t)$ decreases towards zero, then $Cap_{\om}(\f<-t)$ decreases at a superexponential rate. The faster $\e(t)$ decreases towards zero, the slower the growth of $H$, hence the faster the growth of $H^{-1}$ at infinity. When $\int^{+\infty} \e(t)dt<+\infty$, the function $\e$ decreases so fast that $Cap_{\om}(\f<-t)=0$ for $t>>1$, thus $\f$ is bounded. This is the case when $\mu(K) \leq Cap_{\om}(K)^{\a}$ for some $\a>1$ [@K; @2], [@EGZ].
- When $\int^{+\infty} \e(t)dt=+\infty$, the solution $\f$ may well be unbounded (see Examples in section 4). At the critical case where $\mu \leq F_{\e}(Cap_{\om})$ for all functions $\e$ such that $\int^{+\infty} \e(t) dt=+\infty$, we obtain $$\mu=(\om+dd^c \f)^n
\text{ with }
\f \in PSH(X,\om) \cap L^{\infty}(X),$$ as follows from Proposition 3.1 in \[GZ 2\]. This partially explains the difficulty in describing the range of Monge-Ampère operators on the set of [*bounded*]{} (quasi-)psh functions.
The assumption on $\mu $ implies in particular that it vanishes on pluripolar sets. It follows from Theorem 2.1 that there exists a function $\f \in \m E ( X, \om )$ such that $\mu=(\om+dd^c \f)^n$ and $\sup _X \f =0.$ Set $$g (s) : = -\frac{1}{n} \log Cap_{\om}(\f<-s), \ \ \forall s>0
.$$ The function $g$ is increasing on $[0 , +\infty ] $ and $ g (+\infty)=+\infty$, since $Cap_{\om}$ vanishes on pluripolar sets. Observe also that $g (s) \geq 0$ for all $s \geq 0$, since $$g (0)=-\frac{1}{n} \log Cap_{\om}(X)=-\frac{1}{n} \log Vol_{\om}(X)=0.$$
It follows from Lemma \[ine\] and (\[dom\]) that for all $s>0$ and $0 \leq t \leq 1$, $$t^n Cap_{\om}(\f<-s-t) \leq \mu(\f<-s) \leq F_{\e}\left(Cap_{\om}(\f<-s)\right).$$ Therefore for all $s>0$ and $0 \leq t \leq 1$, $$\log t - \log \e \circ g (s) + g (s) \leq g (s+t).
\label{est}$$
We define an increasing sequence $(s_j)_{j \in \N}$ by induction setting $$s_{j+1} = s_{j} + e \e \circ g (s_{j}), \text{ for all } j \in \N.$$ .2cm
[*The choice of $s_0$*]{}. Recall that (\[est\]) is only valid for $0\le t\le 1.$ We choose $s_0\ge 0 $ large enough so that $$e . \e \circ g (s_{0}) \le 1.$$ This will allow us to use (\[est\]) with $t = t_j = s_{j+1} -s_j \in [0 , 1]$, since $ \e \circ g $ is decreasing, while $s_j \ge s_0 $ is increasing, hence $$0 \le t_j = e \e \circ g (s_{j}) \le e \e \circ g (s_{0}) \le 1.$$ We must insure that $s_0 = s_0 ( \e , \om ) $ can chosen to be independent of $\f.$ This is a consequence of Proposition 2.7 in [@GZ; @1]: since $\sup _X \f = 0,$ there exists $c_1 (\om ) >0 $ so that $0 \le \int_X (-\f) \om ^n \le c_1 (\om ),$ hence $$g (s) : = -\frac{1}{n} \log Cap_{\om}(\f<-s) \ge \frac{1}{n} \log s - \frac{1}{n}\log ( n + c_1 (\om )).$$ Therefore $g (s_0 ) \ge \e ^{-1}(1/e)$ for $s_0 = s_0(\e , \om ) := (n + c_1 (\om)) \exp (n \e^{- 1} (1 \slash e)),
$ which is independent of $\f$. This yields $ e . \e \circ g (s_{0}) \le 1$, as desired.
.2cm [*The growth of $s_j$.* ]{} We can now apply (\[est\]) and get $g (s_j) \ge j + g (s_0) \ge j.$ Thus $\lim g (s_j)=+\infty$. There are two cases to be considered.
If $s_{\infty}=\lim s_j \in \R^+$, then $g (s) \equiv +\infty$ for $s > s_\infty$, i.e. $ Cap_{\om}(\f<-s)=0, \ \ \forall s > s_\infty$. Therefore $\f$ is bounded from below by $-s_\infty$, in particular $\f \in {\mathcal E}_\chi(X,\om)$ for all $\chi .$
Assume now (second case) that $s_j\to +\infty.$ For each $s>0, $ there exists $ N = N_s \in \N $ such that $s_{N} \le s < s_{N +1}.$ We can estimate $s \mapsto N_s$: $$\begin{aligned}
s \le s_{N +1}&=& \sum_0^{N} (s_{j+1} -s_j) + s_0 = \sum_{j = 0}^{N}
e \, \e \circ g (s_{j}) + s_0 \\
& \le & e \sum_{0}^{N}
\e (j) + s_0
\le e. \e(0) + e \int_{0}^{N}
\e (t)dt + s_0 =: H(N) ,\end{aligned}$$ Therefore $H^{-1}(s) \le N \le g (s_N) \le g (s),$ hence $$Cap_{\om}(\f<-s) \leq \exp (-nH^{-1}(s)).$$
Set now $-\chi(-t) =\exp ( n H^{-1}(t)/2)$. Then $$\begin{gathered}
\int_0^{+\infty} t^n \chi'(-t) Cap_{\om}(\f<-t) dt\\ \le
\frac{n}{2}\int_0^{+\infty} { t^n}\frac{1}{\e( H^{-1}(t)) + \tilde{s}_0 } \exp (-n H^{-1}(t)/2) dt\\
\le C \int_{0}^{+\infty} { t^n} \exp (-nt/2 ) dt <+\infty.\end{gathered}$$ This shows that $\f \in \E$ where $\chi(t)=-\exp ( n H^{-1}(-t)/2)$.
It follows from the proof above that when $ \int_0^{+ \infty} \e (t) d t < + \infty$, the solution $\f$ is bounded since in this case we have $$s_{\infty} := \lim_{j \to + \infty} s_j \leq s_0 (\e,\om) + e \ \e (0) + e \int_0^{+ \infty} \e (t) d t < + \infty$$ where $s_0 (\e,\om)$ is an absolute constant satisfying $(3.3)$ (see above).
Let us emphasize that Theorem 3.1 also yields a slightly simplified proof of the following result \[K 2\], \[EGZ\]: if $\mu(K) \leq F_{\e}(Cap_{\om}(K))$ for some decreasing function $\e:\R \rightarrow \R^+$ such that $\int^{+\infty} \e(t) dt <+\infty$, then the sequence $(s_j)$ above is convergent, hence $\mu=(\om+dd^c \f)^n$, where $\f \in PSH(X,\om)$ is [*bounded*]{}. For the reader’s convenience we indicate a proof of the following important particular case:
Let $\mu=f \om^n$ be a measure with density $0 \leq f \in L^p(\om ^n )$, where $p>1$ and $\int_X f \om^n=\int_X \om^n$. Then there exists a unique bounded function $\f \in PSH(X,\om)$ such that $(\om+dd^c \f)^n=\mu$, $\sup_X \f=0$ and $$0\le ||\f||_{L^\infty (X)} \leq C(p,\om) . ||f||^{1/n}_{L^p(\om ^n)} ,$$ where $C(p,\om)>0$ only depends on $p $ and $\om$.
This a priori bound is a crucial step in the proof by S.T.Yau of the Calabi conjecture (see \[Ca\], \[Y\], \[A\], \[T\], \[Bl\]). The proof presented here follows Kolodziej’s new and decisive pluripotential approach (see \[K2\]). Let us stress that the dependence $\om \longmapsto C (p,\om)$ is quite explicit, as we shall see in the proof. This is important when considering degenerate situations \[EGZ\].
We claim that there exists $C_1(\om)$ such that $$\mu(K) \leq \Big [C_1(\om)||f||^{1/n}_{L^p(\om ^n )}\Big ]^n \left[ Cap_{\om} (K) \right]^2,
\; \text{ for all Borel sets } K \subset X.$$ Assuming this for the moment, we can apply Theorem 3.1 with $\e(x)=C_1(\om)||f||^{1/n}_{L^p(\om ^n )}
\exp(-x)$, which yields, as observed at the end of the proof of Theorem 3.1 $$||\f||_{L^\infty (X)} \leq M (f,\om) ,$$ where $M (f,\om) := s_0 (\e,\om) + e \ \e (0) + e \int_0^{+ \infty} \e (t) d t = s_0 (\e,\om) + 2 e C_1(\om)||f||^{1/n}_{L^p(\om ^n )}$ and $s_0 = s_0 (\e,\om)$ is a large number $s_0 > 1$ satisfying the inequality $(3.3)$.
In order to give the precise dependence of the uniform bound $M (f,\om)$ on the $L^p-$norm of the density $f$, we need to choose $s_0$ more carefully. Observe that condition $(3.3)$ can be written $$Cap_{\om} (\{\f \leq - s_0\}) \leq \exp (- n \e^{- 1} (1 \slash e).$$ Since $ n \e^{- 1} (1 \slash e) = \log \Bigl(e^n C_1 (\om)^n \Vert f \Vert_{L^p(\om^n)}\Bigr),$ we must choose $s_0 > 0$ so that $$Cap_{\om} (\{\f \leq - s_0\}) \leq \frac{1}{e^n C_1 (\om)^n \Vert f \Vert_{L^p(\om^n)}}.$$
We claim that for any $N \geq 1$ there exists a uniform constant $ C_2 (N,p,\om) > 0$ such that for any $s > 0,$
$$Cap_{\om} (\{\f \leq - s\}) \leq C_2 (N,p) \ s^{- N} \ \Vert f\Vert_{L^p(\om^n)}.$$
Indeed observe first that by Hölder inequality, $$\int_X (- \f)^N \om_{\f}^n = \int_X (-\f)^N f \om^n \leq \Vert f \Vert_{L^p(\om^n)}
\Vert \f \Vert_{L^{N q}(\om^n)}^N.$$ Since $\f$ belongs to the compact family $\{ \psi \in PSH (X,\om) ; \sup_X \psi = 0 \}$ (\[GZ2\]), there exists a uniform constant $C'_2 (N,p,\om) > 0$ such that $\Vert \f \Vert_{L^{N q}(\om^n)}^N \leq C'_2 (N,p,\om)$, hence $$\int_X (- \f)^N \om_{\f}^n \leq C'_2 (N,p,\om) \Vert f\Vert_{L^p(\om^n)}.$$ Fix $u \in PSH (X,\om)$ with $ - 1 \leq u \leq 0$ and $N \geq 1$ to be specified later. If follows from Tchebysheff and energy inequalities (\[GZ2\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\{\f \leq - s\}} (\om + dd^c u)^n \ & \leq & \ s^{- N} \int_X (- \f)^N (\om + dd^c u)^n \\
& \leq & \ c_N \ s^{- N} \max \left\{\int_X (- \f)^N \om_{\f}^n , \int_X (- u)^N \om_{u}^n \right\} \\
& \leq & \ c_N \ s^{- N} \ \max \left\{C'_2 (N,p,\om) ,1\right\} \Vert f \Vert_{L^p(\om^n)}.\end{aligned}$$ We have used here the fact that $ \Vert f \Vert_{L^p (\om^n)} \geq 1$, which follows from the normalization : $ 1 = \int_X \om^n = \int_X f \om^n \leq \Vert f \Vert_{L^p (\om^n)}$. This proves the claim.
Set $N = 2 n$, it follows from $(3.6)$ that $s_0 := C_1 (\om)^n e^n C_2 (2 n, p,\om) \Vert f \Vert_{L^p(\om^n)}^{1 \slash n}$ satisfies the required condition $(3.5)$, which implies the estimate of the theorem. .2 cm We now establish the estimate $(3.4)$. Observe first that Hölder’s inequality yields $$\mu(K) \leq ||f||_{L^p(\om ^n )} \left[ Vol_{\om}(K) \right]^{1/q},
\text{ where } 1/p+1/q=1.$$
Thus it suffices to estimate the volume $Vol_{\om}(K)$. Recall the definition of the Alexander-Taylor capacity, $T_{\om}(K):=\exp(-\sup_X V_{K,\om})$, where $$V_{K,\om}(x):=\sup \{ \p(x) \, / \, \p \in PSH(X,\om), \p \leq 0 \text{ on } K \}.$$ This capacity is comparable to the Monge-Ampère capacity, as was observed by H.Alexander and A.Taylor \[AT\] (see Proposition 7.1 in \[GZ 1\] for this compact setting): $$T_{\om}(K) \leq e \exp \left[ - \frac{1}{Cap_{\om}(K)^{1/n}} \right].$$
It thus remains to show that $Vol_{\om}(K)$ is suitably bounded from above by $T_{\om}(K)$. This follows from Skoda’s uniform integrability result: set $$\nu(\om):=\sup \left\{ \nu(\p,x) \, / \, \p \in PSH(X,\om), \, x \in X \right\},$$ where $\nu(\p,x)$ denotes the Lelong number of $\p$ at point $x$. This actually only depends on the cohomology class $\{ \om \} \in H^{1,1}(X,\R)$. It is a standard fact that goes back to H.Skoda (see \[Z\]) that there exists $C_2(\om)>0$ so that $$\int_X \exp\left(-\frac{1}{\nu(\om)} \p \right) \, \om^n \leq C_2(\om),$$ for all functions $\p \in PSH(X,\om)$ normalized by $\sup_X \p=0$. We infer $$Vol_{\om}(K) \leq \int_K \exp\left(-\frac{1}{\nu(\om)} V_{K,\om}^* \right) \, \om^n
\leq C_2(\om) [T_{\om}(K)]^{1/\nu(\om)}.$$ It now follows from (3.7), (3.8), (3.9), that $$\mu(K) \leq ||f||_{L^p} [C_2(\om)]^{1/q} e^{1/q\nu(\om)}
\exp\left[ - \frac{1}{q\nu(\om) Cap_{\om}(K)^{1/n}} \right].$$ The conclusion follows by observing that $\exp(-1/x^{1/n}) \leq C_{n} x^2$ for some explicit constant $C_{n}>0$.
Examples
========
Measures invariant by rotations
-------------------------------
In this section we produce examples of radially invariant functions/measures which show that our previous results are essentially sharp. The first example is due to S.Kolodziej \[K 1\].
We work here on the Riemann sphere $X=\P^1(\C)$, with $\om=\om_{FS}$, the Fubini-Study volume form. Consider $\mu=f \om$ a measure with density $f$ which is smooth and positive on $X \setminus \{p\}$, and such that $$f(z) \simeq \frac{c}{|z|^2 (\log|z|)^2}, \; c>0,$$ in a local chart near $p=0$. A simple computation yields $\mu=\om+dd^c \f$, where $\f \in PSH(\P^1,\om)$ is smooth in $\P^1 \setminus \{p\}$ and $\f(z) \simeq -c' \log(-\log|z|)$ near $p=0$, $c'>0$, hence $$\log Cap_{\om}(\f<-t) \simeq -t,$$ Here $a \simeq b$ means that $a/b$ is bounded away from zero and infinity.
This is to be compared to our estimate $\log Cap_{\om}(\f<-t) \lesssim -t/e $ (Theorem \[subest\] ) which can be applied, as it was shown by S.Kolodziej in \[K 1\] that $\mu \lesssim Cap_{\om}$. Thus Theorem \[subest\] is essentially sharp when $\e \equiv 1$.
We now generalize this example and show that the estimate provided by Theorem \[subest\] is essentially sharp in all cases.
Fix $\e $ as in Theorem \[subest\]. Consider $\mu =f \om$ on $X=\P^1(\C)$, where $\om=\om_{FS}$ is the Fubini-Study volume form, $f \geq 0$ is continuous on $\P^1 \setminus \{p\}$, and $$f(z) \simeq \frac{\e (\log (-\log |z|))}{|z|^2 (\log |z|)^2 }$$ in local coordinates near $p=0$. Here $\e:\R \rightarrow \R^+$ decreases towards $0$ at $+\infty$. We claim that there exists $A>0$ such that $$\label{cap}
\mu(K) \le A {Cap_{\om}(K)}{\e (- \log Cap_{\om}(K))},
\text{ for all } K \subset X.$$
This is clear outside a small neighborhood of $p=0$ since the measure $\mu $ is there dominated by a smooth volume form. So it suffices to establish this estimate when $K$ is included in a local chart near $p=0$. Consider $$\tilde{K} := \{r\in [0, R]\ ;\ K \cap \{|z|=r\}\not = \emptyset\}.$$
It is a classical fact (see e.g. \[Ra\]) that the logarithmic capacity $c(K)$ of $K$ can be estimated from below by the length of $\tilde{K}$, namely $$\frac{l(\tilde{K})}{4} \leq c(\tilde{K}) \leq c(K).$$ Using that $\e$ is decreasing, hence $0 \leq -\e'$, we infer $$\begin{aligned}
\mu (K) &\le & 2\pi \int_0^{l(\tilde{K})} f(r) r dr
\\
&\le & {2\pi} \int _0^{ l({\tilde{K}})}\frac{\e (\log (-\log r)) -
\e^{\prime}(\log -\log r)}{r
(\log r)^2 } dr \\
&=& 2\pi \frac{\e (\log (-\log l({\tilde{K}}) )) }{-
\log l({\tilde{K}}) }
\le 2 \pi \frac{ \e (\log (-\log 4 c (K)) ) }{
-\log 4 c (K) } .\end{aligned}$$
Recall now that the logarithmic capacity c(K) is equivalent to Alexander-Taylor’s capacity $T_{\Delta} (K)$, which in turn is equivalent to the global Alexander-Taylor capacity $T_{\om}(K)$ (see \[GZ 1\]): $
c(K) \simeq T_{\Delta}(K) \simeq T_{\om}(K).
$ The Alexander-Taylor’s comparison theorem [@AT] reads $$-\log 4c(K) \simeq -\log T_{\om}(K) \simeq 1/Cap_{\om}(K),$$ thus $\mu(K) \leq A Cap_{\om}(K) \e(-\log Cap_{\om}(K))$. .15cm
We can therefore apply Theorem \[subest\]. It guarantees that $\mu=(\om+dd^c \f)$, where $\f \in PSH(\P^1,\om)$ satisfies $\log Cap_{\om}(\f<-s) \simeq -nH^{-1}(s)$, with $H (s)= eA \int_{0}^s {\e(t)} dt+s_0$. On the other hand a simple computation shows that $\f $ is continuous in $\P^1 \setminus \{p\}$ and $$\f \simeq - H(\log (- \log |z|)) \ , \ \ near \
p=0.$$
The sublevel set $(\f<-t) $ therefore coincides with the ball of radius $\exp (-\exp( H^{-1}(t)))$, hence $\log Cap_{\om}(\f<-s) \simeq -H^{-1}(s).$
Measures with density
---------------------
Here we consider the case when $\mu=f dV$ is absolutely continuous with respect to a volume form.
Assume $\mu=f \om^n$ is a probability measure whose density satisfies $f [\log(1+f)]^n \in L^1(\om^n)$. Then $\mu \lesssim Cap_{\om}$.
More generally if $f [\log(1+f)/\e(\log (1 + |\log f|))]^n \in L^1(\om^n)$ for some continuous decreasing function $\e:\R \rightarrow \R^+_*$, then for all $K \subset X$, $$\mu(K) \leq F_{\e}(Cap_{\om}(K)),
\text{ where } F_{\e}(x)=Ax \left[\e\left(-\frac{\ln x}{n}\right)\right]^n, \, A>0.$$
With slightly different notations, the proof is identical to that of Lemma 4.2 in \[K 4\] to which we refer the reader.
We now give examples showing that Proposition 4.3 is almost optimal.
For simplicity we give local examples. The computations to follow can also be performed in a global compact setting.
Consider $\f(z)=-\log (-\log ||z||)$, where $||z||=\sqrt{|z_1|^2+\ldots +|z_n|^2}$ denotes the Euclidean norm in $\C^n$. One can check that $\f$ is plurisubharmonic in a neighborhood of the origin in $\C^n$, and that there exists $c_n>0$ so that $$\mu:=(dd^c \f)^n=f \, dV_{\text{eucl}},
\text{ where }
f(z)=\frac{c_n}{||z||^{2n} (-\log||z||)^{n+1}}.$$ Observe that $f [\log(1+f)]^{n-\alpha} \in L^1, \ \forall \alpha >0$ but $f [\log(1+f)]^n \not \in L^1. $
When $n=1$ it was observed by S. Kolodziej [@K; @1] that $ \mu(K) \lesssim Cap_{\om}(K).$ Proposition 4.3 yields here $$\mu(K) \lesssim Cap_{\om}(K) (|\log Cap_{\om}(K)| + 1 ).$$
For $n\ge 1,$ it follows from Proposition 4.3 and Theorem \[subest\] that $$\log Cap_{\om}(\f<-s) \lesssim -nH^{-1}(s).$$ On the other hand, one can directly check that $\log Cap_{\om}(\f<-s) \simeq -nH^{-1}(s).$
One can get further examples by considering $\f(z)=\chi \circ \log||z||$, so that $$(dd^c \f )^n =\frac{ c_n (\chi ^{\prime}\circ \log ||z|| )^{n-1}
\chi ^{\prime \prime}(\log ||z|| )}{||z||^{2n}} dV_{\text{eucl}}.$$
[widestlabel]{}
H.ALEXANDER & B.A.TAYLOR: Comparison of two capacities in $\C^n $. Math. Zeit, [**186**]{} (1984),407-417.
T.AUBIN: Équations du type Monge-Ampère sur les variétés kählériennes compactes. Bull. Sci. Math. (2) [**102**]{} (1978), no. 1, 63–95.
E.BEDFORD & B.A.TAYLOR: A new capacity for plurisubharmonic functions. Acta Math. [**149**]{} (1982), no. 1-2, 1–40.
Z.BLOCKI: On uniform estimate in Calabi-Yau theorem. Sci. China Ser. A [**48**]{} (2005), suppl., 244–247.
G.BURGOS & J.KRAMER & U.KUHN: Arithmetic characteristic classes of automorphic vector bundles. Doc. Math. [**10**]{} (2005), 619–716.
E.CALABI: On Kähler manifolds with vanishing canonical class. Algebraic geometry and topology. A symposium in honor of S. Lefschetz, pp. 78–89. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N. J. (1957).
U.CEGRELL: Pluricomplex energy. Acta Math. [**180**]{} (1998), no. 2, 187–217.
P.EYSSIDIEUX & V.GUEDJ & A.ZERIAHI: Singular Kähler-Einstein metrics. Preprint arxiv math.AG/0603431.
V.GUEDJ & A.ZERIAHI: Intrinsic capacities on compact Kähler manifolds. J. Geom. Anal. [**15**]{} (2005), no. 4, 607-639.
V.GUEDJ & A.ZERIAHI: The weighted Monge-Ampère energy of quasiplurisubharmonic functions. J. Funct. Anal. [**250**]{} (2007), 442-482.
S.KOLODZIEJ: The range of the complex Monge-Ampère operator. Indiana Univ. Math. J. [**43**]{} (1994), no. 4, 1321–1338.
S.KOLODZIEJ: The complex Monge-Ampère equation. Acta Math. [**180**]{} (1998), no. 1, 69–117.
S.KOLODZIEJ: The Monge-Ampère equation on compact Kähler manifolds. Indiana Univ. Math. J. [**52**]{} (2003), no. 3, 667–686
S.KOLODZIEJ: The complex Monge-Ampère equation and pluripotential theory. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. [**178**]{} (2005), no. 840, x+64 pp.
U.KUHN: Generalized arithmetic intersection numbers. J. Reine Angew. Math. [**534**]{} (2001), 209–236.
J.RAINWATER: A note on the preceding paper. Duke Math. J. [**36**]{} (1969) 799–800.
T.RANSFORD: Potential theory in the complex plane. London Mathematical Society Student Texts, 28. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995. x+232 pp.
G.TIAN: Canonical metrics in Kähler geometry. Lectures in Mathematics ETH Zürich. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel (2000).
S.T.YAU: On the Ricci curvature of a compact Kähler manifold and the complex Monge-Ampère equation. I. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. [**31**]{} (1978), no. 3, 339–411.
A.ZERIAHI: Volume and capacity of sublevel sets of a Lelong class of psh functions. Indiana Univ. Math. J. [**50**]{} (2001), no. 1, 671–703.
.2cm
Slimane BENELKOURCHI & Vincent GUEDJ & Ahmed ZERIAHI
Laboratoire Emile Picard
UMR 5580, Université Paul Sabatier
118 route de Narbonne
31062 TOULOUSE Cedex 09 (FRANCE)
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'A. Irrgang'
- 'S. Geier'
- 'U. Heber'
- 'T. Kupfer'
- 'F. Fürst'
date: 'Received 8 March 2019 / Accepted 10 July 2019'
title: 'PG1610$+$062: a runaway B star challenging classical ejection mechanisms '
---
Introduction {#section:introduction}
============
Young stars are expected to be found close to their birthplaces, namely the star-forming regions in the Galactic disk. Finding them far away in the Galactic halo implies that they have been forced to leave their primal environment. Two mechanisms are usually discussed in the literature to explain the presence of these so-called runaway stars (see, e.g., and references therein). In the binary-supernova scenario the massive primary star of a binary explodes as a core-collapse supernova and the secondary component is released at almost orbital velocity. In the dynamic scenario the runaway stars are formed via gravitational interactions in young and dense stellar clusters, for instance close binary-binary encounters, where the least massive star is usually set free. With typical ejection velocities below a few hundred kms$^{-1}$, both of these disk runaway scenarios are by far less powerful than the Hills mechanism , which describes the disruption of a binary system during a close flyby of the supermassive black hole at the Galactic center (GC). Due to the strong tidal forces, one component is captured while the other is able to leave the site at very high velocity (up to thousands of kms$^{-1}$). To highlight their unique origin (and to follow the nomenclature by ), stars stemming from this particular mechanism are referred to as Hills stars in this work. Apart from their formation channels, ejected stars may also be classified according to whether they are gravitationally bound to or unbound from the Milky Way. Stars exceeding their local escape velocity from the Galaxy are commonly called hypervelocity stars (HVSs), the first of which were discovered in 2005 (, , ). A dedicated spectroscopic survey covering 29% of the sky revealed 21 candidate HVSs, all of which are late B-type stars that are unbound from the Milky Way if they are main-sequence (MS) stars, and thus at distances of 50–120kpc . Until recently, the Hills mechanism was widely assumed to be the only ejection scenario that is capable of producing MS HVSs . However, high-precision astrometry from [*Gaia*]{}’s second data release (DR; ) shows that some of the candidate HVSs no longer qualify as Hills stars because the GC can be most likely ruled out as their spatial origin . Because the ejection velocities of those dismissed Hills stars are higher than the upper limits for the two “classical” disk ejection scenarios mentioned above, a powerful yet neglected or unknown mechanism (e.g., dynamical interactions with massive stars or intermediate-mass black holes) must be at work . To gain deeper insights, more stars ejected by this mechanism have to be studied in detail. Here, we investigate PG1610$+$062, a blue star at high Galactic latitude ($b=+37.80\degr$). It was first discovered during the Palomar-Green survey where it was classified as a horizontal branch B star. Apart from a re-classification as MS B-type star by , no attempt has been made since then to study this object in more detail. The star attracted our attention in the course of the MUCHFUSS project because a set of low-resolution spectra indicated that its radial velocity might be variable . Unlike the faint stars of the HVS sample, which have visual magnitudes between 17.5 and 20mag , PG1610$+$062 is bright enough ($V=15.6$mag) for a high-precision quantitative spectroscopic (Sect. \[section:spectroscopy\]) and photometric (Sect. \[section:photometry\]) analysis. A kinematic investigation (Sect. \[section:kinematics\]) yields an ejection velocity of $550\pm40$kms$^{-1}$, granting PG1610$+$062 a place in the top five of the most extreme disk runaway MS stars known to date (Sect. \[section:summary\]).
Spectroscopic analysis {#section:spectroscopy}
======================
[lrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr]{} Object & $T_{\textnormal{eff}}$ & $\log(g)$ & $\varv_{\textnormal{rad}}$ & $\varv\sin(i)$ & $\zeta$ & $\xi$ & &\
& (K) & (cgs) & & & He & C & N & O & Ne & Mg & Al & Si & S & Ar & Fe\
[lcrrcrrcrrcrrcrrcrrcrrcrrcrr]{} Object & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &\
& & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & &\
![Differential abundance pattern (*top*) and element-to-iron abundance ratios (*bottom*) of PG1610$+$062 with respect to the solar neighborhood reference star HD137366. The error bars are the square roots of the quadratic sums of the statistical uncertainties given in Table \[table:atmospheric\_parameters\], and thus represent 99% confidence intervals.[]{data-label="fig:abundance_pattern"}](abundance_pattern.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
The spectroscopic analysis is based on four medium-resolution ($R \approx 8000$) spectra of decent individual signal-to-noise ratio ($\textnormal{S/N} \approx 60-110$ in the visual) obtained with the ESI spectrograph mounted at the Keck II telescope and based on low-resolution spectra taken with the SDSS spectrograph (, $R \approx 1500-2500$, $\textnormal{S/N} \approx 102$ in the visual) and the [Twin]{} spectrograph[^1] mounted at the 3.5m telescope at Calar Alto observatory ($R \approx 1500-2500$, $\textnormal{S/N} \approx 160$ in the visual, coadded from 14 individual spectra).
The quantitative analysis strategy and the applied models are explained in detail in . In short, a simultaneous fit of all spectra over their entire spectral range is performed to constrain all parameters (i.e., atmospheric parameters and chemical abundances) at the same time. The underlying synthetic spectra are based on the hybrid approach, where the structure of the atmosphere is computed in local thermodynamic equilibrium (LTE) with [Atlas12]{} . Departures from LTE are then accounted for by applying updated versions of [Detail]{} and [Surface]{} (; @detailsurface2). The [Detail]{} code computes population numbers in non-LTE by numerically solving the coupled radiative transfer and statistical equilibrium equations. The [Surface]{} code uses the resulting departure coefficients and more detailed line-broadening data to compute the final synthetic spectrum. All three codes have been recently updated to allow for level dissolution of hydrogen – following the description by and using line broadening tables by – and non-LTE feedback on the atmospheric structure .
In order to minimize systematic uncertainties, we carried out a differential abundance analysis with respect to the B-type star HD137366, for which a high-quality spectrum ($R \approx 48\,000$, $\textnormal{S/N} \approx 470$ in the visual) taken with [Feros]{} is available. This particular object was chosen because, on the one hand, it is nearby and thus a representative of B-type stars in the solar neighborhood and, on the other hand, it is almost a spectroscopic twin of PG1610$+$062 (see Figs. \[fig:spectra\_1\]–\[fig:spectra\_9\]) making it an ideal target for a differential abundance study.
The results of the spectroscopic analyses are summarized in Table \[table:atmospheric\_parameters\]. Both objects are late B-type stars with slow projected rotation ($\varv\sin(i) \sim 15$kms$^{-1}$), i.e., they exhibit very sharp metal lines. While the abundance pattern of HD137366 is very similar to those of other young B-type stars in the solar neighborhood (cf. ), there is a uniform enrichment in the elemental abundances of PG1610$+$062 (Fig. \[fig:abundance\_pattern\]) which indicates a higher baseline metallicity. At least to some extent, this is expected because the star originates $\sim 1.8$kpc closer to the GC than the Sun (see Sect. \[section:kinematics\]) so that Galactic abundance gradients (see, e.g., and references therein) come into play. Stellar parameters (Table \[table:stellar\_parameters\]) are based on comparing the stars’ positions in a $(T_{\textnormal{eff}},\log(g))$ diagram to single-star evolutionary tracks by . The two objects are consistent with being young ($\sim 83$Myr), massive ($\sim 4$–$5$$M_\sun$) MS stars. In principle, the derived values for $T_{\textnormal{eff}}$, $\log(g)$, and $\varv\sin(i)$ also fit those of blue horizontal branch stars. This option, however, is very unlikely because the abundance patterns of those evolved objects are strongly altered by diffusion processes, an effect that is not observed here.
Photometric analysis {#section:photometry}
====================
Spectral energy distribution
----------------------------
[lr]{} Parameter & Value\
\
Effective temperature $T_{\textnormal{eff}}$ & $14\,800^{+2500}_{-1100}$K\
Surface gravity $\log (g\,(\textnormal{cm}\,\textnormal{s}^{-2}))$ & $3.2^{+1.7}_{-1.2}$\
Angular diameter $\Theta$ & $\left(8.6\pm0.5\right)\times10^{-12}$rad\
Color excess $E(B-V)$ & $\le 0.09$mag\
\
Effective temperature $T_{\textnormal{eff}}$ & $15\,000\pm900$K\
Surface gravity $\log (g\,(\textnormal{cm}\,\textnormal{s}^{-2}))$ & $3.6\pm0.9$\
Angular diameter $\Theta$ & $(5.91\pm0.19)\times10^{-10}$rad\
Color excess $E(B-V)$ & $0.056\pm0.018$mag\
Spectral energy distributions (see Fig. \[fig:photometry\]) were also investigated in order to cross-check atmospheric parameters and to derive spectrophotometric distances. Table \[table:photometry\] lists the parameters derived from fitting [Atlas12]{} models to the available photometric measurements. For both targets, spectroscopic and photometric results are consistent with each other, with almost identical effective temperatures. The spectrophotometric distances $d$ given in Table \[table:stellar\_parameters\] are based on the corresponding stellar radii $R_\star$ and on the angular diameters $\Theta = 2 R_\star / d$ from Table \[table:photometry\]. For the nearby reference star HD137366, the parallax measurement from [*Gaia*]{} DR2 is highly significant ($\varpi = 2.8014 \pm 0.0566$mas) and can thus be exploited as a consistency check. The agreement between parallactic ($1/\varpi = 357\pm8$pc) and spectrophotometric distance (see Table \[table:stellar\_parameters\]) is perfect, validating its MS nature and showing that our spectrophotometric distance estimates are trustworthy. This is important for PG1610$+$062, which is quite distant ($d=17.30^{+2.91}_{-2.48}$kpc), and hence has a highly uncertain [*Gaia*]{} parallax ($\varpi = 0.0143 \pm 0.0520$mas).
Light curve
-----------
PG1610$+$062 lies right inside the instability domain of slowly pulsating B (SPB) stars (see, e.g., ) and is thus expected to pulsate if it is a MS star. The ATLAS variable star catalog indeed classifies it as a candidate variable star. Because this classification is based on a purely automated procedure, we decided to reanalyze the ATLAS data to test the robustness of the results. The outcome of this exercise, which is presented in the Appendix, confirms the oscillation period reported by of $4.336721$days. Moreover, it shows that PG1610$+$062 exhibits oscillation properties (see Table \[table:oscillation\_params\]) that are characteristic of SPB stars (see, e.g., and references therein). Another typical feature of SPB stars are temporal distortions of the line profiles (see, e.g., ). Spectra with very high spectral resolution and S/N are required to resolve them, which unfortunately are not available. At the limited quality of our spectra, the variations may only lead to small changes in the radial velocity on the order of a few kms$^{-1}$, which we and indeed observed. We conclude that PG1610$+$062 is an SPB star, which supports our classification as a MS star.
Kinematic analysis {#section:kinematics}
==================
![Three-dimensional orbit of PG1610$+$062 in a Galactic Cartesian coordinate system in which the $z$-axis points to the Galactic north pole. The nine trajectories (red lines; arrows indicate the star’s current position) are computed in Model I of and illustrate the effects of uncertainties in the distance, proper motions, and radial velocity. Orbits were computed back in time until they reached the Galactic plane. The small black rimmed, shaded areas are $1\sigma$ (red) and $2\sigma$ (light blue) contours for the intersection of the Galactic plane. The thick blue solid lines schematically represent the loci of the spiral arms 41Myr ago based on the polynomial logarithmic arm model of and the Galactic rotation curve of Model I of . The current positions of the Sun and the GC are marked by a yellow circled dot ($\odot$) and a black plus sign ($+$), respectively. The orbit is characteristic of a disk runaway star. []{data-label="fig:orbits_PG1610"}](PG1610+062_AS.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
[lrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr]{} & $x$ & $y$ & $z$ & $r$ & & $\varv_x$ & $\varv_y$ & $\varv_z$ & $\varv_{\textnormal{Grf}}$ & $\varv_{\textnormal{Grf}}-\varv_{\textnormal{esc}}$ & $P_{\textnormal{b}}$ & $x_{\textnormal{d}}$ & $y_{\textnormal{d}}$ & $z_{\textnormal{d}}$ & $r_{\textnormal{d}}$ & & $\varv_{x\textnormal{,d}}$ & $\varv_{y\textnormal{,d}}$ & $\varv_{z\textnormal{,d}}$ & $\varv_{\textnormal{Grf,d}}$ & $\varv_{\textnormal{ej}}$ & $\tau_{\textnormal{flight}}$\
& & & & (%) & & & & (Myr)\
To investigate the origin of PG1610$+$062, a detailed kinematic investigation was carried out (i.e., the star’s trajectory was traced back to the Galactic disk; see Fig. \[fig:orbits\_PG1610\]). Only the most recent disk-crossing event is considered here because all the others occurred too far in the past to be compatible with the lifetime of the star. Systematic uncertainties were estimated by applying three different models for the gravitational potential of the Milky Way, all of which are axisymmetric three-component models with identical mathematical forms for the bulge and disk, but with their own parameter values and varying expressions for the dark matter halo component (see for details). Because the Galactocentric radii traveled by the program star (roughly between $12.4$–$6.5$kpc) lie in a regime where the halo component is the dominating acceleration force (see, e.g., Fig. 1 in ), these three models are ideally suited to assess systematic uncertainties, which turned out to be completely negligible. A comparison with recent analyses of the motion of globular clusters, satellite galaxies, and extreme velocity stars shows that the models’ mass distributions and local escape velocities are consistent with results from [*Gaia*]{} DR2 astrometry . Statistical uncertainties in the spectrophotometric distance, radial velocity, and proper motions from [*Gaia*]{} DR2 (; [*Gaia*]{}DR24450123955938796160, $\mu_\alpha \cos\delta = -0.616 \pm 0.076$masyr$^{-1}$, $\mu_\delta = 0.176 \pm 0.042$masyr$^{-1}$) were propagated via a Monte Carlo procedure with $100\,000$ runs that simultaneously and independently varies the individual parameters assuming Gaussian distributions for each parameter, while also accounting for asymmetric error bars and the correlation ($0.5031$) between the two proper motion components. The outcome of the kinematic analysis is summarized in Table \[table:kinematic\_parameters\] and is perfectly consistent with a Galactic disk runaway scenario. PG1610$+$062 was shot into the halo $\sim 41$Myr ago from a region with a Galactocentric radius of $\sim 6.5$kpc, which possibly coincided with the location of the now nearby Carina-Sagittarius spiral arm. Despite its huge ejection velocity of $550\pm40$kms$^{-1}$, it is still gravitationally bound to the Milky Way because the ejection vector was somewhat opposite to Galactic rotation.
In contrast, the kinematic properties of HD137366 are typical of thin-disk stars in the solar neighborhood (see Fig. \[fig:orbits\_HD137366\]).
Summary and discussion {#section:summary}
======================
Star $\varv_\textnormal{ej}$(kms$^{-1}$) Distance(kpc) Reference
------------------ ------------------------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------
HVS5 $640^{+50}_{-40}$ $31.2^{+3.2}_{-2.5}$ (1), (2)
B711 $600^{+90}_{-50}$ $28.5^{+3.1}_{-2.2}$ (1), (2)
B434 $590\pm20$ $40.5^{+4.7}_{-3.7}$ (1), (2)
LAMOST-HVS1 $568^{+19}_{-17}$ $19.1^{+5.1}_{-3.8}$ (3)
**PG1610$+$062** $\mathbf{550\pm20}$ $\mathbf{17.3^{+1.2}_{-1.0}}$ **This work**
HVS7 $530\pm30$ $48.2^{+4.3}_{-3.7}$ (1), (2)
HVS12 $510^{+40}_{-30}$ $51.7^{+9.0}_{-6.1}$ (1), (2)
LAMOST-HVS4 $480^{+13}_{-10}$ $27.9\pm1.5$ (4)
EC19596$-$5356 $475^{+74}_{-83}$ $13.81^{+4.80}_{-3.63}$ (5)
HIP56322 $471^{+189}_{-\phantom{0}99}$ $6.09^{+3.17}_{-1.92}$ (5)
HIP105912 $457^{+130}_{-133}$ $4.17^{+1.70}_{-1.14}$ (5)
HVS8 $450^{+40}_{-30}$ $37.2^{+4.4}_{-3.6}$ (1), (2)
B733 $450\pm10$ $9.9^{+0.7}_{-0.9}$ (1), (2)
BD-23766 $425^{+151}_{-109}$ $4.22^{+1.50}_{-1.10}$ (5)
B485 $420^{+20}_{-10}$ $33.3^{+3.7}_{-1.7}$ (1), (2)
PHL346 $418^{+49}_{-47}$ $8.55^{+1.61}_{-1.33}$ (5)
PB5418 $415^{+141}_{-100}$ $6.09^{+2.03}_{-1.49}$ (5)
PG1332$+$137 $413^{+38}_{-77}$ $6.54^{+2.13}_{-1.70}$ (5)
HIP114569 $408^{+89}_{-71}$ $1.60^{+0.40}_{-0.31}$ (5)
PHL2018 $399^{+68}_{-66}$ $6.93^{+2.39}_{-1.77}$ (5)
PG1209$+$263 $390^{+293}_{-100}$ $30.93^{+7.94}_{-7.28}$ (5)
HD271791 $390^{+70}_{-30}$ $21\pm4$ This work
PG0914$+$001 $369^{+240}_{-157}$ $20.62^{+6.74}_{-5.28}$ (5)
: Ejection velocities (relative to the rotating Galactic disk) and heliocentric distances of candidate MS stars that were possibly ejected from the Galactic disk beyond the velocity limit of classical mechanisms.[]{data-label="table:ejection_velocities"}
With the release of [*Gaia*]{} DR2, there is growing observational evidence that MS stars can be accelerated to beyond their local Galactic escape velocity from within the Galactic disk, i.e., without the involvement of the supermassive black hole at the GC (, , ). While the first of these unbound disk runaway stars (which are sometimes referred to as hyper-runaway stars; see ), HD271791, could still be explained in the framework of the “classical” disk ejection scenarios outlined in Sect. \[section:introduction\], namely via an extreme case of the supernova mechanism with additional boost by Galactic rotation , this is not the case for most of the other unbound disk runaway candidates because their intrinsic ejection velocities (see Table \[table:ejection\_velocities\]) exceed the respective upper limits of $\sim 400$kms$^{-1}$ (see for an extensive discussion on the upper limits). Close encounters with very massive stars or intermediate-mass black holes offer, in principle, a straightforward explanation (see, e.g., and references therein). However, the rates at which those strong dynamical interactions may occur are not well constrained because the actual number of massive perturbers and the conditions in their host clusters are uncertain (see, e.g., ). With only a few objects known so far, it is still crucial to increase the sample of stars ejected by this powerful mechanism in order to provide tighter observational constraints on the theory. Here, we present the discovery of a new member of this tiny group, PG1610$+$062. Owing to the unprecedented precision of proper motions from [*Gaia*]{} DR2 and that this star is relatively close ($\sim 17.3$kpc) compared to many other extreme velocity stars, it is possible to study it in great detail. Our spectroscopic, photometric, and kinematic analyses suggest that PG1610$+$062 is a young B-type MS star originating from a relatively small area close to the Carina-Sagittarius spiral arm, which today is not too far away from the Sun. Although it is not gravitationally unbound from the Milky Way, it is in the top five of the most extreme MS disk runaway stars (see Table \[table:ejection\_velocities\]) and is, after LAMOST-HVS1, only the second of these five for which the chemical composition is known.
We thank John E. Davis for the development of the [slxfig]{} module used to prepare the figures in this paper. Based on observations made with ESO Telescopes at the La Silla Paranal Observatory under programme ID 091.C-0713(A). Based on data from the CAHA Archive at CAB (INTA-CSIC). Some of the data presented herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation. The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain. 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. Funding for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey IV has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, and the Participating Institutions. SDSS acknowledges support and resources from the Center for High-Performance Computing at the University of Utah. The SDSS web site is [www.sdss.org](www.sdss.org). SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions of the SDSS Collaboration including the Brazilian Participation Group, the Carnegie Institution for Science, Carnegie Mellon University, the Chilean Participation Group, the French Participation Group, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, The Johns Hopkins University, Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe (IPMU) / University of Tokyo, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Leibniz Institut für Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP), Max-Planck-Institut für Astronomie (MPIA Heidelberg), Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik (MPA Garching), Max-Planck-Institut für Extraterrestrische Physik (MPE), National Astronomical Observatories of China, New Mexico State University, New York University, University of Notre Dame, Observatório Nacional / MCTI, The Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, United Kingdom Participation Group, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, University of Arizona, University of Colorado Boulder, University of Oxford, University of Portsmouth, University of Utah, University of Virginia, University of Washington, University of Wisconsin, Vanderbilt University, and Yale University. Based on observations made with the NASA Galaxy Evolution Explorer. GALEX is operated for NASA by the California Institute of Technology under NASA contract NAS5-98034. The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys (PS1) and the PS1 public science archive have been made possible through contributions by the Institute for Astronomy, the University of Hawaii, the Pan-STARRS Project Office, the Max-Planck Society and its participating institutes, the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Heidelberg and the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, Garching, The Johns Hopkins University, Durham University, the University of Edinburgh, the Queen’s University Belfast, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, the Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network Incorporated, the National Central University of Taiwan, the Space Telescope Science Institute, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under Grant No. NNX08AR22G issued through the Planetary Science Division of the NASA Science Mission Directorate, the National Science Foundation Grant No. AST-1238877, the University of Maryland, Eotvos Lorand University (ELTE), the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. This publication makes use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey, which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Science Foundation. This publication makes use of data products from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, which is a joint project of the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
[52]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, C. P., [Alexandroff]{}, R., [Allende Prieto]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2012, , 203, 21
, L., [Herald]{}, J., [Efremova]{}, B., [et al.]{} 2011, , 335, 161
, A. 1961, , 15, 265
, W. R. 2015, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 53, 15
, W. R., [Geller]{}, M. J., & [Kenyon]{}, S. J. 2014, , 787, 89
, W. R., [Geller]{}, M. J., [Kenyon]{}, S. J., & [Kurtz]{}, M. J. 2005, , 622, L33
, K. & [Giddings]{}, J. R. 1985, in Newsletter of Analysis of Astronomical Spectra, No. 9 (Univ. London)
, L. & [Holberg]{}, J. B. 2014, , 438, 3111
, M. & [Smith]{}, H. A. 2015, [Pulsating Stars (New York: Wiley-VCH)]{}
, K. C., [Magnier]{}, E. A., [Metcalfe]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2017, VizieR Online Data Catalog, 2349
, R. M. & [et al.]{} 2014, VizieR Online Data Catalog, II/328
, H., [Napiwotzki]{}, R., [Heber]{}, U., [Christlieb]{}, N., & [Reimers]{}, D. 2005, , 634, L181
, D. W., [Riello]{}, M., [De Angeli]{}, F., [et al.]{} 2018, , 616, A4
, E. L. 1999, , 111, 63
, [Brown]{}, A. G. A., [Vallenari]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2018, , 616, A1
, S., [Hirsch]{}, H., [Tillich]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2011, , 530, A28
, S., [Kupfer]{}, T., [Heber]{}, U., [et al.]{} 2015, , 577, A26
, C., [Ekstr[ö]{}m]{}, S., [Granada]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2013, , 553, A24
, J. R. 1981, PhD thesis, Univ. London
, R. F., [Schmidt]{}, M., & [Liebert]{}, J. 1986, , 61, 305
, K., [Valluri]{}, M., [Castro]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.02029
, U., [Edelmann]{}, H., [Napiwotzki]{}, R., [Altmann]{}, M., & [Scholz]{}, R.-D. 2008, , 483, L21
, A. N., [Tonry]{}, J. L., [Denneau]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2018, , 156, 241
, A. A., [Levine]{}, S., [Terrell]{}, D., & [Welch]{}, D. L. 2015, in American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 225, American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, 336.16
, J. G. 1988, , 331, 687
, H. A., [Heber]{}, U., [O’Toole]{}, S. J., & [Bresolin]{}, F. 2005, , 444, L61
, R., [de Bruijne]{}, J. H. J., & [de Zeeuw]{}, P. T. 2001, , 365, 49
, L. G. & [Han]{}, J. L. 2014, , 569, A125
, I., [Hummer]{}, D. G., & [Lanz]{}, T. 1994, , 282, 151
, A., [Desphande]{}, A., [Moehler]{}, S., [Mugrauer]{}, M., & [Janousch]{}, D. 2016, , 591, L6
, A., [Kreuzer]{}, S., & [Heber]{}, U. 2018, , 620, A48
, A., [Kreuzer]{}, S., [Heber]{}, U., & [Brown]{}, W. 2018, , 615, L5
, A., [Przybilla]{}, N., [Heber]{}, U., [et al.]{} 2014, , 565, A63
, A., [Wilcox]{}, B., [Tucker]{}, E., & [Schiefelbein]{}, L. 2013, , 549, A137
, A., [Stahl]{}, O., [Tubbesing]{}, S., [et al.]{} 1999, The Messenger, 95, 8
, S. J., [Bromley]{}, B. C., [Geller]{}, M. J., & [Brown]{}, W. R. 2008, , 680, 312
, R. L. 1996, in Model Atmospheres and Spectrum Synthesis, ed. S. J., F. [Kupka]{}, & W. W. [Weiss]{} (San Francisco: ASP), 160
, Y.-B., [Luo]{}, A.-L., [Zhao]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2018, , 156, 87
, L., [Hern[á]{}ndez]{}, J., [Bombrun]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2018, , 616, A2
, S., [Modigliani]{}, A., [Freudling]{}, W., [et al.]{} 2014, , 568, A9
, E. 2016, , 455, L67
, M.-F. & [Przybilla]{}, N. 2012, , 539, A143
, A., [Ruiz]{}, J., & [Allen]{}, C. 1967, Boletin de los Observatorios Tonantzintla y Tacubaya, 4, 86
, N., [Fernanda Nieva]{}, M., [Heber]{}, U., & [Butler]{}, K. 2008, , 684, L103
, F. 1988, [Catalogue of stars measured in the Geneva Observatory photometric system : 4 : 1988]{}
, A. I., [Bolte]{}, M., [Epps]{}, H. W., [et al.]{} 2002, , 114, 851
, M. D. V. & [Napiwotzki]{}, R. 2011, , 411, 2596
, M. F., [Cutri]{}, R. M., [Stiening]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2006, , 131, 1163
, S. A., [Gunn]{}, J. E., [Uomoto]{}, A., [et al.]{} 2013, , 146, 32
, P. E. & [Bergeron]{}, P. 2009, , 696, 1755
, F., ed. 2007, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 350, [Hipparcos, the New Reduction of the Raw Data]{}
, J. J., [Smith]{}, M. C., & [Grebel]{}, E. K. 2015, , 150, 77
{height="57.00000%"} {height="57.00000%"}
Parameter Value
----------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
Frequency $\nu_{\textnormal{osc}}$ $0.23052\pm0.00022$d$^{-1}$
Period $P_{\textnormal{osc}}$ $4.338\pm0.005$d
Reference epoch $T_{\textnormal{ref}}$ (fixed) $57\,230.0$MJD
Phase $\phi_{\textnormal{ref}}$ at epoch $T_{\textnormal{ref}}$ $0.30\pm0.08$
$o$ mean magnitude $15.746\pm0.008$mag
$o$ semiamplitude $21\pm11$mmag
$c$ mean magnitude $15.457\pm0.006$mag
$c$ semiamplitude $35\pm7$mmag
: Observed oscillation parameters of PG1610$+$062 derived from the two ATLAS light curves.[]{data-label="table:oscillation_params"}
![Phased ATLAS light curves for PG1610$+$062: the measurements are represented by black crosses with error bars while the best-fitting model (see Table \[table:oscillation\_params\]) is indicated by the red solid curve. The red dashed line indicates the derived mean magnitude. Residuals $\chi$ are shown as well.[]{data-label="fig:phased_lightcurves"}](phased_lightcurves.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
![The $\chi^2$ landscape (“periodogram”), which results from fitting the ATLAS light curves with the model given in Eq. (\[eq:cosine\_fit\]), as a function of the oscillation frequency $\nu_{\textnormal{osc}}$, which is sampled in steps of $0.01/686.25$d$^{-1}$ to ensure that phase shifts are always less than $0.01$.[]{data-label="fig:periodogram"}](periodogram.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
After removing a few obvious outliers, the available ATLAS light curves (which consist of 90 measurements in the cyan ($c$) band spread over $653.29$days and 88 data points in the orange ($o$) band spread over $686.25$days) were fitted with a cosine function of the form $$\textnormal{mag}_j(t) = \overline{\textnormal{mag}}_j + A_{j} \cos\left(2\pi\left[(t-T_{\textnormal{ref}}) \nu_\textnormal{osc}+\phi_{\textnormal{ref}}\right] \right) \,.
\label{eq:cosine_fit}$$ The time-dependent magnitude $\textnormal{mag}_j(t)$ is thus parameterized by a mean magnitude $\overline{\textnormal{mag}}_j$, an oscillation semiamplitude $A_{j}$, and an oscillation frequency $\nu_\textnormal{osc}$. The parameter $\phi_{\textnormal{ref}}$ is the phase at the fixed reference epoch $T_{\textnormal{ref}}$. The index $j \in \{c, o\}$ refers to the two passbands. The best-fitting parameters are listed in Table \[table:oscillation\_params\] and the corresponding phased light curves are shown in Fig. \[fig:phased\_lightcurves\]. The oscillation period reported by , $4.336721$days, is nicely confirmed here. However, due to the very scarce sampling, alias frequencies at $1-\nu_{\textnormal{osc}}$, $1+\nu_{\textnormal{osc}}$, and $2-\nu_{\textnormal{osc}}$ are almost as likely as $\nu_{\textnormal{osc}}$ itself (see Fig. \[fig:periodogram\]). Without better data coverage, it remains unclear which of them is actually the true one.
![Same as Fig. \[fig:orbits\_PG1610\], but for HD137366. Orbits were computed back in time for 200Myr. The star behaves like a typical solar-neighborhood object. []{data-label="fig:orbits_HD137366"}](HD137366_AS.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
[^1]: <http://www.caha.es/pedraz/Twin/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the space-time symmetries and transformation properties of the non-commutative U(1) gauge theory, by using Noether charges. We carry out our analysis by keeping an open view on the possible ways $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ could transform. We conclude that $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ cannot transform under any space-time transformation since the theory is not invariant under the conformal transformations, with the only exception of space-time translations. The same analysis applies to other gauge groups.'
address:
- '$^a$ Center for Theoretical Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 02139-4307 USA'
- '$^b$Dipartimento di Fisica “E.R. Caianiello” Università di Salerno, 84081 Baronissi (SA), Italy, and I.N.F.N.'
- '$^c$ Institute of Particle and Nuclear Physics, Charles University Prague, V Holešovičkách 2, 182 00 Prague, Czech Republic'
author:
- 'A. Iorio$^{a,b,}$[^1], and T. Sýkora$^{a,c,}$[^2]'
title: 'On the Space-Time Symmetries of Non-Commutative Gauge Theories'
---
PACS No.: 11.15.-q, 02.40.Gh, 11.30.-j, 11.15.Kc
Keyword(s): gauge field theories, non-commutative geometry, symmetry and conservation laws.
MIT-CTP-3206
Introduction
============
The idea of non-commuting space-time coordinates was first considered by Heisenberg and written about by Snyder [@Snyder]. The geometry was widely developed in recent years by Connes [@Connes]. Following the discovery of Seiberg and Witten [@SW] of a map (SW map) that relates non-commutative to commutative gauge theories, there has been an increasing interest in studying non-commutativity from a theoretical point of view, as well as its impact on phenomenology [@Jac1], [@Cai]. Our purpose is to study the space-time symmetry properties of the U(1) non-commutative gauge theory. The extension of our analysis to other gauge groups is straightforward.
The most common explicit realizations of the non-commutative nature of space-time coordinates are [@Wess]: the canonical structure, the Lie algebra structure, and the $q$-deformed space structure. In all cases the algebraic structure is associative.
We shall work with the canonical structure, given by $$\label{1}
x^\mu * x^\nu - x^\nu * x^\mu
= i \theta^{\mu \nu} \;,$$ where the Moyal-Weyl $*$-product of two fields $\phi(x)$ and $\chi(x)$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
(\phi * \chi) (x) & \equiv &
\exp\{ \frac{i}{2} \theta^{\mu \nu} \partial^x_\mu \partial^y_\nu \} \phi (x) \chi (y)|_{y \to x} \nonumber \\
& = & \phi (x) \chi (x)
+ \frac{i}{2} \theta^{\mu \nu} \partial_\mu \phi (x) \partial_\nu \chi (x)
- \frac{1}{8} \theta^{\mu \nu} \theta^{\lambda \kappa} \partial_\mu \partial_\lambda \phi (x) \partial_\nu \partial_\kappa \chi (x)
+ \cdots \;, \label{3}\end{aligned}$$ $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ is $c$-number valued, the Greek indices run from $0$ to $n-1$, and $n$ is the dimension of the space-time.
The action for the non-commutative Abelian gauge theory in four dimensions is $$\label{4}
\hat{I} = - \frac{1}{4} \int d^4 x \hat{F}^{\mu \nu} \hat{F}_{\mu \nu} \;,$$ where $ \hat{F}_{\mu \nu} = \partial_\mu \hat{A}_\nu -
\partial_\nu \hat{A}_\mu - i [ \hat{A}_\mu , \hat{A}_\nu ]_* $, $\hat{A}_\mu$ can be expressed in terms of a U(1) gauge field $A_\mu$ and of $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ by means of the SW map, $\hat{A}_\mu (A,\theta)$. Note that $\hat{A}_\mu (A,\theta) \to
A_\mu$ as $\theta^{\mu \nu} \to 0$, hence, in that limit, $\hat{F}_{\mu \nu} \to F_{\mu \nu} =
\partial_\mu A_\nu - \partial_\nu A_\mu$.
The action (\[4\]) arises either as the non-commutative analog of a standard gauge theory or as the low energy limit of some string theory [@SW]. In both cases the physical nature of the gauge field $A_\mu$ and of $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ is not clear, and has to be investigated. For instance, one sees that within the $C^*$ algebra defined by (\[1\]), the $*$-multiplication by $x_\mu$ (thought as an adjoint action) is a derivation $\partial_\mu$. It is this derivative that one makes covariant by introducing the field $\hat{A}_\mu$ [@Wess]: $$\label{xA}
x^\mu \to x^\mu + \theta^{\mu \nu} \hat{A}_\nu$$ while, in the standard case, the gauge prescription acts on the momentum $p_\mu$: $p_\mu \to p_\mu + A_\mu$. Thus, even if the formal resemblance entitles us to treat $\hat{A}_\mu$ as the four-potential of electrodynamics [@Jac1], [@Cai], one has to perform an open minded investigation of the properties of the theory (\[4\]). An issue is the nature of $\theta^{\mu \nu}$. Some recent investigations have considered $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ as a second rank tensor under Lorentz transformations, with scaling properties imposed by demanding the action to be scale invariant [@7A]. In this paper we would like to address the problem of the space-time symmetries and transformation properties of the theory (\[4\]) from a dynamical perspective, namely by using the Noether charges. This will allow us to have stronger constraints on the possible ways $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ can transform.
Dynamically Consistent Transformations
======================================
There are various ways to represent the conformal algebra as transformations acting on fields. An example are the the so-called geometric transformations, namely the effect of the infinitesimal variation of the coordinates $${x'}^\mu - x^\mu = \delta_f x^\mu \equiv -f^\mu (x) \;,$$ on the fields, evaluated at the same point $x$ (for a review see e.g. [@Jac2]). Since we shall be dealing with the action (\[4\]) we are interested in the transformations of the gauge field and the field strength $$\label{5}
\delta_f A_\mu \equiv A'_\mu (x) - A_\mu (x) \quad {\rm and} \quad
\delta_f F_{\mu \nu} \equiv F'_{\mu \nu} (x) - F_{\mu \nu} (x) \;,$$ A separate issue are the transformations of $\theta^{\mu \nu}$, on which we shall concentrate in the next Section.
The infinitesimal quantities $f^\mu$ take the following form $$\label{6}
f^\mu = a^\mu \quad {\rm or} \quad
f^\mu = \omega^\mu_\nu x^\nu \quad {\rm or} \quad
f^\mu = a x^\mu \quad {\rm or} \quad
f^\mu = a^\mu x^2 - 2 a \cdot x x^\mu \;,$$ for infinitesimal translations, rotations (and boosts), dilations, and special conformal transformations, respectively, where, as usual, $\omega^{\mu \nu} = - \omega^{\nu \mu}$.
It can be easily shown that the geometric transformations (\[5\]) can be written as $$\label{7}
\delta_f A_\mu = {\bf L}_f A_\mu \quad {\rm and} \quad
\delta_f F_{\mu \nu} = {\bf L}_f F_{\mu \nu} =
\partial_\mu {\bf L}_f A_\nu -
\partial_\nu {\bf L}_f A_\mu \;,$$ where ${\bf L}_f$ is the standard [*Lie derivative*]{} $$\label{lie}
{\bf L}_f X_{\mu \dots \nu}^{\lambda \dots \kappa} =
f^\alpha \partial_\alpha X_{\mu \dots \nu}^{\lambda \dots \kappa}
+ (\partial_\mu f^\alpha) X_{\alpha \dots \nu}^{\lambda \dots \kappa}
+ \cdots
+ (\partial_\nu f^\alpha) X_{\mu \dots \alpha}^{\lambda \dots \kappa}
- (\partial_\alpha f^\lambda) X_{\mu \dots \nu}^{\alpha \dots \kappa}
- \cdots
- (\partial_\alpha f^\kappa) X_{\mu \dots \nu}^{\lambda \dots \alpha} \;.$$ Note also that one can write the identity $$\label{8a}
\delta_f A_\mu = {\bf L}_f A_\mu \equiv f^{\alpha} F_{\alpha\mu}+
D_{\mu}(f^{\alpha}A_{\alpha})\;,$$ where $D_\mu = \partial_\mu - i A_\mu$ is the covariant derivative. Since $$\label{8}
[ \delta_f , \delta_g ] A_\mu = \delta_{[f,g]} A_\mu \quad {\rm and} \quad
[ \delta_f , \delta_g ] F_{\mu \nu} = \delta_{[f,g]} F_{\mu \nu} \;,$$ one sees that indeed this is a representation of the conformal algebra.
On the other hand, one can also introduce the [*covariant*]{} geometric transformations [@Jac3], namely the transformations $\bar{\delta}_f$ obtained by gauge-transforming $\delta_f$. For instance the transformation of the gauge field given in (\[8a\]) becomes $$\label{9a}
\bar{\delta_f} A_\mu = f^{\alpha} F_{\alpha\mu} \;.$$ This time one has $$\label{9}
[ \bar{\delta}_f , \bar{\delta}_g ] A_\mu = \bar{\delta}_{[f,g]} A_\mu + D_\mu X \quad {\rm and} \quad
[ \bar{\delta}_f , \bar{\delta}_g ] F_{\mu \nu} = \bar{\delta}_{[f,g]} F_{\mu \nu} + D_\mu X_\nu \;,$$ thus, as a representation of the original algebra, it closes only up to a gauge transformation, that one is free to perform. For a generalization of the latter to the non-commutative counterparts see [@JacPi].
In these two examples there is no need to refer to an action to obtain the way the fields have to transform. In this sense there is a certain amount of arbitrariness, and there is no need for these transformations to be symmetries. For instance, one can easily check that the scaling properties of fields of arbitrary spin obtained via geometric transformations (either $\delta_{f}$ or $\bar{\delta}_{f}$) do not always agree with the standard scaling properties. Note that this is not the case for $A_\mu$ and $F_{\mu \nu}$ in four dimensions, where the geometric scaling properties agree with the standard ones.
Another possible way to represent the conformal algebra acting on the fields is via Noether charges. This (infinite dimensional, reducible) representation has a very important role among the various representations because is the form of the action that dictates the transformations of the fields, whether or not they are symmetries. We shall call these transformations $\Delta_f$.
In a theory with Lagrangian density ${\cal L} (\Phi_i , \partial \Phi_i)$ (where the collective index $i$ takes care of the different fields, as well as their spin type) the Noether current for space-time transformations has the form $$\label{10}
J^\mu_f = \Pi^{\mu i} \delta_f \Phi_i + {\cal L} \delta_f x^\mu \;,$$ where $
\Pi^{\mu i} = \delta {\cal L} / \delta \partial_\mu \Phi_i
$, and, as in (\[5\]), $
\delta_f \Phi_i = {\Phi'}_i (x) - \Phi_i (x)
$. With the current (\[10\]) one can: i)test whether the given transformation is a symmetry by picking the correspondent $f^\mu$ in (\[6\]), and checking whether $\partial_\mu J^\mu = 0$, by using the equations of motion; ii) use the Noether charges $
Q_f \equiv \int d^3 x J_f^0
$, and the canonical equal-time Poisson brackets $
\{ \Phi_i (x) , \Pi^j (y) \} = \delta^j_i \delta (\vec{x} - \vec{y})
$, to generate the transformations of an arbitrary function of the canonical variables $$\label{11}
\{ G (\Phi_i , \Pi_i) , Q_f \} \equiv \Delta_f G (\Phi_i , \Pi_i) \;.$$ Note also that, for $f^{0} = g^{0}=0$, $$\label{12}
\{ Q_f , Q_g \} = Q_{[f,g]} \;,$$ and Eq.s (\[11\]) and (\[12\]) hold whether or not $\partial_0 Q_f = 0$.
Of course, when $Q_f$ acts on the fields it must reproduce the transformations one started with $\Delta_f \Phi_i = \delta_f \Phi_i$. We call $\Delta_f$ the [*dynamically consistent transformations*]{}.
The expression for the current (\[10\]) has been obtained by varying the action, including the measure, under an arbitrary space-time transformation, and only afterwards one tests the invariance, following the above described procedure. Sometimes the Noether theorem is used in a somehow different perspective, namely by checking that $\delta {\cal L} = \partial_\mu V^\mu$, which is only true for invariant actions, and then writing the current as $J^\mu = \Pi^{\mu i} \delta^{*} \Phi_i - V^\mu$, where in this case $\delta^{*} \Phi_i = {\Phi'}_i (x') - \Phi_i (x)$, hence $\delta^{*} \neq \delta_f$. The choice $\delta^{*}$ is the most useful in the case of gauge transformations and supersymmetry [@Io2], while for standard space-time transformations, as the ones we are considering in this paper, it is more convenient to use (\[10\]). Of course, the two procedures are consistent [@Io2], [@Lop].
Non-Commutative U(1) Gauge Theory
=================================
For sake of clarity, let us now write down the terms in the action in (\[4\]) up to first order in $\theta$ $$\label{13}
\hat{I} = - \frac{1}{4} \int d^4 x \; [F^{\mu \nu} F_{\mu \nu}
-\frac{1}{2} \theta^{\alpha \beta} F_{\alpha \beta} F^{\mu \nu} F_{\mu \nu}
+ 2 \theta^{\alpha \beta} F_{\alpha \mu} F_{\beta \nu} F^{\mu \nu}] + O(\theta^2) \;,$$ although the following results hold to any order in $\theta$. The $\theta$-dependence in (\[13\]) is obtained from the $*$-product in $\hat{F}_{\mu \nu}$, and by using the SW map $$\hat{A}_{\mu}(A, \theta)=A_{\mu}-\frac{1}{2}\theta^{\alpha
\beta}A_{\alpha}(\partial_{\beta}A_{\mu} + F_{\beta \mu}) +
O(\theta^{2}) \;,$$ which solves the Seiberg-Witten equation [@SW] $$\hat{A}(A+\delta_{\lambda} A)=\hat{A}(A)+\hat{\delta}_{\hat{\lambda}}\hat{A}(A)\;,$$ where $\delta_{\lambda}A_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}\lambda$, $\hat{\delta}_{\hat{\lambda}}\hat{A}_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}\hat{\lambda}
-i [ \hat{A}_{\mu} , \hat{\lambda}]_*$, and $\lambda$, $\hat{\lambda}(\lambda,A)$ are the parameters of the gauge transformations for standard and non-commutative U(1) gauge group, respectively.
The Noether current for space-time transformations that we obtain from the action (\[13\]) is then $$\label{15}
J_f^\mu = \Pi^{\mu \nu} \delta_f A_\nu - {\cal L} f^\mu \;,$$ where the $f^\mu$’s are given in (\[6\]), $\Pi^{\mu \nu} =
\delta {\cal L} / \delta \partial_\mu A_\nu$, and, being $\Pi^\mu_{\alpha \beta} = \delta {\cal L} / \delta \partial_\mu
\theta^{\alpha \beta} = 0$, the transformations $\delta_f
\theta^{\alpha \beta}$ do not enter the Noether current.
Let us now analyze the symmetry properties by writing the divergence of this current as $$\label{16}
\partial_\mu J_f^\mu = \Pi^{\mu \nu} F_{\alpha \nu} \partial_\mu f^\alpha - {\cal L} \partial_\mu f^\mu \;.$$ We obtain that $\partial_\mu J_f^\mu = 0$ for infinitesimal translations $f^\mu = a^\mu$, but $$\label{18}
\partial_\mu J_f^\mu = \omega^\alpha_\mu \Pi^{\mu \nu} F_{\alpha \nu} \;,
\quad \quad
\partial_\mu J_f^\mu = a (\Pi^{\mu \nu} F_{\mu \nu} - 4 {\cal L}) \;,
\quad \quad
\partial_\mu J_f^\mu = 2 \Pi^{\mu \nu} F_{\alpha \nu} (a^\alpha x_\mu - a_\mu x^\alpha - a \cdot x \delta^\alpha_\mu)
+ 8 a \cdot x {\cal L} \;,$$ for infinitesimal Lorentz transformations, dilations and special conformal transformations, respectively. In absence of the non-commutative corrections, $\theta^{\mu \nu} = 0$, $\Pi^{\mu
\nu} = - F^{\mu \nu}$, and from (\[18\]) one immediately sees that $\partial_\mu J_f^\mu = 0$ for all $f^\mu$’s in (\[6\]), and the theory is invariant under the full conformal transformations[^3].
On the other hand, the action $\hat I$, for $\theta^{\mu \nu} \neq
0$, is only invariant under translations. Of course, this leaves room to special choices of the parameters and/or of the field configurations, to obtain conserved currents. For instance, if one performs two [*dependent*]{} infinitesimal boosts with parameters $\omega^{0}_1 = \omega^{0}_2 = \omega$, from the first condition in (\[18\]) one obtains $\Pi^{12} (E_2 - E_1) = E_3 (\Pi^{13} +
\Pi^{23})$. Thus, for instance, one finds conservation if the electric field $\vec{E}$ lives in the $(1,2)$-plane, and has equal components.
It is crucial to notice that the results in (\[18\]) hold for the full theory (\[4\]), to all orders in $\theta$. As a matter of fact, to obtain (\[18\]) we have only used the conditions $$\label{17}
\partial_\mu \theta = 0 \;, \quad \quad \Pi^{\mu \nu} = - \Pi^{\nu \mu} \;,\quad \quad
\partial_\mu \Pi^{\mu \nu} = 0 \;.$$ i.e. i) $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ does not depend on the coordinates $x^\mu$; ii) $\Pi^{\mu \nu}$ is antisymmetric, which is a consequence of the antisymmetry of $F_{\mu \nu}$; iii) the equations of motion for $A_\mu$ are satisfied in the form $\partial_\mu \Pi^{\mu \nu} = 0$, where the latter expression is valid to all orders in $\theta$ provided one changes $\Pi^{\mu
\nu}$ accordingly. Furthermore $\Pi^\mu_{\alpha\beta} = 0$ to all orders.
We now want to check the dynamical consistency of the transformations, along the lines of what explained in Section II. It is straightforward to see that for $A_\mu$ and $F_{\mu \nu}$ $$\label{19}
\Delta_f A_\mu = \delta_f A_\mu \quad {\rm and} \quad \Delta_f
F_{\mu \nu} = \delta_f F_{\mu \nu} \;,$$ while for $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ $$\label{20}
\Delta_f \theta^{\mu \nu} = 0 \;,$$ for all $f^\mu$’s in (\[6\]).
At this point one has to investigate whether $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ could be treated as a dummy field $D$, in the spirit of what happens in supersymmetric models. The answer in no. In both cases $\delta_f \theta^{\mu \nu}$ and $\delta_{\rm SUSY} D$ do not explicitly enter the expression of the Noether current, hence one can arbitrarily choose them. Nonetheless, in supersymmetric models: i) one fixes $\delta_{\rm SUSY} D$ by demanding the action $I_{\rm SUSY}$ (which contains the dummy fields explicitly) to be invariant; ii) even if $\Pi_D = 0$, $\Delta_{\rm SUSY} D \neq 0$ due to the fact that $D$ can be properly expressed in terms of the dynamical fields by means of the constraint $\delta I_{\rm SUSY} /
\delta D = 0$ [@Io2]. Therefore $\delta_{\rm SUSY}$ represents the SUSY algebra [*off-shell*]{}, while $\Delta_{\rm SUSY}$ represents the SUSY algebra [*on-shell*]{}, and both are symmetries of the action. On the contrary, in our case, if one uses $$\label{tom}
\frac{\delta {\hat I}}{\delta \theta^{\mu \nu}} = 0 \;,$$ as a constraint, then one obtains different dynamical transformations of $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ at different orders, and trivial theories. For instance, for the first order action (\[13\]), one cannot express $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ in terms of the dynamical fields, hence there is no contribution to $\Delta_f
\theta^{\mu \nu}$ from $\Delta_f A_\mu$ or $\Delta_f F_{\mu \nu}$. While, at higher orders, there are not simple expressions for $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ in terms of $A_\mu$ or $F_{\mu \nu}$, and $\Delta_f \theta^{\mu \nu}$ has different expressions for different orders. Furthermore, the constraints imposed on $F_{\mu
\nu}$ by (\[tom\]) make the theory trivial. For instance, at first order, (\[tom\]) implies $F_{\mu \nu} = 0$, which is too trivial a theory. Note also that if one uses (\[tom\]) the expressions of $\partial_\mu J^\mu_f$ in (\[18\]) are trivially zero for all conformal transformations.
We conclude that $\delta_f \theta^{\mu \nu}$ cannot be fixed by any symmetry requirement (with the only exception of translations), and that to have a physical meaningful theory one should not make use of the “equations of motion” (\[tom\]). Therefore, among all possible $\delta_f \theta^{\mu \nu}$’s that represent the conformal algebra, the most natural choice seems to us $\delta_f \theta^{\mu \nu} = \Delta_f \theta^{\mu \nu} = 0$ (which agrees with the translation invariance), and $\theta^{\mu
\nu}$ does not transform under dynamically consistent space-time transformations. This choice is also consistent with considerations in [@JacPi].
conclusions
===========
We have studied the space-time symmetries and transformation properties of the non-commutative U(1) gauge theory, from the dynamical point of view. The same analysis applies to other gauge groups.
We carried out our analysis by keeping an open view on the possible ways $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ could transform. A possible scenario is the one with $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ behaving like a second rank tensor under Lorentz transformations [@7A]. Another possibility is to see $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ as a back-ground metric, therefore reduce the space-time transformations to the isometries of this metric which would leave the theory invariant.
>From our analysis it clearly follows that there is no reason for $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ to transform under any space-time transformation since the theory is not invariant under the conformal transformations, with the only exception of translations, and special choices of the parameters and/or of the field configurations. This implies that $\theta^{\mu \nu}$ is an invariant constant matrix in any frame of reference.
Since there is no invariant constant antisymmetric second rank tensor in four dimensions, the physics necessarily depends on the frame of reference. Examples, for special choices of $\theta^{\mu \nu}$, are given in [@Jac1] and [@Cai], where it is shown that, in such a theory, the velocity of light depends on the direction of motion, like in an anisotropic medium.
We are grateful to R. Jackiw for introducing us to the subject of symmetries in non-commutative gauge theories, and for very enjoyable discussions. A.I. has been partially supported by the Fellowship “Theoretical Physics of the Fundamental Interactions”, University of Rome Tor Vergata. T.S. was supported by the program “Research Centres” project n. LN00A006 of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport of the Czech Republic. This work was also supported in part through funds provided by the U. S. Department of Energy (D.O.E) under cooperative research agreement DF-FC02-94ER40818.
[99]{}
H. Snyder, Phys. Rev. 71 (1947), 38.
A. Connes, “Non-Commutative Geometry”, Academic Press, 1994.
N. Seiberg, and E. Witten, JHEP 9909 (1999), 32.
Z. Guralnik, R. Jackiw, S.Y. Pi, and A.P. Polychronakos, Phys. Lett. B 517 (2001), 450.
R. Cai, Phys. Lett. B 517 (2001), 457.
J. Madore, S. Schraml, P. Schupp, J. Wess, Eur. Phys. J. C 16 (2000), 161.
A.A. Bichl, J.M. Grimstrup, H. Grosse, E. Kraus, L. Popp, M. Schweda, R. Wulkenhaar, [*Noncommutative Lorentz Symmetry and the origin of the Seiberg-Witten Map*]{}, hep-th/0108045.
R. Jackiw, Acta Phys. Austr. Suppl. XXII (1980), 383.
R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41 (1978), 1635.
R. Jackiw, and S.Y. Pi, [*in preparation*]{}.
A. Iorio, PhD Thesis, hep-th/0006198 and Phys. Lett. B 487 (2000), 171.\
A. Iorio, L. O’Raifeartaigh, S. Wolf, Ann. Phys. 290 (2001), 156. J. Lopuszanski, “An Introduction to Symmetry and Supersymmetry in Quantum Field Theory”, World Scientific, 1991.
A. Iorio, L. O’Raifeartaigh, I. Sachs, C. Wiesendanger, Nucl.Phys. B 495 (1997), 433.\
C.G. Callan, S. Coleman, and R. Jackiw, Ann. Phys. 59 (1970), 42.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: Since $A_\mu$ is a spin 1 field, and we are in four dimensions, for $\theta^{\mu \nu} = 0$, scale invariance alone implies special conformal invariance [@Io1].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A new system of library code is proposed and initiated. It is emphasized that the same terminologies as we find in our textbooks should be used for class names in the library code. The language C\# invented by Microsoft is adopted in this project. Several rules of thumb are suggested in order to obtain easy-readable coherent codes. As a first step, we present the library code for exact diagonalization in physics. When we build codes, we clearly distinguish between model independent and dependent parts, and we use familiar terminologies like [Hamiltonian]{}, [HilbertSpace]{}, [GroundState]{}, [*etc*]{} as class names. As an explicit example, we calculate ground state energy of a quantum dot, showing the triplet-singlet transition.'
author:
- 'MYUNG-HOON CHUNG'
title: 'Physics0.01: Object-Oriented Programming for Exact Diagonalization'
---
Introduction
============
In Feb. 2002, Microsoft launched a new program language named C\#, which is strongly object-oriented[@1]. It is argued that C\# language has three characteristic features, 1. C\# is as elegance as Java, 2. C\# is as powerful as C++, 3. C\# is as productive as Visual Basic. Although it is still questionable whether or not C\# is useful for scientific computing in academic area, we here adopt C\# because of its strong character of object-oriented language.
Reusability is always one of main concerns in the area of software. Scientific computing also should require reusability seriously. We notice many efforts to improve reusability. The web site managed by Troyer[@2] is remarkable. The library code for density matrix renormalization group method invented by White[@3] is also well known. These library codes are written in C++. There are many fortran codes in netlib[@4]. It is clear that there is a general trend of transition from non object-oriented to object-oriented language.
The main advantage of C\# over C++ is efficiency in making Windows applications. Since computer users are addicted by Windows operating system, user friendly programs would be Windows applications. As far as end users need more user friendly programs, C\# can be useful. One good point is that so called Mono project[@5] is carried on to develop the C\# compiler for Linux. After successful finish of Mono project, we guess that C\# will become more popular.
In this article, we propose a new way of making library codes with C\# as a preparation for the battle between C\# and C++, which will take place soon. At present, C++ is the most powerful. However, after someone makes ease access to parallel computing in loosely connected Windows operating systems using XML web services, we expect that C\# can compete with C++ even in scientific computing.
Supercode
=========
In order to improve the power of scientific computing, we have to consider the three factors: CPU time, REM memory, and Coding time. For some complicated problems, the main factor is nothing but coding time. In this situation, someone want to use Standardized Reusable Components (SRC). When we say [Hamiltonian]{}, everyone in physics community can understand the meaning of it. Hence, there must be a class called [Hamiltonian]{}. At this moment, we should notice the usefulness, when we use the same terminology as we find in our textbooks. All library codes must be organized like our textbooks and our library. The system of library codes should not be in simple alphabet order, but would be in subject-based order. This subject-based integration of library codes will result in high correlations between codes, in other words, it will need more coherence between codes. It is not an easy task to make classification in each category of our knowledge. We may need a big discussion on this matter. At any rate, this library codes can be called [**Supercode**]{}. As we see in usual real library, we can divide [**Supercode**]{} as [**Biology**]{}, [**Chemistry**]{}, [**ElectricalEngineering**]{}, [**Mathematics**]{}, [**MechanicalEngineering**]{}, [**Physics**]{}, [*etc*]{}.
In scientific computing, programmers always want to know results as quickly as possible. Because of this hurry habit, program codes become less structural, and reusability is lost. In order to enhance reusability, it is strongly proposed that scientists should make program codes in distinguishing model-independent and model-dependent parts. The model-independent parts are properly organized and will be upgraded in the future. Numeric workers should be familiar with the whole structure of model-independent parts, and should handle model-independent and model-dependent parts simultaneously. In order to emphasize the way of coding, we denote HANA, which is abbreviation for “Handle All aNd All", where the first “All" means model-independent parts and the second “All" means model-dependent parts. We define HANA project as efforts to make [**Supercode**]{}. We are summing up some rules of thumb for [**Supercode**]{}:
1\. [*Divide and Conquer*]{}. Do not exceed the total number of code over 100 lines for each class.
2\. [*Handle all and all*]{}. Consider always a general code for a general case as much as possible. Collect the codes of model-independent parts for [**Supercode**]{}.
3\. [*Give proper full names*]{}. Be careful in choosing namespace names and class names. For instance, all codes in Numerical Recipes should become [private]{} methods in [**Supercode**]{}. An easy way to choose names is to use an index in the end pages of textbooks. Allow no space in a full name, instead use upper case characters, for instance, [**ProteinFolding**]{}, [**SpecialFunction**]{}, [**QuantumMechanics**]{}, [*etc*]{}. This rule was adopted in the textbook written by Deitel, “C\# How to program".
4\. [*Use SRC*]{}. Use confirmed codes as much as possible. In order to avoid any mistakes, do not use special or home-made codes.
5\. [*Reduce number of arguments in constructors and [public]{} methods*]{}. Future library users will definitely want a simple structure of arguments.
6\. [*Consider polymorphism in the pattern of “word after the same word"*]{}. Make an abstract class for the common name. For instance, when we note Translation Symmetry, Rotation Symmetry, Reflection Symmetry, Spin Inversion Symmetry, and so on, we make abstract class [Symmetry]{} and subdirectory [**Symmetry**]{}, and then make class [Translation]{}, [Rotation]{}, [Reflection]{}, [SpinInversion]{} in [**Symmetry**]{} directory, using the key word [override]{}.
Because of the author’s speciality, only a small part of [**Supercode**]{} is discussed in the following. The part is named as [**Physics0.01**]{}. The version number 0.01 represents the first step toward the final goal of [**Supercode**]{}. We hope that upgrade version of [**Physics**]{} will be used for all computing processes in physics.
Physics0.01
===========
Following the above rules, we try to construct [**Physics0.01**]{}. All files related to physics exist in a single directory named [**Physics0.01**]{}, which contains many subdirectories and files. Here the subdirectories are names of namespaces, and files are names of classes. The subdirectories, which can be called volumes, are classified as usual as textbooks for physics. We make the subdirectories: [**ClassicalMechanics**]{}, [**QuantumMechanics**]{}, [**Electromagnetism**]{}, [**StatisticalMechanics**]{}, [**GeneralPhysics**]{}, [*etc*]{}. One of these volumes, [**QuantumMechanics**]{}, has many class files: [ConservedQuantity.cs]{}, [GroundState.cs]{}, [*etc*]{}, and subdirectories: [**Hamiltonian**]{}, [**HilbertSpace**]{}, [**Symmetry**]{}, [**Operator**]{}. The directory [**Hamiltonian**]{} contains many classes. Following the sixth rule of polymorphism, the class files in [**Hamiltonian**]{} directory are given by [FermionOneBody.cs]{}, [FermionTwoBody.cs]{}, [Heisenberg.cs]{}, [Kondo.cs]{}, and abstract class [Hamiltonian.cs]{}, since we note Fermion One Body Hamiltonian, Fermion Two Body Hamiltonian, Heisenberg Hamiltonian, and Kondo Hamiltonian. Still many other class codes should be made, accumulated and organized in [**QuantumMechanics**]{} of [**Physics0.01**]{}.
We here omit to show the present codes of [**Physics0.01**]{}. All detailed codes are freely open in the author’s home page[@6]. This prototype object-oriented programming for physics is invented mainly only for exact diagonalization. We expect that Monte Carlo and Maxwell equation will be included. Hence upgrade [**Physics0.02**]{} will appear soon.
Example: Ground State Energy in 2D Parabolic Quantum Dot
========================================================
In order to present the general procedure of HANA project, we consider the problem of evaluating ground state energy in a two-dimensional parabolic quantum dot. In this problem, the second quantized Hamiltonian[@7] is written as $$\begin{aligned}
H &=&\sum_{n,l,\sigma} (\hbar\omega(2n+|l|+1)
-\frac{1}{2}\hbar\omega_{\mbox{c}}l - g
\frac{1}{2}\hbar\omega_{\mbox{c}}\sigma)
c_{nl\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{nl\sigma} \nonumber \\
&+&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n_{1},n_{2},n_{3},n_{4},k,l,m}
V_{n_{1}n_{2}n_{3}n_{4}}(k,l;m) \nonumber \\
&\times&\sum_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}
c_{n_{1}k\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{n_{2}l+m\sigma^{\prime}}^{\dagger}
c_{n_{3}l\sigma^{\prime}}c_{n_{4}k+m\sigma},\end{aligned}$$ where one-particle creation operators $c_{nl\sigma}^{\dagger}$ have three quantum numbers[@8]. The principal quantum number $n$ runs as $0$, $1$, $2$, $3$, $\cdots$, while the angular momentum quantum number $l$ is given by $0,~\pm 1,~\pm 2,~\pm
3,~\cdots$, and the spin index $\sigma=\pm 1$. Note that the confining potential is related to $\omega_{0}$ in the usual way, and $\omega
=\sqrt{\omega_{0}^{2}+\frac{1}{4}\omega_{\mbox{c}}^{2}}$, where the so called cyclotron frequency is proportional to the strength of magnetic field $B$ as $\omega_{\mbox{c}}=eB/m^{\ast}c$. It is straightforward to calculate the Coulomb matrix elements: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}V_{n_{1}n_{2}n_{3}n_{4}}(k,l;m)
=\frac{1}{2}\frac{e^{2}}{\kappa}\sqrt{\frac{m^{\ast}\omega}{2\hbar}}
C_{n_{1}n_{2}n_{3}n_{4}}(k,l;m) \nonumber \\
~~=\hbar \omega
\frac{58.47}{\kappa}\sqrt{\frac{m^{\ast}}{m}}\sqrt{\frac{1\mbox{meV}}{\hbar
\omega }}C_{n_{1}n_{2}n_{3}n_{4}}(k,l;m),\end{aligned}$$ where $\kappa$ is a dielectric constant, and $C_{n_{1}n_{2}n_{3}n_{4}}(k,l;m)$ are dimensionless numbers.
With the usual bulk values, $m^{\ast}=0.07 m$ and $\kappa =13$, the overall factor of the Coulomb interaction becomes $58.47/13*\sqrt{0.07}=1.19$. However, since the used quantum dot looks two-dimensional, it seems that the values of dielectric constant and effective mass are not known. Thus, it is needed to take the overall factor as an input parameter. The value of $\omega_{0}$ is also an input parameter. In fact, the side gate is used in order to control the confining potential[@9]. In consequence, this calculation has four input parameters: number of electrons, the overall factor, $\omega_{0}$, and $\omega_{\mbox{c}}$. We take 20 lowest energy states as $2n+|l|+1 \le
4$ in this exact diagonalization. Only the main parts of the code are presented as follows.
$\cdots\cdots$
using QM=Physics.QuantumMechanics;
using H=Physics.QuantumMechanics.Hamiltonian;
using HS=Physics.QuantumMechanics.HilbertSpace;
using OP=Physics.QuantumMechanics.Operator;
$\cdots\cdots$
int Ne = Convert.ToInt32(textBox2.Text); \\ input number of electrons
double factor = Convert.ToDouble(textBox3.Text); \\ input the overall factor
double omega0 = Convert.ToDouble(textBox4.Text); \\ input omega0
double omegac = Convert.ToDouble(textBox5.Text); \\ input omegac
int half = (numberOfElectrons + (numberOfElectrons % 2))/2; \\ At half, S_{z}=0
QM.Space i1 = new QM.Space(7,2); \\ 14 sites
QM.Space i2 = new QM.Space(3,2); \\ 6 sites
QM.Space ii = new QM.Space(i1,i2); \\add Space i1 and i2, so 20 states
QM.QuantumNumber qn = new QuantumNumberForModel(ii); \\assign n, l and spin
QM.Coupling u = new CouplingForModel0(qn,omega0,omegac); \\one body spectrum
QM.Coupling w = new CouplingForModel1(qn,factor,omega0,omegac); \\Coulomb matrix
OP.FermionCreation cdagger = new OP.FermionCreation(ii);
OP.FermionAnnihilation c = new OP.FermionAnnihilation(ii);
H.Hamiltonian h0 = new H.FermionOneBody(u, cdagger, c);
H.Hamiltonian h1 = new H.FermionTwoBody(w, cdagger, cdagger, c, c);
H.TotalHamiltonian h = new H.TotalHamiltonian(h0,h1);
h.ZeroPointEnergy = 0.0;
OP.Number nop = new OP.Number(numberOfElectrons);
for(int ta = 0; ta < 3; ta++){
for(int ts = half; ts < half+2; ts++){
QM.ConservedQuantity totalAngularMomentum = new QM.ConservedQuantity(qn,1,ta);
QM.ConservedQuantity totalSpin = new QM.ConservedQuantity(qn,2,ts);
HS.HilbertSpace hil1 = new HS.Fermion(cdagger, nop);
HS.HilbertSpace hil2 = new HS.Reduction(hil1,totalAngularMomentum);
HS.HilbertSpace hil = new HS.Reduction(hil2,totalSpin);
QM.GroundState psi = new QM.GroundState(h,hil);
textBox1.Text = Convert.ToString(psi.Energy);}}
$\cdots\cdots$
Note that the classes of model-independent parts are in specific directories. The model-dependent parts consist of [QuantumDot.cs]{}, [QuantumNumberForModel.cs]{}, [CouplingForModel0.cs]{} and [CouplingForModel1.cs]{}. The user friendly simulation program runs in Windows operating system. Giving the four input parameters, we simply click a button to find the ground state energy. The final result of ground state energy is printed on the screen.
--------- --------- ------------------------ ------------------------- ------------------------
$S_{z}$ $L_{z}$ $\hbar \omega_{0}=1.1$ $\hbar \omega_{0}=1.15$ $\hbar \omega_{0}=1.2$
0 0 59.7012 61.4422 63.1693
0 1 59.7247 61.4975 63.2490
1 0 59.7012 61.4759 63.2299
1 1 59.7247 61.4975 63.2490
--------- --------- ------------------------ ------------------------- ------------------------
: \[tab:table1\]The ground state energy in each sector. We notice that there is the triplet-singlet transition between 1.1 and 1.2.
We present the result of calculation related to the triplet-singlet transition[@10], when the strength of confining potential is increased in the dot containing six electrons. We let the overall dimensionless factor be 2, and $\omega_{\mbox{c}}=0$. We find the transition near $\hbar
\omega_{0}=1.14$ meV as shown in Table \[tab:table1\]. We expect that someone observe this transition using the side gate voltage in the future.
Conclusion
==========
We proposed a library code system, emphasizing that class names should be the same as we find in textbooks. Like an well known idiom in algorithm, “Divide and conquer", we introduced “Handle all and all" for this library system. The first “all" means library codes and the second “all" means our specific project codes. Hence, there are only two folders: one is library and the other is our specific model dependent project. As the library grows, we expect that each class becomes strongly correlated with others. To change codes is not an easy task because of coherence between codes. However, experts can freely change the codes, and thus invent the upgrade version with fixing the first number such as [**Physics1.03**]{} from the mother version [**Physics1.00**]{}. For instance, if someone feel that the class [Symmetry]{} can be improved, then change the code. If this change is worthwhile for everyone, then it should be reflected in the next version of [Physics]{} with clear notification of contributors. Along this line, the prototype library code, [**Physics0.01**]{}, will be upgraded soon.
We know that nowadays many theoretical physicists spend more time in complicated computing, which is however conceptually trivial. We agree that physicists need to do philosophical and conceptual thinking more. The author likes to imagine that a higher version of [**Physics**]{} will reduce the time of computing for all physicists.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The author learned C\# language when he stayed at Yale University. He gratefully thanks to Professor Paul Hudak, who did an excellent job in his C\# class.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vcsharp
http://www.itp.phys.ethz.ch/compphys
http://hedrock.ps.uci.edu
http://www.netlib.org
http://go-mono.org
http://won.hongik.ac.kr/\~mhchung/index\_files/hana.html
M.H. Chung, Physica E 11, 303 (2001)
M.C. Cha, M.H. Chung, Journal of the Korean Physical Society 41, 359 (2002)
N.B. Zhitenev, M. Brodsky, R.C. Ashoori, L.N. Pfeiffer, K.W. West, Science 285, 715 (1999)
S. Sasaki, S. De Franceschi, J. M. Elzerman, W. G. van der Wiel, M. Eto, S. Tarucha, and L. P. Kouwenhoven, Nature 405, 764 (2000)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We describe an experiment where spin squeezing occurs spontaneously within a standard Ramsey sequence driving a two-component Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) of $^{87}$Rb atoms trapped in an elongated magnetic trap. Multiparticle entanglement is generated by state-dependent collisional interactions, despite the near-identical scattering lengths of the spin states in $^{87}$Rb. In our proof-of-principle experiment, we observe a metrological spin squeezing that reaches $1.3\pm 0.4\,$dB for $5000$ atoms, with a contrast of $90\pm 1$%. The method may be applied to realize spin-squeezed BEC sources for atom interferometry without the need for cavities, state-dependent potentials or Feshbach resonances.'
address:
- '$^1$ LNE-SYRTE, Observatoire de Paris–Université PSL, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, 61 Avenue de l’Observatoire, 75014 Paris, France'
- '$^2$ Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, ENS–Université PSL, CNRS, Sorbonne Université, Collège de France, 24 rue Lhomond, 75005 Paris, France'
author:
- 'Th[é]{}o Laudat$^1$, Vincent Dugrain$^2$, Tommaso Mazzoni$^1$, Meng-Zi Huang$^2$, Carlos L. Garrido Alzar$^1$, Alice Sinatra$^2$, Peter Rosenbusch$^1$ and Jakob Reichel$^2$'
bibliography:
- 'lascool.bib'
- 'local.bib'
title: Spontanous spin squezing in a rubidium BEC
---
=4
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) of atoms with more than one spin state present rich dynamics in their spin and motional degrees of freedom. Most experiments so far have focused on either spin or real-space evolution, carefully avoiding time-dependent evolution in the other subspace. One class of experiments prepares each atom in the BEC in a precisely controlled spin superposition and explores the complex spatial phase dynamics that deploys due to the spin-dependent interactions [@Kawaguchi12]. In these studies, mainly focused on the mean field dynamics, the spin state remains unchanged throughout the evolution. Other experiments, by contrast, use the condensed sample as a support for spin dynamics, especially to generate entangled spin states, while spatial dynamics is carefully avoided [@Esteve08; @Gross10]. Only a few recent experiments have started to explore the interplay of spatial and spin dynamics in order to generate different forms of entanglement in two-component or spinor BECs [@Riedel10; @Luecke11; @Schmied16], including spin squeezing. Spin-squeezed states [@Kitagawa93; @Wineland94] are the prime example of highly entangled many-particle states with the potential to improve atomic clocks and interferometric sensors beyond the standard quantum limit [@Gross12]. This metrological prospect also applies to BECs which, due to their minimum phase-space spread, are considered as precious source states for atom interferometry [@Gross12; @Abend16; @Hardman16] despite their inherent fluctuations, phase diffusion and losses. Furthermore, the spin squeezing parameter can be used to quantify the degree of entanglement between the condensate atoms [@Sorensen01]. For all these reasons, spin-squeezed states of BECs have met with wide interest, and it has been pointed out early on that such states can naturally arise in two-component BECs due to different scattering lengths between the internal states [@Sorensen01]. Yet, experiments with two-component BECs have not produced such states, except when atomic interactions were enhanced with the help of a Feshbach resonance [@Gross10] or by actively separating the spin components in a state-dependent trap [@Riedel10]. Both methods have led to spectacular results, but come at the price of a considerably more complex setup. Here we describe an experiment where spin squeezing occurs spontaneously after an internal state quench, the dynamics being initiated simply by an initial $\pi/2$ pulse [@Haine14] applied to a rubidium BEC in a harmonic trap.
Origin of spontaneous spin squeezing
====================================
The basic idea of creating spin squeezing by atomic interaction in a BEC, as originally envisaged in 2001 [@Sorensen01], is easily understood in the basis of well-defined atom numbers ${\left|N_1\right\rangle}$ and ${\left|N_2\right\rangle}$=${\left|N-N_1\right\rangle}$, where the index refers to the spin state and $N$ is the total atom number, which we consider fixed for now. On the $N$-atom Bloch sphere, each state with a given $N_1$ corresponds to a circle of fixed latitude. If the energy of these states depends monotonically on $N_1$, a superposition of several ${\left|N_1\right\rangle}$, such as a coherent state, will not evolve with constant phase speed on the Bloch sphere, but will be sheared. This leads to spin squeezing due to the well-known “one-axis twisting” Hamiltonian [@Kitagawa93]. More precisely, for a BEC with spin states $i=1,2$ having spatial wavefunctions $\phi_i(\mathbf r)$, and $S_z=(N_2-N_1)/2$, the spin interaction can be written $$H_{\text{int}}/\hbar = \chi S_z^2\,.
\label{eq:Hint}$$ Neglecting the dependence of the condensate mode on atom number, $\chi$ can be written simply [@Pezze16][^1]. $$\chi = (U_{11}+U_{22}-2U_{12})/(2\hbar)\qquad \mbox{and}\qquad
U_{jk} = g_{jk}\int dr^3|\phi_j|^2|\phi_k|^2$$ with $g_{jk}=4\pi \hbar^2 a_{jk}/m$ and $m$ the mass of the atom. Significant squeezing develops for times $t$ such that $\chi t \ge \frac{1}{N}$ [@Sinatra12a]. However, when all scattering lengths are nearly equal, $a_{11}\approx a_{22}\approx a_{12}$ as in the case of $^{87}$Rb, and there is full spatial overlap between the components, population imbalance causes only a small energy change, and $\chi$ becomes so small that the required $t$ is unrealistically large. This rules out the straightforward implementation of BEC squeezing in $^{87}$Rb – the most widely used atom in two-component BEC experiments and in cold-atom metrology today. If, on the other hand, the overlap of the components is reduced, then a sizeable nonlinear interaction exists even for identical scattering lengths [@Riedel10; @Maussang10; @Haine14].
Under properly chosen trapping conditions, spatial dynamics of the spin components will occur spontaneously [@Mertes07], reducing the overlap and thus creating spin squeezing. Note that the spatial dynamics is created by the same difference of scattering lengths which, while too weak to create spin squeezing on its own, can be strong enough to drive the spatial separation which then causes the squeezing. $\chi$ dynamically increases during the separation, generating the squeezing, and then decreases again as the atoms oscillate back to their initial position.
In this article, we experimentally demonstrate this effect. In our experiment, an elongated trap is operated near the “magic” bias field [@Harber02; @Szmuk15] where trapping frequencies are identical for two hyperfine ground state sublevels ${\left|1\right\rangle}\equiv{\left|F=1,m_F=-1\right\rangle}$ and ${\left|2\right\rangle}\equiv{\left|F=2,
m_F=1\right\rangle}$. The condensate is initially prepared in ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ and subjected to a $\pi/2$ pulse on the ${\left|1\right\rangle}\leftrightarrow{\left|2\right\rangle}$ transition. The subsequent free evolution in the cigar-shaped trap leads to demixing of the two components [@Hall98; @Mertes07; @Egorov11; @Haine14; @Nicklas15], initiating the squeezing dynamics (Fig. \[fig:scheme\]). By applying a second pulse to close the spin interferometer when the ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ component oscillates back into overlap with ${\left|2\right\rangle}$, we indeed observe not only a contrast revival, but also a simultaneous reduction of spin projection noise, yielding metrological spin squeezing.
![Experimental sequence. A first $\pi/2$ pulse of Rabi frequency $\Omega$ places the condensate in a coherent superposition. This initiates state-dependent spatial dynamics, leading to the shearing of the spin noise distribution. Due to asymmetric losses, the mean spin is also tilted below the equatorial plane by an angle $\theta_c$. A second pulse of variable duration is applied in order to rotate the spin distribution before detecting the atom numbers $N_1$ and $N_2$. The clouds below the Bloch spheres represent the spatial dynamics undergone by the two states ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ (blue) and ${\left|2\right\rangle}$ (red).[]{data-label="fig:scheme"}](Bloch_Spheres2.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Experiment
==========
The experiment is performed on the Trapped-Atom Clock on a Chip (TACC) platform, described in detail in [@Lacroute10; @Deutsch10; @Szmuk15]. In contrast to those references, here we use a BEC. An atom chip generates the magnetic field gradients for trapping and also carries the two-photon, radiofrequency (RF) and microwave (MW) signals for exciting the clock transition. Atoms are initially trapped in ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ and cooled by forced RF evaporation in a tight trap. We continue the RF ramp well into the BEC regime, obtaining condensates with no discernible thermal fraction and containing up to $\sim 14000$ atoms. The magnetic potential is then slowly (600ms) transformed into an interrogation trap with frequencies $\omega_{x,y,z}=2\pi\times(2.7,92,74)\,\mbox{Hz}$ unless otherwise specified, located $z=350\,\mu$m below the chip surface ($z=0$). The lifetime of the BEC in this trap is about $5\,s$, limited by collisions with thermal atoms in the single vacuum cell. The atom number in this trap is controlled with the MOT loading time and the final frequency of the evaporation ramp.
![Spatial dynamics observed in absorption imaging after a 30ms time of flight. Note that these images are taken with an auxiliary imaging system along the $y$ axis, which has higher noise than the one used for the squeezing measurements below. For these measurements, a BEC of $10^{4}$ atoms is produced in state ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ in a trap with trap frequencies $\omega_{x,y,z}=2\pi\times(2.7,92,74)\,\mbox{Hz}$. A resonant $\pi/2$ pulse prepares an equal superposition of ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ and ${\left|2\right\rangle}$ and the cloud dynamics are monitored in time. (a) Individual images taken after the evolution times indicated in the figure. (b) Many such images integrated along $z$ and assembled to show the spatial dynamics along $x$. (A common-mode sloshing that was present in this experiment has been subtracted.) (c) 3D coupled Gross-Pitaevskii numerical simulation for the atom numbers and trap frequencies of the experiment.[]{data-label="fig:TypicalImages"}](cloudProfiles2.pdf "fig:"){width="0.8\columnwidth"} ![Spatial dynamics observed in absorption imaging after a 30ms time of flight. Note that these images are taken with an auxiliary imaging system along the $y$ axis, which has higher noise than the one used for the squeezing measurements below. For these measurements, a BEC of $10^{4}$ atoms is produced in state ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ in a trap with trap frequencies $\omega_{x,y,z}=2\pi\times(2.7,92,74)\,\mbox{Hz}$. A resonant $\pi/2$ pulse prepares an equal superposition of ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ and ${\left|2\right\rangle}$ and the cloud dynamics are monitored in time. (a) Individual images taken after the evolution times indicated in the figure. (b) Many such images integrated along $z$ and assembled to show the spatial dynamics along $x$. (A common-mode sloshing that was present in this experiment has been subtracted.) (c) 3D coupled Gross-Pitaevskii numerical simulation for the atom numbers and trap frequencies of the experiment.[]{data-label="fig:TypicalImages"}](Demix3.pdf "fig:"){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
We use the ${\left|1\right\rangle} \leftrightarrow {\left|2\right\rangle}$ clock transition, which enables first-order cancellation of spatial inhomogeneity of the transition frequency in a magnetic trap [@Harber02; @Treutlein04]. The transition is driven by a two-photon, RF and MW pulse [@Szmuk15] with Rabi frequency $\Omega = 2\pi\times 3.6\,$Hz. The MW signal at 6.8GHz is generated by a custom-built synthesizer [@Ramirez10], while the RF photon of $\approx 2\,$MHz comes from a commercial direct-digital synthesizer. Both are referenced to SYRTE’s active hydrogen maser [@Szmuk15]. After preparing a BEC in the interrogation trap, the sequence always starts by applying a resonant $\pi/2$ pulse to create the superposition $1/2^{N/2}({\left|1\right\rangle}+{\left|2\right\rangle})^{\otimes N}$ (see \[sec:appendixExp\]). Due to the slight difference in scattering lengths, the initial density distribution no longer corresponds to a stationary state, and the two components start to oscillate [@Hall98; @Mertes07; @Papp08; @Tojo10; @Egorov13; @Nicklas15]. To reveal the resulting spatial dynamics, we have imaged both states using an auxiliary imaging system on the $y$ axis, so that the slow $x$ axis is visible. Images are taken at variable times after the pulse. A typical result is shown in Fig. \[fig:TypicalImages\]. The ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ component splits into two parts which oscillate along the weak axis, while the ${\left|2\right\rangle}$ component does not separate but undergoes a breathing-type oscillation in the center between the ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ component’s two lobes. After a period of $1.2\,$s, the ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ component has come back into superposition with ${\left|2\right\rangle}$ and another oscillation begins. For longer times, a third oscillation is barely visible. A 3D numerical simulation using coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations (GPEs) reproduces the features of the observed oscillation (Fig. \[fig:TypicalImages\](b)) reasonably well, however, the calculated and measured oscillation frequencies differ by 20%. One possible reason for this difference could be a residual thermal cloud too weak to be visible on the camera images.
![Atom number as a function of trapping time in the interrogation trap for condensates with all atoms in ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ (cyan squares), all atoms in ${\left|2\right\rangle}$ (magenta stars) and with atoms in an equal superposition (blue diamonds: $N_1$, red circles: $N_2$). The fit to the ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ data is a simple exponential, yielding the $5$s background-limited lifetime. The other lines are not fits, but predictions without adjustable parameters, using published values [@Egorov13] for the two-body decay rates, $\gamma_{22} = 8.1(3)\times10^{-14} \mbox{cm}^3/\mbox{s}$ and $\gamma_{12} = 1.51(18)\times 10^{-14} \mbox{cm}^3/\mbox{s}$, and our experimentally determined densities. The latter are obtained from the measured atom numbers and the trap frequencies, assuming a BEC in the dimensional crossover regime. (b) Total atom number $N_1+N_2$ as a function of time, starting from an initial atom number $N\sim 1.2{\times 10^{4}}$ in equal superposition of ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ and ${\left|2\right\rangle}$. The blue points are experimental data, while the solid line has been obtained by numerical integration of coupled GPEs.[]{data-label="fig:losses"}](Lifetime_log_paper.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"} ![Atom number as a function of trapping time in the interrogation trap for condensates with all atoms in ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ (cyan squares), all atoms in ${\left|2\right\rangle}$ (magenta stars) and with atoms in an equal superposition (blue diamonds: $N_1$, red circles: $N_2$). The fit to the ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ data is a simple exponential, yielding the $5$s background-limited lifetime. The other lines are not fits, but predictions without adjustable parameters, using published values [@Egorov13] for the two-body decay rates, $\gamma_{22} = 8.1(3)\times10^{-14} \mbox{cm}^3/\mbox{s}$ and $\gamma_{12} = 1.51(18)\times 10^{-14} \mbox{cm}^3/\mbox{s}$, and our experimentally determined densities. The latter are obtained from the measured atom numbers and the trap frequencies, assuming a BEC in the dimensional crossover regime. (b) Total atom number $N_1+N_2$ as a function of time, starting from an initial atom number $N\sim 1.2{\times 10^{4}}$ in equal superposition of ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ and ${\left|2\right\rangle}$. The blue points are experimental data, while the solid line has been obtained by numerical integration of coupled GPEs.[]{data-label="fig:losses"}](N_vs_Tr.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"}
While these images are instructive for observing the spatial dynamics, measurements of the atom numbers are better performed by imaging along the $x$ axis, where the cloud covers fewer pixels. We use saturated absorption imaging [@Reinaudi07] and state-selective release from the trap so that both states can be detected in the same image with a back-illuminated deep depletion CCD with high quantum efficiency. The imaging system is carefully calibrated for absolute accuracy as described in \[sec:appendixExp\].
Density-dependent atom losses are an important limiting factor in BEC spin squeezing [@Gross10; @Li08]. While the background-limited lifetime of state ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ is much longer than the oscillation period, state ${\left|2\right\rangle}$ has additional loss channels which reduce its lifetime. To measure the relevant loss parameters, we prepare a BEC in ${\left|1\right\rangle}$, ${\left|2\right\rangle}$ or an equal superposition of both states, and measure the remaining populations in the interrogation trap after different trapping times. The results are displayed on Fig. \[fig:losses\] (points). An exponential fit to the ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ data yields a $5$s background-limited lifetime. The other curves in Fig. \[fig:losses\](a) are not fits but predictions without adjustable parameters as described in the caption. They reproduce the data well, as does the simulation using coupled GPEs (Fig. \[fig:losses\](b)). In our experiments, number densities in the ${\left|2\right\rangle}$ state range from $1{\times 10^{12}}$ to $8{\times 10^{12}}\,\mbox{cm}^{-3}$, corresponding to two-body loss limited lifetimes ranging from $12\,$s to as short as $1.5\,$s, respectively. In the following, ${N_{\text{i}}}$ refers to the initial atom number and ${N_{\text{f}}}$ to the atom number measured at the end of the experimental sequence.
Oscillation of the Ramsey contrast {#sec:contrast}
==================================
Because the oscillation puts the atoms into motion and changes the spatial overlap of the components, it also manifests itself in the contrast of the Ramsey fringes when a second $\pi/2$ pulse is added after a time $T_R$. Fig. \[fig:contrast\](a) shows the evolution of this contrast (red circles) as a function of $T_R$ for ${N_{\text{i}}}= 1.2\times 10^4$. For this atom number, the initial contrast of 98% drops to about 50% around 600ms, and then shows a revival at $T_R=1.2\,$s , which reflects the spatial overlap between the two modes at this time. Indeed, we find that the contrast revival time coincides with the spatial oscillation period observed by absorption imaging. This period depends on trap frequencies and atom number [@Egorov13].
![Contrast of a Ramsey measurement consisting of two $\pi/2$ pulses separated in time by $T_R$, performed in the interrogation trap with frequencies $\omega_{x,y,z}=2\pi\times (2.7,92,74)\,\mbox{Hz}$. For each $T_R$, the frequency of the two pulses is scanned around resonance to measure the fringe contrast $C$, defined by a fit according to $P_2=\frac{1}{2}(1+C\text{cos}(2\pi\Delta\nu T_R+ \varphi_{lo}))$, where $P_2=N_2/{N_{\text{f}}}$, $T_R$ is the Ramsey time and corresponds to the time during which the interferometer is sensitive to phase variations, and $\Delta\nu$ is the detuning from atomic resonance. (a) Measured contrast (red circles), corrected contrast (blue squares) and corresponding predictions of the coupled GPE simulation (solid lines), as a function of Ramsey time for ${N_{\text{i}}}=1.2\times 10^4$. (b) Corrected contrast at the revival time (red circles) and half the revival time (purple diamonds) as a function of ${N_{\text{f}}}$. The corresponding solid lines are results of the GPE simulations. The dashed line shows the simulation result multiplied with a decoherence term (exponential decay) which accounts for decoherence sources not contained in the simulation. Its value $\gamma_d=0.5s^{-1}$ is chosen to match the maximum experimental contrast.[]{data-label="fig:contrast"}](contrast_vs_Tr.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"} ![Contrast of a Ramsey measurement consisting of two $\pi/2$ pulses separated in time by $T_R$, performed in the interrogation trap with frequencies $\omega_{x,y,z}=2\pi\times (2.7,92,74)\,\mbox{Hz}$. For each $T_R$, the frequency of the two pulses is scanned around resonance to measure the fringe contrast $C$, defined by a fit according to $P_2=\frac{1}{2}(1+C\text{cos}(2\pi\Delta\nu T_R+ \varphi_{lo}))$, where $P_2=N_2/{N_{\text{f}}}$, $T_R$ is the Ramsey time and corresponds to the time during which the interferometer is sensitive to phase variations, and $\Delta\nu$ is the detuning from atomic resonance. (a) Measured contrast (red circles), corrected contrast (blue squares) and corresponding predictions of the coupled GPE simulation (solid lines), as a function of Ramsey time for ${N_{\text{i}}}=1.2\times 10^4$. (b) Corrected contrast at the revival time (red circles) and half the revival time (purple diamonds) as a function of ${N_{\text{f}}}$. The corresponding solid lines are results of the GPE simulations. The dashed line shows the simulation result multiplied with a decoherence term (exponential decay) which accounts for decoherence sources not contained in the simulation. Its value $\gamma_d=0.5s^{-1}$ is chosen to match the maximum experimental contrast.[]{data-label="fig:contrast"}](Contrast_vs_Nat.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"}
Due to the state-dependent losses, the population imbalance is time-dependent. Right after the initial $\pi/2$ pulse, the polar angle of the Bloch vector is $\theta=\pi/2$, but then slowly evolves to a value $\theta=\pi/2+\theta_c$ at time $T_R$ (Fig. \[fig:scheme\]). To obtain maximum contrast (and thus, maximum phase sensitivity in the final measurement), $\theta_c$ must be taken into account. In an actual atomic clock or interferometer, this can be achieved by inserting a correction pulse with a well-defined phase before the second $\pi/2$ pulse to remove the known mean value $\bar{\theta}_c$. The contrast that one would get by applying such a correction pulse can also be derived numerically using simple geometric considerations (\[sec:appendixExp\]). We have used both, correction pulses and numerical contrast correction, and find that the results are consistent. Unless otherwise indicated, the results below use the numerical correction method. Note that only the mean value of $\theta_c$ can be removed or corrected, while the noise introduced by the statistical nature of the losses remains and contributes to the final noise budget [@Gross10; @Li08]. We will come back to this point below.
The corrected contrast, represented by blue squares in Fig. \[fig:contrast\](a), shows a first revival of 82% for ${N_{\text{i}}}=1.2\times 10^4$. The precise value of the contrast, and thus the spatial dynamics, also depends on atom number, as shown in Fig. \[fig:contrast\](b). Lower atom numbers result in higher contrast revivals.
The numerical simulations described above qualitatively reproduce the observed time evolution and provide some additional insight (solid lines in Fig. \[fig:contrast\]). The contrast minimum occurring at half the revival time decays faster than the contrast maximum at the revival time. Its simulated value is in good agreement with the experiment, confirming that the decay is caused by a stronger spatial separation for higher atom numbers. Both the demixing period and the contrast at revival time are overestimated in the simulation, even though the population decay is well reproduced (cf. Fig. \[fig:losses\](b)). The lower revival contrast suggests experimental sources of decoherence that are not contained in the simulation. Indeed, multiplying with a decoherence term with $\gamma_d=0.5s^{-1}$ brings the simulated contrast into agreement with the measured values (dashed line in Fig. \[fig:contrast\](b)). For the revival period, the source of the deviation is less obvious, one possible candidate being a dilute thermal cloud as mentioned above.
Note that the density-dependent frequency shift [@Harber02], combined with the spatial dynamics and atom losses, leads to a time dependence of the atomic transition frequency $\nu_{12}$: the resonance frequency of the pulse applied in the beginning of the sequence is slightly higher than that at the revival time. Although the shift is small (on the order of $-10^{-4}\,$Hz per atom for our trap), it is easily detected in a metrology setup like ours and needs to be taken into account in the squeezing measurements, as detailed below. In particular, for every atom number and Ramsey time, we use the adequate effective resonance frequency, which is determined in a separate measurement (see \[sec:appendixExp\]).
Spin noise measurements
=======================
![Measured spin noise for a final atom number ${N_{\text{f}}}\approx5000$ and trap frequencies $\omega_{x,y,z}=2\pi\times (2.7,92,74)\,\mbox{Hz}$. The squeezing factor $\xi^2=\Delta_n S_z^2 = 4\Delta S_z^2/C^2\overline{{N_{\text{f}}}}$ is shown as a function of the tomography angle $\alpha$, with error bars corresponding to a 68$\%$ confidence interval. The inset is a zoom of the main plot in the region where $\xi^2$ reaches its minimum.[]{data-label="fig:squeezing_result"}](Squeezing_final_test.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
We use spin noise tomography to characterize the spin distribution that is generated in the dynamically evolving two-component BEC, . As before, a BEC with a precisely controlled atom number is produced in ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ and we apply a first near-resonant $\pi/2$ pulse which puts each atom into a coherent superposition between the two clock states. The BEC then evolves freely in the trap during a time $T_R$ which we adjust to coincide exactly with the contrast revival time measured above. During the free evolution, the spin distribution undergoes the nonlinear collisional interaction enhanced by the spatial separation of the two components. At the time $T_R$, a second pulse (“analysis pulse”) is used to rotate the spin distribution about its center, which has been determined separately (see Fig. \[fig:scheme\] and \[sec:appendixExp\]). By changing the duration of the analysis pulse, the rotation angle $\alpha$ (“tomography angle”) can be varied. After this rotation, the trap is switched off and the atom numbers $N_1$ and $N_2$ are measured. For each $\alpha$, the whole preparation and analysis sequence is repeated a large number of times (typically 300 repetitions) and the normalized population difference $S_z^n = \frac{1}{2}\frac{N_2-N_1}{N_1+N_2}$ is determined. The number squeezing $\mathcal{V}^2 = \frac{4\Delta
S_z^2}{\overline{{N_{\text{f}}}}\text{cos}(\overline{\theta_c})^2}$ and the squeezing factor $\xi^2=\frac{4\Delta
S_z^2}{\overline{{N_{\text{f}}}}C^2\text{cos}(\overline{\theta_c})^2}$ [@Wineland94] are then derived in order to quantify the spin noise reduction and the metrologically useful spin squeezing respectively, $\Delta S_z^2$ being the variance of the spin in the y-z plane (Fig. \[fig:scheme\]). The contrast is determined separately using the procedure detailed on Fig. \[fig:contrast\]. Fig. \[fig:squeezing\_result\] shows the result for a final atom number ${N_{\text{f}}}\approx5000$ and trap frequencies $\omega_{x,y,z}=2\pi\times (2.7,92,74)\,\mbox{Hz}$. As expected, the measured noise corresponds to a slightly tilted, ellipse-shaped distribution. The minimum squeezing factor occurs for an angle $\alpha=2.5^\circ$ and reaches $\xi^2 = -1.3 \pm 0.4$ dB with a contrast of 90$\pm$1$\%$ for this parameter set. It corresponds to atom number fluctuations of $\pm 32$ atoms for each component.
![Squeezing factor (a) and number squeezing (b) as a function of the detected atom number for two different traps. Black circles: $\omega_{x,y,z}=2\pi\times (2.7,92,74)\,\mbox{Hz}$, green squares: $\omega_{x,y,z}=2\pi\times (4.4,128,113)\,\mbox{Hz}$. The red point corresponds to the data displayed on Fig. \[fig:squeezing\_result\]. The result for the stronger trap are generally worse in spite of the faster dynamics ($T_R=0.7$s). While the metrological squeezing factor deteriorates with increasing atom number, no clear tendency is visible in the number squeezing. This indicates that the squeezing factor is mostly limited by the contrast reduction occurring when increasing the atom number, as shown in Fig. \[fig:contrast\] (b).[]{data-label="fig:squeezingVsNat"}](Squeezing_vs_N_final.pdf "fig:"){width="0.47\columnwidth"} ![Squeezing factor (a) and number squeezing (b) as a function of the detected atom number for two different traps. Black circles: $\omega_{x,y,z}=2\pi\times (2.7,92,74)\,\mbox{Hz}$, green squares: $\omega_{x,y,z}=2\pi\times (4.4,128,113)\,\mbox{Hz}$. The red point corresponds to the data displayed on Fig. \[fig:squeezing\_result\]. The result for the stronger trap are generally worse in spite of the faster dynamics ($T_R=0.7$s). While the metrological squeezing factor deteriorates with increasing atom number, no clear tendency is visible in the number squeezing. This indicates that the squeezing factor is mostly limited by the contrast reduction occurring when increasing the atom number, as shown in Fig. \[fig:contrast\] (b).[]{data-label="fig:squeezingVsNat"}](SqueezingDSz_vs_N_final.pdf "fig:"){width="0.47\columnwidth"}
We have repeated these measurements for different atom numbers up to the maximum BEC atom number accessible in our experiment, and for a second, stronger trap with frequencies $\omega_{x,y,z}=2\pi\times (4.4,128,113)\,\mbox{Hz}$. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:squeezingVsNat\]. The squeezing factor $\xi$ deteriorates for ${N_{\text{f}}}>5000$, but seems to saturate for smaller ${N_{\text{f}}}$. Interestingly, the number fluctuations (Fig. \[fig:squeezingVsNat\](b)) do not show these tendencies, but maintain a constant level within the error bars. The deterioration of $\xi$ is mostly due to the reduced contrast at high atom numbers (Fig. \[fig:contrast\](b)). Both effects will be discussed in the next section.
Limiting factors
================
The squeezing factor $\xi$ observed at the revival time results from the competition between the twisting interaction (eq. \[eq:Hint\]) and the state-dependent losses and non-perfect spatial revival dynamics: the latter two introduce new fluctuations and reduce contrast. The two main parameters that can be experimentally controlled are the atom number $N$ and the trap frequencies $\omega_{x,y,z}$. Higher atom numbers and higher trap frequencies increase the condensate density, which accelerates the squeezing dynamics by increasing $\chi$, but also accelerates the two-body losses. In the case of a homogeneous system or in separated harmonic traps for the two components, the two effects cancel [@Li08; @Sinatra12a], so that one does not expect a density dependence of the squeezing factor $\xi$. In our case, the spatial dynamics lead to a significantly more complicated situation. $\chi$ as well as the contrast depend on the spatial overlap of the spin components, which is time-dependent (cf. Fig. \[fig:contrast\]) with an evolution that depends on $N$ as well as on $\omega_{x,y,z}$. The rather high value of the contrast at $T_R/2$ (Fig. \[fig:contrast\]) indicates that the component separation is not complete. For complete separation and our range of atom numbers, it is known that $\chi$ would be large enough to reduce number fluctuations by several orders of magnitude in a time much shorter than our revival time (see \[sec:appendixSimul\]), even when losses are taken into account. In the absence of losses, these high values could still be reached with incomplete separation, at the expense of a longer squeezing time. Thus, in our situation, the state-dependent losses (Fig. \[fig:losses\]) clearly have a major effect on the final result. In an attempt to obtain more quantitative predictions, we have performed beyond-GPE simulations, described in the next section.
Apart from these fundamental contributions, technical noise such as phase noise can limit the measurement of the noise reduction induced by the squeezing process. In order to evaluate our system in terms of technical instabilities, a standard clock measurement, similar to the one conducted in [@Szmuk15], has been performed using the same experimental condition as for Fig. \[fig:squeezing\_result\]. This measurement yielded a fractional frequency stability of $9.7\times 10^{-12}\tau^{-1/2}$. Several noise sources have been investigated to explain this stability, and atom loss has been identified as the major contribution to the stability budget ($8.47\times 10^{-12}\tau^{-1/2}$). This is due to the fact that, for each shot, we only have access to the final populations. We therefore do not precisely know how many atoms have been lost during the sequence, nor when they were lost. For instance, if an atom is lost at the beginning of the Ramsey time, it will not contribute to the collisional shift, whereas if it is lost right before the second interrogation pulse, it was partly responsible for this frequency shift, but will not be detected. This leads to a noise on $S_z$ that we cannot correct. This noise also impacts the squeezing measurement, contributing on the order of 9% of the quantum projection noise. Subtracting this noise would bring $\xi^2$ from $-1.3\,$dB to $\xi^2 \approx -2\,$dB: its contribution is non-neglegible, but it does not limit the order of magnitude of the observed squeezing.
Simulations beyond GPE
======================
While the spatial dynamics is well described by the coupled Gross-Pitaevskii simulations mentioned above, the quantum spin dynamics generating the spin squeezing cannot be captured by such a mean-field approach. Furthermore, as we have seen, the asymmetric losses significantly affect the state of the system over the relatively long times needed for the spontaneous spin squeezing to occur. In order to take into account all of these features in a consistent way, we performed simulations using a Wigner method inspired by [@Opanchuk12]. To limit the drawbacks of the truncated Wigner method [@Sinatra02] – which are related to the fact that the added quantum noise in each mode efficiently thermalizes in 3D, introducing spurious effects – we implemented a “minimal version” of the Wigner method, where we project the quantum noise on the condensate mode for each component.
Description of the projected Wigner method
------------------------------------------
The implementation of the method consists in $(i)$ generating classical fields $\psi_1(\mathbf{r},0^+)$ and $\psi_2(\mathbf{r},0^+)$ normalized to the atom number in each component, that sample the initial probability distribution after the pulse, and $(ii)$ evolving them with stochastic equations. Besides the usual Hamiltonian terms, these equations involve a damping term due to non-linear losses and the associated noise. The results for the observables are then obtained by averaging over many stochastic realizations.
### Initial state with partition noise
At $t=0^-$, before the mixing pulse, all $N$ particles are in the internal state ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ where a condensate of wave function $\phi_1(\mathbf{r},0^-)$ is present. We approximate the field for ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ by $\psi_1(\mathbf{r},0^-)=\sqrt{N}\phi_1(\mathbf{r},0^-)$. The field for ${\left|2\right\rangle}$ is in vacuum, that is, it is filled with quantum noise in each mode. In contrast to what is usually done in the Wigner method, we project the vacuum fluctuations of field 2 on the condensate mode $\phi_1(\mathbf{r},0^-)$ that will be macroscopically populated after the pulse, and we keep only this contribution. We then obtain after the mixing pulse $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_1(\mathbf{r},0^+)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[\psi_1(\mathbf{r},0^-)-\phi_1(\mathbf{r},0^-)b \right]\\
\psi_2(\mathbf{r},0^+)&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left[\psi_1(\mathbf{r},0^-)+\phi_1(\mathbf{r},0^-)b \right]\end{aligned}$$ where $b$ is a stochastic complex Gaussian variable with $\langle b^\ast b \rangle=\frac{1}{2}$. As $N_j(t)=\int \mathbf{dr} |\psi_j(\mathbf{r},t)|^2$, one has $\langle N_1-N_2\rangle(0^+)=0$ and $\Delta^2(N_1-N_2)(0^+)=N$.
### Time evolution
Starting from the stochastic equations in [@Opanchuk12], we apply the same idea and project the noise due to non-linear losses over the time-dependent condensate modes. Including $2-2$ and $1-2$ two-body losses, plus one-body losses for the two states, we finally have for the evolution during $dt$: $$\begin{aligned}
d\psi_1&=&-i dt \left[(\hat{h}_1- i K_1)+g_{11}|\psi_1|^2+(g_{12}-i K_{12})|\psi_2|^2 \right]\psi_1 +
{\cal P}_{\phi_1}[{\rm \Delta_1}] \\
d\psi_2&=&-i dt \left[(\hat{h}_2- i K_2)+(g_{22}- 2 i K_{22} ) |\psi_2|^2+ (g_{12} - i K_{12})|\psi_1|^2 \right]\psi_2
\nonumber \\
&& + {\cal P}_{\phi_2}[{\rm \Delta_2}]\,, \end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{h}_j$ is the one-body Hamiltonian operator including the kinetic energy and the external potential for the internal state $j$, $g_{jk}=(4\pi \hbar^2 a_{jk})/m$ as above, $K_{12}=\gamma_{12}/2$, $K_{22}=\gamma_{22}/4$ are two-body loss rate constants, and $K_1=K_2=\tau^{-1}$ are one-body loss rate constants equal to the inverse lifetime in the trap. The projected noises have the expressions $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal P}_{\phi_1}[{\rm \Delta_1}] &=& \phi_1(\mathbf{r},t) \left[ B_{12}(t) \sqrt{K_{12}I_{12}}+B_1(t)\sqrt{K_1}\right]\\
{\cal P}_{\phi_2}[{\rm \Delta_2}] &=& \phi_2(\mathbf{r},t) \left[
B_{22}(t)
\sqrt{4K_{22}I_{22}}+B_{12}(t)
\sqrt{K_{12}I_{12}}+B_2(t)\sqrt{K_2}\right]\end{aligned}$$ where the $B_{12}(t)$, $B_{22}(t)$, $B_{1}(t)$ and $B_{2}(t)$ are independent $\delta$-correlated complex Gaussian noises of variance $dt$, e.g. $\langle B_{12}^\ast(t) B_{12}(t')\rangle=\delta(t-t')dt$, and $I_{jk}=\int \mathbf{dr} |\phi_j(\mathbf{r},t)
\psi_k(\mathbf{r},t)|^2$. We have tested this method by comparing its results with an exact solution of the two-mode model with losses [@Li08]. Details can be found in \[sec:appendixSimul\].
Simulation results
------------------
![Contrast (a) and Spin squeezing (b) as a function of time. Solid lines: Wigner simulations, including spatial dynamics, quantum spin dynamics and particle losses, for three different choices of the scattering lengths. Symbols: experiment (for (b), the experimental squeezing is measured at the time corresponding to the first contrast revival). The initial atom number is $N=10^4$. Trap frequencies $\omega_{x,y,z}=2\pi\times(2.9,92,74)$Hz. Lifetime $\tau=5$s. Two-body loss rate constants $\gamma_{22}=8.1\times10^{-14}$cm${}^{3}/$s and $\gamma_{12}=1.51\times10^{-14}$cm${}^{3}/$s. Scattering lengths in Bohr radii units: $a_{11}=100.4$ for the three curves. Red curve $a_{22}=95.44$ [@Egorov13], $a_{12}=98.00$ [@Egorov13]. Green curve $a_{22}=95.00$ [@Mertes07], $a_{12}=97.66$ [@Mertes07]. Blue curve $a_{22}=95.68$ [@KokkelmansPC], $a_{12}=97.66$ [@Mertes07]. We used 800 realizations for the Wigner simulation. The statistical uncertainty is around $10\%$ for the spin squeezing, corresponding to 0.4dB on the figure. The spatial grid had $128\times8\times8$ points in the three directions and the initial temperature is zero. At the squeezing time in the simulation $T\simeq 1.37$s, approximately ${N_{\text{f}}}\simeq 6000$ atoms are left in the trap, in a proportion $N_{1f}/N_{2f} \simeq 5/3$ for the two states. \[fig:Wigner\] ](fig_WigC.pdf "fig:"){width="0.495\linewidth"}![Contrast (a) and Spin squeezing (b) as a function of time. Solid lines: Wigner simulations, including spatial dynamics, quantum spin dynamics and particle losses, for three different choices of the scattering lengths. Symbols: experiment (for (b), the experimental squeezing is measured at the time corresponding to the first contrast revival). The initial atom number is $N=10^4$. Trap frequencies $\omega_{x,y,z}=2\pi\times(2.9,92,74)$Hz. Lifetime $\tau=5$s. Two-body loss rate constants $\gamma_{22}=8.1\times10^{-14}$cm${}^{3}/$s and $\gamma_{12}=1.51\times10^{-14}$cm${}^{3}/$s. Scattering lengths in Bohr radii units: $a_{11}=100.4$ for the three curves. Red curve $a_{22}=95.44$ [@Egorov13], $a_{12}=98.00$ [@Egorov13]. Green curve $a_{22}=95.00$ [@Mertes07], $a_{12}=97.66$ [@Mertes07]. Blue curve $a_{22}=95.68$ [@KokkelmansPC], $a_{12}=97.66$ [@Mertes07]. We used 800 realizations for the Wigner simulation. The statistical uncertainty is around $10\%$ for the spin squeezing, corresponding to 0.4dB on the figure. The spatial grid had $128\times8\times8$ points in the three directions and the initial temperature is zero. At the squeezing time in the simulation $T\simeq 1.37$s, approximately ${N_{\text{f}}}\simeq 6000$ atoms are left in the trap, in a proportion $N_{1f}/N_{2f} \simeq 5/3$ for the two states. \[fig:Wigner\] ](fig_WigXi.pdf "fig:"){width="0.505\linewidth"}
In Fig. \[fig:Wigner\] we show the results of the projected Wigner simulation for an initial atom number ${N_{\text{i}}}=10^4$ and three different choices of the scattering lengths $a_{12}$ and $a_{22}$ chosen among published values that differ by $0.7\%$ at most. Fig. \[fig:Wigner\](a) shows the contrast and Fig. \[fig:Wigner\](b) shows the squeezing as a function of time. The experimental data for similar parameters is shown as symbols for comparison. Given that the demixing dynamics which induces the squeezing is driven by the small differences between the scattering lengths, it is not surprising that, in the absence of an external state-dependent potential imposing the spatial separation [@Hall98; @Riedel10], the squeezing result is very sensitive to the precise values of the scattering lengths. To estimate the effective nonlinearity for the different choices of the scattering lengths, we calculated the parameter $\chi$ of the one-axis twisting Hamiltonian at the stationary state in our geometry. We obtain $\chi=7.5\times10^{-5}$s${}^{-1}$ with the scattering length values from [@Egorov13] (red curve), $\chi=7.3\times10^{-5}$s${}^{-1}$ with the values from [@Mertes07] (green curve), and $\chi=24.6\times10^{-5}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$ for the combination [@Mertes07]-[@KokkelmansPC] (blue curve).
Comparing simulations and experiment, the contrast oscillations in the experiment have a smaller amplitude and shorter period than in the simulations (Fig. \[fig:Wigner\](a)), as was already observed with the GPE simulations. For the squeezing factor, the simulations do not allow a quantitative comparison to experiment due to their strong dependence on the scattering lengths. As shown in Fig. \[fig:Wigner\](b), depending on the choice of the scattering length values, and despite their relatively high accuracy (compared to the values available for other elements), the prediction at the revival time varies between no squeezing at all and about -1.8dB.
We conclude that spontaneous squeezing in our geometry is compatible with the results of our simulations although we cannot reproduce all the features of the experimental data. If a quantitative agreement for the contrast dynamics can be attained, it would be interesting to use the extreme sensitivity to the scattering lengths to infer very precise values for them from the experiment, similar to [@Egorov13].
Conclusion and outlook
======================
Our results show that nonclassical spin dynamics occur spontaneously in a two-component BEC, and can produce spin squeezing in BECs with sizeable atom numbers. This supports the notion of squeezing as a naturally occuring form of entanglement. In order to use this squeezing as a resource for quantum metrology in particular, a higher level of squeezing is desirable. Our results suggest several possible routes. The first is to accelerate the component separation, so that squeezing would be produced on a faster timescale, before particle losses become dominant. To do this, it would suffice to induce a small asymmetry between the trapping potential of the two states at the beginning of the sequence, in order to help the dynamics to start. It has indeed been shown that this greatly enhances and accelerates the spatial separation [@Ockeloen13]. In our case, this asymmetry could come from the combination of the quadratic Zeeman effect with gravity. This leads to a displacement of the center of the trapping potentials for the two clock states that depends on the difference between the field at the bottom of the trap and the magic field [@Rosenbusch09]. Therefore, by scanning the magnetic field at the trap bottom, one could displace the position of the two states and study its influence on the spatial dynamics. In the same spirit, it would be interesting to study whether the component separation can be improved by modifying the aspect ratio of the trap, perhaps dynamically.
Another path would be to act on the asymmetric two-body losses themselves to reduce their rate. A possible approach could be to use microwave dressing during the interrogation time to shift the ${\left|2,2\right\rangle}$ state upward and induce an energy difference between the transitions ${\left|2,1\right\rangle}\rightarrow{\left|2,2\right\rangle}$ and ${\left|2,1\right\rangle}\rightarrow{\left|2,0\right\rangle}$, thereby reducing the two-body collision rate in state ${\left|2,1\right\rangle}$. This could be accomplished using a one-photon dressing with a $\sigma$-polarized microwave field. Of course, one would need to check that this additional coupling does not introduce too much noise on the clock transition. Observing a reduction of these losses would also be an interesting subject in itself.
We thank Markus Oberthaler, Philipp Treutlein and Christian Gross for inspiring discussions. This work was supported by the Délégation Générale de l’Armement (DGA) through the ANR ASTRID program (contract no. ANR-14-ASTR-0010, project “eeTACC”), the European Research Council (ERC), (GA 671133, Advance Grant “EQUEMI”), and the Institut Francilien pour la Recherche sur les Atomes Froids (IFRAF).
Imaging and Calibration {#sec:appendixExp}
=======================
#### **Detection**\
For accurate, low-noise atom number measurement, we use saturated absorption imaging [@Reinaudi07] along the slow $x$ axis, combined with spatially separated detection of both clock states in the same image, and employ back-illuminated deep depletion CCD camera with $>90\%$ quantum efficiency (Andor iKon M 934-BRDD). After the sequence but still in trap, atoms in ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ are adiabatically transferred to the untrapped ${\left|F = 2, m_F =0\right\rangle}$ state in 2ms by a strong MW pulse while the atomic resonance is swept by ramping the magnetic bias field $B_x$. Adiabaticity is ensured by Blackman pulse shape for the MW power and a half-Blackman ramp for $B_x$ ($\pm50$mG around the pseudo-magic field). During this pulse, atoms initially in state ${\left|1\right\rangle}$ start to fall under the action of gravity. 50$\mu$s later, the trapping magnetic fields are turned off in order to release the remaining atoms, such that the two states can be spatially discriminated after 23ms time of flight and imaged with a single 20 $\mu$s detection pulse. This way, frequency and power fluctuations of the probe laser are in common mode for the two states, reducing fluctuations in the detected population difference. Additionally, a numerical frame re-composition algorithm is used to reduce optical fringes [@Ockeloen10]. The column density is then derived taking into account the high saturation correction [@Reinaudi07]. With this imaging procedure, the background noise of our imaging system is about 33 atoms for each of the spin components (cf.Fig. \[fig:detection\] (a)).
Great care is taken to calibrate the detection system. The calibration method is similar to [@Riedel10], and consists in comparing the variance of $S_z$ for an ensemble of $N$ uncorrelated atoms in a coherent superposition with the standard quantum limit that scales as $\frac{N}{4}$. To perform the calibration, $S_z$ is measured directly after a single resonant $\frac{\pi}{2}$-pulse, and the measured variance is plotted as a function of the total detected atom number ${N_{\text{f}}}$. The data is fitted with $\sigma^2(S_z) = \sigma_{det}^2+\sigma _{qpn}^2 \overline{N} +
\sigma_{tech}^2 \overline{N}^2$, where $\sigma_{det}$ is the detection noise, $\sigma_{qpn}$ represents the quantum projection noise and $\sigma_{tech}$ accounts for the possible preparation noise. As shown in Fig. \[fig:detection\] (a), the atomic noise exhibits the expected linear behavior with a slope of $\sigma _{qpn}^2=0.248\pm 0.03$ and a neglegible quadratic component, $\sigma_{tech}^2=(1\pm 3){\times 10^{-6}}$, confirming that our detection is projection noise limited.
{width="0.47\columnwidth"} {width="0.47\columnwidth"}
#### **Data analysis**\
In order to link the measured atom numbers to the squeezing factor and the spin noise distribution, the following data analysis is performed for each tomography angle $\alpha$. The notation $\overline{X}$ corresponds to the average of the fluctuating quantity X, and the error bars correspond to one standard deviation.
- Shots whose total atom numbers ${N_{\text{f}}}= N_1 + N_2$ differ from their mean $\overline{N}$ by more than 3 standard deviations are discarded. These outliers can be due to problems during the image acquisition or the laser locks, and in practice this concerns about 1$\%$ of the data.
- The normalized population difference $S_z^n=\frac{N_2-N_1}{2{N_{\text{f}}}}$ and the angle between the collective spin and the equator of the Bloch sphere $\theta_c=\text{asin}(\frac{S_z^n}{C/2})$ are derived, where $C$ is the contrast of the Ramsey interferometer, which has been measured separately. The population difference is normalized in order to reduce its dependency to shot-to-shot total atom number fluctuations.
- A correlation between population difference and total atom number exists because of the atom number dependency of the atomic frequency ($1.5\times10^{-4}$ Hz per atom) via the collisional shift [@Harber02], and can be estimated by fitting the distribution $S_z^n$ vs ${N_{\text{f}}}$ (cf. Fig. \[fig:detection\] (b)). Since we can measure this correlation for each shot, we can legitimately correct the data accordingly. Namely, $$S_{z,corr}^n(i) = S_z^n(i) - s_p\times ({N_{\text{f}}}(i)-\overline{{N_{\text{f}}}}),
\label{eq:correction}$$ where $s_p=\frac{dS_z^n}{d{N_{\text{f}}}}$ is the slope measured on Fig. \[fig:detection\] (b) and $i$ represents one of the 300 shots at a given rotation angle. This slope, and thus the correction, depends on the analysis pulse duration and happens to vanish around $\alpha = 2.5^\circ$; it therefore does no affect the squeezing factor.
- The variance of the normalized population difference times the mean atom number $\overline{{N_{\text{f}}}}\sigma^2(S_{z,corr}^{n})$ is derived. At this point, we also check that the Allan variance of $S_{z,corr}^{n}$ integrates as white frequency noise in order to be sure that there is no drift that could worsen the results.
- The detection noise estimated in Fig. \[fig:detection\] (a) is removed from the data: $$\Delta S_z^2 = \overline{{N_{\text{f}}}}^2 \sigma^2(S_{z,corr}^{n}) - \sigma_{det}^2(S_z)$$
- Finally, the fact that the collective spin ends up below the equator of the Bloch sphere leads to an underestimation of the spin noise by a factor $\text{cos}(\overline{\theta_c})^2$ which has to be taken into account as explained in sec. \[sec:contrast\]. $\Delta S_z^2$ is then normalized by the quantum projection noise ${N_{\text{f}}}/4$, leading to the final number squeezing and squeezing factor [@Wineland94] $$\mathcal{V}^2 = \frac{4\Delta S_z^2}{\overline{{N_{\text{f}}}}\text{cos}(\overline{\theta_c})^2} \text{ and } \xi^2=\frac{4\Delta S_z^2}{\overline{{N_{\text{f}}}}C^2\text{cos}(\overline{\theta_c})^2}.
\label{eq:variance_norm}$$
#### **Analysis pulse calibration**\
In order to perform the state tomography, one could in principle apply the correction pulse discussed in sec. \[sec:contrast\] prior to the analysis pulse, which would simply need to be phase shifted with respect to the preparation pulse. However, because of microwave inhomogeneity and position fluctuation of the trapped BEC, this correction pulse would introduce additional noise in the spin tomography sequence. The idea is then to keep the Bloch vector below the equator of the Bloch sphere, and align the Rabi vector of the analysis pulse with the Bloch vector to rotate the noise distribution about its center. The z-component of the Rabi vector is given by the detuning between the considered pulse $\nu_{lo}$ and the instantaneous atomic frequency $\nu_{at}$ at the time at which the pulse is applied. The azimuthal angle is controlled via the phase shift with respect to the first pulse. First one needs to measure $\nu_{at}$, which is the frequency for which the resulting transition probability does not depend on the local oscillator phase-shift when the analysis pulse is a $\pi-$pulse. The detuning $\nu_{lo}-\nu_{at}$ is then simply given by $\pm \frac{\Omega_R}{2\pi} \text{tan}(\theta_c)$. The $"\pm"$ sign gives the direction of rotation performed during the tomography. Finally, the phase-shift that aligns the two vectors is the one that makes the resulting transition probability independent of the analysis pulse duration for the previously derived frequency.
Test of the projected Wigner method {#sec:appendixSimul}
===================================
![Test of the projected Wigner method against an exact solution of the two-mode model with and without losses, in a situation in which the spatial dynamics of the condensate wave functions is not excited. Spin squeezing as a function of time without losses (lower curves) and with asymmetric two-body losses (upper curves). Comparison between the projected Wigner simulation (solid lines) and a two-mode Monte Carlo simulation (dashed lines) with 1600 realizations. The initial atom number is $N=10^{4}$. Trap frequencies $\omega_{x,y,z}=2\pi\times(2.9,92,74)$Hz. Lifetime $\tau=5$s. Two-body loss rate constants $\gamma_{22}=8.1\times10^{-14}$cm${}^{3}/$s and $\gamma_{12}=1.51\times10^{-14}$cm${}^{3}/$s. Scattering lengths $a_{11}(0^-)=100.4 a_0$, $a_{11}(0^+)=a_{22}(0^+)=2a_{11}(0^-)$ and $a_{12}=0$. We used 400 realizations for the Wigner simulation. At the end of the simulation, $\omega_x T=3$, approximately ${N_{\text{f}}}\simeq 9400$ atoms are left in the trap, in a proportion $N_{1f}/N_{2f} \simeq 0.515/0.485$ for the two states. For the two-mode model we used $\chi=0.064$s${}^{-1}$, calculated at steady state after the pulse. \[fig:Test2M\]](fig_test_Xi.pdf){width="0.5\linewidth"}
To test the projected Wigner method, we compared its results with an exact solution of the two-mode model with losses [@Li08], in a situation in which the spatial dynamics of the condensate wave functions is not excited. To this end we choose $g_{ab}=0$, $g_{aa}=g_{bb}=g$, and the value of $g$ was doubled after the mixing pulse to keep the mean field constant. For the two-mode model we calculated the corresponding parameter $\chi$ of the one-axis twisting Hamiltonian and solved the corresponding master equation using the Monte Carlo wave function method with a large number of realizations. As $g_{ab}=0$, the nonlinearity is large and the squeezing generation is fast with respect to the losses, so that the squeezing factor gets very small which makes a good test for the projected Wigner method. As shown in Fig. \[fig:Test2M\], we find a good agreement between the two methods.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[^1]: In general, $\chi$ can be expressed as the derivative of the condensate relative phase with respect to the relative number of particles [@Li09], and in stationary conditions $U_{jk}=-\frac{1}{2\hbar}\partial_{N_j} \mu_k$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We derive a multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree theory for systems with particle conversion. In such systems particles of one kind can convert to another kind and the total number of particles varies in time. The theory thus extends the scope of the available and successful multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree methods – which were solely formulated for and applied to systems with a fixed number of particles – to new physical systems and problems. As a guiding example we treat explicitly a system where bosonic atoms can combine to form bosonic molecules and vise versa. In the theory for particle conversion, the time-dependent many-particle wavefunction is written as a sum of configurations made of a different number of particles, and assembled from sets of atomic and molecular orbitals. Both the expansion coefficients and the orbitals forming the configurations are time-dependent quantities that are fully determined according to the Dirac-Frenkel time-dependent variational principle. By employing the Lagrangian formulation of the Dirac-Frenkel variational principle we arrive at two sets of coupled equations of motion, one for the atomic and molecular orbitals and one for the expansion coefficients. The first set is comprised of first-order differential equations in time and nonlinear in-general integrodifferential equations in position space, whereas the second set consists of first-order differential equations with coefficients forming a time-dependent Hermitian matrix. Particular attention is paid to the reduced density matrices of the many-particle wavefunction that appear in the theory and enter the equations of motion. There are two kinds of reduced density matrices: particle-conserving reduced density matrices which directly only couple configurations with the same number of atoms and molecules, and particle non-conserving reduced density matrices which couple configurations with a different number of atoms and molecules. Closed-form and compact equations of motion are derived for contact as well as general two-body interactions, and their properties are analyzed and discussed.'
author:
- 'Ofir E. Alon[^1], Alexej I. Streltsov[^2], and Lorenz S. Cederbaum[^3]'
title: 'Many-body theory for systems with particle conversion: Extending the multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree method'
---
Introduction {#Intro}
============
The exploration of quantum dynamics of many-particle systems is a fundamental and on-going challenge of many branches in physics [@Book_dynamics1; @Book_dynamics2; @Nuclear_book; @Book_dynamics3; @Pit_Stri_book; @Book_dynamics4]. The equation of motion governing the evolution of quantum particles is, in many cases, the well-known time-dependent Schrödinger equation. Solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for many-particle systems can rarely be made analytically or exactly, which renders efficient approximations a must.
The multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree method (MCTDH) [@CPL; @JCP], which has been developed in the past two decades, is considered at present the most efficient wave-packet propagation approach [@MCTDH_package] and has successfully and routinely been used for multi-dimensional dynamical systems consisting of distinguishable degrees-of-freedom, such as molecular vibrations, see Ref. [@JCP_24a; @JCP_24b; @PR; @Dieter_review; @Manthe_review; @Lenz_CI; @relaxation2; @vib_new1; @vib_new2; @irene]. The main idea behind the MCTDH method is to expand the time-dependent many-body wavefunction of distinguishable particles by [*time-dependent*]{} configurations that are assembled from [*time-dependent*]{} orbitals (one-body functions) and optimized according to the Dirac-Frenkel variational principle [@DF1; @DF2]. In this way, a much larger effective subspace of the many-particle Hilbert space can be spanned in practice in comparison to multiconfigurational expansions with [*stationary*]{} configurations. By grouping several “elementary” degrees-of-freedom together and treating them as “generalized” particles, the efficiency of the MCTDH algorithm increases [@JCP_24a; @JCP_24b]. Choosing to use MCTDH itself to propagate multi-dimensional “generalized” particles has led to the idea of cascading [@Dieter_review]. Finally, expanding the time-dependent orbitals themselves by other time-dependent orbitals, and so on, putting the resulting time-dependent expansion under the Dirac-Frenkel variational principle, leads to the multi-layer formulation of the MCTDH theory [@Multi_L] which further increases the efficiency of the MCTDH method for larger, complex systems. The MCTDH can be applied to systems of identical particles. In this direction, we would like to mention that the MCTDH approach has very successfully been employed to unveiling fundamental physics of few-boson systems [@ZO_st1; @ZO_st2; @ZO_dy1; @ZO_dy2; @ZO_dy3; @axel] on the numerically-exact many-body level.
A new branch of MCTDH-based methods has emerged after it had been realized that, to effectively treat the dynamics of more than a handful [*identical*]{} particles, it is essential to use their quantum statistics, Fermi-Dirac or Bose-Einstein, to eliminate the large amount of redundancies of coefficients in the distinguishable-particle multiconfigurational expansion of the MCTDH wavefunction. First, taking explicitly the antisymmetry of the many-fermion wavefunction to permutations of any two particles into account, the fermionic version of MCTDH – MCTDHF – was independently developed by several groups [@MCTDHF1; @MCTDHF2; @MCTDHF3]. Shortly after, the bosonic version of MCTDH – MCTDHB – was developed in [@MCTDHB1; @MCTDHB2]. This advancement is in particular valuable since very-many bosons can reside in only a small number of orbitals owing to Bose-Einstein statistics, thereby allowing the successful and quantitative attack of the dynamics of a much larger number of bosons with the MCTDHB theory. For applications of MCTDHF to the many-body dynamics of at-present few-fermion systems with or without external laser field see Refs. [@applF1; @applF2; @applF3; @applF4; @applF5; @applF6; @applF7], and for applications of MCTDHB for the many-body dynamics of repulsive and attractive bosonic systems Refs. [@MCTDHB1; @applB1; @applB2; @applB3]. We mention that Ref. [@applB3] has combined optimal control theory with MCTDHB.
Five decades ago, in his seminal paper, Löwdin defined the reduced density matrices of many-fermion wavefunctions [@Lowdin]. Since then, reduced density matrices and, in particular, reduced two-body density matrices is a fruitful and vivid research area including theory and applications in electronic structure of molecules, quantum phase-transitions, and ground-state nuclear motion [@Slava; @MAZZ1; @MAZZ2; @MAZZ3; @MAZZ4; @MAZZ5; @MAZZ6]. In the present context, reduced one- and two-body density matrices were first used to derive the stationary many-body states within the general variational theory with complete self-consistency for trapped bosonic systems – the multiconfigurational Hartree for bosons (MCHB) [@MCHB]. Later on, the MCTDHF and MCTDHB were formulated in a unified manner, making use of the reduced one- and two-body density matrices of the time-dependent many-body wavefunction [@Unified_paper]. Finally, treating mixtures of two kinds of identical particles in a unified manner, and utilizing the reduced one- and two-body density matrices of the mixture’s wavefunction, a multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree method for Fermi-Fermi (MCTDH-FF), Bose-Bose (MCTDH-BB) and Bose-Fermi (MCTDH-BF) mixtures has been derived [@MIX].
The multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree method and its versions specified for identical particles and mixtures are [*particle-conserving*]{} many-body propagation theories. Namely, they were solely formulated for and applied to systems with a fixed number of particles. Conceptually, they aim at describing systems of coupled degrees-of-freedom or interacting particles which have first-quantization Hamiltonian. This brings us to the theme of the present work, which is to derive a multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree theory for systems with [*particle conversion*]{}. In such systems particles of one kind can convert to another kind and the total number of particles varies in time. Hence, they are generally represented by a phenomenological second-quantized Hamiltonian which includes a [*conversion term*]{}. Doing so, we extend the scope of the available and successful multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree method and its versions specified for identical particles and mixtures to new physical systems and problems. We abbreviate the multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree theory for systems with particle conversion by MCTDH-[*conversion*]{}.
As a concrete and guiding example for a many-body system with particle conversion and without loss of generality, we consider explicitly the conversion of bosonic atoms ($a$) to bosonic molecules ($m$) via the ‘reaction’ $2a \leftrightharpoons m$, which has been a system of tremendous theoretical and experimental interest in quantum-gas physics [@PD1; @2M1; @Timmermans_review; @Yurovsky; @Timm1; @EXP1; @PD2; @Beyond; @Holland_PRL; @Sadhan; @Vardi; @EXP2; @EXP3; @Jaksch; @G_STOOF; @Tilman; @EXP3h; @EXP4; @EXP5; @Review_STOOF; @QFT2; @Holland_PRA; @PRL_STOOF_Subir; @EXP6; @Meystre_Rev; @2M2_2005; @Band; @Thorsten_Rev; @Vardi_PRL; @EXP7; @NBIG].
An effective quantum-field-theory-based Hamiltonian for atomic and molecular Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) coupled by conversion was first put forward by Drummond [*et al.*]{} in [@PD1]. In [@2M1], a proposition that a molecular BEC could be produced by coherent photoassociation was made and a phenomenological two-mode Hamiltonian to describe this process was suggested. A microscopic theory to derive the many-body Hamiltonian of bosonic atoms and molecules with conversion and the respective Gross-Pitaevskii theory with conversion were put forward in [@Timmermans_review], also see [@Timm1]. In [@Yurovsky], a coupled system of Gross-Pitaevskii equations with conversion and deactivation-rate (dissipation) terms has been derived. The validity of the two-mode approach for conversion, at least in the homogeneous system, was questioned in [@Beyond], where dissociation of molecules to other than the ground atomic mode signifies that one needs to go beyond the two-mode approximation. The importance of pair correlations in the dynamics of resonantly-coupled atomic and molecular BECs, leading to significant deviations from the respective Gross-Pitaevskii theory, was put forward in [@Holland_PRL]. That even in the perfect two-mode limit the mean-field theory with conversion can fail, because of strong particle-particle entanglement near the dynamically unstable molecular mode, was reported in [@Vardi]. A proposition to create a molecule BEC from an atomic Mott-insulator phase with exactly two bosons per lattice site was made in [@Jaksch]. A full microscopic theory to derive the Hamiltonian of atoms and molecules with the conversion term from the microscopic particle-conserving Hamiltonian of a homogeneous gas of identical bosonic atoms with two internal states was given in [@G_STOOF], also see [@Review_STOOF]. Quantum phase transitions and effects of rotations in homogeneous systems of atomic and molecular BECs with conversion have been discovered in [@QFT2; @PRL_STOOF_Subir] and [@Holland_PRA], respectively. Finally, in a (harmonic) trap, confinement effects on the stimulated dissociation (effective conversion rate) of a molecular to an atomic BEC were recently found in [@Vardi_PRL], and unique phases (vortex configurations) of rotating interacting atomic-molecular BECs in [@NBIG].
Molecules were first produced from and identified in a $^{\mathrm {87}}$Rb BEC by Wynar [*et al.*]{} [@EXP1]. Soon after, photoassociation of ultracold sodium molecules in an atomic BEC was made [@EXP2]. Atomic-molecular coherence in a BEC \[made of $^{\mathrm {85}}$Rb atoms\] was first achieved in [@EXP3]. A pure molecular quantum gas produced from an atomic cesium BEC was reported in [@EXP3h], and a quantum-degenerate gas of sodium molecules in [@EXP4]. More recently, with $^{\mathrm {87}}$Rb atoms in the Mott-phase of optical lattices, state-selective conversion of atoms to molecules [@EXP6], following the theoretical proposition in [@Jaksch], and atom-molecule Rabi oscillations [@EXP7] have been observed.
Finally, systems with particle conversion can involve of course fermions, in the cold-atom world – see the reviews [@Thorsten_Rev; @F_Review] and references therein – and beyond it. In the latter context, it is gratifying to mention the Friedberg-Lee model of superconductivity, describing the conversion of two electrons to a single Cooper-pair and vice versa by a boson-fermion Hamiltonian with a phenomenological conversion term [@SC0; @SC1].
Let us return now to MCTDH-[*conversion*]{}, and put it in the particular context of interacting atomic and molecular BECs with conversion. For the explicit scenario of the conversion ‘reaction’ $2a{\leftrightharpoons}m$ dealt with throughout this work, the theory shall be referred to as MCTDH-\[$2a{\leftrightharpoons}m$\]. MCTDH-\[$2a{\leftrightharpoons}m$\], as its particle-conserving predecessors [@CPL; @JCP; @PR; @MCTDHF1; @MCTDHF2; @MCTDHF3; @MCTDHB1; @MCTDHB2; @Unified_paper; @MIX], is intended for systems with a finite number of interacting particles, typically trapped in an external potential. As a first step, we extend or “merge” two theoretical approaches much in use in the literature: the Gross-Pitaevskii theory with conversion and the two-mode approximation, see, e.g., Refs. [@Timmermans_review; @Timm1; @PD2; @Sadhan; @Band; @NBIG] and Refs. [@2M1; @Vardi; @2M2_2005], respectively. This results in a fully variational theory where the two modes – the atomic and molecular orbitals – and each and every expansion coefficient in the two-mode many-body wavefunction are fully optimized – the orbitals in time and space and the expansion coefficients in time – according to the Dirac-Frenkel variational principle [@DF1; @DF2]. Our main aim is to go beyond any two-mode description of the atomic-molecular coupled system and present a fully-variational multiconfigurational time-dependent many-body theory for bosonic atoms and molecules coupled by conversion – the MCTDH-\[$2a{\leftrightharpoons}m$\] theory.
The structure of the paper is as follows. We open in section \[secII\] with the many-body Hamiltonian of the system of atoms and molecules with conversion. In section \[two\_mode\_AM\] we consider as mentioned above a specific case of interest, the fully-variational theory where there are one atomic and one molecular orbitals. This specific theory will be referred to as [*conversion mean field*]{}. Next, section \[full\_Hilbert\] is devoted to the general theory. Both time-dependent as well as time-independent theories are presented. Finally, in section \[dis\_sum\] we put forward a summary and concluding remarks. Complementary derivations and relevant matrix elements are deferred to and collected in appendices \[Lagrange\] and \[matrix\_Appen\], respectively.
The many-body Hamiltonian of interacting atoms and molecules with conversion {#secII}
============================================================================
As a concrete example for a many-body system with particle conversion and without loss of generality, we consider a system of bosons which will be referred to as atoms ($a$) and their conversion to another type of bosons which will be referred to as molecules ($m$) via the ‘reaction’ $2a \leftrightharpoons m$. The many-body Hamiltonian of the coupled atom–molecule system is taken from the literature of cold-atom physics [@PD1; @Timmermans_review; @G_STOOF; @Holland_PRA] and is written for our needs as a sum of four terms: \[ham\_am\_1\] H\^[(2am)]{} = H\^[(am)]{} + W\^[(2am)]{} = H\^[(a)]{} + H\^[(m)]{} + W\^[(am)]{} + W\^[(2am)]{}. The first three terms are particle-conserving terms and together describe a mixture of two kinds of interacting bosonic particles; $a$ (atoms) and $m$ (molecules): \[ham\_am\_2\] H\^[(a)]{} &=& h\^[(a)]{} + W\^[(a)]{} =\
&=& d,\
H\^[(m)]{} &=& h\^[(m)]{} + W\^[(m)]{} =\
&=& d,\
W\^[(am)]{} &=& dd’ \^\_a() \^\_m(’) W\^[(am)]{}(,’) \_m(’) \_a(). The last term describes the conversion of atoms to molecules and vise versa and is given by [@PD1; @Timmermans_review; @G_STOOF; @Holland_PRA]: \[ham\_am\_3\] W\^[(2am)]{} &=& W\^[(2am)]{} + W\^[(m2a)]{} =\
&=& dd’ ,\
& & W\^[(m2a)]{}(,’) = {W\^[(2am)]{}(,’)}\^. The coordinates entering the field operators in (\[ham\_am\_3\]) represent the annihilation (creation) of two atoms, one at position $\r$ the second at position $\r'$, and the creation (annihilation) of a molecule at the center-of-mass coordinate $\R=\frac{\r+\r'}{2}$. The atomic, molecular field operators satisfy the usual commutation relations for bosons: $\left[\hat{\mathbf \Psi}_a(\r), \hat{\mathbf \Psi}^\dag_a(\r')\right] =
\left[\hat{\mathbf \Psi}_m(\r), \hat{\mathbf \Psi}^\dag_m(\r')\right] = \delta(\r-\r')$ and $\left[\hat{\mathbf \Psi}_a(\r), \hat{\mathbf \Psi}_a(\r')\right] =
\left[\hat{\mathbf \Psi}_m(\r), \hat{\mathbf \Psi}_m(\r')\right] = 0$. Since the atoms and molecules are distinguishable, different particles, their mutual field operators commute, $\left[\hat{\mathbf \Psi}_a(\r), \hat{\mathbf \Psi}^\dag_m(\r')\right] =
\left[\hat{\mathbf \Psi}_a(\r), \hat{\mathbf \Psi}_m(\r')\right] = 0$. Finally, we note that the interaction terms appearing in the Hamiltonian (\[ham\_am\_1\]-\[ham\_am\_3\]) are symmetric, i.e., $\hat W^{(a)}(\r,\r')=\hat W^{(a)}(\r',\r),\ldots,\hat W^{(m\rightharpoondown 2a)}(\r,\r') =
\hat W^{(m\rightharpoondown 2a)}(\r',\r)$, because the Hamiltonian is symmetric to the exchange of position of any two particles of the same kind.
The Hamiltonian (\[ham\_am\_1\]-\[ham\_am\_3\]) commutes with the following particle-number operator \[particle\_number\] N = N\_a + 2N\_m = d, reflecting a conservation law in presence of particle conversion. Accordingly, the Hilbert-space of the problem is a direct sum of Hilbert subspaces with different number of atoms and molecules: {$N$ atoms; $0$ molecules}$\oplus${$N-2$ atoms; $1$ molecule}$\oplus${$N-4$ atoms; $2$ molecules}$\oplus
\ldots \oplus${$N-2\left[\frac{N}{2}\right]$ atoms; $\left[\frac{N}{2}\right]$ molecules}, where $\left[j\right]$ means the greatest integer not exceeding $j$.
The purpose of this work is to treat the many-body Hamiltonian with atom–molecule conversion (\[ham\_am\_1\]-\[ham\_am\_3\]) multiconfigurationally. To this end, we expand the atomic $\hat{\mathbf \Psi}_a(\r)$ and molecular $\hat{\mathbf \Psi}_m(\r)$ field operators by two complete sets of [*time-dependent*]{} orbitals, \[annihilation\_def\] \_a() = \_k b\_k(t)\_k(,t), \_m() = \_[k’]{} c\_[k’]{}(t)\_[k’]{}(,t). The sets of atomic $\left\{\phi_k(\r,t)\right\}$ and molecular $\left\{\psi_{k'}(\r,t)\right\}$ orbitals span the [*time-dependent*]{} Hilbert space in which the system is to be propagated. The advantages of time-dependent multiconfigurational expansions, see the Introduction, is the employment of [*time-dependent*]{} orbitals which change in time according to a time-dependent variational principle. This allows one to use in practical computations a smaller number of time-dependent orbitals than the number of time-independent orbitals that would have been required otherwise. A general multiconfigurational expansion, see section \[full\_Hilbert\], employs $M$ orbitals for the bosonic atoms and $M'$ orbitals for the bosonic molecules. In particular, even if only one orbital is available for the bosonic atoms and another one for the bosonic molecules, the resulting theory [*goes beyond*]{} the Gross-Pitaevskii mean-field theory for this system [@Timmermans_review], see subsequent section \[two\_mode\_AM\].
Finally, it is convenient to derive the relevant results first for the popular contact interaction, \[contact\_potentials\] & & W\^[(a)]{}(,’) = \_a (-’), W\^[(m)]{}(,’) = \_m (-’),\
& & W\^[(am)]{}(,’) = \_[am]{} (-’), W\^[(2am)]{}(,’) = W\^[(m2a)]{}(,’) = \_[con]{} (-’). Thus, substituting Eqs. (\[annihilation\_def\],\[contact\_potentials\]) into the generic Hamiltonian (\[ham\_am\_1\]-\[ham\_am\_3\]) we get \[ham\_contact\_inter\] & & H\^[(2am)]{} = \_[k,q]{} b\_k\^b\_q + \_[k,s,l,q]{} b\_k\^b\_s\^b\_l b\_q +\
& & + \_[k’,q’]{} c\_[k’]{}\^c\_[q’]{} + \_[k’,s’,l’,q’]{} c\_[k’]{}\^c\_[s’]{}\^c\_[l’]{} c\_[q’]{} +\
& & + \_[am]{}\_[k,k’,q,q’]{} b\_k\^b\_q c\_[k’]{}\^c\_[q’]{} + \_[k’,k,q]{} . Here and hereafter, the dependence of quantities on time is not shown explicitly whenever unambiguous. Below, we will work throughout sections \[two\_mode\_AM\] and \[contact\] with the contact-interaction Hamiltonian (\[ham\_contact\_inter\]) and handle the case of general interactions (\[ham\_am\_1\]-\[ham\_am\_3\]) thereafter, in section \[non\_contact\].
The simplest case of atom–molecule conversion: Conversion mean field (Fully-variational two-mode approximation) {#two_mode_AM}
===============================================================================================================
The multiconfigurational ansatz {#two_mode_AM_asnatz}
-------------------------------
To introduce the nomenclature in the first stage of this work and, independently, as an interesting and relevant problem for itself, we consider the resulting theory when there is only one orbital available for the (bosonic) atoms and one orbital available for the (bosonic) molecules. The atomic orbital will be denoted by $\phi_1(\r,t)\equiv\phi_a(\r,t)$ and the molecular orbital by $\psi_1(\r,t)\equiv\psi_m(\r,t)$. The corresponding creation operators are denoted by $\hat b_1^\dag(t)\equiv\hat b_a^\dag(t)$ and $\hat c_1^\dag(t)\equiv\hat c_m^\dag(t)$. The atomic and molecular creation, annihilation operators obey the bosonic commutation relations corresponding to the field operators.
The problem we wish to solve may now be formulated. In the present section we would like to derive a multiconfigurational theory for atom–molecule conversion which is exact in the smallest Hilbert subspace possible for bosonic species, namely, the Hilbert space spanned by the [*single*]{} molecular orbital $\psi_m(\r,t)$ and [*single*]{} atomic orbital $\phi_a(\r,t)$. We term this specific case of the general theory: [*conversion mean field*]{}. More technically, this theory is a fully-variational extension of the literature two-mode approximation [@2M1; @Vardi] and, of course, of the Gross-Pitaevskii theory with conversion [@Timmermans_review].
The multiconfigurational wavefunction takes on the following form: \[2orb\_Phi\] & & |(t)> = \_[p=0]{}\^ C\_p(t) |N-2p,p;t>,\
& & |N-2p,p;t> = (b\_a\^(t))\^[N-2p]{} (c\_m\^(t))\^p |vac>, where $\left|vac\right>$ is a [*common*]{} vacuum of no atoms and no molecules. The index $p$ enumerates the number of bosonic molecules in the system. The corresponding number of atoms is $N-2p$. $N$ is the maximal number of atoms in the system which is obtained when there are no molecules. Obviously, $\left|\Psi(t)\right>$ is an eigenfunction of the particle-number operator $\hat N$, Eq. (\[particle\_number\]), with the eigenvalue $N$. The atomic and molecular number operators in the relevant Hilbert space boil down to $\hat N_a=\hat b_a^\dag \hat b_a$ and $\hat N_m=\hat c_m^\dag \hat c_m$, respectively. The size of this Hilbert space is $\left[\frac{N}{2}\right]+1$.
The functional action $S$ of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation and its evaluation {#two_mode_AM_energy}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation with the Hamiltonian (\[ham\_contact\_inter\]) and the multiconfigurational ansatz (\[2orb\_Phi\]) means finding the equations governing the time evolution of the atomic and molecular orbitals, $\phi_a(\r,t)$ and $\psi_m(\r,t)$, and of the expansion coefficients $\{C_p(t)\}$. The derivation of these equations of motion for $\phi_a(\r,t)$, $\psi_m(\r,t)$, and $\{C_p(t)\}$ requires a time-dependent variational principle. We employ the Lagrangian formulation of the (Dirac-Frenkel) time-dependent variational principle [@LF1; @LF2], also see Refs. [@MCTDHB2; @Unified_paper; @MIX], and write the functional action of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation which takes on the form: \[action\_functional\_AM\] & & S= dt {\
& & - \_a(t) - \_m(t)\
& & - (t)}. The time-dependent Lagrange multiplies $\mu_a(t)$, $\mu_m(t)$ and $\varepsilon(t)$ are introduced to ensure normalization of the atomic $\phi_a(\r,t)$ and molecular $\psi_m(\r,t)$ orbitals and of the expansion coefficients $\{C_p(t)\}$ at all times. $\mu_a(t)$ and $\mu_m(t)$ also serve another role. They exactly “compensate” for those terms appearing within the Dirac-Frenkel formulation of the variational principle $\left<\delta \Psi(t)\left| \hat H^{(2a\leftrightharpoons m)} -i\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \right|\Psi(t)\right>$ [@DF1; @DF2], i.e., when the variation of $\Psi(t)$ is performed before the expectation value $\left<\Psi(t)\left| \hat H^{(2a\leftrightharpoons m)} -i\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \right|\Psi(t)\right>$ is evaluated; see in this context [@MCTDHB2; @LF2]. We shall see below and more elaborately in appendix \[Lagrange\_two\_mode\] that these Lagrange multipliers can be eliminated from the resulting equations of motion by making use of the normalization of the orbitals in combination with unitary transformations.
The expectation value of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (\[action\_functional\_AM\]) can be expressed in two equivalent forms. The first form depends explicitly on the orbitals $\phi_a(\r,t)$, $\psi_m(\r,t)$ and the second on the expansion coefficients $\{C_p(t)\}$. The two forms are needed to derive the respective equations of motion for the orbitals and expansion coefficients.
### Orbital-explicit expression of $S$ {#two_mode_AM_energy_orbital}
Utilizing the multiconfigurational expansion (\[2orb\_Phi\]) and the individual terms of the many-body Hamiltonian (\[ham\_contact\_inter\]), the first form of the expectation value of $\hat H^{(a\leftrightharpoons m)} - i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ reads: \[Hamiltonian\_matrix\_element\_AM\_a\] & & = +\
& & + + +\
& & + + \_[am]{} +\
& & + - i \_[p=0]{}\^ C\_p\^. In Eq. (\[Hamiltonian\_matrix\_element\_AM\_a\]) and hereafter we use the shorthand notation for expectation values of operators with respect to $\Psi(t)$: $\left<\hat N_a\right> \equiv \left<\Psi(t)\left|\hat N_a\right|\Psi(t)\right>$, $\left<\hat b_a^\dag \hat b_a^\dag \hat c_m\right> \equiv
\left<\Psi(t)\left|\hat b_a^\dag \hat b_a^\dag \hat c_m\right|\Psi(t)\right>$, etc. We can indeed see that expression (\[Hamiltonian\_matrix\_element\_AM\_a\]) depends explicitly on the orbitals $\phi_a(\r,t)$ and $\psi_m(\r,t)$ through integrals over one-body terms, two-body interaction terms, and the conversion term: $\left<\phi_a\left|\hat h^{(a)} - i\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \right|\phi_a\right>$, $\left<\phi_a\psi_m\left|\right.\phi_a\psi_m\right>$, etc.
Making use of the multiconfigurational expansion (\[2orb\_Phi\]), we can express the above expectation values $\left<\Psi(t)\left| \ldots \right|\Psi(t)\right>$ in a closed form. The expectation values of particle-conserving operators, like the number operators $\hat N_a$ and $\hat N_m$, with respect to $\Psi(t)$ read: \[matrix\_elements\_fock1\_conserve\] & & = \_[p=0]{}\^ (N-2p) |C\_p(t)|\^2, = \_[p=0]{}\^ p |C\_p(t)|\^2,\
& & = \_[p=0]{}\^ (N-2p)(N-2p-1) |C\_p(t)|\^2,\
& & = \_[p=0]{}\^ p(p-1) |C\_p(t)|\^2, = \_[p=0]{}\^ p(N-2p) |C\_p(t)|\^2. We see that the dependence of the expectation values (\[matrix\_elements\_fock1\_conserve\]) on the expansion coefficients is only through weighted sums $\sum_{p=0}^{\left[N/2\right]}$ of the terms $\left|C_p(t)\right|^2$, i.e., that configurations of a different number $p$ of molecules are not directly coupled. The expectation values of particle non-conserving operators, originating from the conversion of particles, are given by \[matrix\_elements\_fock1\_non\_conserve\] & & = \_[p=1]{}\^ C\_p\^(t)C\_[p-1]{}(t),\
& & = {}\^, and seen to couple directly configurations with a different number of $p$ and $p-1$ molecules.
### Expansion-coefficient-explicit expression of $S$ {#two_mode_AM_energy_coeff}
Utilizing the multiconfigurational expansion (\[2orb\_Phi\]) and the many-body Hamiltonian (\[ham\_contact\_inter\]) as a whole, we can express the expectation value of $\hat H^{(2a\leftrightharpoons m)} - i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ in the functional action (\[action\_functional\_AM\]) as an explicit function of the expansion coefficients $\{C_p(t)\}$. One readily finds, \[Hamiltonian\_matrix\_element\_AM\_b\] & & =\
& & = \_[p=0]{}\^ C\_p\^. Eq. (\[Hamiltonian\_matrix\_element\_AM\_b\]) contains yet another type of matrix elements, which are the representation of $\hat H^{(2a\leftrightharpoons m)} - i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ in the subspace of configurations $\left\{\left|N-2p,p;t\right>\right\}$. These matrix elements can be evaluated explicitly. We divide them into two types, recalling that the Hamiltonian is expressed as a sum of particle-conserving and particle non-conserving parts, $\hat H^{(2a\rightleftharpoons m)} = \hat H^{(am)} + \hat W^{(2a\rightleftharpoons m)}$. The diagonal, or particle-conserving matrix elements read: \[matrix\_elements\_Hamil\_diag\] & & = (N-2p) +\
& & + (N-2p)(N-2p-1) + p +\
& & + p(p-1) + \_[am]{} p(N-2p) , p=0,…,\[N/2\]. The off-diagonal, particle non-conserving matrix elements, originating from the conversion term $\hat W^{(2a\rightleftharpoons m)}=\hat W^{(2a\rightharpoonup m)} + \hat W^{(m\rightharpoondown 2a)}$, take on the following form: \[matrix\_elements\_Hamil\_off\_diag\] & & =\
& & = , p=1,…,\[N/2\],\
& & =\
& & = {}\^, p=1,…,\[N/2\]. All other matrix elements of $\hat H^{(2a\leftrightharpoons m)} - i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ in the subspace of configurations $\left\{\left|N-2p,p;t\right>\right\}$ vanish. With explicit expressions of the functional action (\[action\_functional\_AM\]) we can now proceed and derive the equations of motion of $\Psi(t)$.
The equations of motion for $\Psi(t)$ {#two_mode_AM_EOM}
-------------------------------------
We perform the variation of the action functional (\[action\_functional\_AM\],\[Hamiltonian\_matrix\_element\_AM\_a\]) with respect to the orbitals and coefficients. Equating the variation of $S\left[\{C_p(t)\},\phi_a(\r,t),\psi_m(\r,t)\right]$ with respect to the orbitals to zero, eliminating the Lagrange multipliers $\mu_a(t)$ and $\mu_m(t)$ from the resulting equations (see appendix \[Lagrange\_two\_mode\] for details), and dividing the result by $\left<\hat N_a\right>$ and $\left<\hat N_m\right>$ respectively, we obtained the following equations of motion for the orbitals: \[simplest\_EOM\_orbitals\] & & \^[(a)]{} i|\_a> = \^[(a)]{} {|\_a> + \_[con]{}(t) \_a\^|\_m>},\
& & \^[(m)]{} i|\_m> = \^[(m)]{} {|\_m> + \_a |\_a>}, where the shorthand notation $\dot \phi_a \equiv \frac{\partial \phi_a}{\partial t}$, $\dot \psi_m \equiv \frac{\partial \psi_m}{\partial t}$ is used here and hereafter. The “interaction strengths” are given by \[time\_dependent\_interaction\_str\] & & \_a(t)=\_a, \_[am]{}(t)=\_[am]{} , \_[con]{}(t) = \_[con]{} ,\
& & \_m(t)=\_m , \_[ma]{}(t) = \_[am]{} , ’\_[con]{}(t) = \_[con]{} and [*vary in time*]{} due to the conversion of atoms to molecules and vise versa.
The quantities appearing on both the right- and left-hand sides of equations of motion (\[simplest\_EOM\_orbitals\]) are projection operators and given by \[projection\_conver\_coherent\] \^[(a)]{} = 1 - |\_a> $.
Then,
we can compensate for transforming the orbitals
by the ``reverse'' transformation
of the expansion coefficients
${C\_p(t)} {\_p(t)}$.
Overall,
we write this
invariance of the many-body wavefunction as follows:
\beq\label{trans_appen_Psi_text}
\left|\Psi(t)\right> = \sum_{p=0}^{\left[N/2\right]} C_p(t) \left|N-2p,p;t\right> =
\sum_{p=0}^{\left[N/2\right]} \overline{C}_p(t) \overline{\left|N-2p,p;t\right>}. \
\eeq
Clearly,
unitary transformations of the orbitals
and the respective
transformation of the expansion coefficients
neither change the size of the Hilbert space
nor couple configurations
with a different number of molecules.
To express these properties
we use the same summation index $p$
in both the middle part and right-hand side
of Eq.~(\ref{trans_appen_Psi_text}).
We can now make use of the invariance relation (\ref{trans_appen_Psi_text})
to simplify Eq.~(\ref{simplest_EOM_orbitals}).
Specifically,
there exists one unitary transformation that
eliminates the projection operators
acting on the time-derivatives (left-hand sides)
in Eq.~(\ref{simplest_EOM_orbitals}),
without introducing any further constraint
into
the equations of motion;
see appendix \ref{Lagrange_two_mode} for more details.
The equations of motion for the
atomic and molecular orbitals thus
finally read:
\beqn\label{simplest_EOM_orbitals_final}
& & i\left|\dot \phi_a\right> =
\hat {\mathbf P}^{(a)}
\left\{\left[\hat h^{(a)} + \Lambda_a(t) |\phi_a|^2 + \Lambda_{am}(t) |\psi_m|^2 \right] \left|\phi_a\right> +
\sqrt{2} \Lambda_{con}(t) \phi_a^\ast \left|\psi_m\right>\right\}, \nonumber \\
& & i\left|\dot \psi_m\right> =
\hat {\mathbf P}^{(m)}
\left\{\left[\hat h^{(m)} + \Lambda_m(t) |\psi_m|^2 + \Lambda_{ma}(t) |\phi_a|^2 \right] \left|\psi_m\right> +
\frac{\Lambda'_{con}(t)}{\sqrt{2}} \phi_a \left|\phi_a\right>\right\}. \
\eeqn
Eq.~(\ref{simplest_EOM_orbitals_final})
has the following property.
Operating from the left with $ = 0, = 0, clearly ensuring that initially-normalized orbitals remain normalized for all times. We can see the meaning of the unitary transformation carrying Eq. (\[simplest\_EOM\_orbitals\]) to Eq. (\[simplest\_EOM\_orbitals\_final\]). This unitary transformation takes normalized time-dependent orbitals, $\left<\phi_a\left|\right.\phi_a\right>=1$ and $\left<\psi_m\left|\right.\psi_m\right>=1$, which therefore satisfy the general relations $\frac{\partial \left<\phi_a\left|\right.\phi_a\right>}{\partial t} =
\left<\dot\phi_a\left|\right.\phi_a\right> + \left<\phi_a\left|\right.\dot\phi_a\right> = 0$ and $\frac{\partial \left<\psi_m\left|\right.\psi_m\right>}{\partial t} =
\left<\dot\psi_m\left|\right.\psi_m\right> + \left<\psi_m\left|\right.\dot\psi_m\right> = 0$, and transforms them to time-dependent orbitals satisfying the specific differential condition (\[MCTDHI\_mix\_conv\_const\_coherent\]).
Before we move to the corresponding working equations for the expansion coefficients $\{C_p(t)\}$, it is instructive to enquire whether we could further simplify the equations of motion (\[simplest\_EOM\_orbitals\_final\]), by eliminating the projection operators $\hat {\mathbf P}^{(a)}$, $\hat {\mathbf P}^{(m)}$ also from the right-hand sides. The answer is in general negative. If we could eliminate the projection operators remaining on the right-hand sides, it means that conditions (\[MCTDHI\_mix\_conv\_const\_coherent\]) are not satisfied any more. What would then guarantee that the atomic and molecular orbitals remain normalized at all times? It turns out that the condition for that is: $\mathrm{Im}\left\{\lambda_{con}
\left<c_m^\dag b_a b_a\right> \left<\psi_m\left|\right.\phi_a\phi_a\right>\right\} = 0$ for all times. In turn, even if this condition is satisfied at $t=0$, it is not in general guaranteed that it remains so for all times. Thus, the [*presence of particle conversion*]{} does not allow one to eliminate the projection operators $\hat {\mathbf P}^{(a)}$, $\hat {\mathbf P}^{(m)}$ also from the right-hand sides of the equations of motion (\[simplest\_EOM\_orbitals\_final\]). Alternatively speaking, in the absence of particle conversion, it is possible to eliminate the projection operators completely from (\[simplest\_EOM\_orbitals\_final\]), see in this context [@TDMF].
To derive the equations of motion of $\{C_p(t)\}$, we equate the variation of the action functional (\[action\_functional\_AM\],\[Hamiltonian\_matrix\_element\_AM\_b\]) with respect to the expansion coefficients to zero and eliminate the Lagrange multiplier $\varepsilon(t)$ (see for details appendix \[Lagrange\_two\_mode\]). The following equations of motion are obtained: \[simplest\_EOM\_coeffieints\] & & \^[(2a m)]{}(t) (t) = i ,\
& & [H]{}\_[p,p’]{}\^[(2a m)]{}(t) = , where the vector $\C(t)$ collects the expansion coefficients $\{C_p(t)\}$. Eq. (\[simplest\_EOM\_coeffieints\]) is a set of coupled first-order differential equations with time-dependent coefficients, and preserves the norm of an initially-normalized vector of coefficients $\C(0)$. The time-dependent coefficients ${\mathcal H}_{p,p'}^{(2a \leftrightharpoons m)}(t)$, being the matrix representation of $\hat H^{(2a\leftrightharpoons m)} - i \frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ in the subspace of configurations $\left\{\left|N-2p,p;t\right>\right\}$ and hence depending on the atomic $\phi_a(\r,t)$ and molecular $\psi_m(\r,t)$ orbitals, are prescribed in the previous subsection \[two\_mode\_AM\_energy\].
Next, we make use of the invariance of the multiconfigurational wavefunction to unitary transformations (\[trans\_appen\_Psi\_text\]). Explicitly, the unitary transformation responsible for transforming Eq. (\[simplest\_EOM\_orbitals\]) for the orbitals to Eq. (\[simplest\_EOM\_orbitals\_final\]), transforms equations of motion (\[simplest\_EOM\_coeffieints\]) for the expansion coefficients to the final form: \[simplest\_EOM\_coeffieints\_final\] & & \^[(2a m)]{}(t) (t) = i ,\
& & H\_[p,p’]{}\^[(2a m)]{}(t) = . Equivalently, Eq. (\[simplest\_EOM\_coeffieints\_final\]) can be obtained from Eq. (\[simplest\_EOM\_coeffieints\]) by substituting into the latter the differential condition (\[MCTDHI\_mix\_conv\_const\_coherent\]).
The coupled sets of equations of motion for the atomic $\phi(\r,t)$ and molecular $\psi_m(\r,t)$ orbitals and expansion coefficients $\{C_p(t)\}$, Eqs. (\[simplest\_EOM\_orbitals\]) and (\[simplest\_EOM\_coeffieints\]) or, respectively, Eqs. (\[simplest\_EOM\_orbitals\_final\]) and (\[simplest\_EOM\_coeffieints\_final\]) constitute the [*conversion mean field*]{} theory (fully-variational two-mode approximation) for the interacting atomic–molecular system with conversion.
The stationary self-consistent coherent mean field (time-independent fully-variational two-mode approximation) {#two_mode_AM_stationary}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The theory presented above is a time-dependent many-body theory. It is certainly interesting to enquire what are the corresponding stationary many-body states of the atomic–molecular Hamiltonian (\[ham\_am\_1\]-\[ham\_am\_3\])? In other words, what are the self-consistent solutions that minimize (extremize) the expectation value $\left<\Psi\left|\hat H^{(2a\rightleftharpoons m)}\right|\Psi\right>$ for a given time-independent multiconfigurational ansatz $\left|\Psi\right> = \sum_{p=0}^{\left[N/2\right]} C_p \left|N-2p,p\right>$ assembled from time-independent atomic $\phi_a(\r)$ and molecular orbitals $\psi_m(\r)$? To get this stationary self-consistent coherent mean field (time-independent fully-variational two-mode approximation), we resort to imaginary time-propagation and set $t \to -it$ in the corresponding equations of motion.
Setting $t \to -it$ in (the left-hand side of) either Eq. (\[simplest\_EOM\_orbitals\]) or (\[simplest\_EOM\_orbitals\_final\]), the left-hand side decays to zero in time and the equation becomes time-independent. Then, by multiplying the result, respectively, by $\left<\hat N_a\right>$ and $\left<\hat N_m\right>$, and translating back the projection operators $\hat {\mathbf P}^{(a)}$ and $\hat {\mathbf P}^{(b)}$ to the corresponding Lagrange multipliers $\mu_a$ and $\mu_b$ (see appendix \[Lagrange\_two\_mode\]), we obtain the multiconfigurational self-consistent (time-independent) equations for the atomic and molecular orbitals: \[stationary\_equations\_orbitals\] & & |\_a> +\
& & + \_[con]{} \_a\^|\_m> = \_a |\_a>,\
& & |\_m> +\
& & + \_a |\_a> = \_m |\_m>. Similarly, restoring the Lagrange multiplier $\varepsilon(t)$ into either Eq. (\[simplest\_EOM\_coeffieints\]) or (\[simplest\_EOM\_coeffieints\_final\]), see in this respect appendix \[Lagrange\_two\_mode\], and setting $t \to -it$ therein, we obtain the stationary (self-consistent) eigenvalue equation \[stationary\_equations\_coeff\] & & \^[(2a m)]{} = ,\
& & H\_[p,p’]{}\^[(2a m)]{} = for the expansion coefficients. We see that the (redundant) time-dependent Lagrange multiplier $\varepsilon(t)$ of the time-dependent theory has emerged as the eigenenergy $\varepsilon = \left<\Psi\left|\hat H^{(2a\leftrightharpoons m)}\right|\Psi\right>$ of the stationary theory.
The theory “distilled” into Eqs. (\[stationary\_equations\_orbitals\],\[stationary\_equations\_coeff\]) is a fully-variational stationary theory for the interacting atomic–molecular system in presence of conversion, where a single orbital is allowed for the atoms and a single orbital to the molecules. It is a system of coupled eigenvalue-like equations for the orbitals and eigenvalue equation for the coefficients, thought non-linear and integrodifferential ones.
The general multiconfigurational theory with atom–molecule conversion {#full_Hilbert}
=====================================================================
In this section we develop a general many-body theory for atom–molecule conversion, by allowing the atoms and molecules to occupy more orbitals. Section \[contact\] builds the theory for the popular contact interaction, whereas the case of generic non-contact interactions is presented in section \[non\_contact\].
Formulation for contact interactions {#contact}
------------------------------------
### The multiconfigurational ansatz for the wavefunction {#contact_ansatz}
The multiconfigurational expansion mixes atomic–molecular states with different numbers of particles which are eigenfunctions of the particle-number operator $\hat N \left|\Psi(t)\right>=N\left|\Psi(t)\right>$: \[MCTDH\_AM\_Psi\] |(t)> &=& \_[p=0]{}\^[\[N/2\]]{} \_[\^p,\^p]{} C\_[\^p\^p]{}(t) |\^p,\^p;t>,\
|\^p,\^p;t> &&\
&& (b\_1\^(t))\^[n\_1\^p]{}(b\_M\^(t))\^[n\_M\^p]{} (c\_1\^(t))\^[m\_1\^p]{}(c\_[M’]{}\^(t))\^[m\_[M’]{}\^p]{}|vac>. We collect the individual occupations in the vectors $\vec{n}^p=(n_1^p,\ldots,n_M^p)$, $\vec{m}^p=(m_1,\ldots,m_{M'}^p)$. The number of bosonic atoms $|\vec{n}^p| \equiv n_1^p+\ldots+n_M^p = N-2p$ and molecules $|\vec{m}^p| \equiv m_1^p+\ldots+m_{M'}^p = p$ of each configuration $\left|\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p;t\right>$ satisfies the particle-conservation law $|\vec{n}^p|+2|\vec{m}^p|=N$. Observe that the number of molecules $p$ serves as an index to the occupation numbers $\vec{n}^p$ and $\vec{m}^p$. This simply reflects the fact that, for a given number of $N-2p$ atoms and $p$ molecules, the possible occupation numbers which the configurations can assume depend on $p$ itself. The index $p$ together with the occupation numbers $\vec{n}^p$, $\vec{m}^p$ make a unique representation of each configuration. The atomic and molecular number operators in the corresponding Hilbert space boil down to $\hat N_a=\sum_{k=1}^M \hat b_k^\dag \hat b_k$ and $\hat N_m=\sum_{k'=1}^{M'} \hat c_{k'}^\dag \hat c_{k'}$, respectively. The size of the resulting Hilbert space is given by $\sum_{p=0}^{[N/2]}
\begin{pmatrix}
N-2p+M-1 \cr
M-1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
p+M'-1 \cr
M'-1
\end{pmatrix}$, i.e., by the sum of products of the sizes of the respective Hilbert subspaces for $N-2p$ bosonic atoms with $M$ orbitals and $p$ bosonic molecules with $M'$ orbitals.
### Reduced density matrices for systems with particle conversion {#contact_reduced}
As part of the variational derivation we will need the expectation value of $\hat H^{(2a\rightleftharpoons m)} - i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ with respect to $\Psi(t)$. To this end, it will be proved valuable to define and employ the reduced density matrices of $\Psi(t)$. We remind that Löwdin has introduced the concept of reduced density matrices for systems of a fixed number of particles (identical fermions) [@Lowdin]. Nevertheless and although $\Psi(t)$ [*is not*]{} comprised of a fixed number of atoms or a fixed number of molecules, it is possible to define the reduced density matrices of a mixture of atoms and molecules [*with conversion*]{}.
Having at hand the normalized many-body wavefunction $\Psi(t)$, the reduced one-body density matrices of the atoms and molecules are defined by: \[reduced\_1B\_2mix\] & & \^[(a)]{}(\_1|\_2;t) = = \^M\_[k,q=1]{} \^[(a)]{}\_[kq]{}(t) \^\_k(\_2,t)\_q(\_1,t),\
& & \^[(m)]{}(\_1|\_2;t) = = \^[M’]{}\_[k’,q’=1]{} \^[(m)]{}\_[k’q’]{}(t) \^\_[k’]{}(\_2,t)\_[q’]{}(\_1,t), where the matrix elements $\rho_{kq}^{(a)}(t) = \left<\hat b_k^\dag \hat b_q\right>$ and $\rho_{k'q'}^{(m)}(t) = \left<\hat c_{k'}^\dag \hat c_{q'}\right>$ are prescribed in appendix \[matrix\_Appen\]. We collect these matrix elements as $\brho^{(a)}(t)=\left\{\rho_{kq}^{(a)}(t)\right\}$ and $\brho^{(m)}(t)=\left\{\rho_{k'q'}^{(m)}(t)\right\}$. Similarly, the reduced two-body density matrices of the atoms and molecules are defined by: \[reduced\_2B\_2mix\] & & \^[(a)]{}(\_1,\_2|\_3,\_4;t) = =\
& & = \^M\_[k,s,l,q=1]{} \^[(a)]{}\_[kslq]{}(t) \^\_k(\_3,t)\^\_s(\_4,t)\_l(\_2,t)\_q(\_1,t),\
& & \^[(m)]{}(\_1,\_2|\_3,\_4;t) = =\
& & = \^[M’]{}\_[k’,s’,l’,q’=1]{} \^[(m)]{}\_[k’s’l’q’]{}(t) \^\_[k’]{}(\_3,t)\^\_[s’]{}(\_4,t)\_[l’]{}(\_2,t)\_[q’]{}(\_1,t),\
& & \^[(am)]{}(\_1,\_2|\_3,\_4;t) = =\
& & = \^[M]{}\_[k,q=1]{} \^[M’]{}\_[k’,q’=1]{} \^[(am)]{}\_[kk’qq’]{}(t) \^\_[k]{}(\_3,t)\_[q]{}(\_1,t)\^\_[k’]{}(\_4,t)\_[q’]{}(\_2,t), where the matrix elements $\rho_{kslq}^{(a)}(t) = \left<\hat b_k^\dag \hat b_s^\dag \hat b_l \hat b_q\right>$, $\rho_{k's'l'q'}^{(m)}(t) = \left<\hat c_{k'}^\dag \hat c_{s'}^\dag \hat c_{l'} \hat c_{q'}\right>$, and $\rho_{kk'qq'}^{(am)}(t) = \left<\hat b_k^\dag \hat b_q \hat c_{k'}^\dag \hat c_{q'}\right>$ are prescribed in appendix \[matrix\_Appen\]. Because the reduced density matrices (\[reduced\_1B\_2mix\]) and (\[reduced\_2B\_2mix\]) directly only couple configurations with the same number of atoms and molecules, we will refer to them as [*particle-conserving*]{} reduced density matrices. In this context, $\rho^{(am)}(\r_1,\r_2|\r_3,\r_4;t)$ is the lowest-order [*inter-species*]{} particle-conserving reduced density matrix.
From the above discussion it is anticipated that, due to the conversion term (\[ham\_am\_3\]) in the Hamiltonian, another kind of reduced density matrices appear in the theory. Specifically, we define the [*particle non-conserving*]{} reduced density matrices as follows: \[reduced\_conver\] & & \^[(2am)]{}(\_1,\_2|\_3;t) = = \^[M’]{}\_[k’=1]{} \^[M]{}\_[k,q=1]{} \^[(2am)]{}\_[k’kq]{}(t) \^\_[k’]{}(\_3,t)\_[k]{}(\_2,t)\_[q]{}(\_1,t),\
& & \^[(m2a)]{}(\_3|\_2,\_1;t) = = \^[M’]{}\_[k’=1]{} \^[M]{}\_[k,q=1]{} \^[(m2a)]{}\_[qkk’]{}(t) \^\_q(\_1,t) \^\_k(\_2,t) \_[k’]{}(\_3,t),\
& & \^[(m2a)]{}(\_3|\_2,\_1;t) = {\^[(2am)]{}(\_1,\_2|\_3;t)}\^, \^[(m2a)]{}\_[qkk’]{}(t) = {\^[(2am)]{}\_[k’kq]{}(t)}\^. The matrix elements $\rho^{(2a\rightharpoonup m)}_{k'kq} = \left<\hat c_{k'}^\dag \hat b_k \hat b_q\right>$ are given in appendix \[matrix\_Appen\].
### The functional action $S$ and its evaluation {#contact_func}
We start from the functional action of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation which in the general multiconfigurational case takes on the form: \[action\_functional\_AM\_full\] & & S= dt {\
& & - \_[k,j=1]{}\^[M]{} \^[(a)]{}\_[kj]{}(t)- \_[k’,j’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(m)]{}\_[k’j’]{}(t)\
& & - (t)}. The time-dependent Lagrange multiplies $\{\mu^{(a)}_{kj}(t)\}$, $\{\mu^{(m)}_{k'j'}(t)\}$ and $\varepsilon(t)$ are introduced to ensure orthonormalization of the atomic $\left\{\phi_k(\r,t)\right\}$ and molecular $\left\{\psi_{k'}(\r,t)\right\}$ orbital sets and normalization of the expansion coefficients $\{C_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}(t)\}$.
To derive the equations of motion for the atomic–molecular multiconfigurational wavefunction (\[MCTDH\_AM\_Psi\]), the expectation value of $\hat H^{(2a\rightleftharpoons m)} - i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ with respect to $\Psi(t)$ is needed, where $\hat H^{(2a\rightleftharpoons m)}$ is given in Eq. (\[ham\_contact\_inter\]). The expectation value of $\hat H^{(2a\rightleftharpoons m)} - i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ is expressed by two equivalent forms, as done in section \[two\_mode\_AM\_energy\]. The first form, where the dependence of Eq. (\[action\_functional\_AM\_full\]) on the atomic and molecular orbitals is explicit, reads: \[expectation\_ham\_a\] & & = \_[k,q=1]{}\^M \^[(a)]{}\_[kq]{} +\
& & + \_[k,s,l,q=1]{}\^M \^[(a)]{}\_[kslq]{} + \_[k’,q’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(m)]{}\_[k’q’]{} +\
& & + \_[k’,s’,l’,q’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(m)]{}\_[k’s’l’q’]{} + \_[am]{}\_[k,q=1]{}\^M \_[k’,q’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(am)]{}\_[kk’qq’]{} +\
& & + \_[k,q=1]{}\^[M]{} \_[k’=1]{}\^[M’]{} - i \_[p=0]{}\^ \_[\^p,\^p]{} C\_[\^p\^p]{}\^. We see in (\[expectation\_ham\_a\]) the appearance of the particle-conserving and particle non-conserving reduced density matrices introduced in the previous subsection \[contact\_reduced\]. Eq. (\[expectation\_ham\_a\]) is to be used to derive the equations of motion of $\left\{\phi_k(\r,t)\right\}$ and $\left\{\psi_{k'}(\r,t)\right\}$.
The second form of the expectation value of $\hat H^{(2a\rightleftharpoons m)} - i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ in the functional action (\[action\_functional\_AM\_full\]), \[expectation\_ham\_b\] & & = \_[p=0]{}\^ \_[\^p,\^p]{} C\_[\^p\^p]{}\^\
& & , displays its explicit dependence on the expansion coefficients, and therefore will be employed to derive the equations of motion of $\{C_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}(t)\}$. Finally, it is deductive to compare the structure of Eqs. (\[Hamiltonian\_matrix\_element\_AM\_a\],\[Hamiltonian\_matrix\_element\_AM\_b\]) in the conversion mean field (fully-variational two-mode) problem to that of Eqs. (\[expectation\_ham\_a\],\[expectation\_ham\_b\]) of the general problem.
### The equations of motion for $\Psi(t)$ {#contact_equation}
Collecting the above ingredients, we are ready to perform the variation of the functional action $S\left[\{C_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}(t)\},\left\{\phi_k(\r,t)\right\},\left\{\psi_{k'}(\r,t)\right\}\right]$ and arrive at the equations of motion of $\Psi(t)$. Equating the variation of the action functional (\[action\_functional\_AM\_full\],\[expectation\_ham\_a\]) with respect to the orbitals to zero and eliminating the Lagrange multipliers $\{\mu_{kj}^{(a)}(t)\}$, $\{\mu_{k'j'}^{(m)}(t)\}$ (see appendix \[appen\_C\]), we obtain the following result, $j=1,\ldots,M$, $j'=1,\ldots,M'$: \[MCTDH\_conver\_orb\_eqs\_P\] & & \^[(a)]{} i|\_j> = \^[(a)]{} ,\
& & \^[(m)]{} i|\_[j’]{}> = \^[(m)]{} , where terms with products of reduced two-body density matrices times orbital pairs are collected together and denoted for brevity as \[rho\_phi\] & & {\_2(\^2,\^2)}\^[(a)]{}\_[kq]{} \_a \^M\_[s,l=1]{} \^[(a)]{}\_[kslq]{} (\_s\^\_l) + \_[am]{} \_[k’,q’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(am)]{}\_[kk’qq’]{} (\_[k’]{}\^\_[q’]{}),\
& & {\_2(\^2,\^2)}\^[(m)]{}\_[k’q’]{} \_m \^[M’]{}\_[s’,l’=1]{} \^[(m)]{}\_[k’s’l’q’]{} (\_[s’]{}\^\_[l’]{}) + \_[am]{} \_[k,q=1]{}\^[M]{} \^[(am)]{}\_[kk’qq’]{} (\_[k]{}\^\_[q]{}), and \[projection\_conver\] \^[(a)]{} = 1 - \_[u=1]{}\^[M]{}|\_u> $.
Then,
we can compensate for the transformations of the orbital sets
by the ``reverse'' transformation of the expansion coefficients
${C\_[\^p\^p]{}(t)} {\_[\^p\^p]{}(t)}$.
We represent this invariance by the following equality:
\beq\label{invariance_rotations}
\left|\Psi(t)\right> =
\sum_{p=0}^{[N/2]} \sum_{\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p}
C_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}(t) \left|\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p;t\right> =
\sum_{p=0}^{[N/2]} \sum_{\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p}
\overline{C}_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}(t) \overline{\left|\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p;t\right>}.
\eeq
The transformations of the
orbital sets
and expansion coefficients do not change the size
of the Hilbert space,
or couple systems with different numbers of atoms, molecules.
We remark that
transformations which inter-mix atomic and molecular
orbitals are not required for our needs.
To represent these properties,
the same occupation numbers
$\^p$, $\^p$ and summation
index $p$ of the number of molecules
are used for both
multiconfigurational expansions of $(t)$
in Eq.~(\ref{invariance_rotations}).
We can now make use of the invariance (\ref{invariance_rotations})
to simplify the equations of motion (\ref{MCTDH_conver_orb_eqs_P}),
without introducing further constraints into the equations of motion.
We utilize
a specific unitary transformation of the many-particle
wavefunction that
eliminates the projection operators
acting on the time-derivatives (left-hand sides)
in Eq.~(\ref{MCTDH_conver_orb_eqs_P});
see appendix \ref{appen_C} for more details.
The final result
for the equations of motion for the
atomic ${\_k(,t)}$ and molecular ${\_[k’]{}(,t)}$
orbitals thus takes on the form,
$j=1,…,M$, $j’=1,…,M’$:
\beqn\label{MCTDH_conver_orb_eqs}
& & \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! i\left|\dot\phi_j\right> =
\hat{\mathbf P}^{(a)} \Bigg[\hat h^{(a)} \left|\phi_j\right> + \nonumber \\
& & + \sum^M_{k=1} \left\{\brho^{(a)}(t)\right\}^{-1}_{jk} \times \sum^M_{q=1}
\Bigg( \left\{\rho_2(\phi^2,\psi^2)\right\}^{(a)}_{kq} \left|\phi_q\right>
+ \sqrt{2} \lambda_{con} \sum_{k'=1}^{M'}
\rho^{(m\rightharpoondown 2a)}_{qkk'} \phi_q^\ast \left|\psi_{k'}\right> \Bigg) \Bigg], \nonumber \\
& & \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! i\left|\dot\psi_{j'}\right> =
\hat{\mathbf P}^{(m)} \Bigg[\hat h^{(m)} \left|\psi_{j'}\right> + \nonumber \\
& & + \sum^{M'}_{k'=1} \left\{\brho^{(m)}(t)\right\}^{-1}_{j'k'} \times
\Bigg( \sum^{M'}_{q'=1} \left\{\rho_2(\psi^2,\phi^2)\right\}^{(m)}_{k'q'}
\left|\psi_{q'}\right>
+ \frac{\lambda_{con}}{\sqrt{2}} \sum_{k,q=1}^{M}
\rho^{(2a\rightharpoonup m)}_{kk'q} \phi_k \left|\phi_{q}\right> \Bigg) \Bigg], \
\eeqn
with the projection operators
$\^[(a)]{}$ and
$\^[(m)]{}$
appearing
now on the right-hand sides only.
Now,
taking the respective scalar products of (\ref{MCTDH_conver_orb_eqs})
with ${ = 0, k,q=1,…,M, = 0, k’,q’=1,…,M’. It is instructive to mention that these differential condition have been introduced originally by the MCTDH developers [@CPL; @JCP], and used thereafter in particle-conserving multiconfigurational theories for identical particles and mixtures [@MCTDHF1; @MCTDHF2; @MCTDHF3; @MCTDHB1; @MCTDHB2; @Unified_paper; @MIX].
The differential conditions (\[MCTDHI\_mix\_conv\_const\]) ensure that initially-orthonormalized orbital sets $\left\{\phi_k(\r,t)\right\}$, $\left\{\psi_{k'}(\r,t)\right\}$ remain orthonormalized at all times. The meaning of the unitary transformation carrying equations of motion (\[MCTDH\_conver\_orb\_eqs\_P\]) to (\[MCTDH\_conver\_orb\_eqs\]) can now be seen. This unitary transformation takes orthonormal time-dependent orbitals, $\left<\phi_k\left|\right.\phi_q\right> = \delta_{kq}$ and $\left<\psi_{k'}\left|\right.\psi_{q'}\right> = \delta_{k'q'}$ \[$\delta_{kq}$, $\delta_{k'q'}$ is the Dirac delta-function\], which therefore satisfy the general relations $\frac{\partial \left<\phi_k\left|\right.\phi_q\right>}{\partial t} =
\left<\dot\phi_k\left|\right.\phi_q\right> + \left<\phi_k\left|\right.\dot\phi_q\right> = 0$ and $\frac{\partial \left<\psi_{k'}\left|\right.\psi_{q'}\right>}{\partial t} =
\left<\dot\psi_{k'}\left|\right.\psi_{q'}\right> + \left<\psi_{k'}\left|\right.\dot\psi_{q'}\right> = 0$, and transforms them to time-dependent orbitals satisfying the specific differential conditions (\[MCTDHI\_mix\_conv\_const\]).
Moving to the equations of motion for the coefficients $\{C_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}(t)\}$, we equate the variation of the functional action (\[action\_functional\_AM\_full\],\[expectation\_ham\_b\]) with respect to the expansion coefficients to zero. Eliminating the Lagrange multiplier $\varepsilon(t)$ by a respective phase transformation of the coefficients, we arrive at the form: \[MCTDH\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\_P\] & & \^[(2a m)]{}(t)(t) = i,\
& & [H]{}\^[(2a m)]{}\_[\^p\^p,’\^[p’]{}’\^[p’]{}]{}(t) = . Eq. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\_P\]) has exactly the same form as Eq. (\[simplest\_EOM\_coeffieints\]) in the specific theory of section \[two\_mode\_AM\_EOM\], and constitutes a set of coupled first-order differential equations with time-dependent coefficients that preserve the norm of an initially-normalized vector of coefficients $\C(0)$. The matrix elements of $\hat H^{(2a\rightleftharpoons m)} - i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ with respect to two general configurations, ${\cal H}^{(2a \leftrightharpoons m)}_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p,\vec{n}'^{p'}\vec{m}'^{p'}}(t)$, are prescribed in appendix \[matrix\_Appen\].
Now, to arrive at the final form of the equations of motion for the coefficients, we make use of the invariance of $\Psi(t)$ to unitary transformations (\[invariance\_rotations\]). Specifically, the unitary transformation carrying Eq. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_orb\_eqs\_P\]) for the orbitals to Eq. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_orb\_eqs\]), casts Eq. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\_P\]) for the expansion coefficients into the final result: \[MCTDH\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\] & & \^[(2a m)]{}(t)(t) = i,\
& & H\^[(2a m)]{}\_[\^p\^p,’\^[p’]{}’\^[p’]{}]{}(t) = . Eq. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\]) has exactly the same form as Eq. (\[simplest\_EOM\_coeffieints\_final\]) in the specific case of section \[two\_mode\_AM\_EOM\]. Of course, there are much more expansion coefficients in the general case. Finally and equivalently, we note that the result (\[MCTDH\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\]) can be obtained from Eq. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\_P\]) when the differential condition (\[MCTDHI\_mix\_conv\_const\]) is substituted into the latter.
Let us pause for a moment and summarize. We have started from the functional action (\[action\_functional\_AM\_full\]) and arrived at the equations of motion for $\Psi(t)$. Eq. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_orb\_eqs\_P\]) for the orbitals $\left\{\phi_k(\r,t)\right\}$, $\left\{\psi_{k'}(\r,t)\right\}$ and Eq. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\_P\]) for the expansion coefficients $\{C_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}(t)\}$, or, respectively, Eqs. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_orb\_eqs\]) and (\[MCTDH\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\]) constitute the multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree theory for systems with particle conversion; here specifically the theory for bosonic atoms and bosonic molecules with conversion.
### The stationary self-consistent general multiconfigurational theory with conversion {#contact_equation_stationary}
The theory presented above is a time-dependent many-body theory and, as done in the previous section \[two\_mode\_AM\], it is relevant to put forward the corresponding stationary general theory. Consider the multiconfigurational expansion $\left|\Psi\right> = \sum_{p=0}^{[N/2]} \sum_{\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p}
C_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}\left|\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p\right>$, where the expansion coefficients $\{C_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}\}$ and orbitals $\left\{\phi_k(\r)\right\}$, $\left\{\psi_{k'}(\r)\right\}$ assembling the configurations $\left\{\left|\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p\right>\right\}$ are time-independent quantities. What are then the self-consistent solutions that minimize (extremize) the expectation value $\left<\Psi\left|\hat H^{(2a\leftrightharpoons m)}\right|\Psi\right>$?
The working equations of the stationary theory can be obtained by resorting to imaginary time-propagation and setting $t \to -it$ in either equations of motion (\[MCTDH\_conver\_orb\_eqs\_P\]) and (\[MCTDH\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\_P\]) or equations of motion (\[MCTDH\_conver\_orb\_eqs\]) and (\[MCTDH\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\]), after the time-dependent Lagrange multiplier $\varepsilon(t)$ has been reinstated. Then, by translating the projection operators $\hat{\mathbf P}^{(a)}$, $\hat{\mathbf P}^{(m)}$ to the respective Lagrange multipliers $\{\mu^{(a)}_{kj}\}$, $\{\mu^{(m)}_{k'j'}\}$, the resulting working equations take on the form: \[MCTDH\_conver\_stationary\_orb\] & & \_[q=1]{}\^M { |\_q> + \_[con]{} \_[k’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(m2a)]{}\_[qkk’]{} \_q\^|\_[k’]{}> } = \_[j=1]{}\^M \^[(a)]{}\_[kj]{} |\_j>,\
& & k=1,…,M,\
& & \_[q’=1]{}\^[M’]{} |\_[q’]{}> + \_[k,q=1]{}\^[M]{} \^[(2am)]{}\_[k’kq]{} \_k |\_[q]{}> = \_[j’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(m)]{}\_[k’j’]{} |\_[j’]{}>,\
& & k’=1,…,M’ for the orbitals, and \[MCTDH\_conver\_stationary\_coeff\] & & \^[(2am)]{} = ,\
& & H\^[(2a m)]{}\_[\^p\^p,’\^[p’]{}’\^[p’]{}]{} = for the expansion coefficients. As seen in section \[two\_mode\_AM\], the time-dependent Lagrange multiplier $\varepsilon(t)$ emerges in the time-independent theory as the eigenenergy of the coupled atom–molecule system with $\varepsilon=\left<\Psi\left|\hat H^{(2a\leftrightharpoons m)}\right|\Psi\right>$.
The stationary equations for the orbitals (\[MCTDH\_conver\_stationary\_orb\]) can be further simplified. The stationary wavefunction $\Psi$, as its time-dependent counterpart, is invariant to independent unitary transformations of the orbital sets $\left\{\phi_k(\r)\right\}$, $\left\{\psi_{k'}(\r)\right\}$ and the “inverse” transformation of the expansion coefficients $\{C_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}\}$. We can use the unitary matrices which diagonalize the matrices of Lagrange multipliers $\{\mu^{(a)}_{kj}\}$, $\{\mu^{(m)}_{k'j'}\}$. We note that the matrices of Lagrange multipliers are Hermitian matrices for stationary states. As a result of this transformation, we obtain a set of coupled equations for the orbitals that look just as Eq. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_stationary\_orb\]), except for the right-hand sides being diagonal: \[diagonal\_form\] & & \_[q=1]{}\^M { |\_q> + \_[con]{} \_[k’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(m2a)]{}\_[qkk’]{} \_q\^|\_[k’]{}> } = \^[(a)]{}\_[k]{} |\_k>,\
& & k=1,…,M,\
& & \_[q’=1]{}\^[M’]{} |\_[q’]{}> + \_[k,q=1]{}\^[M]{} \^[(2am)]{}\_[k’kq]{} \_k |\_[q]{}> = \^[(m)]{}\_[k’]{}|\_[k’]{}>,\
& & k’=1,…,M’. The form of the equation for the expansion coefficients (\[MCTDH\_conver\_stationary\_coeff\]) does not change. Thus, the final result for the stationary theory, Eqs. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_stationary\_coeff\],\[diagonal\_form\]), is a coupled system of integrodifferential, non-linear equations constituting eigenvalue-like equations for the orbitals and eigenvalue equation for the expansion coefficients; compare to section \[two\_mode\_AM\_stationary\]. Generally, the transformation of the matrices of Lagrange multipliers to diagonal form would make the orbitals delocalized. Hence, in problems where working with localized orbitals is of advantage or relevance, for instance in lattices, it is the form (\[MCTDH\_conver\_stationary\_orb\]) with the in-general non-diagonal Lagrange multipliers which is to be preferred.
Formulation for general interactions {#non_contact}
------------------------------------
The last stage of the theory is to return to the case of generic non-contact interactions in the Hamiltonian (\[ham\_am\_1\]-\[ham\_am\_3\]) and have the respective theory derived. The derivation of the equations of motion follows essentially the same steps taken in the previous subsection \[contact\] and there is obviously no need to repeat it. The only extra care needed is when minimizing the conversion term in the functional action with respect to the molecular orbitals, where exchange of variables is used. This point and related derivations are discussed in appendix \[appen\_C\]. Below, we report the final results of the time-dependent as well as the self-consistent time-independent theories.
The final form of the time-dependent equations of motion of the orbitals reads, $j=1,\ldots,M$, $j'=1,\ldots,M'$: \[MCTDH\_W\_conver\_orb\_eqs\] & & i|\_j> = \^[(a)]{} ,\
& & i|\_[j’]{}> = \^[(m)]{} , where terms with products of reduced two-body density matrices times one-body potentials (see below) are collected together and denoted for brevity as \[rho\_W\] & & {\_2W}\^[(a)]{}\_[kq]{} \^M\_[s,l=1]{} \^[(a)]{}\_[kslq]{} W\^[(a)]{}\_[sl]{} + \_[k’,q’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(am)]{}\_[kk’qq’]{} W\^[(am)]{}\_[k’q’]{},\
& & {\_2W}\^[(m)]{}\_[k’q’]{} \^[M’]{}\_[s’,l’=1]{} \^[(m)]{}\_[k’s’l’q’]{} W\^[(m)]{}\_[s’l’]{} + \_[k,q=1]{}\^[M]{} \^[(am)]{}\_[kk’qq’]{} W\^[(ma)]{}\_[kq]{}. Comparing Eq. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_orb\_eqs\]) of the previous subsection \[contact\] to Eq. (\[MCTDH\_W\_conver\_orb\_eqs\]), we see that in the latter more general, time-dependent local potentials appear which are given explicitly by: \[one\_body\_pot\] & & W\^[(a)]{}\_[sl]{}(,t) = \_s\^(’,t) W\^[(a)]{}(,’) \_l(’,t) d’,\
& & W\^[(m)]{}\_[s’l’]{}(,t) = \_[s’]{}\^(’,t) W\^[(m)]{}(,’) \_[l’]{}(’,t) d’,\
& & W\^[(am)]{}\_[k’q’]{}(,t) = \_[k’]{}\^(’,t) W\^[(am)]{}(,’) \_[q’]{}(’,t) d’,\
& & W\^[(ma)]{}\_[kq]{}(,t) = \_[k]{}\^(’,t) W\^[(am)]{}(,’) \_[q]{}(’,t) d’,\
& & W\^[(2am)]{}\_[kq]{}(,t) = d’ W\^[(2am)]{}(+,-) \_k(+,t) \_q(-,t),\
& & W\^[(m2a)]{}\_[qk’]{}(,t) = d’ \_q\^(’,t) W\^[(m2a)]{}(,’) \_[k’]{}(,t). These potentials derive from the interaction terms and conversion term in the Hamiltonian (\[ham\_am\_1\]-\[ham\_am\_3\]) and, in the specific case of contact particle-particle interactions, boil down to products-of-orbitals, see for comparison Eq. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_orb\_eqs\]). The form of the equations of motion for the corresponding expansion coefficients, \[MCTDH\_W\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\] & & \^[(2a m)]{}(t)(t) = i,\
& & H\^[(2a m)]{}\_[\^p\^p,’\^[p’]{}’\^[p’]{}]{}(t) = , does not change for general interactions. Of course, the matrix elements $H^{(2a \leftrightharpoons m)}_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p,\vec{n}'^{p'}\vec{m}'^{p'}}(t)$ do depend on the specific form of the particle-particle interactions.
Finally, the self-consistent, time-independent general theory is obtained from the time-dependent one by taking $t \to -it$. The stationary self-consistent equations for the orbitals read: \[MCTDH\_conver\_stationary\_orb\_gen\] & & \_[q=1]{}\^M { |\_q> + \_[k’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(m2a)]{}\_[qkk’]{} W\^[(m2a)]{}\_[qk’]{} } = \_[j=1]{}\^M \^[(a)]{}\_[kj]{} |\_j> \^[(a)]{}\_[k]{} |\_k>,\
& & k=1,…,M,\
& & \_[q’=1]{}\^[M’]{} |\_[q’]{}> + \_[k,q=1]{}\^[M]{} \^[(2am)]{}\_[k’kq]{} W\^[(2am)]{}\_[kq]{} = \_[j’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(m)]{}\_[k’j’]{} |\_[j’]{}> \^[(m)]{}\_[k’]{} |\_[k’]{}>,\
& & k’=1,…,M’, where the arrows indicate the Lagrange multipliers in their diagonal form, as done in Eq. (\[diagonal\_form\]). Finally, the self-consistent–eigenvalue form of the equation for the expansion coefficients, \[MCTDH\_conver\_stationary\_coeff\_gen\] & & \^[(2am)]{} =\
& & H\^[(2a m)]{}\_[\^p\^p,’\^[p’]{}’\^[p’]{}]{} = , remains unchanged for general interactions.
Eqs. (\[MCTDH\_W\_conver\_orb\_eqs\]) and (\[MCTDH\_W\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\]) constitute a multiconfigurational [*time-dependent*]{} theory for systems of bosonic atoms and molecules with conversion (particle conversion in the generic case). Furthermore, Eqs. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_stationary\_orb\_gen\]) and (\[MCTDH\_conver\_stationary\_coeff\_gen\]) constitute a multiconfigurational self-consistent [*time-independent*]{} theory for systems of bosonic atoms and molecules with conversion (particle conversion in the generic case). Both theories extend the scope of the successful multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree method and its versions specified for systems of identical particles and mixtures to new physical systems and problems.
Summary and concluding remarks {#dis_sum}
==============================
In this work we have derived a many-body propagation theory for systems with particle conversion. The theory is intended for systems with a finite number of interacting particles, typically in a trap potential. The theory has been exemplified and working equations have been explicitly derived for systems of interacting structureless bosonic atoms and bosonic molecules undergoing the conversion ‘reaction’ $2a \leftrightharpoons m$. In doing so, we have also extended the scope of the successful multiconfigurational time-dependent Hartree (MCTDH) method and its versions specified for systems of identical particles and mixtures to new physical systems and problems. We note that the MCTDH method is considered at present the most efficient wave-packet propagation approach for in-general distinguishable coupled degrees-of-freedom, with no particle conversion, of course. The general multiconfigurational theory with particle conversion shall be referred to as MCTDH-[*conversion*]{}, whereas the explicit scenario derived throughout this work by MCTDH-\[$2a{\leftrightharpoons}m$\].
To treat systems with particle conversion, one has to work in second quantization formalism, where the Hamiltonian with particle-conversion terms can be represented. The next step is to define the configurations. In presence of particle conversion configurations with different numbers of atoms and different numbers of molecules are coupled. For instance, consider the particular case of the conversion ‘reaction’ $2a \leftrightharpoons m$. In this case, the subspace of coupled configurations can be easily obtained by starting from the configurations made of $N$ atoms only, and operating repeatedly with the conversion operators in the Hamiltonian until configurations made of the maximal number $\left[\frac{N}{2}\right]$ of molecules are reached.
In the multiconfigurational theory for the ’reaction’ $2a \leftrightharpoons m$, there are $M$ [*time-dependent*]{} orbitals $\{\phi_k(\r,t)\}$ available for the atoms and $M'$ [*time-dependent*]{} orbitals $\{\psi_{k'}(\r,t)\}$ for the molecules. The multiconfigurational ansatz for the many-particle wavefunction $\Psi(t)$ is taken as linear combination with [*time-dependent*]{} coefficients $\{C_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}(t)\}$ of all possible configurations $\left\{\left|\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p;t\right>\right\}$ assembled from $p$ molecules and $N-2p$ atoms – distributed over the $M$ and $M'$ respective orbitals – and coupled by the conversion term in the Hamiltonian.
The evolution of $\Psi(t)$ is then determined by the Dirac-Frenkel time-dependent variational principle. Utilizing the Lagrangian formulation of the Dirac-Frenkel variational principle, one arrives at two sets of coupled equations of motion: The first set is for the orbitals $\{\phi_k(\r,t)\}$ and $\{\psi_{k'}(\r,t)\}$, and the second for the expansion coefficients $\{C_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}(t)\}$. The first set is comprised of first-order differential equations in time and non-linear integrodifferential (for non-contact interactions) in position space. The second set consists of first-order differential equations with coefficients forming a time-dependent Hermitian matrix. Thus, equations of motion (\[MCTDH\_conver\_orb\_eqs\_P\],\[MCTDH\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\_P\]), or Eqs. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_orb\_eqs\],\[MCTDH\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\]), constitute the time-dependent multiconfigurational theory for bosonic atoms and molecules with conversion – MCTDH-\[$2a{\leftrightharpoons}m$\].
The structure of the equations of motion for systems with particle conversion reminds of the structure of the equations of motion in multiconfigurational time-dependent theories for systems of identical particles and mixtures [@MCTDHB1; @MCTDHB2; @Unified_paper; @MIX]: (i) There are projection operators on the right-hand-sides of the equations of motion for the orbitals, ensuring that the respective orbitals remain normalized and orthogonal to one another for all times; (ii) The equations for the expansion coefficients are first-order differential equations with time-dependent coefficients; and (iii) The equations of motion for the orbitals are formulated in terms of reduced density matrices. This resemblance would allow one to transfer the effective numerical techniques that have been developed in the past almost-twenty years for multiconfigurational time-dependent many-body systems [*without*]{} particle conversion [@CPL; @JCP; @PR; @MCTDHF1; @MCTDHF2; @MCTDHF3; @MCTDHB1; @MCTDHB2; @Unified_paper; @MIX] to the present theory for systems [*with*]{} particle conversion.
Particular attention has been paid to the reduced density matrices appearing in the theory. As the multiconfigurational expansion involves configurations with different numbers of atoms and molecules, two types of reduced density matrices are defined. There are [*particle-conserving*]{} reduced density matrices, $\rho^{(a)}(\r_1|\r_2;t)$, $\rho^{(m)}(\r_1|\r_2;t)$, $\rho^{(a)}(\r_1,\r_2|\r_3,\r_4;t)$, $\rho^{(m)}(\r_1,\r_2|\r_3,\r_4;t)$ and $\rho^{(am)}(\r_1,\r_2|\r_3,\r_4;t)$, which directly do not couple configurations with different numbers of atoms and molecules. Despite this property, the particle-conserving reduced density matrices, such as $\rho^{(a)}(\r_1|\r_2;t)$ and $\rho^{(a)}(\r_1,\r_2|\r_3,\r_4;t)$, [*are not*]{} the standard density matrices introduced by Löwdin [@Lowdin] for many-particle systems [*without*]{} conversion. The second type of reduced density matrices that appear in the theory are [*particle non-conserving*]{} reduced density matrices, $\rho^{(a\rightharpoonup m)}(\r_1,\r_2|\r_3;t)$ and $\rho^{(m\rightharpoondown a)}(\r_3|\r_2,\r_1;t)$, and originate from the conversion term in the Hamiltonian. They obviously have no analogs in systems without conversion. Here, it is of interest by itself to study properties of particle-conserving reduced density matrices and certainly of particle non-conserving reduced density matrices in systems [*with*]{} particle conversion.
The time-dependent multiconfigurational theory MCTDH-\[$2a{\leftrightharpoons}m$\] readily admits the corresponding [*stationary*]{} theory. By resorting to imaginary time propagation, the equations of motion of the time-dependent theory boil down to the fully-self-consistent time-independent multiconfigurational theory, Eqs. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_stationary\_orb\_gen\],\[MCTDH\_conver\_stationary\_coeff\_gen\]), for stationary states of the system $2a \leftrightharpoons m$, in presence of all particle-particle interactions, of course. With this result, available self-consistent multiconfigurational theories for systems [*without*]{} particle conversion, noticeably for fermions [@Szabo_book; @elect], distinguishable degrees-of-freedom [@Dieter_review], bosons [@MCHB], and mixtures [@MIX], are taken a step further, to systems [*with*]{} particle conversion.
A specific case of interest for systems of bosonic atoms and molecules with conversion is the case of $M=1$ atomic and $M'=1$ molecular orbitals, which is presented in section \[two\_mode\_AM\] before the general MCTDH-\[$2a{\leftrightharpoons}m$\] theory is developed. For $M=1$ and $M'=1$, the corresponding multiconfigurational theory is the fully-variational theory that results when the shape of the atomic $\phi_a(\r,t)$ and molecular $\psi_m(\r,t)$ orbitals and of each and every expansion coefficient $C_p(t)$ are optimized according to the variational principle. Being fully-variational with respect to the shape of the orbitals $\phi_a(\r,t)$, $\psi_m(\r,t)$ and with respect to the expansion coefficients $\{C_p(t)\}$, the theory generalizes the literature Gross-Pitaevskii equation [@Timmermans_review] and two-mode approximation [@2M1; @Vardi] for bosonic atoms and molecules with conversion. We term this specific case of the general theory [*conversion mean field*]{}, as there is only one orbital available for the bosonic atoms and one for the molecules – the minimal number possible for bosonic species.
At the other end, in the limit where the number $M$ of atomic orbitals and $M'$ of molecular orbitals goes to infinity, the MCTDH-\[$2a{\leftrightharpoons}m$\] theory becomes an exact representation of the time-dependent many-particle Schrödinger equation with the particle-conversion Hamiltonian $\hat H^{(2a\rightleftharpoons m)}$. In practice, one obviously has to limit $M$ and $M'$. Here, the employment of [*time-dependent*]{} orbitals, which has been very successful for the MCTDH approach and its versions specified for identical particles and mixtures, is of great help and advantage. Of course, even with time-dependent orbitals the size of the Hilbert space grows rapidly with the size of the system and the number of orbitals $M$ and $M'$ employed. Consequently, with increasing system size and as the number of orbitals which one has to employ becomes larger, e.g., for stronger interactions, it is instructive to devise truncation schemes beyond the usage of [*time-dependent*]{} multiconfigurational expansions over [*complete*]{} Hilbert subspaces. We mention two such truncation strategies: (i) to truncate time-dependent multiconfigurational expansions to include parts of Hilbert subspaces, i.e., to include not all available configurations for a given system size and number of orbitals $M$,$M'$; and (ii) to concentrate on the reduced density matrices, write equations of motion for them directly, and thereafter truncate the resulting hierarchy of equations of motion for higher-order reduced density matrices at some given order. The development of these truncation schemes for [*time-dependent*]{} multiconfigurational expansions in systems with particle conversion extends beyond the scope of the present work.
Finally, the explicit equations of motion presented in this work are for the specific ‘reaction’ $2a \leftrightharpoons m$ where the atoms and molecules are structureless bosons – the MCTDH-\[$2a{\leftrightharpoons}m$\] theory. Several other systems come to mind: (i) Other ‘reactions’ with bosonic atoms of the same kind, e.g., $3a \leftrightharpoons m$; (ii) ‘Reactions’ with bosonic atoms of a different kind, e.g., $a+a' \leftrightharpoons m$. In this case and for general particle-particle interactions, the center-of-mass coordinate is, of course, $\R=\frac{m_a\r+m_{a'}\r'}{m_a+m_{a'}}$, where $m_a$ and $m_{a'}$ are the masses of the respective species; (iii) ‘Reactions’ including fermionic atoms, e.g., $a_f+a_b \leftrightharpoons m_f$ and $a_f+a_f \leftrightharpoons m_b$ where the subscript $b$, $f$ stands for bosonic, fermionic species. In the latter case, a unified form of the respective equations of motion and those of the present work is anticipated; and (iv) A whole zoo of ‘reactions’ for particles with spin, internal-structure. The extension of MCTDH-\[$2a{\leftrightharpoons}m$\] for the above concrete examples as well as for other systems with particle conversion can be done by following the theory and derivation steps of the present work.
Financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft is gratefully acknowledged.
Further details of the derivation of the equations of motion {#Lagrange}
============================================================
The specific case of the conversion mean field (fully-variational two-mode approximation) {#Lagrange_two_mode}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the variations of the functional action (\[action\_functional\_AM\]) with respect to the orbitals and expansion coefficients are put to zero, the following equations of motion are obtained: \[general\_EOM\_orbitals\] & & |\_a> +\
& & + \_[con]{} \_a\^|\_m> = \_a(t) |\_a>,\
& & |\_m> +\
& & + \_a |\_a> = \_m(t) |\_m> and \[general\_EOM\_coeffieints\] (t) = i . The three time-dependent Lagrange multipliers $\mu_a(t)$, $\mu_m(t)$ and $\varepsilon(t)$ appear therein. How to eliminate them?
It is straightforward to eliminate $\varepsilon(t)$. This is done by transforming the expansion coefficients as follows: \[C\_coeff\_global\_phase\] (t) = e\^[-i(t’) dt’]{} (t). Substituting Eq. (\[C\_coeff\_global\_phase\]) into (\[general\_EOM\_coeffieints\]) and removing at the end the ’bar’ from all quantities we obtain: \[general\_simplest\_EOM\_coeffieints\] \^[(a m)]{}(t) (t) = i . From Eqs. (\[general\_EOM\_coeffieints\]-\[general\_simplest\_EOM\_coeffieints\]) we see that the role of the Lagrange multiplier $\varepsilon(t)$ is that of a (redundant) global time-dependent phase of the many-particle wavefunction $\overline{\Psi}(t) = e^{-i\int \varepsilon(t') dt'}\Psi(t)$. We note that Eq. (\[general\_EOM\_orbitals\]) is not affected by the transformation (\[C\_coeff\_global\_phase\]) because reduced density matrices are “insensitive” to a global phase of the wavefunction, namely $\left<\overline{\Psi}(t)\left| \, \ldots \, \right|\overline{\Psi}(t)\right> =
\left<\Psi(t)\left| \, \ldots \, \right|\Psi(t)\right>$.
The next step is to eliminate the remaining Lagrange multipliers $\mu_a(t)$ and $\mu_m(t)$. Making use of the orbitals being normalized and taking the respective scalar products of Eq. (\[general\_EOM\_orbitals\]) with $\left<\phi_a\right|$ and $\left<\psi_m\right|$, we obtain: \[Lagrange\_2orbitals\] \_a(t) &=& + +\
&+& \_[am]{} + \_[con]{} ,\
\_m(t) &=& + +\
&+& \_[am]{} + . Substituting Eq. (\[Lagrange\_2orbitals\]) into Eq. (\[general\_EOM\_orbitals\]), employing the identities: \[mu\_identities\] & & |\_a> + \_[con]{} \_a\^|\_m> - \_a(t) |\_a> =\
& & = (1 - |\_a> (h\^[(a)]{} - i) + \_a |\_a|\^2 +\
& & + \_[am]{} |\_m|\^2 \] |\_a> + \_[con]{} \_a\^|\_m>},\
& & |\_m> + \_a |\_a> - \_m(t) |\_m> =\
& & = (1-|\_m> (h\^[(m)]{} - i) + \_m |\_m|\^2 +\
& & + \_[am]{} |\_a|\^2 \] |\_m> + \_a |\_a>}, and dividing the result, respectively, by $\left<\hat N_a\right>$ and $\left<\hat N_m\right>$, the equations of motion (\[simplest\_EOM\_orbitals\]) are obtained.
To eliminate the projection operators in front of the time derivatives in Eq. (\[mu\_identities\]), i.e., $\hat{\mathbf P}^{(a)} = 1 - \left|\phi_a\left>\right<\phi_a\right|$ and $\hat{\mathbf P}^{(m)} = 1 - \left|\psi_m\left>\right<\psi_m\right|$ on the left-hand sides of Eq. (\[simplest\_EOM\_orbitals\]), we exploit the invariance property of the wavefunction $\Psi(t)$. Consider the following phase transformations of the orbitals and coefficients: \[trans\_appen\_orb\_coeff\] & & \_a(,t) = e\^[+i\_a(t)]{} \_a(,t), \_m(,t) = e\^[+i\_m(t)]{} \_m(,t),\
& & \_p(t) = e\^[-i]{} C\_p(t), p=0,…,. Combing these phase transformations, the wavefunction does not change: $\left|\Psi(t)\right> = \sum_{p=0}^{\left[N/2\right]} C_p(t) \left|N-2p,p;t\right> =
\sum_{p=0}^{\left[N/2\right]} \overline{C}_p(t) \overline{\left|N-2p,p;t\right>}$. We should also recall that transforming the orbitals goes along with transforming the corresponding annihilation, creation operators (another way to look at this is that the field operators $\hat{\mathbf \Psi}_a(\r)$ and $\hat{\mathbf \Psi}_m(\r)$ are time-independent, basis-set-independent quantities and, consequently, transforming the orbitals requires the reverse transformation of the annihilation operators). Thus, Eq. (\[trans\_appen\_orb\_coeff\]) implies also the phase transformations \[trans\_appen\_anni\] \_a(t) = e\^[-i\_a(t)]{} b\_a(t), \_m(t) = e\^[-i\_m(t)]{} c\_m(t) for the atomic and molecular annihilation operators.
Now, plugging Eqs. (\[trans\_appen\_orb\_coeff\]-\[trans\_appen\_anni\]) into the equations of motion (\[simplest\_EOM\_orbitals\]) for the orbitals and (\[simplest\_EOM\_coeffieints\]) for the expansion coefficients \[see also Eqs. (\[general\_simplest\_EOM\_coeffieints\],\[mu\_identities\])\], and choosing the phases \[phase\_choice\_1\] \_a(t) = i dt’, \_m(t) = i dt’, equations of motion (\[simplest\_EOM\_orbitals\_final\]) and (\[simplest\_EOM\_coeffieints\_final\]) are found. We note that the phases $\beta_a(t)$ and $\gamma_m(t)$ are real quantities since $\left<\phi_a(t)\left|\right.\phi_a(t)\right>=1$ and $\left<\psi_m(t)\left|\right.\psi_m(t)\right>=1$, respectively, for all times.
The general multiconfigurational theory {#appen_C}
---------------------------------------
When the expressions for the field operators $\hat{\mathbf \Psi}_a(\r)$ and $\hat{\mathbf \Psi}_m(\r)$ in terms of the time-dependent orbitals, Eq. (\[annihilation\_def\]), are substituted into the generic many-body Hamiltonian (\[ham\_am\_1\]-\[ham\_am\_3\]), one obtains: \[ham\_general\_inter\] & & H\^[(2am)]{} = \_[k,q]{} h\^[(a)]{}\_[kq]{} b\_k\^b\_q + \_[k,s,l,q]{} W\^[(a)]{}\_[ksql]{} b\_k\^b\_s\^b\_l b\_q + \_[k’,q’]{} h\^[(m)]{}\_[k’q’]{} c\_[k’]{}\^c\_[q’]{} + \_[k’,s’,l’,q’]{} W\^[(m)]{}\_[k’s’q’l’]{} c\_[k’]{}\^c\_[s’]{}\^c\_[l’]{} c\_[q’]{} +\
& & + \_[k,k’,q,q’]{} W\^[(am)]{}\_[kk’qq’]{} b\_k\^b\_q c\_[k’]{}\^c\_[q’]{} + \_[k’,k,q]{} . The one-body, two-body and conversion matrix elements appearing in Eq. (\[ham\_general\_inter\]) are given by: \[one\_two\_matrix\_elements\] h\^[(a)]{}\_[kq]{} &=& \_k\^(,t) h\^[(a)]{}() \_q(,t) d,\
W\^[(a)]{}\_[ksql]{} &=& \_k\^(,t) \_s\^(’,t) W\^[(a)]{}(,’) \_q(,t) \_l(’,t) dd’,\
h\^[(m)]{}\_[k’q’]{} &=& \_[k’]{}\^(,t) h\^[(m)]{}() \_[q’]{}(,t) d,\
W\^[(m)]{}\_[k’s’q’l’]{} &=& \_[k’]{}\^(,t) \_[s’]{}\^(’,t) W\^[(m)]{}(,’) \_[q’]{}(,t) \_[l’]{}(’,t) dd’,\
W\^[(am)]{}\_[kk’qq’]{} &=& \_k\^(,t) \_[k’]{}\^(’,t) W\^[(am)]{}(,’) \_q(,t) \_[q’]{}(’,t) dd’,\
W\^[(2am)]{}\_[k’kq]{} &=& \^\_[k’]{}(,t) W\^[(2am)]{}(,’) \_k(,t) \_q(’,t) dd’ =\
&=& \^\_[k’]{}(,t) W\^[(2am)]{}(+,-) \_k(+,t) \_q(-,t) dd’,\
W\^[(m2a)]{}\_[qkk’]{} &=& \^\_q(,t) \^\_k(’,t) W\^[(m2a)]{}(,’) \_[k’]{}(,t) dd’ = {W\^[(2am)]{}\_[k’kq]{}}\^. The change of variables used for $W^{(2a\rightharpoonup m)}_{k'kq}$ is needed in order to perform the variation of this term with respect to the molecular orbitals, see below.
Now, the expectation value appearing in the functional action (\[action\_functional\_AM\_full\]) when expressed explicit with respect to the orbitals reads: \[exp\_full\_app\] & & = \_[k,q=1]{}\^M \^[(a)]{}\_[kq]{} + \_[k,s,l,q=1]{}\^M \^[(a)]{}\_[kslq]{} W\^[(a)]{}\_[ksql]{} +\
& & + \_[k’,q’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(m)]{}\_[k’q’]{} + \_[k’,s’,l’,q’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(m)]{}\_[k’s’l’q’]{} W\^[(m)]{}\_[k’s’q’l’]{} + \_[k,q=1]{}\^M \_[k’,q’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(am)]{}\_[kk’qq’]{} W\^[(am)]{}\_[kk’qq’]{} +\
& & + \_[k,q=1]{}\^[M]{} \_[k’=1]{}\^[M’]{} - i \_[p=0]{}\^ \_[\^p,\^p]{} C\_[\^p\^p]{}\^, where (i)\_[kq]{}\^[(a)]{} = i\_k\^(,t) d, (i)\_[k’q’]{}\^[(m)]{} = i\_[k’]{}\^(,t) d. Equating the variation of the functional action (\[action\_functional\_AM\_full\]) with respect to the orbitals to zero, making use of Eq. (\[exp\_full\_app\]), the following equations are obtained: \[general\_variation\_orbitals\_direct\] & & \_[q=1]{}\^M { |\_q> +\
& & + \_[k’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(m2a)]{}\_[qkk’]{} W\^[(m2a)]{}\_[qk’]{} } = \_[j=1]{}\^M \^[(a)]{}\_[kj]{} |\_j>, k=1,…,M,\
& & \_[q’=1]{}\^[M’]{} |\_[q’]{}> +\
& & + \_[k,q=1]{}\^[M]{} \^[(2am)]{}\_[k’kq]{} W\^[(2am)]{}\_[kq]{} = \_[j’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(m)]{}\_[k’j’]{} |\_[j’]{}>, k’=1,…,M’. One delicate point in performing the variation of $W^{(2a\rightharpoonup m)}_{k'kq}$ \[the first term in the last line of the expectation value Eq. (\[exp\_full\_app\])\] with respect to the molecular orbitals $\psi^\ast_{k'}(\r,t)$ is worth mentioning. To perform this variation, a change of the integration variables $\r$, $\r'$ to the center-of-mass $\R=\frac{\r+\r'}{2}$ and relative $\bar\r=\r-\r'$ coordinates is required. Assigning thereafter back $\R \to \r$, $\bar\r \to \r'$, the matrix element $W^{(2a\rightharpoonup m)}_{k'kq}$ is re-written in a form, see Eq. (\[one\_two\_matrix\_elements\]), which is amenable to explicit variation with respect to $\psi^\ast_{k'}(\r,t)$.
The next step it to eliminate the Lagrange multipliers $\{\mu_{kj}^{(a)}(t)\}$ and $\{\mu_{k'j'}^{(m)}(t)\}$. Making use of the orthonormality properties of the atomic and molecular orbitals, $\left<\phi_k(t)\left|\right.\phi_q(t)\right>=\delta_{kq}$ and $\left<\psi_{k'}(t)\left|\right.\psi_{q'}(t)\right>=\delta_{k'q'}$, and taking the corresponding scalar products of Eq. (\[general\_variation\_orbitals\_direct\]) with respect to the orbitals, we obtain explicit expressions for the Lagrange multipliers: \[MCTDH\_conver\_mu\_gener\] & & \_[kj]{}\^[(a)]{}(t) = \^M\_[q=1]{}{\_[kq]{}\^[(a)]{} + \^M\_[s,l=1]{} \_[kslq]{}\^[(a)]{} W\^[(a)]{}\_[jsql]{} +\
& & + \_[k’,q’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(am)]{}\_[kk’qq’]{} W\^[(am)]{}\_[jk’qq’]{} + \_[k’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(m2a)]{}\_[qkk’]{} W\^[(m2a)]{}\_[qjk’]{} },\
& & \_[k’j’]{}\^[(m)]{}(t) = \^[M’]{}\_[q’=1]{}{\_[k’q’]{}\^[(m)]{} + \^[M’]{}\_[s’,l’=1]{} \_[k’s’l’q’]{}\^[(m)]{} W\^[(m)]{}\_[j’s’q’l’]{} +\
& & + \_[k,q=1]{}\^[M]{} \^[(am)]{}\_[kk’qq’]{} W\^[(am)]{}\_[kj’qq’]{} } + \_[k,q=1]{}\^[M]{} \^[(2am)]{}\_[k’kq]{} W\^[(2am)]{}\_[j’kq]{}. Substituting Eq. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_mu\_gener\]) into Eq. (\[general\_variation\_orbitals\_direct\]), making use of the identities: \[general\_identities\] & & \_[q=1]{}\^M { |\_q> +\
& & + \_[k’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(m2a)]{}\_[qkk’]{} W\^[(m2a)]{}\_[qk’]{} } - \_[u=1]{}\^M \^[(a)]{}\_[ku]{} |\_u> =\
& & (1-\_[u=1]{}\^M |\_u> + \_[k’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(m2a)]{}\_[qkk’]{} W\^[(m2a)]{}\_[qk’]{} }, k=1,…,M,\
& & \_[q’=1]{}\^[M’]{} |\_[q’]{}> +\
& & + \_[k,q=1]{}\^[M]{} \^[(2am)]{}\_[k’kq]{} W\^[(2am)]{}\_[kq]{} - \_[u’=1]{}\^[M’]{} \^[(m)]{}\_[k’u’]{} |\_[u’]{}> =\
& & (1-\_[u’=1]{}\^[M’]{} |\_[u’]{}> + \_[k,q=1]{}\^[M]{} \^[(2am)]{}\_[k’kq]{} W\^[(2am)]{}\_[kq]{} }, k’=1,…,M’, and multiplying the result, respectively, by the inverse of the reduced one-body density matrices and summing over $\sum_{k=1}^M \left\{\brho^{(a)}(t)\right\}_{jk}^{-1}$ and $\sum_{k'=1}^{M'} \left\{\brho^{(m)}(t)\right\}_{j'k'}^{-1}$, we obtain equations of motion like (\[MCTDH\_conver\_orb\_eqs\_P\]) with general interactions.
Finally, to eliminate the projection operators $\hat{\mathbf P}^{(a)} = 1 - \sum_{u=1}^M \left|\phi_u\left>\right<\phi_u\right|$ and $\hat{\mathbf P}^{(m)} = 1 - \sum_{u'=1}^{M'} \left|\psi_{u'}\left>\right<\psi_{u'}\right|$ in front of the time derivatives \[see Eqs. (\[general\_identities\]) and (\[MCTDH\_conver\_orb\_eqs\_P\])\], we employ the invariance properties of the wavefunction $\Psi(t)=\overline{\Psi}(t)$, where $\left\{\phi_k(\r,t)\right\} \to \left\{\overline{\phi}_k(\r,t)\right\}$, $\left\{\psi_{k'}(\r,t)\right\} \to \left\{\overline{\psi}_{k'}(\r,t)\right\}$, and $\{C_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}(t)\} \to \{\overline{C}_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}(t)\}$. For this, consider the following time-dependent matrices: \[matrix\_U\] \^[(a)]{}(t), D\^[(a)]{}\_[kq]{}=i, \^[(m)]{}(t), D\^[(m)]{}\_[k’q’]{}=i. The matrices $\D^{(a)}(t)$ and $\D^{(m)}(t)$ are Hermitian matrices \[because the respective orbitals are normalized and orthogonal to one another, $\left<\phi_k(t)\left|\right.\phi_q(t)\right>=\delta_{kq}$ and $\left<\psi_{k'}(t)\left|\right.\psi_{q'}(t)\right>=\delta_{k'q'}$\] and hence can be diagonalized \[diagonal\_U\] {\^[(a)]{}(t)}\^\^[(a)]{}(t) \^[(a)]{}(t) = \^[(a)]{}(t), {\^[(m)]{}(t)}\^\^[(m)]{}(t) \^[(m)]{}(t) = \^[(m)]{}(t), where $\d^{(a)}(t)$ and $\d^{(m)}(t)$ are the diagonal matrices of the respective eigenvalues. Now, we define the unitary transformations (which are [*symbolically*]{} integrated): \[equation\_U\] & & iU\^[(a)]{}\_[sq]{}(t)= - \_[k=1]{}\^M D\^[(a)]{}\_[sk]{}(t) U\^[(a)]{}\_[kq]{}(t) \^[(a)]{}(t)=e\^[+i\^t \^[(a)]{}(t’) dt’]{} \^[(a)]{}(0),\
& & iU\^[(m)]{}\_[s’q’]{}(t)= - \_[k’=1]{}\^M D\^[(m)]{}\_[s’k’]{}(t) U\^[(m)]{}\_[k’q’]{}(t) \^[(m)]{}(t)=e\^[+i\^t \^[(m)]{}(t’) dt’]{} \^[(m)]{}(0), with the initial conditions defined in the limes $\tau \to 0$ as (see in this respect Ref. [@MCTDHB2]): \[U0\_initial\_conditions\] \^[(a)]{}() = \^[(a)]{}(0) e\^[+i \^[(a)]{}(0)]{}, \^[(m)]{}() = \^[(m)]{}(0) e\^[+i \^[(m)]{}(0)]{}. Then, the unitary transformations of the orbitals \[orbitals\_U\] & & \_q(,t) = \_[k=1]{}\^M U\^[(a)]{}\_[kq]{}(t) \_k(,t), q=1,…,M,\
& & \_[q’]{}(,t) = \_[k’=1]{}\^[M’]{} U\^[(m)]{}\_[k’q’]{}(t) \_[k’]{}(,t), q’=1,…,M’ lead to the desired result – equations of motion (\[MCTDH\_conver\_orb\_eqs\]) and (\[MCTDH\_W\_conver\_orb\_eqs\]) – where the projection operators $\hat{\mathbf P}^{(a)}$ and $\hat{\mathbf P}^{(m)}$ have been eliminated from the left-hand sides.
The transformation $\{C_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}(t)\} \to \{\overline{C}_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}(t)\}$ accompanying Eq. (\[orbitals\_U\]), carries equations of motion (\[MCTDH\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\_P\]) for the expansion coefficients to the respective final result, Eqs. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\]) and (\[MCTDH\_W\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\]). It is instructive to obtain this result by proving that the equations of motion for the expansion coefficients are [*form-invariant*]{}. Namely, if ${\bcalH}^{(2a \leftrightharpoons m)}(t)\C(t) = i\frac{\partial \C(t)}{\partial t}$ are satisfied for the untransformed quantities $\left[\{C_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}(t)\}, \left\{\phi_k(\r,t)\right\},
\left\{\psi_{k'}(\r,t)\right\}\right]$ then $\overline{{\bcalH}}^{(2a \leftrightharpoons m)}(t)\overline{\C}(t) = i\frac{\partial \overline{\C}(t)}{\partial t}$ are satisfied for the transformed ones $\left[\{\overline{C}_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}(t)\}, \left\{\overline{\phi}_k(\r,t)\right\},
\left\{\overline{\psi}_{k'}(\r,t)\right\}\right]$. The proof is straightforward. Equating the variation of the functional action (\[action\_functional\_AM\_full\],\[expectation\_ham\_b\]) with respect to the expansion coefficients to zero, the result can be written as follows: $\left<\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p;t\left|\hat H^{(2a\leftrightharpoons m)} -
i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right|\Psi(t)\right>, \forall p,\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p$. Since, the transformed configurations $\left\{\overline{\left<\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p;t\right|}\right\}$ are given as linear combinations of the untransformed configurations $\left\{\left<\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p;t\right|\right\}$, the operator $\hat H^{(2a\leftrightharpoons m)} - i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ does not depend on the orbitals, and $\left|\overline{\Psi}(t)\right>=\left|\Psi(t)\right>$, we immediately get: $\overline{\left<\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p;t\right|}\hat H^{(2a\leftrightharpoons m)} -
i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left|\overline{\Psi}(t)\right>, \forall p,\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p$, which concludes our proof. To our needs, since the transformed orbitals (\[orbitals\_U\]) obey the differential conditions $\left<\overline{\phi}_k\left|\right.\dot{\overline{\phi}}_q\right> = 0; k,q=1,\ldots,M$ and $\left<\overline{\psi}_{k'}\left|\right.\dot{\overline{\psi}}_{q'}\right> = 0; k',q'=1,\ldots,M'$ \[see Eq. (\[MCTDHI\_mix\_conv\_const\])\], the respective equations of motion for the transformed coefficients boil down to $\overline{{\H}}^{(2a \leftrightharpoons m)}(t)\overline{\C}(t) = i\frac{\partial \overline{\C}(t)}{\partial t}$ \[see Eqs. (\[MCTDH\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\]) and (\[MCTDH\_W\_conver\_coeff\_eqs\])\].
Matrix elements with multiconfigurational wavefunctions in systems with particle conversion {#matrix_Appen}
===========================================================================================
There are two types of matrix elements in the theory. The first type are matrix elements of the many-body Hamiltonian with respect to the configurations. These matrix elements are expressed using the matrix elements of the one-body terms, two-body interaction terms, and the conversion term with respect to the atomic and molecular orbitals. The second type of matrix elements are the matrix elements of the reduced density matrices appearing in the theory, which are expressed in terms of the expansion coefficients.
In this appendix we prescribe these matrix elements. It is easy to connect the matrix elements of particle-conserving operators to the corresponding matrix elements appearing in the available multiconfigurational theories for identical particles and mixtures. This assignment will shorten substantially the discussion below. The matrix elements of particle non-conserving operators are new and will be presented in full details.
Matrix elements of the Hamiltonian
----------------------------------
The many-body Hamiltonian (\[ham\_am\_1\]-\[ham\_am\_3\]) is written as a sum of particle-conserving and particle non-conserving parts: $\hat H^{(2a\rightleftharpoons m)} = \hat H^{(am)} + \hat W^{(2a\rightleftharpoons m)}$. The matrix elements of the particle-conserving part $\hat H^{(am)}$, see Eqs. (\[ham\_am\_1\],\[ham\_am\_2\]), between two general configurations derive from the following relation: \[ham\_particle\_consere\_ME\] = \_[p,p’]{} . Thus, it corresponds to a matrix element of a mixture with $N-2p$ atoms and $p$ molecules [*without conversion*]{}. The matrix elements of the Hamiltonian of a mixture of two kinds of bosons with respect to two general configurations have been prescribed within the respective particle-conserving multiconfigurational theory for Bose-Bose mixtures, the MCTDH-BB theory, see Ref. [@MIX].
To evaluate the matrix elements of the particle non-conserving part of the Hamiltonian, $\hat W^{(2a\rightleftharpoons m)}=\hat W^{(2a\rightharpoonup m)} + \hat W^{(m\rightharpoondown 2a)}$, see Eqs. (\[ham\_am\_1\],\[ham\_am\_3\]), between two general configurations we have to introduce a shorthand notation for different configurations. The reference configuration is denoted by $\left|\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p;t\right> =
\left|n_1^p,\ldots,n_k^p,\ldots,n_q^p,\ldots,n_M^p:m_1^p,\ldots,m_{k'}^p,\ldots,m_{M'}^p;t\right>$. We remind that the occupation numbers satisfy the relations: $|\vec{n}^p|=n_1^p+\ldots+n_M^p=N-2p$ and $|\vec{m}^p|=m_1^p+\ldots+m_{M'}^p=p$, where $p$ is the number of molecules. Now, the configuration $\left|\vec{n}^{p-1}_{kq},\vec{m}^{p-1}_{k'};t\right> \equiv
\left|n_1^p,\ldots,n_k^p+1,\ldots,n_q^p+1,\ldots,n_M^p:m_1^p,\ldots,m_{k'}^p-1,\ldots,m_{M'}^p;t\right>$ differs from $\left|\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p;t\right>$ by having $p-1$ molecules and $N-2p+2$ atoms, where a molecule in the $k'$-th orbital has dissociated to two atoms, one in the $k$-th orbital and the second in the $q$-th orbital; and the configuration $\left|\vec{n}^{p-1}_{kk},\vec{m}^{p-1}_{k'};t\right> \equiv
\left|n_1^p,\ldots,n_k^p+2,\ldots,n_M^p:m_1^p,\ldots,m_{k'}^p-1,\ldots,m_{M'}^p;t\right>$ differs from $\left|\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p;t\right>$ by having $p-1$ molecules and $N-2p+2$ atoms, where a molecule in the $k'$-th orbital has dissociated to two atoms, both in the $k$-th orbital. We employ a nomenclature where the same ordering of the orbitals $\phi_1,\ldots,\phi_M$ and $\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_{M'}$ as in Eq. (\[MCTDH\_AM\_Psi\]) is kept for all configurations. In this nomenclature the following states are equivalent: $\left|\vec{n}^{p-1}_{kq},\vec{m}^{p-1}_{k'};t\right> \equiv
\left|\vec{n}^{p-1}_{qk},\vec{m}^{p-1}_{k'};t\right>$.
With this notation, the non-vanishing matrix elements of the particle non-conserving part of the Hamiltonian follow from \[ham\_particle\_NON\_consere\_ME\] & & = W\^[(2am)]{}\_[k’kq]{} , k<q,\
& & = W\^[(2am)]{}\_[k’kk]{} , and the relation $\left<\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p;t\left| \hat W^{(m\rightharpoondown 2a)}\right|\vec{n}'^{p'},\vec{m}'^{p'};t\right>=
\left\{\left<\vec{n}'^{p'},\vec{m}'^{p'};t\left| \hat W^{(2a\rightharpoonup m)}\right|\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p;t\right>\right\}^\ast$. We note that $W^{(2a\rightharpoonup m)}_{k'kq} = W^{(2a\rightharpoonup m)}_{k'qk}$ because $\hat W^{(2a\rightharpoonup m)}(\r,\r') = \hat W^{(2a\rightharpoonup m)}(\r',\r)$. To summarize, direct coupling in the matrix representation of the Hamiltonian with respect to the configurations exists due to the particle non-conserving part of the Hamiltonian $\hat W^{(2a\rightleftharpoons m)}$ between configurations with $p$ and $p-1$ molecules only, for $p=1,\ldots,\left[N/2\right]$.
Matrix elements of reduced density matrices
-------------------------------------------
The multiconfigurational ansatz (\[MCTDH\_AM\_Psi\]) can be written in the following form, \[multi\_psi\_appen\] |(t)> = \_[p=0]{}\^ |\_p(t)>, where each $\left|\Psi_p(t)\right> = \sum_{\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p}
C_{\vec{n}^p\vec{m}^p}(t) \left|\vec{n}^p,\vec{m}^p;t\right>$ is a (non-normalized) many-particle wavefunction with a [*definite*]{} number of $p$ molecules and $N-2p$ atoms, and thus “describes” a bosonic mixture [*without conversion*]{}. Consequently, the matrix elements of the particle-conserving reduced density matrices can be expressed as follows: \[matrix\_elements\_rho\_conserved\] & & \_[kq]{}\^[(a)]{}(t) = = \_[p=0]{}\^ ,\
& & \_[k’q’]{}\^[(m)]{}(t) = = \_[p=0]{}\^ ,\
& & \_[kslq]{}\^[(a)]{}(t) = = \_[p=0]{}\^ ,\
& & \_[k’s’l’q’]{}\^[(m)]{}(t) = = \_[p=0]{}\^ ,\
& & \_[kk’qq’]{}\^[(am)]{}(t) = = \_[p=0]{}\^ . In other words, the matrix elements of the particle-conserving reduced density matrices can be readily read from the reduced density matrices of the respective particle-conserving multiconfigurational theory for Bose-Bose mixtures, the MCTDH-BB theory, see Ref. [@MIX].
The matrix elements of the particle non-conserving reduced density matrices are given explicitly by \[matrix\_ele\_particle\_non\_den\_gen\] & & \^[(2am)]{}\_[k’kq]{} = = \_[p=0]{}\^[\[N/2\]]{} \_[\^p,\^p]{} C\^\_[\^p,\^p]{} C\_[\^[p-1]{}\_[kq]{},\^[p-1]{}\_[k’]{}]{} , k<q,\
& & \^[(2am)]{}\_[k’kk]{} = \_[p=0]{}\^[\[N/2\]]{} \_[\^p,\^p]{} C\^\_[\^p,\^p]{} C\_[\^[p-1]{}\_[kk]{},\^[p-1]{}\_[k’]{}]{} . All other matrix elements are derived from the symmetry of the conversion operator, $\rho^{(2a\rightharpoonup m)}_{k'qk}=\rho^{(2a\rightharpoonup m)}_{k'kq}$, and the Hermiticity relation $\rho^{(m\rightharpoondown 2a)}_{qkk'}(t) =
\left\{\rho^{(2a\rightharpoonup m)}_{k'kq}(t)\right\}^\ast$.
[99]{} , edited by K. C. Kulander (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991).
J. E. Bayfield, [*Quantum Evolution: An Introduction to Time-Dependent Quantum Mechanics*]{} (Wiley, New York, 1999).
P. Ring and P. Schuck, [*The Nuclear Many-Body Problem*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 2000).
, edited by J. Ullrich and V. P. Shevelko (Springer, Berlin, 2003).
L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, [*Bose-Einstein Condensation*]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003).
, edited by D. A. Micha and I. Burghardt, Springer Series in Chemical Physics, Vol. 83 (Springer, Berlin, 2007).
H.-D. Meyer, U. Manthe, and L. S. Cederbaum, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**165**]{}, 73 (1990).
U. Manthe, H.-D. Meyer, and L. S. Cederbaum, J. Chem. Phys. [**97**]{}, 3199 (1992).
G. A. Worth, M. H. Beck, A. Jäckle, and H.-D. Meyer, The MCTDH Package, Version 8.2, (2000); H.-D. Meyer, Version 8.3 (2002); Version 8.4 (2007). See http://mctdh.uni-hd.de/ .
G. A. Worth, H.-D. Meyer, and L. S. Cederbaum, J. Chem. Phys. [**109**]{}, 3518 (1998).
A. Raab, G. Worth, H.-D. Meyer, and L. S. Cederbaum, J. Chem. Phys. [**110**]{}, 936 (1999).
M. H. Beck, A. Jäckle, G. A. Worth, and H.-D. Meyer, Phys. Rep. [**324**]{}, 1 (2000).
H.-D. Meyer and G. A. Worth, Theor. Chem. Acc. [**109**]{} 251 (2003).
R. van Harrevelt and U. Manthe, J. Chem. Phys. [**123**]{}, 064106 (2005).
L. S. Cederbaum, E. Gindensperger, and I. Burghardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 113003 (2005).
H.-D. Meyer, F. Le Quere, C. Leonard, and F. Gatti, Chem. Phys. [**329**]{}, 179 (2006).
O. Vendrell, F. Gatti, D. Lauvergnat, and H.-D. Meyer, J. Chem. Phys. [**127**]{}, 184302 (2007).
O. Vendrell, F. Gatti, and H.-D. Meyer, J. Chem. Phys. [**127**]{}, 184303 (2007).
H. Tamura, J. G. S. Ramon, E. R. Bittner, and I. Burghardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 107402 (2008).
P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. [**26**]{}, 376 (1930).
J. Frenkel, [*Wave Mechanics*]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1934).
H. Wang and M. Thoss, J. Chem. Phys. [**119**]{}, 1289 (2003).
S. Zöllner, H.-D. Meyer, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 053612 (2006).
S. Zöllner, H.-D. Meyer, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 063611 (2006).
C. Matthies, S. Zöllner, H.-D. Meyer, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. A [**76**]{}, 023602 (2007).
S. Zöllner, H.-D. Meyer, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 040401 (2008).
S. Zöllner, H.-D. Meyer, and P. Schmelcher, Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 013621 (2008).
A. U. J. Lode, A. I. Streltsov, O. E. Alon, H.-D. Meyer, and L. S. Cederbaum, J. Phys. B (in press).
J. Zanghellini, M. Kitzler, C. Fabian, T. Brabec, and A. Scrinzi, Laser Phys. [**13**]{}, 1064 (2003).
T. Kato and H. Kono, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**392**]{}, 533 (2004).
M. Nest, T. Klamroth, and P. Saalfrank, J. Chem. Phys. [**122**]{}, 124102 (2005).
A. I. Streltsov, O. E. Alon, and L. S. Cederbaum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 030402 (2007).
O. E. Alon, A. I. Streltsov, and L. S. Cederbaum, Phys. Rev. A [**77**]{}, 033613 (2008).
M. Kitzler, J. Zanghellini, Ch. Jungreuthmayer, M. Smits, A. Scrinzi, and T. Brabec, Phys. Rev. A [**70**]{}, 041401(R) (2004).
J. Caillat, J. Zanghellini, M. Kitzler, O. Koch, W. Kreuzer, and A. Scrinzi, Phys. Rev. A [**71**]{}, 012712 (2005).
Z. Zhang, C. F. Destefani, C. McDonald, and T. Brabec, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 161309(R) (2005).
G. Jordan, J. Caillat, C. Ede, and A. Scrinzi, J. Phys. B [**39**]{}, S341 (2006).
M. Nest, Phys. Rev. A [**73**]{}, 023613 (2006).
M. Nest, R. Padmanaban, and P. Saalfrank, J. Chem. Phys. [**126**]{}, 214106 (2007).
F. Remacle, M. Nest, and R. D. Levine, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 183902 (2007).
A. I. Streltsov, O. E. Alon, and L. S. Cederbaum, Phys. Rev. Lett [**100**]{}, 130401 (2008).
K. Sakmann, A. I. Streltsov, O. E. Alon, and L. S. Cederbaum, Phys. Rev. A [**78**]{}, 023615 (2008).
J. Grond, J. Schmiedmayer, and U. Hohenester, arXiv:0806.3877v1.
P.-O. Löwdin, Phys. Rev. [**97**]{}, 1474 (1955).
A. J. Coleman and V. I. Yukalov, [*Reduced Density Matrices: Coulson’s Challenge*]{} (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000).
D. A. Mazziotti, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 213001 (2004).
D. A. Mazziotti, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 143002 (2006).
G. Gidofalvi and D. A. Mazziotti, Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 012501 (2006).
, edited by D. A. Mazziotti, Advances in Chemical Physics, Vol. 134 (Wiley, New York, 2007).
D. A. Mazziotti, J. Chem. Phys. [**126**]{}, 184101 (2007).
E. Kamarchik and D. A. Mazziotti, Phys. Rev. A [**75**]{}, 013203 (2007).
A. I. Streltsov, O. E. Alon, and L. S. Cederbaum, Phys. Rev. A [**73**]{}, 063626 (2006).
O. E. Alon, A. I. Streltsov, and L. S. Cederbaum, J. Chem. Phys. [**127**]{}, 154103 (2007).
O. E. Alon, A. I. Streltsov, and L. S. Cederbaum, Phys. Rev. A [**76**]{}, 062501 (2007).
P. D. Drummond, K. V. Kheruntsyan, and H. He, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 3055 (1998).
J. Javanainen and M. Mackie, Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{}, R3186 (1999).
E. Timmermans, P. Tommasini, M. Hussein, and A. Kerman, Phys. Rep. [**315**]{}, 199 (1999).
V. A. Yurovsky, A. Ben-Reuven, P. S. Julienne, and C. J. Williams, Phys. Rev. A [**60**]{}, R765 (1999).
E. Timmermans, P. Tommasini, R. Côté, M. Hussein, and A. Kerman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 2691 (1999).
R. Wynar, R. S. Freeland, D. J. Han, C. Ryu, and D. J. Heinzen, Science [**287**]{}, 1016 (2000).
D. J. Heinzen, R. Wynar, P. D. Drummond, and K. V. Kheruntsyan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 5029 (2000).
K. Góral, M. Gajda, and K. Rzażewski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 1397 (2001).
M. Holland, J. Park, and R. Walser, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 1915 (2001).
S. K. Adhikari, J. Phys. B. [**34**]{}, 4231 (2001).
A. Vardi, V. A. Yurovsky, and J. R. Anglin, Phys. Rev. A [**64**]{}, 063611 (2001).
C. McKenzie, J. Hecker Denschlag, H. Häffner, A. Browaeys, L. E. E. de Araujo, F. K. Fatemi, K. M. Jones, J. E. Simsarian, D. Cho, A. Simoni, E. Tiesinga, P. S. Julienne, K. Helmerson, P. D. Lett, S. L. Rolston, and W. D. Phillips, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 120403 (2002).
E. A. Donley, N. R. Claussen, S. T. Thompson, and D. E. Weiman, Nature (London) [**417**]{}, 529 (2002).
D. Jaksch, V. Venturi, J. I. Cirac, C. J. Williams, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 040402 (2002).
R. A. Duine and H. T. C. Stoof, J. Opt. B [**5**]{}, S212 (2003).
T. Esslinger and K. M[ø]{}lmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 160406 (2003).
J. Herbig, T. Kraemer, M. Mark, T. Weber, C. Chin, H.-C. Nägerl, and R. Grimm, Science [**301**]{}, 1510 (2003).
K. Xu, T. Mukaiyama, J. R. Abo-Shaeer, J. K. Chin, D. E. Miller, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 210402 (2003).
S. Dürr, T. Volz, A. Marte, and G. Rempe, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 020406 (2004).
R. A. Duine and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rep. [**396**]{}, 115 (2004).
L. Radzihovsky, J. Park, and P. B. Weichman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 160402 (2004).
S. G. Bhongale, J. N. Milstein, and M. J. Holland, Phys. Rev. A [**69**]{}, 053603 (2004).
M. W. J. Romans, R. A. Duine, S. Sachdev, and H. T. C. Stoof, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 020405 (2004).
T. Rom, T. Best, O. Mandel, A. Widera, M. Greiner, T. W. Hänsch, and I. Bloch, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{}, 073002 (2004).
P. Meystre, J. Phys. B [**38**]{}, S617 (2005).
G.-R. Jin, C. K. Kim, and K. Nahm, Phys. Rev. A [**72**]{}, 045601 (2005).
R. S. Tasgal, G. Menabde, and Y. B. Band, Phys. Rev. A [**74**]{}, 053613 (2006).
T. Köhler, K. Góral, and P. S. Julienne, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**78**]{}, 1311 (2006).
I. Tikhonenkov and A. Vardi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 080403 (2007).
N. Syassen, D. M. Bauer, M. Lettner, D. Dietze, T. Volz, S. Dürr, and G. Rempe, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 033201 (2007).
S. J. Woo, Q-Han Park, and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 120403 (2008).
S. Giorgini, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**80**]{}, 1215 (2008).
R. Friedberg and T. D. Lee, Phys. Lett. A [**138**]{}, 423 (1989).
R. Friedberg and T. D. Lee, Phys. Rev. B [**40**]{}, 6745 (1989).
P. Kramer and M. Saracento, [*Geometry of the time-dependent variational principle*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1981).
H.-J. Kull and D. Pfirsch, Phys. Rev. E [**61**]{}, 5940 (2000).
O. E. Alon, A. I. Streltsov, and L. S. Cederbaum, Phys. Lett. A 362, 453 (2007).
A. Szabo and N. S. Ostlund, [*Modern Quantum Chemistry*]{} (Dover, Mineola, NY, 1996).
, edited by D. R. Yarkony (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995).
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The area of *judicious partitioning* considers the general family of partitioning problems in which one seeks to optimize several parameters simultaneously, and these problems have been widely studied in various combinatorial contexts. In this paper, we study essentially the most fundamental judicious partitioning problem for directed graphs, which naturally extends the classical Max Cut problem to this setting: we seek bipartitions in which many edges cross in each direction. It is easy to see that a minimum outdegree condition is required in order for the problem to be nontrivial, and we prove that every directed graph with $m$ edges and minimum outdegree at least two admits a bipartition in which at least $(\frac{1}{6}+o(1))m$ edges cross in each direction. We also prove that if the minimum outdegree is at least three, then the constant can be increased to $\frac{1}{5}$. If the minimum outdegree tends to infinity with $n$, then the constant increases to $\frac{1}{4}$. All of these constants are best-possible, and provide asymptotic answers to a question of Alex Scott.'
author:
- 'Choongbum Lee [^1]'
- 'Po-Shen Loh [^2]'
- 'Benny Sudakov [^3]'
title: Judicious partitions of directed graphs
---
\#1[\[\#1\]]{} \#1 \#1[\[\#1\]]{} ¶\#1[(\#1)]{} \#1[(\#1)]{}
Introduction\[sec:Introduction\]
================================
Partitioning problems have a long history in mathematics and theoretical computer science. One famous example is Max Cut, which seeks a bipartition of a given graph which maximizes the number of edges which cross between the two sides. This is a fundamental problem, and has been the subject of much investigation (see, e.g., [@FrJe97; @GoWi95; @Hastad01; @TSSW00] and their references). Computing the exact solution can be quite difficult, since the Max Cut problem is known to be NP-complete. Still, it is possible to obtain some estimates on the size of the Max Cut in terms of the number of edges of the graph. A folklore bound (which comes from a simple and efficient algorithm) asserts that every graph with $m$ edges has
$$\MAXCUT\ge\frac{m}{2}.$$ This immediately gives a 0.5-approximation algorithm, because no cut can have size greater than the total number of edges $m$. The current best known approximation ratio of 0.87856 is given by the celebrated algorithm of Goemans and Williamson [@GoWi95], which is based on an ingenious application of semi-definite programming. From a purely combinatorial perspective, it is of interest to determine best-possible bounds for parameters of optimal partitions. Edwards [@Edwards73] improved on the folklore bound and proved that $$\MAXCUT
\ge
\left\lceil
\frac{m}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{m}{8}+\frac{1}{64}}-\frac{1}{8}
\right\rceil,$$ which is tight, e.g., for complete graphs.
Empowered by the growth of probabilistic techniques, a new class of *judicious* partitioning results has emerged. In these problems, one simultaneously optimizes several properties, in contrast to the classical problems such as Max Cut where one attempts to optimize a single parameter. A classic result in this area is a theorem of Bollobás and Scott [@BoSc99] which asserts that every $m$-edge graph has a bipartition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ of its vertex set in which $$e(V_{1},V_{2})
\ge
\left\lceil
\frac{m}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{m}{8}+\frac{1}{64}}-\frac{1}{8}
\right\rceil$$ and $$\max\{e(V_{1}),e(V_{2})\}\le\frac{m}{4}+\sqrt{\frac{m}{32}+\frac{1}{256}}-\frac{1}{16}.$$ Note that their result simultaneously optimizes three parameters: the number of edges across the partition (matching the Edwards bound), and the number of edges inside each $V_{i}$. We direct the interested reader to any of [@ABKS; @AKS; @BoReTh93; @BoSc00; @BoSc10; @Ha11; @KuOs07; @LeLoSu; @MaYaYu10; @MaYu11] (by no means a comprehensive list), or to either of the surveys [@BoSc02a; @Scott06] for more background on the judicious partitioning literature.
In this paper we study essentially the most fundamental judicious partitioning problem for directed graphs. A directed graph is a pair $(V,
E)$ where $V$ is a set of vertices, and $E$ is a set of distinct edges ${\overrightarrow{uv}}$, where $u \neq v$. We disallow loops and multiple edges, but do allow both ${\overrightarrow{uv}}$ and ${\overrightarrow{vu}}$ to be present. In this context, any cut $V = V_1 \cup V_2$ is most naturally associated with two parameters: the number of edges from $V_1$ to $V_2$, and the number of edges from $V_2$ to $V_1$. Thus, in contrast to undirected graphs, where Max Cut only needs to optimize a single parameter (the total number of crossing edges), in directed graphs one can measure the size of a cut in each direction. Therefore, in the judicious analogue of the Max Cut problem for directed graphs, one seeks a bipartition which has many edges crossing in both directions.
Although it is easy to guarantee a partition with at least $1/4$ of the edges in a single direction, one immediately notices that the problem as stated above has the following issue. If the digraph is a star with all edges oriented from a central vertex, then regardless of the bipartition, one direction would always have zero edges. This is similar to the issue which arose in the judicious bisection problem in graphs (see [@LeLoSu]), and in both cases, it can be resolved by imposing a minimum-degree condition. The following natural question appears in the survey of Scott [@Scott06].
Let $d$ be a positive integer. What is the maximum constant $c_{d}$ such that every $m$-edge directed graph of minimum outdegree at least $d$ admits a bipartition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ of its vertex set in which $$\min\{e(V_{1},V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\}\ge c_{d}\cdot m?$$
For $d=1$, consider the graph $K_{1,n-1}$ and add a single edge inside the part of size $n-1$. This graph can be oriented so that the minimum outdegree is 1 and $\min\{e(V_{1},V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\}\le1$ for every partition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$. This is because we have a cyclically oriented triangle, with lots of edges all pointing in to one of the vertices of that triangle. Then all of those edges will only contribute to $e(V_1, V_2)$ or $e(V_2, V_1)$, depending on whether the apex is in $V_2$ or $V_1$, respectively. Altogether, the other edges will only contribute a total of at most one edge back in the other direction. Hence we see that $c_{1}=0$.
For $d\ge2$, first orient the edges of the complete graph $K_{2d-1}$ along an Eulerian circuit. In this way we obtain a directed graph with $2d-1$ vertices, and all outdegrees equal to $d-1$. Moreover, in every bipartition of its vertex set, the number of edges crossing in each direction is exactly the same (this is easily seen by following the Eulerian circuit). Hence in every bipartition of its vertex set, the maximum number of edges in any direction is at most $\frac{d(d-1)}{2}$. Now consider the directed graph where we take $k$ vertex disjoint copies of $K_{2d-1}$ oriented as above, and a single vertex disjoint copy of $K_{2d+1}$ oriented in a similar manner. Fix a vertex $v_{0}$ of $K_{2d+1}$, and add edges so that all the vertices belonging to the copies of $K_{2d-1}$ are in-neighbors of $v_{0}$. This graph has minimum outdegree $d$, and its number of edges is $$\begin{aligned}
m &= k(d-1)(2d-1)+d(2d+1)+k(2d-1) \\
&= kd(2d-1) + d(2d+1).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, for every partition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ of its vertex set with $v_{0}\in V_{1}$, we have $$e(V_{1,}V_{2})\le k\frac{d(d-1)}{2}+\frac{d(d+1)}{2}=\frac{d-1}{2(2d-1)}m+\frac{d^{2}}{2d-1}.$$ Hence this graph shows that $c_{d}\le\frac{d-1}{2(2d-1)}$. Our main theorem asserts that for $d=2,3$ this bound is asymptotically best possible.
\[thm:main\]For $d=2,3$, every directed graph of minimum outdegree at least $d$ admits a bipartition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ of its vertex set for which $$\min\{e(V_{1},V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\}\ge\left(\frac{d-1}{2(2d-1)}+o(1)\right)m.$$ Thus $c_{2}=\frac{1}{6} + o(1)$ and $c_{3}=\frac{1}{5} + o(1)$.
Based on the constructions above and Theorem \[thm:main\] we make the following conjecture.
\[conj:main\] Let $d$ be an integer satisfying $d\ge4$. Every directed graph of minimum outdegree at least $d$ admits a bipartition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ of its vertex set for which $$\min\{e(V_{1},V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\}
\ge
\left(\frac{d-1}{2(2d-1)}+o(1)\right)m.$$
This paper is organized as follows. In Sections \[sec:second\_moment\] and \[sec:bisection\], we prove the core results which drive the proof of our main theorem. We prove the $d=2$ case of the main theorem in Section \[sec:min-2\], and the $d=3$ case in Section \[sec:min-3\]. The final section contains some concluding remarks, with a discussion of the obstacles that remain in the cases $d\ge4$.
**Notation.** Graphs $G=(V,E)$ and directed graphs $D=(V,E)$ are given by pairs of vertex sets and edge sets. All of our objects will have no loops (endpoints of edges are distinct), and no multiple edges (edges are all distinct), although directed graphs are permitted to have antiparallel pairs ${\overrightarrow{uv}}$, ${\overrightarrow{vu}}$. A directed graph is connected if the underlying undirected graph is connected. For an undirected graph $G=(V,E)$ and two vertex subsets $X$ and $Y$, we let $e(X,Y)=|\{xy\,:\, x\in X,y\in Y,\,xy\in E\}|$. For a directed graph $D=(V,E)$ and a vertex $v$, let $d^{-}(v)$ and $d^{+}(v)$ be the number of $v$’s in-neighbors and out neighbors, respectively, and let $d(v)=d^{-}(v)+d^{+}(v)$ be the total degree of $v$. Note that $d(v)$ can potentially be as high as $2(n-1)$ because edges in both directions are permitted between each pair. For two vertex subsets $X$ and $Y$ in a digraph, let $e(X,Y)=|\{{\overrightarrow{xy}}\,:\, x\in X,y\in Y,{\overrightarrow{xy}}\in E\}|$. Let $e(X) = e(X, X)$. For a vertex set $A$, we let $D[A]$ denote the induced subgraph of $D$ on $A$. Since the majority of our results are asymptotic in nature, we will implicitly ignore rounding effects whenever these effects are of smaller order than our error terms. For two functions $f(n)$ and $g(n)$, we write $f(n)=o(g(n))$ if $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}f(n)/g(n)=0$. We often use subscripts such as $\varepsilon_{3.1}$ to indicate that $\varepsilon$ is the constant coming from Theorem/Corollary/Lemma 3.1.
Basic probabilistic approach {#sec:second_moment}
============================
A simple, yet powerful, method of obtaining an effective partition is to apply randomness, by independently placing each vertex to each side with some specified probability. Even though this method is not powerful enough to immediately solve our main problem, it serves as a useful starting point, and in fact provides a sufficiently good partition for some range of the parameter space. In this section, we develop this idea in a slightly more general form, keeping in mind later applications. The following lemma estimates the number of edges across a random partition using the first and second moment methods.
\[lem:secondmoment\] Let $D=(V,E)$ be a directed graph with $m$ edges. Let $0 \leq p \leq 1$ be a real number. Suppose that we are also given a subset $A\subset V$, with partition $A=A_{1}\cup A_{2}$. Let $B=V\setminus A$ and consider a random bipartition $B=B_{1}\cup B_{2}$ obtained by independently placing each vertex of $B$ in $B_{1}$ with probability $p$, and in $B_{2}$ with probability $1-p$. Let $V_{1}=A_{1}\cup B_{1}$ and $V_{2}=A_{2}\cup
B_{2}$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\E{e(V_{1},V_{2})} & =e(A_{1},A_{2})+(1-p)\cdot e(A_{1}, B)+p\cdot e(B, A_{2})+p(1-p)\cdot e(B)\quad\textrm{and}\\
\Var{e(V_{1},V_{2})} & <2m\cdot\max_{v\in B}d(v).
\end{aligned}$$
For each edge $e={\overrightarrow{vw}}$ of the directed graph $D$, let $\mathbf{1}_{e}$ be the indicator random variable of the event that the edge $e$ becomes an edge from $V_{1}$ to $V_{2}$. We have $$e(V_{1},V_{2})=\sum_{e}\mathbf{1}_{e}.$$ Note that $$\E{\mathbf{1}_{e}}=\left\{ \begin{split}1 & \quad \text{ if } v\in
A_{1},w\in A_{2},\\
1-p & \quad \text{ if } v\in A_{1},w\in B,\\
p & \quad \text{ if } v\in B,w\in A_{2},\\
p(1-p) & \quad \text{ if } v\in B,w\in B,\\
0 & \quad\text{ otherwise.}
\end{split}
\right.$$ The claim on the expected value of $e(V_{1},V_{2})$ immediately follows from linearity of expectation.
To estimate the variance of $e(V_{1},V_{2})$, it suffices to focus on the edges $e={\overrightarrow{vw}}$ for which $(v\in A_{1},w\in B)$, $(v\in B,w\in A_{2})$, or $(v,w\in B)$, as all other edges have constant contribution towards $e(V_{1},V_{2})$. Let $E_{1,2}$ be the set of such edges. We have $$\Var{\sum_{e}\mathbf{1}_{e}}=\Var{\sum_{e\in E_{1,2}}\mathbf{1}_{e}}=\sum_{e\in E_{1,2}}\Var{\mathbf{1}_{e}}+\sum_{e,e'\in E_{1,2},e\neq e'}\Cov{\mathbf{1}_{e},\mathbf{1}_{e'}}.$$ For $e\in E_{1,2}$, we have $\Var{\mathbf{1}_{e}}\le\E{\mathbf{1}_{e}}\le1$. For the second term, we have $\Cov{\mathbf{1}_{e},\mathbf{1}_{e'}}=0$ if $e$ and $e'$ do not share a vertex. If $e, e' \in E_{1,2}$ go between the same pair of endpoints, but in opposite directions, then they can never simultaneously contribute to $e(V_1, V_2)$, and hence $\Cov{\mathbf{1}_{e},\mathbf{1}_{e'}} \leq 0$. Furthermore, if $e,e'\in E_{1,2}$ share an endpoint in $A$ but have distinct endpoints in $B$, then $$\Cov{\mathbf{1}_{e},\mathbf{1}_{e'}}=\E{\mathbf{1}_{e}\mathbf{1}_{e'}}-\E{\mathbf{1}_{e}}\E{\mathbf{1}_{e'}}=0.$$ Hence the only positive contributions to $\Cov{\mathbf{1}_{e},\mathbf{1}_{e'}}$ come when $e$ and $e'$ share a vertex in $B$. Since $\Cov{\mathbf{1}_{e},\mathbf{1}_{e'}}\le\E{\mathbf{1}_{e}\mathbf{1}_{e'}}\le1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{e,e'\in E_{1,2},e\neq e'}\Cov{\mathbf{1}_{e},\mathbf{1}_{e'}} & \le\sum_{v\in B}d(v)(d(v)-1)\\
& \le\left(\sum_{v\in B}d(v)\right) \left(\max_{v\in B}d(v)-1\right)\\
& \le2m\left(\max_{v\in B}d(v)-1\right).\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\Var{\sum_{e\in E_{1,2}}\mathbf{1}_{e}}\le\left(\sum_{e\in
E_{1,2}}1\right)+2m\left(\max_{v\in B}d(v)-1\right)<2m\cdot\max_{v\in B}d(v).$$
This implies the following lemma.
\[lem:partition\_secondmoment\]Let $D=(V,E)$ be a given directed graph with $m$ edges. Let $p$ be a real satisfying $p\in[0,1]$, and $\varepsilon$ be a positive real. Suppose that a subset $A\subset V$ and its partition $A=A_{1}\cup A_{2}$ are given, and let $B=V\setminus A$. Further suppose that $\max_{v\in B}d(v)\le\frac{\varepsilon^{2}}{4}m$. Then there exists a partition $V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ for which $$\begin{aligned}
e(V_{1},V_{2}) & \ge e(A_{1},A_{2})+(1-p)\cdot e(A_{1}, B)+p\cdot e(B, A_{2})+p(1-p)\cdot e(B)-\varepsilon m\quad\textrm{and}\\
e(V_{2},V_{1}) & \ge e(A_{2},A_{1})+p\cdot e(A_{2}, B)+(1-p)\cdot e(B, A_{1})+p(1-p)\cdot e(B)-\varepsilon m.\end{aligned}$$
Let $V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ be the partition obtained by placing each vertex in $B$ independently in $V_{1}$ or $V_{2}$, with probability $p$ and $1-p$, respectively. Let $$m_{1,2}=e(A_{1},A_{2})+(1-p)\cdot e(A_{1}, B)+p\cdot e(B, A_{2})+p(1-p)\cdot e(B),$$ and $$m_{2,1}=e(A_{2},A_{1})+p\cdot e(A_{2}, B)+(1-p)\cdot e(B, A_{1})+p(1-p)\cdot e(B).$$ By Lemma \[lem:secondmoment\] and Chebyshev’s inequality, $$\mathbf{P}\Big(e(V_{1},V_{2})\ge m_{1,2}-\varepsilon m\Big)\le\frac{\Var{e(V_{1},V_{2})}}{\varepsilon^{2}m^{2}}<\frac{2m\cdot\max{}_{v\in B}d(v)}{\varepsilon^{2}m^{2}}\le\frac{(\varepsilon^{2}/2)m^{2}}{\varepsilon^{2}m^{2}}=\frac{1}{2}.$$ Similarly, we have $$\mathbf{P}\Big(e(V_{1},V_{2})\ge m_{2,1}-\varepsilon m\Big)<\frac{1}{2}.$$ Hence there exists a partition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ for which $e(V_{1},V_{2})\ge m_{1,2}-\varepsilon m$ and $e(V_{2},V_{1})\ge m_{2,1}-\varepsilon m$ both hold.
The next statement is an immediate corollary of the lemma.
\[prop:second\_moment\] For $\varepsilon > 0$, let $D=(V,E)$ be an $n$-vertex directed graph with $m$ edges, such that all degrees are at most $\frac{\varepsilon^{2}}{4}m$, or $m \geq 8 \varepsilon^{-2}n$. Then there exists a partition $V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ for which both $e(V_{1},V_{2})$ and $e(V_{2},V_{1})$ are at least $\big(\frac{1}{4}-\varepsilon\big)m$.
Note that $m\ge 8\varepsilon^{-2}n$ implies that the maximum degree is at most $\frac{\varepsilon^2}{4}m$, since all degrees of a directed graph are at most $2n$. Hence Proposition \[prop:second\_moment\] indeed is an immediate corollary of the lemma (where we take $p=\frac{1}{2}$ and $A_1 = A_2 = \emptyset$).
Large bipartition\[sec:bisection\]
==================================
As noticed in [@ErGyKo97; @PoTu82], the results that Edwards proved in [@Edwards75] implicitly imply that connected graphs with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges admit a bipartition of size at least $$\frac{m}{2}+\frac{n-1}{4}.$$ In fact, for even integers $n$ we have $\lceil\frac{m}{2}+\frac{n-1}{4}\rceil\ge\frac{m}{2}+\frac{n}{4}$, and thus the above bound implies that a graph with $\tau$ odd components admits a bipartition of size at least $$\frac{m}{2}+\frac{n-\tau}{4}.$$
A bisection of a graph is a bipartition of its vertex set in which the number of vertices in the two parts differ by at most one. In [@LeLoSu], we extended the bound above to bisections and proved that every graph with $n$ vertices, $m$ edges, $\tau$ odd components, and maximum degree $\Delta$ admits a bisection of size at least $$\frac{m}{2}+\frac{n-\max\{\tau,\Delta-1\}}{4}.$$
We then developed a randomized algorithm which asymptotically achieves the bound above (and some other estimates as well), based on the proof of this theorem. This algorithm turned out to be a powerful new tool in obtaining a judicious bisection result. In this paper, we adjust the randomized algorithm for directed graphs. The following theorem is one of the main tools of this paper.
\[thm:random\_bisection\]Given any real constants $C,\varepsilon>0$, there exist $\gamma,n_{0}>0$ for which the following holds. Let $D=(V,E)$ be a given directed graph with $n\geq n_{0}$ vertices and at most $Cn$ edges, and let $A\subset V$ be a set of at most $\gamma n$ vertices which have already been partitioned into $A_{1}\cup A_{2}$. Let $B=V\setminus A$, and suppose that every vertex in $B$ has degree at most $\gamma n$ (with respect to the full $D$). Let $\tau$ be the number of odd components in $D[B]$. Then, there is a bipartition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ with $A_{1}\subset V_{1}$ and $A_{2}\subset V_{2}$, such that both $$\begin{aligned}
e(V_{1},V_{2}) & \ge e(A_{1},A_{2})+\frac{e(A_{1},B)+e(B,A_{2})}{2}+\frac{e(B)}{4}+\frac{n-\tau}{8}-\varepsilon n\\
e(V_{2},V_{1}) & \ge e(A_{2},A_{1})+\frac{e(B,A_{1})+e(A_{2},B)}{2}+\frac{e(B)}{4}+\frac{n-\tau}{8}-\varepsilon n\,.\end{aligned}$$
Informally, Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\] asserts that if the number of edges and the maximum degree satisfy certain conditions, then we can in fact obtain an additive term of $\frac{n-\tau}{8}$ over the expected number of edges in a purely random bipartition. Consider the directed graphs given in Section \[sec:Introduction\] which achieve the upper bound of Theorem \[thm:main\]. In the notation of Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\], $A$ is the set whose only element is the vertex of degree $n-1$, and $B$ is the set of other vertices. Note that the induced subgraph on $B$ consists of components of odd size. These graphs are designed to maximize $\tau$, and hence these graphs will turn out to be the graphs which give the worst bound in Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\]. The proof of this theorem is somewhat involved, although it is similar to the that of the corresponding theorem in [@LeLoSu]. The rest of this section is devoted to its proof.
Decomposing the graph
---------------------
We start with a technical lemma which will provide structural information about the underlying undirected (simple) graph obtained by ignoring edge orientations and removing redundant parallel edges when edges in both directions appear between pairs of vertices. A *star* is a bipartite graph on $n$ vertices consisting of a unique vertex of degree $n-1$, and $n-1$ other vertices of degree one. We refer to the unique vertex of degree $n-1$ as the *apex*. The following lemma decomposes an undirected graph (with no loops or multiple edges) into induced stars plus some leftover vertices.
\[lem:star\_decompose\] Let $\varepsilon$ and $C$ be arbitrary positive reals. Let $G$ be an undirected graph with $n$ vertices, $m \leq Cn$ edges, maximum degree $\Delta$, and $\tau$ odd components. Then there exists a partition $V=T_{1}\cup T_{2}\cup\cdots\cup T_{s}\cup U$ of its vertex set such that
(i)
: each $T_{i}$ induces a star, and $2\le|T_{i}|\le\Delta+1$,
(ii)
: all but at most one non-apex vertex in each $T_{i}$ has degree (in the full graph) at most $\frac{2C}{\varepsilon}$, and
(iii)
: $U$ is an independent set of order $|U|\le\tau+\varepsilon n$.
The lemma above is implicitly proved in [@LeLoSu]. A similar lemma also appears in the paper of Erdős, Gyárfas, and Kohayakawa [@ErGyKo97], but their bound is in terms of the number of connected components, not the number of odd components. In order to prove this lemma, we first take a maximum matching. Afterwards, for the leftover vertices which are not covered by the matching, we attempt to find an edge in the matching with which the vertex will create an induced star. By systematically assigning each leftover vertex in this way, we will eventually obtain the partition described in Lemma \[lem:star\_decompose\]. In order to provide the full details for this argument, it is convenient to introduce the following concept.
Let $\{e_{1},\ldots,e_{s}\}$ be the edges of a maximum matching in a graph $G=(V,E)$, and let $W$ be the set of vertices not in the matching. With respect to this fixed matching, say that a vertex $v$ in a matching edge $e_{i}$ is a *free neighbor* of a vertex $w\in W$ if $w$ is adjacent to $v$, but $w$ is not adjacent to the other endpoint of $e_{i}$. In this case, we also say that $e_{i}$ is a *free neighbor* of $w$. Call a vertex $w\in W$ a *free vertex* if it has at least one free neighbor.
A *tight component* is a connected component $T$ such that for every $v\in T$, the subgraph induced by $T\setminus\{v\}$ contains a perfect matching, and every perfect matching of $T\setminus\{v\}$ has the property that no edge of the perfect matching has exactly one endpoint adjacent to $v$. Note that a tight component is necessarily an odd component. The following lemma delineates the relationship between non-free vertices and tight components.
\[lem:freeandtight\] Let $\{e_{1},\ldots,e_{s}\}$ be the edges of a maximum matching in an undirected graph $G=(V,E)$, and let $W$ be the set of vertices not in the matching. Further assume that among all matchings of maximum size, we have chosen one which maximizes the number of free vertices in $W$. Then, every tight component contains a distinct non-free vertex of $W$, and all non-free $W$-vertices are covered in this way (there is a bijective correspondence).
The matching $\{e_{1},\ldots,e_{s}\}$ must be maximal within each connected component. One basic property of a tight component is that it contains an almost-perfect matching which misses only one vertex. Consequently, by maximality, in every tight component $T$, $\{e_{1},\ldots,e_{s}\}$ must miss exactly one vertex $w\in W$. Furthermore, the second property of a tight component is that $w$ must have either 0 or 2 neighbors in each edge $e_{i}$ in $T$ (and $w$ must have 0 neighbors in each edge $e_{j}$ not in $T$, since $T$ is the connected component containing $w$). Therefore, the unique vertex $w$ is in fact a non-free $W$-vertex contained in $T$.
The remainder of the proof concentrates on the more substantial part of the claim, which is that each non-free $W$-vertex is contained in some tight component. Consider such a vertex $w$, and let $T$ be a maximal set of vertices which (i) contains $w$, (ii) induces a connected graph which is a tight component, and (iii) does not cut any $e_{i}$. Since the set $\{w\}$ satisfies (i)–(iii), our optimum is taken over a non-empty set, and so $T$ exists.
If $T$ is already disconnected from the rest of the graph, then we are done. So, consider a vertex $v\not\in T$ which has a neighbor $v'\in T$. If $v\in W$, then we can modify our matching by taking the edge $vv'$, and changing the matching within $T$ by using property (ii) to generate a new matching of $T\setminus\{v'\}$. This will not affect the matching outside of $T\cup\{v\}$, because property (iii) insulates the adjustments within $T$ from the rest of the matching outside. We would then obtain a matching with one more edge, contradicting maximality. Therefore, all vertices $v\not\in T$ which have neighbors in $T$ also satisfy $v\not\in W$.
Let us then consider a vertex $v_{1}\not\in T \cup W$ with a neighbor $v'\in T$. We now know that $v_{1}$ must be covered by a matching edge; let $v_{2}$ be the other endpoint of that edge. By (iii), we also have $v_{2}\not\in T$. Note that $v_{2}$ cannot have a neighbor $w'\in W\setminus T$, or else we could improve our matching by replacing $v_{1}v_{2}$ with $w'v_{2}$ and $v_{1}v'$, and then using (ii) to take a perfect matching of $T\setminus\{v'\}$.
Our next claim is that $v_{2}$ must be adjacent to $v'$ as well. Indeed, assume for contradiction that this is not the case. Then, consider modifying our matching by replacing $v_{1}v_{2}$ with the edge $v_{1}v'$ and changing the matching within $T$ by using (ii) to generate a new matching of $T\setminus\{v'\}$. As before, (iii) ensures that the result is still a matching. This time, the new matching has the same size as the original one, but with more free $W$-vertices (note that the vertex $v_{2}$ replaced the vertex $w$ in the set $W$). To see this, observe that $v_{2}$ is now unmatched and free because it is adjacent to $v_{1}$ but not $v'$. Previously, the only $W$-vertex inside $T$ was our original $w$, which we assumed to be non-free in the first place. Also, no other vertices outside of $T$ changed from being free to non-free, because we already showed that no $W$-vertices outside of $T$ were adjacent to $T\cup\{v_{2}\}$, and so any vertex that was free by virtue of its adjacency with $v_{1}$ but not $v_{2}$ is still free because it is not adjacent to $v'$ either. This contradiction to maximality establishes that $v_{2}$ must be adjacent to $v'$.
We now have $v_{1}$, $v_{2}$, and $v'$ all adjacent to each other, and no vertices of $W\setminus T$ are adjacent to $T\cup\{v_{1},v_{2}\}$. Our argument also shows that for any $v''\in T$ which is adjacent to one of $v_{1}$ or $v_{2}$, it also must be adjacent to the other. Our final objective is to show that $T'=T\cup\{v_{1},v_{2}\}$ also satisfies (i)–(iii), which would contradict the maximality of $T$. Properties (i) and (iii) are immediate, so it remains to verify the conditions of a tight component. Since $T$ is tight and $v_{1}v_{2}$ is an edge, $T'\setminus\{u\}$ has a perfect matching for any $u\in T$. The tightness of $T$ and the pairwise adjacency of $v_{1}$, $v_{2}$, and $v'$ also produce this conclusion if $u\in\{v_{1},v_{2}\}$. It remains to show that for any $u\in T'$ and any perfect matching of $T'\setminus\{u\}$, $u$ has either 0 or 2 vertices in every matching edge. But if this were not the case, then we could replace the matching within $T'$ with the violating matching of $T'\setminus\{u\}$. The two matchings would have the same size, but $u$ would become a free vertex. No other vertex of $W$ is adjacent to $T'$ by our observation above, so the number of free vertices would increase, contradicting the maximality of our initial matching. Therefore, $T'$ induces a tight component, contradicting the maximality of $T$. We conclude that $T$ must have been disconnected from the rest of the graph, as required.
We are now ready to prove Lemma \[lem:star\_decompose\].
Start by taking a maximum matching $\{e_{1},\ldots,e_{s}\}$ which secondarily maximizes the number of free vertices in $W=V\setminus\{e_{1},\ldots,e_{s}\}=\{w_{1},\ldots,w_{r}\}$, so that we can apply Lemma \[lem:freeandtight\]. By maximality, $W$ is an independent set. Let $U\subset W$ be the set of vertices which are either not free, or have degree at least $\frac{2C}{\varepsilon}$. Since all tight components have odd order, by Lemma \[lem:freeandtight\], there are at most $\tau$ non-free vertices. On the other hand, since there are at most $Cn$ edges in total, there are at most $\varepsilon n$ vertices which have degree at least $\frac{2C}{\varepsilon}$. Hence $|U|\le\tau+\varepsilon n$, giving (iii).
We now construct the induced stars. Let $T_{i}$ be the union of the set of vertices of $e_{i}$ and the set of vertices $w\in W\setminus U$ for which $i$ is the minimum index where $e_{i}$ is a free neighbor of $w$. This is a partition $V=T_{1}\cup T_{2}\cup\cdots\cup T_{s}\cup U$ because each vertex in $W\setminus U$ has at least one free neighbor by construction. Since our matching is maximal, there cannot be any $e_{i}=vv'$ such that $vw$ and $v'w'$ are both edges to distinct vertices $w,w' \in W$. So, if two vertices $w,w'\in W$ each have a free neighbor in an $e_{i}$, then their free neighbor is the same vertex. This, together with the fact that $W$ is an independent set, implies that each $T_{i}$ induces a star, giving (i). Finally, all vertices in each $T_{i}$ outside of $e_{i}$ have degree at most $\frac{2C}{\varepsilon}$, and thus (ii) holds.
Randomized algorithm
--------------------
In this subsection, we use the following martingale concentration result (essentially the Hoeffding-Azuma inequality) to control the performance of the randomized partitioning algorithm at the heart of Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\].
\[thm:azuma\] (Corollary 2.27 in [@JLR].) Given real numbers $\lambda,C_{1},\ldots,C_{n}>0$, let $f:\{0,1\}^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a function satisfying the following Lipschitz condition: whenever two vectors $z,z'\in\{0,1\}^{n}$ differ only in the $i$-th coordinate (for any $i$), we always have $|f(z)-f(z')|\leq C_{i}$. Suppose $X_{1},X_{2},\ldots,X_{n}$ are independent random variables, each taking values in $\{0,1\}$. Then, the random variable $Y=f(X_{1},\ldots,X_{n})$ satisfies $$\pr{|Y-\E Y|\geq\lambda}\leq2\exp\left\{ -\frac{\lambda^{2}}{2\sum C_{i}^{2}}\right\} .$$
We are now ready to prove Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\], which will be the core result for our main theorem.
*Proof of Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\].* Without loss of generality, assume that $C > 1$, $\epsilon < 1$, and $n$ is sufficiently large. Apply Lemma \[lem:star\_decompose\] to the underlying undirected (simple) graph induced by $B$, and obtain a partition $B=T_{1}\cup\cdots\cup T_{s}\cup U$. Note that since we are assured that the full digraph $D$ contains at most $Cn$ edges, we can actually establish in part (ii) of Lemma \[lem:star\_decompose\] that the degree bound of $\frac{2C}{\varepsilon}$ holds with respect to total degrees (in- plus outdegrees) in the full digraph $D$, not just in the undirected simple graph on $B$. (When constructing $U \subset W$ in the proof of that lemma, one may absorb all vertices with degree greater than $\frac{2C}{\varepsilon}$ with respect to the whole graph, not just in the underlying undirected graph on $B$.) So, we may assume that each $T_i$ has at most one non-apex vertex with full $D$-degree greater than $\frac{2C}{\varepsilon}$, and we still have $|U|\le\tau+\varepsilon n$. Let $v_{i}$ denote the apex vertex of tree $T_{i}$, arbitrarily distinguishing an apex if $T_i$ has only two vertices. We now randomly construct a bipartition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ by placing each $A_i$ in $V_i$, and partitioning each $T_i$ by independently placing each apex $v_{i}$ on a uniformly random side, and then placing the rest of $T_{i}\setminus\{v_{i}\}$ on the other side. Each remaining vertex (from the set $U$) is independently placed on a uniformly random side.
Define the random variables $Y_{1}=e(V_{1},V_{2})$ and $Y_{2}=e(V_{2},V_{1})$. For an edge $e={\overrightarrow{vw}}$ of the digraph, let $\mathbf{1}_{e}$ be the indicator random variable of the event that $v\in
V_{1}$ and $w\in V_{2}$. Thus $Y_{1}=\sum_{e}\mathbf{1}_{e}$ and $$\E{Y_{1}}=\sum_{e}\E{\mathbf{1}_{e}}.$$ We have $\E{\mathbf{1}_{e}}=1$ if $v\in A_{1}$ and $w\in A_{2}$, and $\E{\mathbf{1}_{e}}=\frac{1}{2}$ if either $v\in A_{1}$ and $w\in B$, or $v\in B$ and $w\in A_{2}$. For edges in $D[B]$, the gain comes from edges $e$ in the digraph which correspond to edges in the stars $T_i$ in the underlying undirected graph on $B$: there, we have $\E{\mathbf{1}_{e}}=\frac{1}{2}$, while all other edges in $D[B]$ give the regular $\E{\mathbf{1}_{e}}=\frac{1}{4}$. Note that the total number of edges in the stars induced by the sets $T_{i}$ is at least $\frac{|B|-|U|}{2}\ge\frac{(n-\gamma n)-(\tau+\varepsilon n)}{2}$. Therefore, $$\E{Y_{1}}
\ge
e(A_{1},A_{2})+\frac{e(A_{1},B)
+e(B,A_{2})}{2}+\frac{e(B)}{4}
+\frac{1}{4}\cdot\frac{(n-\gamma n)-(\tau+\varepsilon n)}{2}.
\label{ineq:random_split_gain}$$ Similarly, we have $$\E{Y_{2}}
\ge
e(A_{2},A_{1})+\frac{e(B,A_{1})+e(A_{2},B)}{2}
+\frac{e(B)}{4}+\frac{n-\tau}{8}
-\frac{(\varepsilon + \gamma) n}{8}.$$
For each $1\leq i\leq s$, let $C_{i}$ be the sum of the degrees of all vertices in $T_{i}$. Clearly, flipping the assignment of $v_{i}$ cannot affect $Y_{1}$ by more than $C_{i}$. Also, flipping the assignment of any $w\in U$ cannot change $Y_{1}$ by more than the degree $d(w)$ of $w$. Therefore, if we define $$L
=
\sum_{i=1}^{s}\left(\sum_{u\in T_{i}}d(u)\right)^{2}
+\sum_{w\in U}d(w)^{2}\,,$$ the Hoeffding-Azuma inequality (Theorem \[thm:azuma\]) gives $$\pr{Y_{1}\leq\E{Y_{1}}-\frac{\varepsilon n}{2}}\leq2\exp\left\{ -\frac{\varepsilon^{2}n^{2}}{8L}\right\} \,.\label{ineq:Y1-with-L}$$ Let us now control $L$. Each $T_{i}$ induces a star with apex $v_{i}\in
e_{i}$. Let $u_{i}$ be the unique non-apex vertex with degree greater than $\frac{2C}{\varepsilon}$ (if no such vertex exists, then let $u_{i}$ be an arbitrary non-apex vertex). Since every vertex in $T_{i}$ other than $v_{i}$ and $u_{i}$ has degree at most $\frac{2C}{\varepsilon}$ in the full $D$, we see that $$\sum_{u\in T_{i}}d(u)
\leq
d(v_{i})+d(u_{i})+(d(v_{i})-1)\cdot\frac{2C}{\varepsilon}
\leq
(d(u_{i})+d(v_{i}))\frac{4C}{\varepsilon}\,,$$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
L & \leq\frac{16C^{2}}{\varepsilon^{2}}\sum_{i=1}^{s}(d(u_{i})+d(v_{i}))^{2}+\sum_{w\in U}d(w)^{2}\\
& \leq\frac{32C^{2}}{\varepsilon^{2}}\sum_{i=1}^{s}(d(u_{i})^{2}+d(v_{i})^{2})+\sum_{w\in U}d(w)^{2}\\
& \leq\frac{32C^{2}}{\varepsilon^{2}}\sum_{v\in B}d(v)^{2}
\le\frac{32C^{2}}{\varepsilon^{2}}(\gamma n)\sum_{v\in B}d(v)\\
& \leq\frac{32C^{2}}{\varepsilon^{2}}(\gamma n)(2Cn)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where we used that $d(v)\leq\gamma n$ for all $v\in B$, and the degree sum of $D$ is at most $2Cn$. Therefore, we choose $\gamma=\frac{\varepsilon^{4}}{1024C^{3}}$, so that $L\leq\frac{\varepsilon^{2}n^{2}}{16}$. Substituting this into , we conclude that $$\pr{Y_{1}\leq\E{Y_{1}}-\frac{\varepsilon n}{2}}\leq2e^{-2}<\frac{1}{2}\,,$$ as desired. By symmetry, we have $\P{Y_{2}\le\E{Y_{2}}-\frac{\varepsilon
n}{2}}<\frac{1}{2}$ as well. Hence, there is a partition $V=V_{1}\cup
V_{2}$ with the properties that *$Y_{1}\ge\E{Y_{1}}-\frac{\varepsilon
n}{2}$* and *$Y_{2}\ge\E{Y_{2}}-\frac{\varepsilon n}{2}$*, which is a desired partition. $\Box$
Minimum outdegree two\[sec:min-2\] {#sec:2}
==================================
In this section we prove the $d=2$ case of Theorem \[thm:main\]. Suppose that $D=(V,E)$ is a given directed graph of minimum outdegree at least 2 with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, and $\varepsilon$ is a given fixed positive real number. Our goal is to find a partition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ for which $\min\{e(V_{1},V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\}\ge(\frac{1}{6}-\varepsilon)m$. Throughout the proof we tacitly assume that the number of vertices $n$ is large enough, and since $m \ge 2n$, it follows that $m$ is also large enough.
Suppose that $m\ge1152n$. Then by applying Proposition \[prop:second\_moment\] with $\varepsilon_{\ref{prop:second_moment}}=\frac{1}{12}$, we obtain a partition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ for which $$\min\{e(V_{1,}V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\}\ge\frac{m}{4}-\frac{m}{12}=\frac{m}{6}.$$ Hence it suffices to consider the case when $m<1152n$. Since the minimum outdegree is at least two, we see that $2n\le m<1152n.$
Let $A$ be the set of *large* vertices, which are defined to be the vertices with total degree at least $n^{3/4}$, and let $B=V\setminus A$. Note that $$|A|\cdot n^{3/4}\le2m<2304n,$$ from which it follows that $|A|\le2304n^{1/4}\le\varepsilon n$, and $e(A)\le2304^{2}n^{1/2}\le\frac{\varepsilon m}{2}$. For sake of simplicity we remove all the edges within $A$, and update $m$ to be the new total number of edges in the digraph. In terms of this new $m$, it suffices to obtain a partition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ for which $$\min\{e(V_{1,}V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\}\ge\frac{m}{6}-\frac{\varepsilon m}{2}.$$ Indeed, this will be a desired partition even after recovering the removed edges, since at most $\frac{\varepsilon m}{2}$ edges were removed from within $A$. So, for the remainder of this section, we focus on the case when $A$ induces no edges, and we let $m_{A}=e(A,B)$ and $m_{B}=e(B)$. Note that now $m=m_{A}+m_{B}$.
Partition of large vertices {#sec:2;gap}
---------------------------
Given a partition $A=A_{1}\cup A_{2}$, define $$\Theta=(e(A_{1}, B)+e(B, A_{2})\big)-\big(e(B, A_{1})+e(A_{2}, B)\big).
\label{eq:2;gap-def}$$ We call $\Theta$ the *gap* of the partition. Consider the following greedy algorithm to partition $A$. Since we now assume that $A$ induces no edges, each vertex $v \in A$ contributes one of $\pm (d^+(v) - d^-(v))$ to the expression in , and thus each contribution is bounded in magnitude by $n$. Process the vertices of $A$ in an arbitrary sequential order $v_1, v_2, \ldots$, and when assigning $v_i$ to a side, choose the side which makes the sign of $v_i$’s contribution to opposite to the sign of the cumulative contribution of all previous $v_1, \ldots, v_{i-1}$ thus far. Since each contribution is bounded in magnitude by $n$, the final gap $\Theta$ of this greedy partition will also be bounded in magnitude by $n$. Now, let $A_1 \cup
A_2$ be a partition of $A$ which minimizes $|\Theta|$, and without loss of generality, assume that $\Theta \geq 0$. The greedy partition provides the upper bound $\Theta \leq n$.
Since $\max_{v\in B}d(v)\le n^{3/4}\le\frac{\varepsilon^2}{16}m$, by Lemma \[lem:partition\_secondmoment\] with $p=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\varepsilon_{\ref{lem:partition_secondmoment}}=\frac{\varepsilon}{2}$, there exists a partition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ for which $$\begin{aligned}
\min\{e(V_{1},V_{2}),e(V_{1},V_{2})\} &
\ge\frac{1}{2}\min\{e(A_{1},B)+e(B,A_{2}),e(B,A_{1})+e(A_{2},B)\}+\frac{1}{4}e(B)-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}m\\
& =\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{m_{A}-\Theta}{2}+\frac{1}{4}m_{B}-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}m=\frac{m-\Theta}{4}-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}m.\end{aligned}$$ Hence if $\Theta\le\frac{m}{3}$, then we obtain a desired partition. Thus we assume for the remainder that $$\Theta>\frac{m}{3}.\label{eq:gap_min_two}$$
For a vertex $v\in A$, we let the *in-surplus* of $v$ be $s^{-}(v)=d^{-}(v)-d^{+}(v)$, and the *out-surplus* of $v$ be $s^{+}(v)=d^{+}(v)-d^{-}(v)$. Let the *surplus* of $v$ be $s(v)=\max\{s^{+}(v),s^{-}(v)\}.$ Note that the in-surplus and out-surplus differ only in their sign, and the surplus is equal to their magnitude. Call a vertex $v\in A$ a *forward vertex* if either $v\in A_{1}$ and $s^{+}(v)>0$, or $v\in A_{2}$ and $s^{-}(v)>0$. Similarly, call a vertex $v\in A$ a *backward vertex* if either $v\in A_{1}$ and $s^{-}(v)>0$, or $v\in A_{2}$ and $s^{+}(v)>0$. Observe that $\Theta$ is the difference between the sum of surpluses of forward vertices and the sum of surpluses of backward vertices. Let the *forward edges* be the edges out of $A_{1}$, and the edges in to $A_{2}$. Similarly, let the *backward edges* be the edges in to $A_{1}$, and the edges out of $A_{2}$. Let $m_{A}^{f}$ and $m_{A}^{b}$ be the numbers of forward and backward edges, respectively.
Structure of large vertices
---------------------------
Call a vertex *huge* if $s(v)\ge\Theta$. If there are no huge vertices, then the greedy algorithm of the previous section will immediately give a partition of the large vertices which has gap smaller than $\Theta$, contradicting the minimality of $\Theta$. Hence there exists at least one huge vertex. Suppose that the vertex $v_{0}$ of largest surplus has surplus $\Delta$. By our analysis of the greedy partition of $A$, we must have $\Theta \leq \Delta$. Yet if the sum of the surpluses of the remaining vertices of $A$ is at least $\Delta+\Theta$, then the total number of edges is at least $$m\ge\Delta+(\Delta+\Theta)\ge3\Theta>m$$ by , and this is a contradiction. Hence the sum $g$ of the surpluses of the remaining vertices of $A$ is strictly less than $\Delta+\Theta$. Consider the partition of $A$ which puts $v_0$ in $A_1$, and places all other vertices of $A$ such that their surplus contributes oppositely to the surplus of $v_0$. The gap of the resulting partition would have magnitude $|\Delta - g|$, and therefore, the above observation, together with the minimality of $\Theta$, implies that $g \leq
\Delta-\Theta$. Yet our minimal partition achieves a gap of exactly $\Theta$, and therefore it must have a single forward vertex of surplus $\Delta$, and all the other large vertices of positive surpluses must be backward vertices with surpluses summing to exactly $\Delta-\Theta$.
Note that the edges contributing to $\sum_{v\in A}\left(d(v)-s(v)\right)$ come in pairs of in-edges and out-edges. Call these the *buffer edges*, and let $2b=\sum_{v\in A}(d(v)-s(v))$. The observation above implies that $m_{A}^{f}=\Delta+b$ and $m_{A}^{b}=\Delta-\Theta+b$. Moreover, since the graph has minimum outdegree at least two, and there are at least $b$ buffer edges directed out of $A$, it also implies that the total number of edges in $D$ is at least $$m
\ge
b+2|B|
\ge
b + 2n -2\varepsilon n.
\label{eq:num_edges_min_two}$$ Note that we in fact have $$m \ge b + 2|B| + \sum_{v\in A} \max\{s^{+}(v), 0\},$$ and thus the first inequality in (\[eq:num\_edges\_min\_two\]) is tight only if all vertices in $A$ have in-surplus.
Obtaining a large partition {#sec:2;finish}
---------------------------
By the given condition, we know that all the vertices in $B$ have at least two out-edges incident to them. At most one out-edge of each vertex can be incident to $v_{0}$ (the vertex of largest surplus), and there are at most $\Delta-\Theta+b$ edges directed into $A$ which are not incident to $v_{0}$. Therefore, the induced digraph on $B$ has at most $\Delta-\Theta+b$ isolated vertices. Since all the other odd components of $D[B]$ have size at least three, this implies that the number of odd components is at most $$\tau\le(\Delta-\Theta+b)+\frac{|B|-(\Delta-\Theta+b)}{3}\le\frac{n+2(\Delta-\Theta+b)}{3}.$$ Let $\gamma$ be the constant from Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\] where $C=1152$ and $\varepsilon_{\ref{thm:random_bisection}}=\frac{\varepsilon}{4}$. Since $|A| \leq 2304 n^{1/4} \leq \gamma n$ and the maximum degree of vertices in $B$ is at most $n^{3/4}\le\gamma n$, by Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\], we obtain a partition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ for which $$\begin{aligned}
\min\{e(V_{1},V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\} & \ge\frac{m_{A}-\Theta}{4}+\frac{m_{B}}{4}+\frac{n-\tau}{8}-\frac{\varepsilon}{4}n\\
& \ge\frac{m}{4}-\frac{\Theta}{4}+\frac{n-(\Delta-\Theta+b)}{12}-\frac{\varepsilon}{4}n\\
& =\frac{m}{6}+\frac{m+n-\Delta-2\Theta-b}{12}-\frac{\varepsilon}{4}n.\end{aligned}$$ By and $\Theta\le\Delta\le n$, we see that $$m+n-\Delta-2\Theta-b\ge\left(b+2n-2\varepsilon n\right)+n-3n-b=-2\varepsilon n,$$ from which our conclusion follows. Note that the inequality has the least amount of slackness when all large vertices have in-surplus; see the remark following (\[eq:num\_edges\_min\_two\]). This observation fits well with the construction given in Section \[sec:Introduction\], where there is a single large vertex having huge in-surplus. This completes the proof of the minimum outdegree $d=2$ case of Theorem \[thm:main\].
Minimum outdegree three\[sec:min-3\] {#sec:3}
====================================
The $d=3$ case of Theorem \[thm:main\] is more complicated, and we provide its proof in this section. Suppose that $D=(V,E)$ is a given directed graph of minimum outdegree at least 3 with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, and $\varepsilon$ is a given positive real number. Our goal is to find a partition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ for which $\min\{e(V_{1},V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\}\ge(\frac{1}{5}-\varepsilon)m$. Throughout the proof we tacitly assume that the number of vertices $n$ is large enough.
Suppose that $m\ge3200n$. Then by applying Proposition \[prop:second\_moment\] with $\varepsilon_{\ref{prop:second_moment}}=\frac{1}{20}$, we obtain a partition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ for which $$\min\{e(V_{1,}V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\}\ge\frac{m}{4}-\frac{m}{20}=\frac{m}{5}.$$ Hence it suffices to consider the case $m<3200n$. Since the minimum degree of $D$ is at least three, we see that $3n\le m<3200n$.
Let $A$ be the set of *large* vertices, which are defined as vertices that have total degree at least $n^{3/4}$, and let $B=V\setminus A$. Note that $$|A|\cdot n^{3/4}\le2m<6400n,$$ from which it follows that $|A|\le6400n^{1/4}\le\varepsilon n$ and $e(A)\le(6400)^{2}n^{1/2}\le\frac{\varepsilon m}{2}$. By the same argument which we used at the beginning of Section \[sec:2\], it suffices to consider the case when $A$ induces no edges, and seek a partition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ for which $$\min\{e(V_{1,}V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\}\ge\frac{m}{5}-\frac{\varepsilon
m}{2}.$$ Let $m_{A}=e(A,B)$ and $m_{B}=e(B)$, and note that $m=m_{A}+m_{B}$.
Partition of large vertices {#partition-of-large-vertices}
---------------------------
This section follows essentially the same argument as Section \[sec:2;gap\], but the proofs deviate in the next section. As before, if we define the gap $\Theta$ of a partition $A = A_1 \cup A_2$ to be $$\Theta=\big(e(A_{1},B)+e(B,A_{2})\big)-\big(e(B,A_{1})+e(A_{2},B)\big) ,$$ we may take a partition which minimizes the magnitude of the gap, with $0
\leq \Theta \leq n$. (The upper bound is provided by the greedy partition.)
Since $\max_{v\in B}d(v)\le n^{3/4}\le\frac{\varepsilon^2}{16}m$, by Lemma \[lem:partition\_secondmoment\] with $p=\frac{1}{2}$ and $\varepsilon_{\ref{lem:partition_secondmoment}}=\frac{\varepsilon}{2}$, there exists a partition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ such that $$\min\{e(V_{1},V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\}\ge\frac{m-\Theta}{4}-\frac{\varepsilon m}{2},$$ and hence if $\Theta\le\frac{m}{5}$, then this partition already gives a desired partition. Thus we may assume that $$\Theta>\frac{m}{5}\ge\frac{3n}{5}.\label{eq:gap_min_three}$$ For the remainder of our proof, we will re-use the terms *in-surplus*, *out-surplus*, *surplus*, *forward vertex*, *backward vertex*, *forward edge*, and *backward edge* as originally defined in Section \[sec:2;gap\]. Let $m_{A}^{f}$ and $m_{A}^{b}$ be the numbers of forward and backward edges, respectively.
Structure of large vertices
---------------------------
Call a vertex $v\in A$ a *huge vertex* if $s(v)\ge\Theta$. Such vertices exist for the same reason as in the $d=2$ case.
\[lem:large\_structure\] There exist at least one and at most four huge vertices, and the sum of the surpluses of the rest of the large vertices is at most $n-\Theta$.
We have $\Theta>\frac{m}{5}$ by , so it immediately follows that there are at most four huge vertices. By minimality of the gap, if we switch the side of a forward vertex $v$, then we obtain a partition whose gap is $\Theta-2s(v)$. Since we started with a partition which minimized the absolute value of the gap, we must have $|\Theta -
2s(v)| \geq \Theta$. Since the surplus $s(v)$ is always nonnegative, this forces $\Theta - 2s(v) \leq -\Theta$, or equivalently, $s(v)\ge\Theta$. Thus, all forward vertices have surplus at least $\Theta$, and are actually huge. Moreover, since we chose the partition with $\Theta>0$, there are more forward edges than backward edges, and we see that there exists at least one forward vertex.
Now pick an arbitrary forward vertex $v$ of surplus $\Delta\ge\Theta$. If we move $v$ to the other side, then the number of forward edges becomes $m_{A}^{f}-\Delta$ and the number of backward edges becomes $m_{A}^{b}+\Delta$. We have $$m_{A}^{f}-\Delta\le m_{A}^{f}-\Theta = m_{A}^{b}
\quad \text{and} \quad
m_{A}^{f}= m_{A}^{b}+\Theta \le m_{A}^{b}+\Delta.$$ Since all forward vertices are huge, all the large vertices which are not huge are backward vertices. If the sum of the surpluses of these vertices is greater than $\Delta-\Theta$, then since each of these vertices has surplus less than $\Theta$, by choosing one such vertex at a time and switching its sides, we will eventually reach a partition in which the number of forward edges is greater than $m_{A}^{f}-\Delta+(\Delta-\Theta)=m_{A}^{f}-\Theta=m_{A}^{b}$ and less than $m_{A}^{f}-\Delta+\Theta \le m_{A}^{f}$. This contradicts the minimality of the gap. Therefore the sum of the surpluses of the large vertices that are not huge is at most $\Delta-\Theta\le n-\Theta$.
To reduce the number of cases, our next step is to further restrict the number of huge vertices.
\[lem:huge\] The number of huge vertices is either one or three.
By Lemma \[lem:large\_structure\], we already know that the number of huge vertices is between one and four inclusive. Let $g$ be the sum of the surpluses of the large vertices that are not huge. By Lemma \[lem:large\_structure\], we have $g\le n-\Theta$. Suppose that there are two huge vertices $v_{1}$ and $v_{2}$, which have surpluses $\Delta_{1}$ and $\Delta_{2}$, respectively, where $\Delta_{1}\ge\Delta_{2}$. Re-partition $A$ so that $v_{1}$ is the only forward vertex, and all the other vertices are backward vertices. Then the gap of this partition of $A$ is $\Delta_{1}-(\Delta_{2}+g)$. However, $\Delta_{1}-(\Delta_{2}+g)\le n-(\Theta+0)$ and $(\Delta_{2}+g)-\Delta_{1}\le g\le n-\Theta$, and thus the magnitude of the gap of the new partition is at most $n-\Theta$, which is less than $\Theta$ by . This is a contradiction.
Now suppose that there are four huge vertices $v_{1},v_{2},v_{3},v_{4}$, which have surpluses $\Delta_{1}$, $\Delta_{2}$, $\Delta_{3}$, and $\Delta_{4}$, respectively, where $\Delta_{1}\ge\Delta_{2}\ge\Delta_{3}\ge\Delta_{4}$. Re-partition $A$ so that $v_{1}$ and $v_{3}$ are forward vertices, and all other vertices are backward vertices. Then the gap of this partition is $(\Delta_{1}+\Delta_{3})-(\Delta_{2}+\Delta_{4}+g)$. Since $$(\Delta_{1}+\Delta_{3})-(\Delta_{2}+\Delta_{4}+g)\le\Delta_{1}-\Delta_{4}\le n-\Theta<\Theta$$ and $$(\Delta_{2}+\Delta_{4}+g)-(\Delta_{1}+\Delta_{3})\le g\le n-\Theta<\Theta,$$ this again gives a contradiction. Hence we either have one or three huge vertices.
One huge vertex
---------------
This section completes the proof of our main theorem for $d=3$ when there is only one huge vertex. The final case with three huge vertices is finished in the next section. So, for this section, let $v_{0}$ be the huge vertex and let $\Delta=s(v_{0})$. Since the sum of surpluses of all the other large vertices is at most $n-\Theta$ (by Lemma \[lem:large\_structure\]) and $n-\Theta < \Theta \leq \Delta$ (by and the greedy partition), we see that $v_{0}$ is the unique forward vertex, and all the other large vertices are backward vertices.
Recall that the edges contributing to $\sum_{v\in A}\left(d(v)-s(v)\right)$ come in pairs of in-edges and out-edges. Call these the *buffer edges*, and let $2b=\sum_{v\in A}(d(v)-s(v))$. The observation above implies that $m_{A}^{f}=\Delta+b$ and $m_{A}^{b}=\Delta-\Theta+b$. Moreover, since the graph has minimum outdegree at least three, and there are at least $b$ buffer edges directed into $B$, it also implies that the number of edges in $D$ is at least $$m
\ge
b+3|B|
\ge
b+3n-3\varepsilon n.
\label{eq:num_edges_min_three}$$
In the $d=2$ case, at this point we applied Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\], with a simple bound on the number of odd components in $D[B]$. There, it was sufficient to control the number of odd components with only one vertex, which was easy because 1-vertex components have extremely simple structure (they consist of a single vertex, inducing no edges). For the $d=3$ case, it turns out that we must also control the number of 3-vertex odd components. This would still be particularly easy in the case of oriented graphs, where each pair of vertices spans at most one edge, but an additional twist is required to handle the general case of directed graphs, where edges can go in both directions between the same pair of vertices.
Nevertheless, oriented graphs are still the extremal case, because there is an additional way to gain from pairs of edges running in opposite directions (which we call pairs of *antiparallel* edges). We strengthen Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\] to take advantage of this phenomenon. Recall that 3-vertex tight components are undirected graphs with the property that for every one of the 3 vertices, the remaining two vertices form an edge, and the first vertex is either adjacent to both or none of the other two. A moment’s inspection reveals that 3-vertex tight components are undirected $K_3$’s. This is particularly useful.
\[lem:3;random\_bisection\] Given any real constants $C,\varepsilon>0$, there exist $\gamma,n_{0}>0$ for which the following holds. Let $D=(V,E)$ be a given directed graph with $n\geq n_{0}$ vertices and at most $Cn$ edges, and let $A\subset V$ be a set of at most $\gamma n$ vertices which have already been partitioned into $A_{1}\cup A_{2}$. Let $B=V\setminus A$, and suppose that every vertex in $B$ has degree at most $\gamma n$ (with respect to the full $D$). Let $\tau'$ be the number of **tight** components in the underlying undirected (simple) graph induced by $B$, **not counting the 3-vertex components which contain edges that lift to antiparallel pairs in $\boldsymbol{D}$**. Then, there is a bipartition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ with $A_{1}\subset V_{1}$ and $A_{2}\subset V_{2}$, such that both $$\begin{aligned}
e(V_{1},V_{2}) & \ge
e(A_{1},A_{2})+\frac{e(A_{1},B)+e(B,A_{2})}{2}+\frac{e(B)}{4}+\frac{n-\tau'}{8}-\varepsilon n\\
e(V_{2},V_{1}) & \ge
e(A_{2},A_{1})+\frac{e(B,A_{1})+e(A_{2},B)}{2}+\frac{e(B)}{4}+\frac{n-\tau'}{8}-\varepsilon n\,.
\end{aligned}$$
**Remark.** The only differences between this statement and Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\] are indicated in bold. Importantly, the bounds in the conclusion are the same.
Let $\tau$ be the number of tight components in the underlying undirected (simple) graph induced by $B$, and let $\sigma$ be the number of 3-vertex tight components which contain an antiparallel pair when lifted to $D$. The first step of the proof of Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\] was to apply Lemma \[lem:star\_decompose\] to partition $B = T_1 \cup \cdots
\cup T_s \cup U$. By the proof of that lemma, each 3-vertex tight component contributes exactly one star $T_i$, with its original $e_i$ coming from two of the vertices, and the third vertex contributing a non-free vertex to $U$. (Here, we use the fact that 3-vertex tight components are $K_3$’s, so that we are assured that the third vertex is always non-free.) Using this structural fact again, observe that actually, no matter which edge of the $K_3$ we use for our $e_i$ to seed the $T_i$, the third vertex will always be non-free. In particular, if the 3-vertex tight component contains an antiparallel pair, then we may select the corresponding edge in the underlying undirected (simple) graph as the $e_i$, and the total number of non-free edges will remain the same as before. This is important because in the proof of Lemma \[lem:star\_decompose\], it is essential that we start with a maximal matching, which secondarily maximizes the number of free vertices.
Therefore, we may assume that $\sigma$ of the stars $T_i$ contain at least one edge which lifts to an antiparallel pair in $D$. This implies that the total number of edges in the stars $T_i$ is now $\sigma$ more than that in Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\]. Continuing the proof along the lines of Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\], observe that the gain of $+\frac{1}{4}$ comes from the edges of $D$ which correspond to edges of the stars $T_i$. Therefore, we may improve inequality to $$\begin{aligned}
\E{Y_{1}}
&\ge
e(A_{1},A_{2})+\frac{e(A_{1},B)
+e(B,A_{2})}{2}+\frac{e(B)}{4}
+\frac{1}{4} \left[
\frac{(n-\gamma n)-(\tau+\varepsilon n)}{2}
+
\sigma
\right] \\
&\ge
e(A_{1},A_{2})+\frac{e(A_{1},B)
+e(B,A_{2})}{2}+\frac{e(B)}{4}
+\frac{n-\tau'}{8}
- \frac{(\varepsilon + \gamma) n}{8} ,
\end{aligned}$$ because $\tau' = \tau - \sigma$. At this point, we have reached the same formula as in the proof of Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\], except that $\tau$ has been fully replaced with $\tau'$. Therefore, the rest of the proof completes in the same way as before.
In order to use Lemma \[lem:3;random\_bisection\], we must now control $\tau'$. We do this with a similar argument to what was used in Section \[sec:2;finish\].
\[lem:num\_odd\_component\] The number of tight components in the underlying undirected (simple) graph induced by $B$, not counting 3-vertex components which contain edges that lift to antiparallel pairs in $D$, satisfies: $$\tau'\le\frac{n+2(\Delta-\Theta+b)}{5}.$$
Let $\tau_{1}$ be the number of isolated vertices, $\tau_{3}'$ be the number of tight components of order three, not counting those which contain antiparallel pairs, and $\tau_{5}$ be the number of odd components of order at least five, each in the induced subgraph on $B$. Note that $\tau' \leq \tau_{1}+\tau_{3}'+\tau_{5}$. By considering the number of vertices, we obtain the inequality $$\tau_{1}+3\tau_{3}'+5\tau_{5}\le n.\label{eq:odd_component_bound1}$$
The vertices in $B$ must have outdegree at least three in the whole graph. Each vertex has at most one edge incident to $v_{0}$, and there are at most $\Delta-\Theta+b$ edges from $B$ to $A$ which are not incident to $v_{0}$. Each isolated vertex in $B$ uses at least two edges out of the $\Delta-\Theta+b$ edges. Similarly, since a 3-vertex component counted by $\tau_3'$ contains at most 3 edges (it cannot have antiparallel pairs), in order to obtain such a component, we must use at least three edges out of the $\Delta-\Theta+b$ edges, per component. Thus we obtain the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
2\tau_{1}+3\tau_{3}' & \le\Delta-\Theta+b.\end{aligned}$$ By adding two times this inequality to , we obtain $$5\tau'+4\tau_{3}' \le 5\tau_{1}+9\tau_{3}'+5\tau_{5}\le n+2(\Delta-\Theta+b).$$ Hence $$\tau'\le\frac{n+2(\Delta-\Theta+b)}{5}.$$
Let $\gamma$ be the constant from Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\], where $C=3200$ and $\varepsilon_{\ref{thm:random_bisection}}=\frac{\varepsilon}{4}$. Since $m\le3200n$, $|A| \leq 6400 \varepsilon n^{1/4} \le \gamma n$, and $\max_{v\in B}d(v)\le n^{3/4}\le\gamma n$, by Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\] and Lemma \[lem:num\_odd\_component\], we obtain a bipartition $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$ for which $$\begin{aligned}
\min\{e(V_{1},V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\} &
\ge\frac{1}{2}\min\{m_{A}^{f},m_{A}^{b}\}+\frac{1}{4}m_{B}+\frac{n-\tau'}{8}-\frac{\varepsilon}{4}n.\\
& \ge\frac{1}{4}(m-\Theta)+\frac{n}{8}-\frac{n+2(\Delta-\Theta+b)}{40}-\frac{\varepsilon}{4}n.\\
& =\frac{1}{4}m-\frac{1}{5}\Theta+\frac{1}{10}n-\frac{1}{20}\Delta-\frac{1}{20}b-\frac{\varepsilon}{4}n.\end{aligned}$$ Thus it suffices to prove that the right hand side of above is at least $\frac{m}{5}-\frac{\varepsilon n}{2}$, or equivalently that $$\begin{aligned}
& \left(\frac{1}{4}m-\frac{1}{5}\Theta+\frac{1}{10}n-\frac{1}{20}\Delta-\frac{1}{20}b-\frac{\varepsilon}{4}n\right)-\left(\frac{m}{5}-\frac{\varepsilon}{2}n\right)\\
=\, & \frac{m}{20}-\frac{1}{5}\Theta+\frac{1}{10}n-\frac{1}{20}\Delta-\frac{1}{20}b+\frac{\varepsilon}{4}n\end{aligned}$$ is at least zero. Recall that by , we have $m\ge b+3n-3\varepsilon n$. By substituting this bound on $m$ in the equation above, we get $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{(b+3n-3\varepsilon n)}{20}-\frac{1}{5}\Theta+\frac{1}{10}n-\frac{1}{20}\Delta-\frac{1}{20}b+\frac{\varepsilon}{4}n\\
=\, & \frac{1}{4}n-\frac{1}{5}\Theta-\frac{1}{20}\Delta+\frac{\varepsilon}{10}n.\end{aligned}$$ Since $n\ge\Delta\ge\Theta$, the right hand side is indeed at least zero, and this proves the theorem when there is one huge vertex.
Three huge vertices
-------------------
Let $v_{1},v_{2},v_{3}$ be the three huge vertices, and let $\Delta_{1},\Delta_{2},\Delta_{3}$ be their respective surpluses so that $\Delta_{1}\ge\Delta_{2}\ge\Delta_{3}$. Let $g$ be the sum of surpluses of the large vertices which are not huge. By Lemma \[lem:large\_structure\], we know that $g\le n-\Theta$. Recall that the edges contributing to $\sum_{v\in A}\left(d(v)-s(v)\right)$ come in pairs of in-edges and out-edges. Call these the *buffer edges*, and let $2b=\sum_{v\in A}(d(v)-s(v))$. Note that $$m=(\Delta_{1}+\Delta_{2}+\Delta_{3}+g+2b)+m_{B}.\label{eq:min_three_num_edges_A}$$
We re-partition $A$ as follows. First place the three vertices $v_{1},v_{2},v_{3}$ so that $v_{1}$ is a forward vertex and $v_{2},v_{3}$ are backward vertices. Depending on the range of parameters, we will choose where to place the large vertices that are not huge. Let $m_{A}^{f}=\Delta_{1}+b+X$ and $m_{A}^{b}=\Delta_{2}+\Delta_{3}+b+Y$, where $X+Y=g$. We will either use the partition that gives $(X,Y)=(g,0)$, or the partition that gives $(X,Y)=(0,g)$. Note that such partitions always exist.
If $v_{1}$ has positive out-surplus, then let $p=\frac{2}{5}$, and if $v_{1}$ has positive in-surplus, then let $p=\frac{3}{5}$. By Lemma \[lem:partition\_secondmoment\] with such choice of $p$ and $\varepsilon_{\ref{lem:partition_secondmoment}}=\frac{\varepsilon}{2}$, we obtain a bipartition of $V$ in which $$e(V_{1},V_{2})
\geq
(1-p)e(A_{1},B)+p\cdot e(B,A_{2})+p(1-p)e(B)-\frac{\varepsilon m}{2}.$$ Also, note that $e(A_1,B) + e(B,A_2) = m_A^f$, and $\{p,1-p\} =
\big\{\frac{2}{5}, \frac{3}{5} \big\}$, so $(1-p)e(A_{1},B)+p\cdot
e(B,A_{2})$ has the form $\frac{3}{5} Z + \frac{2}{5} (m_A^f - Z)$ for some $Z$. By how we placed the vertex $v_{1}$, we always have $Z \geq
s(v_1)$, and therefore $$(1-p)e(A_{1},B)+p\cdot e(B,A_{2})
\ge\frac{3}{5}s(v_{1})+\frac{2}{5}(m_{A}^{f}-s(v_{1}))
=\frac{3}{5}\Delta_{1}+\frac{2}{5}(b+X).$$ Hence $$e(V_{1},V_{2})\ge\frac{3}{5}\Delta_{1}+\frac{2}{5}(b+X)+\frac{6}{25}m_{B}-\frac{\varepsilon m}{2},$$ and for $$m_{1,2}=\frac{3}{5}\Delta_{1}+\frac{2}{5}(b+X)+\frac{6}{25}m_{B},$$ it suffices to prove that $m_{1,2}\ge\frac{m}{5}$. For $e(V_2, V_1)$, we simply use the observation that $\min\{p, 1-p\} = \frac{2}{5}$ together with $e(A_2,B) + e(B,A_1) = m_A^b$, and therefore Lemma \[lem:partition\_secondmoment\] gives $$e(V_2, V_1)
\geq
\frac{2}{5} m_A^b + \frac{6}{25} m_B - \frac{\varepsilon m}{2}.$$ Hence for $$\begin{aligned}
m_{2,1} & =\frac{2}{5}m_{A}^{b}+\frac{6}{25}m_{B}=\frac{2}{5}(\Delta_{2}+\Delta_{3}+b+Y)+\frac{6}{25}m_{B},\end{aligned}$$ it suffices to prove that $m_{2,1}\ge\frac{m}{5}$.
Thus our goal is to show that $m_{1,2}-\frac{m}{5}$ and $m_{2,1}-\frac{m}{5}$ are both non-negative. By asserting $m=\Delta_{1}+\Delta_{2}+\Delta_{3}+g+2b+m_{B}$, we have $$m_{1,2}-\frac{m}{5}=\frac{2\Delta_{1}-\Delta_{2}-\Delta_{3}}{5}+\frac{2X-g}{5}+\frac{1}{25}m_{B}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
m_{2,1}-\frac{m}{5} & =\frac{\Delta_{2}+\Delta_{3}-\Delta_{1}}{5}+\frac{2Y-g}{5}+\frac{1}{25}m_{B}.\end{aligned}$$ Two cases complete the rest of this section.
**Case 1.** $2\Delta_{1}-\Delta_{2}-\Delta_{3}-g>0$.
We partition $A$ so that $(X,Y)=(0,g)$. The condition in this case immediately implies that $m_{1,2}-\frac{m}{5}\ge0$, and thus it suffices to show that $m_{2,1}-\frac{m}{5}\ge0$. Note that since $\Delta_{2},\Delta_{3}\ge\Theta$ and $\Delta_{1}\le n$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
m_{2,1}-\frac{m}{5} & =\frac{\Delta_{2}+\Delta_{3}-\Delta_{1}}{5}+\frac{2Y-g}{5}+\frac{1}{25}m_{B}\\
& \ge\frac{2\Theta-n}{5}+\frac{g}{5}+\frac{1}{25}m_{B}.\end{aligned}$$ By asserting $\Theta>\frac{m}{5}\ge\frac{3n}{5}$, we have $m_{2,1}-\frac{m}{5}\ge0$. Hence we obtain a desired partition.
**Case 2.** $2\Delta_{1}-\Delta_{2}-\Delta_{3}-g\le0$.
We partition $A$ so that $(X,Y)=(g,0)$. We have $$m_{1,2}-\frac{m}{5}=\frac{2\Delta_{1}-\Delta_{2}-\Delta_{3}}{5}+\frac{g}{5}+\frac{1}{25}m_{B},$$ and this is non-negative since $\Delta_{1}\ge\Delta_{2}\ge\Delta_{3}$. On the other hand, $$m_{2,1}-\frac{m}{5}=\frac{\Delta_{2}+\Delta_{3}-\Delta_{1}-g}{5}+\frac{1}{25}m_{B},$$ and since $\Delta_{1}\le\frac{\Delta_{2}+\Delta_{3}+g}{2}$ by the condition in this case, we have $$\begin{aligned}
m_{2,1}-\frac{m}{5} & \ge\frac{\Delta_{2}+\Delta_{3}}{10}-\frac{3g}{10}+\frac{1}{25}m_{B}.\end{aligned}$$ By asserting $\Theta>\frac{3n}{5}$, we have $\Delta_{2}+\Delta_{3}\ge2\Theta>\frac{6n}{5}$ and $3g<3(n-\Theta)<\frac{6n}{5}$. Hence $$m_{2,1}-\frac{m}{5}\ge0,$$ and we obtain a desired partition. This concludes the proof.
Concluding remarks {#sec:concluding}
==================
The structure of the proof for $d=2,3$ can be described as follows. First, we identify the vertices $A$ which have large total degree, and consider an optimal partition of these vertices. We then further identify the “huge” vertices, which are vertices whose surplus is at least as large as the gap of the partition. It turns out that there can only be a small number of huge vertices. Finally, we partition the set $B=V\setminus A$ depending on the structure of the huge vertices. For this, we used two different probabilistic approaches. One was through the estimate on the number of odd components (Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\]), and another was through making a random unbalanced partition of $B$ (Lemma \[lem:partition\_secondmoment\]). However, both methods turn out to be too limited in strength to cover the cases $d\ge4$.
To see why we needed both probabilistic techniques, consider the orientation of $K_{3,n-3}$ where all edges are oriented from the part of size $n-3$ to the part of size 3. This digraph essentially has minimum outdegree 3, with only three vertices in violation, and a constant-size addition would give it that property without affecting its asymptotic partition performance. So, we would expect there to be a partition for which $\min\{e(V_{1},V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\} \ge \frac{m}{5}+o(m)$. Note that the set $A$ of large vertices would then be the three vertices of degree $n-3$, and the remainder $B$ would be the $n-3$ vertices of degree $3$. If we try to use only Theorem \[thm:random\_bisection\], the resulting bipartition will nearly be a bisection (a bipartition into two equal size parts), since that method distributes vertices into the two sides with equal probability. Yet if we only consider bisections of this graph, then in every bisection $V=V_{1}\cup V_{2}$, we have $$\min\{e(V_{1},V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\}
\leq
\left( \frac{1}{2} + o(1) \right) n
=
\left( \frac{1}{6} + o(1) \right) m ,$$ which is already too small.
A different example shows that even an unbalanced straightforward random partition of $B$ (Lemma \[lem:partition\_secondmoment\]) is insufficient. Indeed, add a 3-out-regular graph inside the larger part of the bipartite graph above, so that $m=6(n-3)$. By merely taking a random partition of $B$, and assuming that $V_{1}$ contains one vertex of degree $n-3$ and $V_{2}$ contains two vertices of degree $n-3$, we obtain a partition for which $$\begin{aligned}
e(V_{1},V_{2}) & \approx 2np+p(1-p)\cdot3n\\
e(V_{2},V_{1}) & \approx n(1-p)+p(1-p)\cdot3n.\end{aligned}$$ In order to maximize $\min\{e(V_{1},V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\}$, we take $p=\frac{1}{3}$, and obtain $\min\{e(V_{1},V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\}\approx\frac{4}{3}n\approx\frac{2}{9}m$. Even though this graph does not quite have minimum outdegree six, only three vertices are deficient, and so if Conjecture \[conj:main\] is true, we expect there to be a bipartition for which $\min\{e(V_{1},V_{2}),e(V_{2},V_{1})\}\ge\frac{5}{22}m+o(m)$. Hence Lemma \[lem:partition\_secondmoment\] is also too weak on its own.
Therefore in order to proceed further under the same framework, we must combine the two ideas. A naive combination will fail for the following reason. Consider the orientation of $K_{5,n-5}$ where out of the 5 vertices on one side, one vertex $v_{1}$ has outdegree $n-5$ and the other four vertices $v_{2}, v_{3}, v_{4}, v_{5}$ have indegree $n-5$. The set $A$ of large vertices is precisely $\{v_1, \ldots, v_5\}$. Suppose that the optimal partition of $A$ has $v_{2} \in A_{1}$ and $v_{1},v_{3},v_{4},v_{5}\in A_{2}$. (It is possible to slightly modify the graph to ensure that this is the unique optimal partition of $A$.) No matter how we complete this partition into a partition of the whole vertex set, we have $$e(V_{2},V_{1})=n-5=\frac{m}{5}.$$ Since the minimum outdegree is essentially 4, we need the factor $\frac{3}{14}$ to prove Conjecture \[conj:main\], and thus we fall short. Hence our example shows that in some cases we must start with a sub-optimal partition of $A$. Indeed, we used this idea in our proof for the case $d=3$, but in a brute force, ad-hoc manner. It would be interesting to find a systematic way to combine all of these ideas to resolve the general case $d\ge4$.
**Acknowledgment**. We would like to thank the referee for helpful comments.
[10]{}
N. Alon, B. Bollobas, M. Krivelevich and B. Sudakov, Maximum cuts and judicious partitions in graphs without short cycles, [*J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. B 88*]{} (2003), 329–346.
N. Alon, M. Krivelevich and B. Sudakov, MaxCut in H-free graphs, [*Combinatorics, Probability and Computing*]{} 14 (2005), 629–647.
B. Bollobás, B. Reed, and A. Thomason An extremal function for the achromatic number, **Graph Structure Theory**, Eds. N. Robertson and P. Seymour, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island (1993), 161–165.
B. Bollobás and A. Scott, Exact bounds for judicious partitions of graphs, [*Combinatorica*]{} 19 (1999), 473–486.
B. Bollobás and A. Scott, Judicious partitions of 3-uniform hypergraphs, [*Eur. J. Combin.*]{} 21 (2000), 289–300.
B. Bollobás and A. Scott, Problems and results on judicious partitions, [*Random Structures and Algorithms*]{} 21 (2002), 414–430.
B. Bollobás and A. Scott, Max $k$-cut and judicious $k$-partitions, [*Discrete Mathematics*]{} 310 (2010), 2126–2139.
C. Edwards, Some extremal properties of bipartite subgraphs, [*Canad. J. Math.*]{} 25 (1973), 475–485.
C. Edwards, An improved lower bound for the number of edges in a largest bipartite subgraph, [*Proc. 2nd Czech Symp. Graph Theory, Prague*]{} (1975), 167–181.
P. Erdős, A. Gyárfás, and Y. Kohayakawa, The size of the largest bipartite subgraphs, [*Discrete Math.*]{} 177 (1997), 267–271.
A. Frieze and M. Jerrum, Improved approximation algorithms for MAX $k$-CUT and MAX BISECTION, [*Algorithmica*]{} 18 (1997), 61–77.
M. Goemans and D. Williamson, 0.878 approximation algorithms for MAX CUT and MAX 2-SAT, [*Proc. 26th ACM Symp. Theory Comput.*]{} (1994), 422–431; Updated as: Improved approximation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfiability problems using semidefinite programming, [*J. ACM*]{} 42 (1995), 1115–1145.
J. Haslegrave, The Bollobás-Thomason conjecture for 3-uniform hypergraphs, [*Combinatorica*]{} 32 (2012), 451–471.
J. H[å]{}stad, Some optimal inapproximability results, [*J. ACM*]{} 48 (2001), 798–859.
S. Janson, T. Łuczak, and A. Ruciński, **Random Graphs**, Wiley, New York (2000)
D. Kühn and D. Osthus, Maximizing several cuts simultaneously, [*Combinatorics, Probability and Computing*]{} 16 (2007), 277–283.
C. Lee, P. Loh, and B. Sudakov, Bisections of graphs, [*J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B*]{}, to appear.
J. Ma, P. Yan, and X. Yu, On several partition problems of Bollobás and Scott, [*J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B*]{} 100 (2010), 631–649.
J. Ma and X. Yu, Partitioning 3-uniform hypergraphs, [*J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B*]{} 102 (2012), 212–232.
S. Poljak and Zs. Tuza, Bipartite subgraphs of triangle-free graphs, [*SIAM J. Discrete Math.*]{} 7 (1994), 307–313.
A. Scott, Judicious partitions and related problems, in [*Surveys in combinatorics*]{}, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., 327, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (2005), 95–117.
L. Trevisan, G. Sorkin, M. Sudan, and D. Williamson, Gadgets, approximation, and linear programming, [*SIAM J. Comput.*]{} 29 (2000), 2074–2097.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139. E-mail: cb\[email protected].
[^2]: Department of Mathematical Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. E-mail: [email protected]. Research supported by NSF grant DMS-1201380, an NSA Young Investigators Grant and a USA-Israel BSF Grant.
[^3]: Department of Mathematics, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095. Email: [email protected]. Research supported in part by NSF grant DMS-1101185, by AFOSR MURI grant FA9550-10-1-0569 and by a USA-Israel BSF grant.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A consistent finding of high obliquity simulations is that they are warmer than their low obliquity counterparts when the climate is cold. Ice-albedo feedback has been suggested as a possible mechanism. In this study, we find that warmer climate under high obliquity holds with varying insolations, including almost ice-free conditions. We try to understand the mechanisms through a series of feedback suppression experiments. Turning off the ice-albedo feedback, the temperature contrast between high and low obliquity remains significant, but it vanishes when the cloud radiation effects or the seasonal variation is turned off. This suggests the warmer climate on high obliquity planets does not rely completely on the existence of ice, and therefore holds at high insolation. In that regime, the surface temperature, and hence the cloud formation, lags behind the substellar point, leading to inefficient sunlight reflection and warmer climate.'
author:
- Wanying Kang
title: Mechanisms leading to a warmer climate on high obliquity planets
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
An exoplanet may have a large obliquity or large obliquity variability depending on the initial angular momentum of the nebulae that formed that planet, continental movement [@Williams-Kasting-Frakes-1998:low], gravitational interference from other bodies [@Correia-Laskar-2010:tidal], and the history of its orbital migration [@Brunini-2006:origin]. In our solar system, for example, Mars’s obliquity chaotically varies from 0 to 60 degrees [@Laskar-Robutel-1993:chaotic], and Venus and Uranus have obliquities close to 180 and 90 degrees respectively [@Carpenter-1966:study]. Among exoplanets, high obliquity planets are expected to widely exist in the universe due to secular resonance-driven spin-orbit coupling [@Millholland-Laughlin-2019:obliquity]. The earth may also have been in a high obliquity state in the past, and the high obliquity scenario has been used to explain the “Faint-Young Sun paradox” and the two low-latitude glacial events in Early and Late Proterozoic [@Jenkins-2000:global; @Jenkins-2001:high; @Jenkins-2003:gcm].
Planets with extremely high obliquity have been shown to be completely or partially ice-free at a much farther distance from the host star using a 3D general circulation model [GCM, @Linsenmeier-Pascale-Lucarini-2015:climate; @Kilic-Raible-Stocker-2017:multiple; @Kilic-Lunkeit-Raible-et-al-2018:stable] and a conceptual energy balance model [EBM, @Rose-Cronin-Bitz-2017:ice; @Armstrong-Barnes-Domagal-Goldman-et-al-2014:effects]. @Jenkins-2000:global showed that the climate could be warmer due to a larger obliquity, providing a potential explanation for the warm climate during the Earth’s early history, in spite of a 20-30% dimmer sun. Even in less extreme obliquity variations, as is the case with present-day Earth (obliquity fluctuates between 22 and 24.5 degrees), terminations of glaciation have been shown to be linked to the high obliquity periods [@Paillard-2001:glacial; @Paillard-1998:pleistocene; @Huybers-Wunsch-2005:obliquity] during the Pleistocene. This raises the question: Why is the climate warmer on high obliquity planets?
Given that high obliquity planets tend to have low ice coverage [@Linsenmeier-Pascale-Lucarini-2015:climate; @Kilic-Lunkeit-Raible-et-al-2018:stable], it has been suggested that the ice-albedo feedback is the cause of the warmer climate under high obliquity. However, even aquanplanet simulations suggest that the global surface temperature rises with obliquity, with concomitant reduction in cloud coverage and sunlight reflection explaining the warming [@Nowajewski-Rojas-Rojo-et-al-2018:atmospheric]. When small changes of obliquity are applied, cloud feedback and lapse rate feedback have also been found to significantly contribute to the warmer climate [@Mantsis-Clement-Broccoli-et-al-2011:climate]. Even for tidally-locked planets, high obliquity leads to a warmer climate because of the low cloud coverage in the day side [@Wang-Liu-Tian-et-al-2016:effects]. All of the above suggest that the cloud feedback, ice-albedo feedback, and lapse rate feedback may lead to a warmer climate under high obliquity in general. However, it still needs to be investigated whether the relative warmness is a universal phenomenon regardless of other parameters and whether it would hold even without clouds. If the clouds do tend to reflect less under high obliquity, then we need to understand what mechanisms underlie this. In this study, we show that the relatively warm climate under high obliquity is valid in a wide range of insolation (consistent with @Nowajewski-Rojas-Rojo-et-al-2018:atmospheric), independent of the existence of sea ice. We then explore the mechanisms using a series of feedback suppression experiments, sequentially turning off ice-albedo feedback, cloud radiation effects and seasonal cycle.
Methods {#sec:methods}
=======
The model used here is Community Earth System Model version 1.2.1 [CESM, @Neale-Chen-Gettelman-2010:description], modified by @Kopparapu-Wolf-Arney-et-al-2017:habitable [code are available on GitHub[^1]] to include the following two features: 1) increased spectral resolution in the near infrared for a more realistic radiation calculation, and 2) more frequent sub-step dynamic adjustment to improve numerical stability. Thanks to the fine spectral resolution, this radiation scheme was shown to be more robust at the high temperature end, while the default CESM radiative transfer model underestimates both longwave and shortwave water vapor absorption [@Yang-Leconte-Wolf-et-al-2016:differences]. We consider H$_2$O as the only greenhouse gas in the atmosphere for simplicity, while ignoring any CO$_2$ absorption. This makes it easier to understand the surface temperature difference between two experiments. The atmospheric circulation is simulated by a finite-volume dynamical core, with approximately 1.9 degree horizontal resolution and 40 vertical layers extending to 0.8 mb. This atmospheric model is coupled with a 50 meter deep slab ocean. Horizontal ocean heat transport is not included for simplicity, since it has been shown to play a minor role in the surface temperature, compared to a large change in obliquity [@Jenkins-2003:gcm]. We choose to explicitly simulate sea ice formation using the Community Ice CodE (CICE) version 4, rather than use an aquaplanet setup, in order to capture the full climate response.
We first examine whether the warming at high obliquity holds for different insolations. For both 80 deg obliquity and 0 deg obliquity, we gradually increase the insolation from 1365 W/m$^2$ to 1750 W/m$^2$ during a 100 year simulation, with the expectation that the transient insolation change is slow enough to allow the atmosphere to adjust to its equilibrium state. Both experiments are initialized from the snowball state (i.e., 100% ice coverage) and are run to equilibrium before we start to increase the insolation. Both cases can be stably integrated at 1750 W/m$^2$ for at least 50 years. Adding another 50 W/m$^2$ leads to runaway greenhouse (model crashes).
We then perform a series of feedback suppression experiments to understand the mechanisms that cause the warming under high obliquity. We start with the control experiments including all climate feedbacks, then we turn off the ice-albedo feedback, and finally turn off the cloud radiation effects in one branch, and the seasonal cycle in the other branch. All the feedback suppression experiments apply a 1365 W/m$^2$ insolation, zero eccentricity, and 1 bar N$_2$ atmosphere, and are run under both 0 deg obliquity and 80 deg obliquity. In the control experiments, the ocean has 0.06 albedo for radiation at all frequencies, while sea ice and snow have much higher albedo of 0.67 (0.3) and 0.8 (0.68) for the visible (infrared) radiation respectively. We then turn off the ice-albedo feedback by applying the ocean albedo (0.06), everywhere on the globe. After that, cloud radiation effects and the seasonal cycle are turned off individually. To shut down the cloud radiation effects, we set the cloud optical thickness to zero. To turn off the seasonal cycle, annual mean insolation is applied to each latitude all year round.
One should keep in mind that, in the climate system where all fields are affecting and are affected by each other, causality could be ambiguous. By turning off a certain mechanism, we also exclude the compensating effects and indirect response of other processes [@Cai-Lu-2009:new], and thus, we do not expect the climate response to different feedbacks to be additive.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
![Global annual mean surface temperature difference between the high and low obliquity, as insolation gradually increases (solid curve, left axis). Shown on the right axis are the high obliquity (dashed red) and low obliquity (dashed black) mean surface temperature.[]{data-label="fig:Ts-insolation"}](./Fig1-Ts-insolation.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
We first examine whether the relative warmness at high obliquity holds despite varying insolation. Shown in Fig. \[fig:Ts-insolation\] are the global annual mean surface temperature progressions in the low obliquity experiment (black dash) and in the high obliquity experiment (red dash) as insolation gradually increases. The high obliquity climate is always warmer than the low obliquity climate by over 10 K. This holds even when approaching the runaway greenhouse state, suggesting that the warming at high obliquity holds not only when the climate is cold, as studied in @Jenkins-2000:global and @Linsenmeier-Pascale-Lucarini-2015:climate, but also when the climate is warm enough to be almost ice-free, consistent with @Nowajewski-Rojas-Rojo-et-al-2018:atmospheric. There is a temperature jump in the zero obliquity experiment at around 1550 W/m$^2$, marking an abrupt transition out of the snowball state. A similar jump is seen in the high obliquity experiment around 1700 W/m$^2$, and this is caused by an abrupt transition into a complete ice-free state.
{width="\textwidth"}
We then try to understand what mechanisms account for the relative warmness under high obliquity using 1365 W/m$^2$ as an example. Due to the positive ice-albedo feedback, we find two equilibrium states for both high and low obliquity experiments by initiating the model from either a snowball state or an aquaplanet state [see @Kilic-Raible-Stocker-2017:multiple; @Linsenmeier-Pascale-Lucarini-2015:climate]. One equilibrium state has greater ice coverage, resulting in a higher albedo and thus a colder climate, while the other equilibrium state has less ice and thus a warmer climate. The latitudinal profile of annual-mean surface temperature is shown in Fig. \[fig:Ts-lat-feedbacks\]a for the four states. Comparing the warm branches of the high and low obliquity yields a $286.1-234.0=52.1$ K difference (high obliquity minus low obliquity). The high obliquity simulation is completely ice free, while the zero obliquity freezes to 14N/S. The strong contrast in the ice coverage between the two simulations accounts for the large temperature contrast. In the cold branch, the temperature contrast is smaller, $233.0-218.6=14.4$ K (consistent with Fig. \[fig:Ts-insolation\]). The high obliquity experiment shows strong seasonal variation of ice coverage, while the low obliquity experiment is almost in a snowball state since CO$_2$ is not considered. Warming under high obliquity has also been noted by @Jenkins-2000:global and @Nowajewski-Rojas-Rojo-et-al-2018:atmospheric. In @Jenkins-2000:global, a temperature difference greater than 60 K has been found between the high and low obliquity simulations, when other parameters are fixed, as seen in the warm branch of our experiments. High obliquity planets tend to have less ice coverage, as also noted by @Linsenmeier-Pascale-Lucarini-2015:climate and @Kilic-Lunkeit-Raible-et-al-2018:stable. In the high obliquity cold branch, long and direct sunlight during the polar day would melt the ice at high latitudes ($>$45N/S here). In the high obliquity warm branch, where the ice coverage is low and the shortwave absorption is enhanced, the ocean remains ice-free year round. The suppression of ice formation during polar night is accomplished by the heat stored in the ocean from the previous summer. Coupled atmosphere-ocean modeling has shown that an ocean can keep the high latitudes warmer than the equator all year around under high obliquity [@Ferreira-Marshall-OGorman-et-al-2014:climate]. The lower ice coverage under high obliquity therefore leads to a smaller albedo and a warmer climate.
To evaluate the role played by ice albedo feedback, we switch it off (see section \[sec:methods\] for details). The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:Ts-lat-feedbacks\](b). The temperature contrast between the high and low obliquity simulations reduces to 9 K[^2]. On the one hand, this indicates that most of the warming at high obliquity we see in the control experiments can be attributed to the ice-albedo feedback, as suggested by @Linsenmeier-Pascale-Lucarini-2015:climate and @Kilic-Lunkeit-Raible-et-al-2018:stable. This is the case because the climate is cold enough to allow ice-albedo feedback to dominate other feedbacks, like cloud and water vapor feedbacks. On the other hand, this also suggests that high obliquity planets tend to be warmer than the low obliquity equivalents even without ice. Similar results have also been found in @Nowajewski-Rojas-Rojo-et-al-2018:atmospheric, where the authors altered the obliquity in a warm climate that is naturally ice-free.
There are (at least) two possible explanations for the remaining 9K difference: weaker reflection or stronger greenhouse effect. As suggested by the heat budget in @Nowajewski-Rojas-Rojo-et-al-2018:atmospheric, the sunlight reflection gets weaker under higher obliquity. The same conclusion holds here. We distinguish the two possibilities by checking whether the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) increases proportionally with the surface temperature. If so, the “weaker reflection” explanation seems more relevant, and a stronger absorbed solar radiation is required for energy balance. Shown in Fig. \[fig:OLR-albedo\](a) is the scatter plot of OLR against surface temperature for the ice-albedo feedback suppressed experiments, with each dot representing one latitude and one month’s climatology. The dots of the zero obliquity experiment (black) align with those of the high obliquity experiment, consistent with @Koll-Cronin-2018:earths. Together they roughly follow one linear relationship. A higher mean surface temperature in the high obliquity experiment corresponds to a higher OLR, which has to be in balance with a stronger absorption (or less reflection) of solar radiation. The global annual mean OLR in the high obliquity experiment is 243.17 W/m$^2$, about 11 W/m$^2$ higher than that in the zero obliquity experiment. This indicates that, compared to a zero obliquity planet, a high obliquity planet tends to reflect less incoming solar radiation, ending up with higher mean surface temperature, even without ice/snow.
{width="\textwidth"}
We then look into the spatial and temporal distribution of albedo. Shown in Fig. \[fig:OLR-albedo\](b,c) are the latitude dependencies of planetary albedo for both high and low obliquity experiments without ice-albedo feedback. Global mean planetary albedo is marked by thin straight lines. On average, the high obliquity planet has a lower albedo, as expected. In particular, the high latitudes, which receive the most sunlight, have a quite low albedo of 0.2. In contrast, the zero obliquity planet reflects strongest at the equator where the insolation also peaks. Without sea ice reflection, the dominant factor for albedo becomes the cloud distribution.
Cloud water (liquid+ice) distribution is shown in Fig. \[fig:cloud-water\]. For the low obliquity experiment, clouds are thickest at the equator year round (there is no seasonal cycle), giving rise to the high albedo at the equator (Fig. \[fig:OLR-albedo\]b,c). Clouds are collocated with the insolation maximum, effectively shielding the surface from solar radiation where it is strongest. Conversely, in the high obliquity experiment, annual-mean cloud thickness is greatest between 20-50N/S, which is offset from the insolation maximum at the high latitudes. As a result, the solar radiation reflection becomes less efficient. The global planetary albedo reaches its minimum during May and Nov in the high obliquity setup, and therefore we also show the May climatology of cloud water in Fig. \[fig:cloud-water\](c). With the substellar point already moved to 54N, the SH is still warmer than the NH due to the heat stored in the ocean, leading to much higher cloud coverage (not shown) and cloud water concentration there. Although clouds do form, they are located mostly in the SH which receives little sunlight during that time of the year, meaning that the cloud reflection tends to be inefficient due to the seasonal lag between clouds and the sun under high obliquity.
While not directly related to the albedo, an interesting observation is that the cloud distribution tilts in opposite directions in the high and low obliquity experiments. We speculate this is because the isentropes tilt upward (downward) when approaching the poles under low (high) obliquity, and clouds form as they cross isentropes. Also, although the two poles are the hottest regions under high obliquity, only shallow clouds form there. This is possibly due to the lack of large scale upward motion there. As suggested by @Faulk-Mitchell-Bordoni-2017:effects, the solstice Hadley cell will be constrained in the tropics even with the highest temperature located at the poles.
{width="\textwidth"}
The above diagnosis suggests that the lag between clouds and the sun may be the reason for the relatively warmer climate under high obliquity. Two factors are required for this mechanism to work: the cloud radiation effects and the seasonal variation. We examine the above hypothesis here. We first turn off the cloud radiation effects by setting the clouds’ optical depth and single scattering albedo to zero. As shown in Fig. \[fig:Ts-lat-feedbacks\](c), the 9K global-mean annual-mean surface temperature difference reduces to 1.6K, which may be due to either the different strength of water vapor greenhouse effect or the nonlinear relationship between the OLR and the surface temperature. The near vanishing of the temperature difference between high and low obliquity planets indicates that cloud radiation effects are necessary to create such a difference.
We then turn off the other factor, the seasonal variation, by applying the annual mean insolation at each latitude throughout the year. This helps us distinguish between having a low cloud coverage on annual average and having clouds offset from the peak of the solar radiation due to the seasonal variation. Turning off the seasonal cycle, the global-annual mean surface temperature under high obliquity becomes even colder than that under low obliquity (Fig. \[fig:Ts-lat-feedbacks\]d), suggesting that the season-induced cloud-sun offset is the key mechanism.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We validated the relative warm climate on high obliquity planets at varying insolation, and then tried to understand the mechanisms through a series of feedback suppression experiments. The roles played by ice-albedo feedback and cloud radiation feedback and the seasonal variation were studied by sequentially turning them off in the model.
With gradually increased insolation (meaning we explore the cold branch), the high obliquity planets were shown to always be warmer than the low obliquity equivalents by at least 10 K. Under 1365 W/m$^2$ insolation (same as present-day Earth although without CO$_2$), ice reflection can explain a significant amount of the temperature contrast, particularly in the warm branch. However, there is still a 9K temperature contrast, when the ice-albedo feedback is switched off [consistent with @Nowajewski-Rojas-Rojo-et-al-2018:atmospheric and our high insolation experiments], indicating that the relative warmness under high obliquity holds with and without ice. The cause of the temperature contrast was shown to be the inefficient cloud reflection under high obliquity. The ocean heat inertia creates a lag between the maximum surface temperature and the maximum solar radiation, causing the clouds to form more on the dark side, and reducing the cloud reflection even more.
We here focused on the obliquity effects, while the role of other parameters, e.g., atmospheric composition, rotation rate, mixed layer depth etc, are not explored. In particular, a surface heat inertia that is large enough to create lag between the sun and the cloud formation is crucial for our mechanism to work. This condition is likely to be satisfied if the surface is covered by liquid, in particular, water. However, the minimum of water required for this mechanism to function is still unclear, and therefore requires future study.
The author thanks Prof. Eli Tziperman and Prof. Ming Cai for insightful and helpful discussions. This work was supported by NASA Habitable Worlds program (grant FP062796-A) and NSF climate dynamics AGS-1622985. We would like to acknowledge high-performance computing support from Cheyenne provided by NCAR’s Computational and Information Systems Laboratory, sponsored by the National Science Foundation. The relevant model outputs are archived in https://www.dropbox.com/sh/diu8y2r36nqsomc/AAC\_cIRPf14VdJs2spaO9MHwa?dl=0.
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}\[1\][[\#1](#1)]{} \[1\][doi: [](http://doi.org/#1)]{} \[1\][[](http://ascl.net/#1)]{} \[1\][[](https://arxiv.org/abs/#1)]{}
Armstrong, J. C., Barnes, R., Domagal-Goldman, S., [et al.]{} 2014, Astrobiology, 14, 277
Brunini, A. 2006, Nature, 440, 1163
Cai, M., & Lu, J. 2009, Climate Dynamics, 32, 887,
, I. R. L. 1966, Astronomical Journal, 71, 142,
Correia, A. C., & Laskar, J. 2010, Tidal evolution of exoplanets (University of Arizona Press)
Faulk, S., Mitchell, J., & Bordoni, S. 2017, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 74, 665,
Ferreira, D., Marshall, J., O’Gorman, P. A., & Seager, S. 2014, Icarus, 243, 236
Huybers, P., & Wunsch, C. 2005, Nature, 434, 491
Jenkins, G. S. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 7357
—. 2001, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 32903
—. 2003, J. Geophys. Res., 108
Kilic, C., Lunkeit, F., Raible, C. C., & Stocker, T. F. 2018, Astrophysical Journal, 864, 106
Kilic, C., Raible, C. C., & Stocker, T. F. 2017, Astrophysical Journal, 844, 147
Koll, D. D. B., & Cronin, T. W. 2018, in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 20139 [email protected] (National Academy of Sciences), 10293–10298
Kopparapu, R., Wolf, E. T., Arney, G., & et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 5
Laskar, J., & Robutel, P. 1993, Nature, 361, 608
Linsenmeier, M., Pascale, S., & Lucarini, V. 2015, Planetary and Space Science, 105, 43
Mantsis, D. F., Clement, A. C., Broccoli, A. J., [et al.]{} 2011, dx.doi.org, 24, 2830
Millholland, S., & Laughlin, G. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 204, 1
Neale, R. B., Chen, C. C., & Gettelman, A. 2010, NCAR Tech Note
Nowajewski, P., Rojas, M., Rojo, P., & Kimeswenger, S. 2018, Icarus, 305, 84
Paillard, D. 1998, Nature, 391, 378
—. 2001, Rev. Geophys., 39, 325
Rose, B. E. J., Cronin, T. W., & Bitz, C. M. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 846, 28
Wang, Y., Liu, Y., Tian, F., [et al.]{} 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 823, L20
Williams, D. M., Kasting, J. F., & Frakes, L. A. 1998, Nature, 396, 453
Yang, J., Leconte, J., Wolf, E. T., Astrophysical, C. G. T., & [2016]{}. 2016, iopscience.iop.org
[^1]: https://github.com/storyofthewolf/ExoRT and https://github.com/storyofthewolf/ExoCAM
[^2]: Since feedback suppression method does not guarantee additivity, this result does not mean that ice reflection contributes the remaining 40 K temperature difference.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The single-index model is a statistical model for intrinsic regression where the responses are assumed to depend on a single yet unknown linear combination of the predictors, allowing to express the regression function as $ {\mathbb{E}}[ Y | X ] = f ( \langle v , X \rangle ) $ for some unknown *index* vector $v$ and *link* function $f$. Estimators converging at the $1$-dimensional min-max rate exist, but their implementation has exponential cost in the ambient dimension. Recent attempts at mitigating the computational cost yield estimators that are computable in polynomial time, but do not achieve the optimal rate. Conditional methods estimate the index vector $v$ by averaging moments of $X$ conditioned on $Y$, but do not provide generalization bounds on $f$. In this paper we develop an extensive non-asymptotic analysis of several conditional methods, and propose a new one that combines some benefits of the existing approaches. In particular, we establish $\sqrt{n}$-consistency for all conditional methods considered. Moreover, we prove that polynomial partitioning estimates achieve the $1$-dimensional min-max rate for regression of Hölder functions when combined to any $\sqrt{n}$-consistent index estimator. Overall this yields an estimator for dimension reduction and regression of single-index models that attains statistical and computational optimality, thereby closing the statistical-computational gap for this problem.'
address:
- 'Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Torino and Collegio Carlo Alberto, Torino, Italy. '
- ' Department of Mathematics and Department of Applied Mathematics & Statistics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA. '
- 'Department of Computer Science, Bioengineering, Robotics and Systems Engineering, University of Genova, Genova, Italy. '
author:
-
-
-
bibliography:
- 'Ref.bib'
title: 'Conditional regression for single-index models'
---
,
.
Introduction
============
Consider the standard regression problem of estimating a function $ F : {\mathbb{R}}^d \to {\mathbb{R}}$ from $n$ samples $ \{(X_i,Y_i)\}_{i=1}^n $, where the $X_i$’s are independent realizations of a predictor variable $X\in\mathbb{R}^d$, $$Y_i=F(X_i)+\zeta_i\,, \qquad i = 1,\dots,n \,,
\label{e:regressionDef}$$ and the $\zeta_i$’s are realizations, independent among themselves and of the $X_i$’s, of a random variable $\zeta$ modeling noise. Under rather general assumptions on $\zeta$ and the distribution $\rho$ of $X$, if we only know that $F$ is $s$-Hölder regular (and, say, compactly supported), it is well-known that the min-max nonparametric rate for estimating $F$ in $L^2(\rho)$ is $n^{-s/(2s+d)}$ [@Gyorfi]. This is an instance of the *curse of dimensionality*: the rate slows down dramatically as the dimension $d$ increases. Many regression models have been introduced throughout the decades to circumvent this phenomenon; see, for example, the classical reference [@Stone82]. When the covariates are intrinsically low-dimensional, concentrating on an unknown low-dimensional set, several estimators have been proved to converge at rates that are optimal with respect to the intrinsic dimension [@bickel2007; @NIPS2011_4455; @NIPS2013_5103; @liao2016learning; @GMRARegression]. In other models, the domain may be high-dimensional, but the function itself is assumed to depend only on a small number of features. A classical case is the so-called [*[single-index model]{}*]{}, where $F$ has the structure $$F(x)=f(\langle v,x\rangle)
\label{e:SIMdef}$$ for some [*[index vector]{}*]{} $ v \in {\mathbb{R}}^d $ (that we may assume unitary without loss of generality) and [*[link function]{}*]{} $f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$. In this context one may consider different estimation problems, depending on whether $f$ is known (e.g. in logistic regression) or both $f$ and $v$ are unknown. We are interested in the latter case. Clearly, if $v$ was known we could learn $f$ by solving a $1$-dimensional regression problem, which may be done efficiently for large classes of functions $f$. So the question is: what is the price to pay for not knowing $v$?
It was conjectured in [@Stone82] that the min-max rate for regression of single-index models is $ n^{-s/(2s+1)} $, that is, the min-max rate for univariate functions: no statistical cost would have to be paid. This rate was proved for pointwise convergence with kernel estimators in [@ADE89 Theorem 3.3] and [@horowitz1998semiparametric Section 2.5], where it was also observed that the index can be learned at the parametric rate $ n^{-1/2} $. Based on these results or on similar heuristics, a wide part of literature focused on index estimation, setting aside the regression problem. From this perspective, the main point is that the estimation of the index $v$ can be carried out at parametric rate in spite of the unknown nonparametric nonlinearity $f$. A proof of Stone’s conjecture (for convergence in $L^2(\rho)$) can be found in [@Gyorfi Corollary 22.1].
Granted that the estimation of the index does not entail additional *statistical* costs (in terms of regression rates), a different but no less important problem is determining the *computational* cost to implement a statistically optimal estimator for the single-index model. The rate in [@Gyorfi Corollary 22.1] is obtained by a least squares joint minimization over $v$ and $f$, but no executable algorithm is provided. [@Aggr] proposed an adaptive algorithm aggregating local polynomial estimators on a lattice of the unit sphere, yielding a universal min-max estimator, although at the expense of a possibly exponential number of operations $\Omega(n^{(d-1)/2})$. While a heuristic faster algorithm is therein also proposed, its statistical effectiveness is unknown.
Several other methods for the estimation of $v$ or $f$ were developed over the years. A first category includes semiparametric methods based on maximum likelihood estimation [@ICHIMURA199371; @hardle1993; @Delecroix1997Efficient; @delecroix1999; @DELECROIX2006730; @Carroll97; @Carroll98]. M-estimators produce $\sqrt{n}$-consistent index estimates under general assumptions, but their implementation is cumbersome and computationally demanding, in that it depends on sensitive bandwidth selections for kernel smoothing and relies on high-dimensional joint optimization. An attempt at avoiding the data sparsity problem was made by [@cui2011], which proposed a fixed-point iterative scheme only involving $1$-dimensional nonparametric smoothers. Alternatively, methods such as the average derivative estimation (ADE [@Stoker86consistentestimation; @ADE89; @hristache2001]), the outer product of gradients estimation (OPG [@MAVE]) and the minimum average variance estimation (MAVE [@MAVE; @Xia2006]) directly estimate the index vector exploiting its proportionality with the derivative of the regression function. Early versions of these methods suffer from the curse of dimensionality due to kernel estimation of the gradient, while later iterative modifications provided $\sqrt{n}$-consistency under mild assumptions, yet not eliminating the computational overhead. More recently, Isotron [@kalai2009the; @Isotron] and SILO [@SILO] achieved linear complexity, but the proven regression rate, even if independent of $d$, is not min-max (albeit SILO focuses on the $ n \ll d $ regime, rather than the limit $n\rightarrow\infty$ as here and most past work). In a different yet related direction, the even more recent [@BachConvexNeural] showed that convex neural networks can adapt to a large variety of statistical models, including single-index; however, they do not match the optimal learning rate (even for the single-index case), and at the same time do not have associated fast algorithms. All in all, the literature on single-index models seems to express a trade-off between statistical optimality and computational efficiency. A parallel line of research has been devoted to *sufficient dimension reduction* [@li2018sufficient] in the so-called *multi-index model* (or a slight extension thereof), where $F$ depends on multiple $ k < d $ index directions spanning an unknown index subspace, thus generalizing the single-index case, and the aim is to estimate this $k$-dimensional subspace. Along this thread we can find sliced inverse regression (SIR [@DuanLi1; @SIR]), sliced average variance estimation (SAVE [@SAVE]), simple contour regression (SCR [@CR]) and its generalizations (e.g. GCR [@CR], DR [@DR]). We call such methods *conditional methods*, because the estimates they provide are derived from statistics obtained from the conditional distribution of the explanatory variable $X$ given the response variable $Y$. Conditional methods are appealing for several reasons. Compared to semiparametric methods, their implementation is straightforward, consisting of noniterative computation of empirical moments and having only one “scale” parameter to tune. Moreover, they are computationally efficient and simple to analyze, enjoying $\sqrt{n}$-consistency and, in most cases, complexity linear in the sample size and quadratic in the ambient dimension. On the downside, this comes in general at the cost of stronger distributional assumptions, and with no known theoretically optimal choice of the scale parameter [@MR3211755 p. 75]. While conditional methods offer a provable, efficient solution for sufficient dimension reduction, they do not address the problem of estimating the link function on the estimated index space. The very recent preprint [@Liao2020activesubspace] introduces a variation of GCR coupled with estimation of the link function; however the analysis in [@Liao2020activesubspace] appears fatally flawed in the key step of bounding the regression error conditioned on an estimated (multi-)index subspace, which is a regression problem with nonzero mean “noise” with dependencies on the samples. As we discuss momentarily, one of the important technical contributions of our work is to tackle this problem (via Wasserstein metrics), leading to a rigorous statistical analysis of the joint estimation of many single- or multi-index and link function estimators. We summarize the key properties for these and other aforementioned techniques in Table \[tab:market\] below.
\[tab:market\]
In this work we introduce a new estimator and a corresponding algorithm, called Smallest Vector Regression (SVR), that are optimal both in the statistical and in the computational sense. We also provide a unifying theoretical framework for single-index models, from which it is easy to derive theoretical guarantees for methods (or slight modifications thereof) other than ours. Our dimension reduction technique falls in the category of conditional methods. Unlike existing studies for similar approaches, we are able to provide a characterization for the parameter selection, and bound both the index estimation and the regression errors. Since regression is performed using standard piecewise polynomial estimates on the projected samples after and independently of the index estimation step, our regression bounds hold conditioned to any index estimation method of sufficient accuracy. Our analysis yields that convergence by proving finite-sample bounds in high probability. The resulting statements are stronger compared to the ones in the available literature on conditional methods, where typically only asymptotic convergence, at most, is established. As a side note, SVR has been empirically tested with success also in the multi-index model, but our analysis, and therefore our exposition, will be restricted to the single-index case. In summary, the contributions of this work are:
1. We prove strong, finite-sample convergence bounds, both in probability and in expectation, of several conditional regression methods, existing and new.
2. We introduce a new conditional regression method that combines accuracy, robustness and low computational cost. This method is multiscale and sheds light on parameter choices that are important in theory and practice, and are mostly left unaddressed in other techniques.
3. We prove that polynomial partitioning estimates are Hölder continuous with high probability with respect to the index estimation error. This allows to bridge the gap between a good estimator of the index subspace and the performance of regression on the estimated subspace.
4. We prove that all $\sqrt{n}$-consistent index estimation methods, and in particular all the conditional methods considered, lead to the min-max $1$-dimensional rate of convergence when combined with polynomial partitioning estimates.
5. Using the above, we fill the gap between statistical and computational efficiency in single-index model regression, providing theoretical guarantees of optimal convergence in quasilinear time.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[s:ConditionRegressionMethods\] we review several conditional regression methods for single-index model regression, and introduce our new estimator; in Section \[s:AnalysisConvergence\] we analyze the converge of various methods, including ours; in Section \[s:NumericalExperiments\] we conduct several numerical experiments, both validating the theory and exploring numerically aspects of various techniques that are not covered by theoretical results; in Section \[sec:proofsmain\] and \[sec:proofs\] we collect additional proofs of theorems and technical results.
Conditional regression methods {#s:ConditionRegressionMethods}
==============================
We consider the regression problem as in , within the single-index model, with the definition and notation as in . When $f$ is at least Lipschitz, implies $ \nabla F(x) \in {\operatorname{span}}\{v\} $ for a.e. $x$; this is the reason why we may refer to $v$ as the gradient direction. Given $n$ independent copies $ (X_i,Y_i) $, $ i = 1,\dots,n $, of the random pair $ (X,Y) $, we will construct estimators ${\widehat{v}}$ and ${\widehat{f}}$, and derive separate and compound non-asymptotic error bounds in probability and expectation. Our method is conditional in two ways:
\[it:hv\] the estimator ${\widehat{v}}$ is a statistic of the conditional distributions of the $X_i$’s given the $Y_i$’s (restricted in suitable intervals);
\[it:hf\] the estimator ${\widehat{f}}$ is conditioned on the estimate ${\widehat{v}}$.
Several conditional methods for step \[it:hv\] have been previously introduced, see e.g. [@SIR; @SAVE; @CR]. Our error bounds for step \[it:hf\] are independent of the particular method used in \[it:hv\], only requiring a minimal non-asymptotic convergence rate. For these reasons, we will introduce our own method for \[it:hv\] along with other conditional methods, and establish for each one the convergence rate needed to pair it with \[it:hf\].
The common idea of all conditional methods is to compute statistics of the predictor $X$ conditioned on the response $Y$. Conditioning on $Y$, one forces the distribution of $X$ to reveal the index structure through its moments, be they means (SIR) or variances (SAVE, SCR).
[**[Assumption]{}**]{}. All the algorithms we consider include a preprocessing step where data are standardized to have $0$ mean and isotropic covariance. Thus, when illustrating each method, we will assume such standardization.
Sliced Inverse Regression {#s:SIR}
-------------------------
Sliced Inverse Regression [@SIR] (SIR) estimates the index vector by a principal component analysis of the inverse regression curve $ {\mathbb{E}}[X | Y] $. Samples on this curve are obtained by slicing the range of the function and computing sample means of the corresponding approximate level sets. In the version of SIR we consider here, we take dyadic partitions $ \{ {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} \}_{{{h}}=1}^{2^{{l}}} $, $ {{l}}\in {\mathbb{Z}}$, of the range of $Y$, where each $ {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} $ is an interval of length $ \asymp 2^{-{{l}}} $. After calculating the sample mean for each slice, $${{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} = \frac{1}{{\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}} \sum_i X_i {\mathbbm{1}}\{Y_i \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} \} \,, \qquad {{h}}= 1,\dots,2^{{{l}}}\,,
$$ SIR outputs $ {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}} $ as the eigenvector of largest eigenvalue of the weighted covariance matrix $${{{{\widehat{M}}}}_{{{l}}}} = \sum_{{{h}}} {{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} {{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}^T \frac{{\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}}n \, .$$ Note that the population limits of ${{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}$ and ${{{{\widehat{M}}}}_{{{l}}}}$ are, respectively, $${{\mu}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} = {\mathbb{E}}[ X \mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] \,, \qquad {{M}_{{{l}}}} = \sum_{{h}}{{\mu}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} {{\mu}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}^T {\mathbb{P}}\{ Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} \} \,.$$
Sliced Average Variance Estimation {#s:SAVE}
----------------------------------
Sliced Average Variance Estimation [@SAVE] (SAVE) generalizes SIR to second order moments. After slicing the range of $Y$ and computing the centers $ {{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} $’s, it goes further and construct the sample covariance on each slice: $${{{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} = \frac{1}{{\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}} \sum_i (X_i - {{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}) (X_i - {{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}})^T {\mathbbm{1}}\{Y_i \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\}\,.
$$ Then, it averages the $ {{{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} $’s and defines $ {\widehat{v}}_{{l}}$ as the eigenvector of largest eigenvalue of $${{\widehat{S}}_{{{l}}}} = \sum_h (I - {{{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}})^2 \frac{\#{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}{n} \,.$$ The matrices $ {{{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} $ and $ {{\widehat{S}}_{{{l}}}} $ are empirical estimates of $${{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} = {\mathrm{Cov}}[ X \mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] \,, \qquad S_{{l}}= \sum_h (I - {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}})^2 {\mathbb{P}}\{ Y \in {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}} \} \,.$$
Contour Regression {#s:SCR}
------------------
Simple Contour Regression [@CR] (SCR) seeks the directions of most functional variation estimating the smallest eigenvectors of $$\begin{aligned}
K_\delta = {\mathbb{E}}[ (X - \widetilde{X}) (X - \widetilde{X})^T \mid |Y - \widetilde{Y}| \le \delta ] ) \,,
$$ where $(\widetilde{X},\widetilde{Y})$ is an independent copy of $ (X,Y) $. We shall use a dyadic scale $\delta = 2^{-{{l}}}$ and, with abuse of notation, write $K_{{l}}:=K_\delta$ for such choice of $\delta$. SCR uses the realizations $(X_i - X_{\tilde{\imath}})$ with $ |Y_i -Y_{\tilde{\imath}} | \le \delta $ to generate approximations to $K_\delta$: $$\widehat{H}_\delta = \frac{ \sum_{i<\tilde{\imath}} (X_i - X_{\tilde{\imath}}) (X_i - X_{\tilde{\imath}})^T {\mathbbm{1}}\{|Y_i - Y_{\tilde{\imath}}| \le \delta\}}{\sum_{i<\tilde{\imath}} \!\!{\mathbbm{1}}\{|Y_i - Y_{\tilde{\imath}}| \le \delta\}}\,.$$ We let ${{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}}$ be the smallest eigenvector of $ \widehat{H}_{{l}}$, where again $ \widehat{H}_{{l}}:= \widehat{H}_\delta $ with $ \delta = 2^{-{{l}}} $.
Smallest Vector Regression (SVR)
--------------------------------
This is the new method we propose here. We perform a local principal component analysis on each approximate level set obtained by multiscale slices of $Y$: because of the special structure , each (approximate) level set should be narrow in the $v$-direction and spread out along the orthogonal directions, therefore the smallest principal component should approximate $v$. Once we have an estimate for $v$, we can project down the $d$-dimensional samples and perform nonparametric regression of the $1$-dimensional function $f$. The method consists of the following steps:
1. \[it:Clh\] Construct a multiscale family of dyadic partitions of $ [\min_i Y_i , \max_i Y_i] $ $$\{ {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} \}_{{{h}}=1}^{2^{{l}}} \,, \qquad {{l}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}\,,$$ with $ | {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} | = 2^{-{{l}}} | \max_i Y_i - \min_i Y_i| $.
2. \[it:vlh\] Let ${\mathcal{H}}_{{l}}$ be the set of $h$’s such that ${\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} \ge 2^{-{{l}}} n $. For $h\in {\mathcal{H}}_{{l}}$, let ${{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}$ be the eigenvector corresponding to the *smallest* eigenvalue of ${{{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}$.
3. \[it:vl\] Compute the eigenvector ${{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}}$ corresponding to the *largest* eigenvalue of $${{{{\widehat{V}}}}_{{{l}}}} = \frac{1}{\sum_{{{h}}\in {\mathcal{H}}_{{l}}} {\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}} \sum_{{{h}}\in {\mathcal{H}}_{{l}}} {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}^T {\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\, .$$
<!-- -->
1. Regress $f$ using a dyadic polynomial estimator $ {\widehat{f}}_{|{{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}}} $, on the samples $ (\langle {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}}, X_i\rangle , Y_i ) $, $ i = 1,\dots,n $ (more details in Section \[sec:hf\]). Return ${\widehat{F}_{j|{{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}}}}(x):= {\widehat{f}}_{|{{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}}} (\langle {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}},x\rangle)$.
While SVR shares step \[it:Clh\] with SIR, it differs from SIR in step \[it:vlh\], where it takes conditional (co)variance statistics in place of conditional means, and in step \[it:vl\], where it averages smallest-variance directions rather than means. We may regard SAVE and SVR as two different modifications of SIR to higher order statistics, which allows in general for better and more robust estimates (see Section \[s:numestv\]). The fundamental difference between SVR and SAVE is that SVR computes local estimates of the index vector which then aggregates in a global estimate, while SAVE first aggregates local information and then computes a single global estimate. Similarly to SCR, SVR is a second order method and it searches for directions of minimal variance; however, SCR conditions on a level set sliding continuously on the range of the function, while SVR considers fixed conditional distributions on dyadic partitions, as SIR and SAVE. Lastly, the computational cost of SVR is quasilinear as for SIR and SAVE, compared to the quadratic time required by SCR.
Conditional partitioning estimators {#sec:hf}
-----------------------------------
In step \[it:hf\] we use piecewise polynomial estimators in the spirit of [@BCDDT1; @BCDD2]: these techniques are based on partitioning the domain (here, in a multiscale fashion), and constructing a local polynomial on each element of the partition by solving a least squares fitting problem. A global estimator is then obtained by summing the local polynomials over a certain partition (possibly using a partition of unity to obtain smoothness across the boundaries of the partition elements). The degree of the local polynomials needed to obtain optimal rates depends on the regularity of the function, and may be chosen adaptively if such regularity is unknown. A proper partition (or scale) is then chosen to minimize the expected mean squared error (MSE), by classical bias-variance trade-off.
In detail, given an estimated direction $\widehat v$, our step \[it:hf\] consists of:
1. \[it:Ijk\] construct a multiscale family of dyadic partitions of $[ \min_i \langle {\widehat{v}},X_i\rangle , \max_i \langle {\widehat{v}},X_i\rangle ]$: for each $j\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $\{ {{{{I}}_{{{j}},{{k}}|{\widehat{v}}}}} \}_{{{k}}\in{{\mathcal{K}}_{{{j}}}}}$ is a partition, with $ | {{{{I}}_{{{j}},{{k}}|{\widehat{v}}}}} | = 2^{-{{j}}} | \max_i \langle {\widehat{v}},X_i\rangle -\min_i \langle {\widehat{v}},X_i\rangle | $.
2. \[it:fjk\] For each ${{{{I}}_{{{j}},{{k}}|{\widehat{v}}}}}$, compute the best fitting polynomial $${\widehat{f}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}= \operatorname*{arg\,min}_{\deg(p) \le m} \sum_{i} | Y_i - p(\langle {\widehat{v}},X_i\rangle) |^2 {\mathbbm{1}}\{\langle {\widehat{v}},X_i\rangle \in {{{{I}}_{{{j}},{{k}}|{\widehat{v}}}}}\} \,.$$
3. \[it:fj\] Sum all local estimates $ {\widehat{f}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}$ over the partition $ \{{{{{I}}_{{{j}},{{k}}|{\widehat{v}}}}}\}_{{{k}}\in{{\mathcal{K}}_{{{j}}}}} $: $${\widehat{f}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(t) = \sum_{{{k}}\in{{\mathcal{K}}_{{{j}}}}} {\widehat{f}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}(t) {\mathbbm{1}}\{t \in {{{{I}}_{{{j}},{{k}}|{\widehat{v}}}}}\} \,.$$
The final estimator of $F$ at scale $j$ and conditioned on ${\widehat{v}}$ is given by $${\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(x) = {\widehat{f}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(\langle {\widehat{v}},x\rangle) \,.
\label{e:SVRestimatorform}$$
In SVR, step \[it:hf\] is carried out on $ {\widehat{v}}= {{{\widehat{v}}}_l}$, yielding for each ${{l}}$ a multiscale family of partitions $\{{{{{I}}_{{{j}},{{k}}|{{l}}}}}\}_{j,k}$, local polynomials $\{{\widehat{f}_{j,k|l}}|\}_{j,k}$ and global estimators $\{{\widehat{f}_{j|l}}\}_j$. However, we will prove results on the performance of \[it:hf\] also when ${\widehat{v}}$ is the output of (our versions of) SIR, SAVE and SCR (Corollary \[cor:ICV\]), and more in general by any estimator of $v$ with $n^{-1/2}$ probabilistic convergence rate (Theorem \[thm:main\]).
Note that for SVR, but also for SIR, SAVE and SCR, the final estimator $ {\widehat{f}_{j|l}}$ depends on two scale parameters: $ {{l}}$ controls the scale in the range, and ${{j}}$ controls the scale of the $1$-dimensional regression after projection onto ${{{\widehat{v}}}_l}$, and these two scales may be chosen independently. Our analysis yields optimal choices for these two scale parameters; the scale $2^{-{{l}}}$ at which the direction $v$ is estimated will not be finer than the noise level, while a possibly finer partition with ${{j}}> {{l}}$ may be selected to improve the polynomial fit, allowing the estimator $ {\widehat{f}_{j|l}}$ to de-noise its predictions, provided that enough training samples are available (see Figure \[fig:reg\_example\]).
\
We report below the complete sequence of steps run by SVR. The time complexity of the algorithm is shown in Table \[tab:cost\]. Note that \[it:fj\] has only an evaluation cost, i.e. ${\widehat{f}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}$ does not need to be constructed, but only evaluated.
1. standardize data to $0$ mean and $I_d$ covariance;
2. construct $ \{{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\}_{{{l}},{{h}}} $, dyadic decomposition of $ [ \min_i Y_i , \max Y_i ] $;
3. compute ${{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}$, the eigenvector of $\frac{1}{{\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}} \sum_i X_i X_i^T {\mathbbm{1}}\{Y_i \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} \}$\
corresponding to the smallest eigenvalue, for all $ h \in {\mathcal{H}}_{{l}}= \{ h : {\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} \ge 2^{-{{l}}} n \} $;
4. compute ${{{\widehat{v}}}_l}$, the eigenvector of $ \frac{1}{\sum_{{{h}}\in{\mathcal{H}}_{{l}}}{\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}} \sum_{{{h}}\in{\mathcal{H}}_{{l}}} {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}^T {\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}$\
corresponding to the largest eigenvalue;
<!-- -->
1. construct $ \{{{{{I}}_{{{j}},{{k}}|{{l}}}}}\}_{{{j}},{{k}}} $, dyadic decomposition of $ [ \min_i \langle {{{\widehat{v}}}_l}, X_i\rangle , \max_i \langle {{{\widehat{v}}}_l}, X_i\rangle ] $;
2. compute $ {\widehat{f}_{j,k|l}}= \operatorname*{arg\,min}_{\deg(p) \le m} \sum_{i} | Y_i - p(\langle {{{\widehat{v}}}_l}, X_i\rangle) |^2 {\mathbbm{1}}\{\langle {{{\widehat{v}}}_l}, X_i\rangle \in {{{{I}}_{{{j}},{{k}}|{{l}}}}}\} $;
3. define $ {\widehat{f}_{j|l}}(t) = \sum_{{{k}}} {\widehat{f}_{j,k|l}}(t) {\mathbbm{1}}\{t \in {{{{I}}_{{{j}},{{k}}|{{l}}}}}\} $.
[l l l ]{} & **task** & **computational cost**\
& standardization & $ O(d^2n) $\
\[it:Clh\] & dyadic decomposition of the range & $ O(n\log n) $\
\[it:vlh\] & PCA on level sets & $ O(d^2 n\log n) $\
\[it:vl\] & PCA of local directions & $ O(d^2 n \log n) $\
\[it:Ijk\] & dyadic decomposition of the domain & $ O(n \log n) $\
\[it:fjk\] & $m$-order polynomial regression & $ O(m^2 n \log n) $\
& total & $ O((d^{2} + m^2) n \log n) $\
Analysis of convergence {#s:AnalysisConvergence}
=======================
To carry out our analysis we shall make several assumptions on the distributions of $X$, $Y$ and $\zeta$:
1. \[X\] $X$ has strictly sub-Gaussian distribution with $ {\mathrm{Cov}}[X] = R^2 I_d $.
<!-- -->
1. \[Y\] $Y$ has strictly sub-Gaussian distribution with $ {\mathrm{Var}}[Y] = R^2 $.
<!-- -->
1. \[Z\] $ \zeta $ is strictly sub-Gaussian with ${\mathrm{Var}}[\zeta] \le \sigma^2$.
\[X\], \[Y\] and \[Z\] are standard assumptions in regression analysis [*tout court*]{}. Note that we start from standardized data, that is, we will not be tracking the (negligible) error resulting from standardization based on data samples. The following is instead typical of single-index models:
\[LCM\] $ {\mathbb{E}}[ X \mid \langle v , X \rangle ] = v \langle v , X \rangle $, or the stronger assumption
@edefcurrentlabel[[(LCM’)]{.nodecor}]{}
\[LCM’\] $X$ has symmetric distribution around $v$.
\[LCM\] is commonly referred to as the *linear conditional mean* assumption [@SIR Condition 3.1], because (for centralized $X$) it is equivalent to requiring $ {\mathbb{E}}[ X \mid \langle v , X \rangle ] $ to be linear in $ \langle v , X \rangle $ [@li2018sufficient Lemma 1.1]. Every spherical distribution, hence every elliptical distribution after standardization, satisfies \[LCM\] for every $v$ [@CAMBANIS1981 Corollary 5], and conversely [@EATON1986]. While it does introduce some symmetry, it is less restrictive than it may seem. It has been shown to hold approximately in high dimension, where most low-dimensional projections are nearly normal [@diaconis1984; @hall1993]. \[LCM\] is introduced to ensure that ${\widehat{v}}$ is an unbiased estimate of $v$ [@10.2307/2669934 Theorem 1]. The restriction \[LCM’\] is purely technical, and we impose it only in order to apply standard Bernstein inequalities for bounded variables [@vaart1996 Lemma 2.2.9]. Since $X$ and $Y$ are in general unbounded, we will condition the statistics of interest in suitable balls of constant radius (see Section \[sec:index-bounds\]). Such conditioning would in general break \[LCM\], but not \[LCM’\]. On the other hand, at the expense of a slightly more complicated analysis, one could directly use Bernstein inequalities for sub-exponential variables [@vaart1996 Lemma 2.2.11], thus avoiding the conditioning and hence \[LCM’\]. All boiling down to a technical distinction, we will not stress \[LCM’\] versus \[LCM\] any further.
In addition to \[LCM\], second order methods usually require the so-called *constant conditional variance* assumption [@SAVE p. 2117]:
1. \[CCV\] $ {\mathrm{Cov}}[ X \mid \langle v , X \rangle ] $ is nonrandom.
Assuming \[X\] and \[LCM\], \[CCV\] is equivalent to $ {\mathrm{Cov}}[ X \mid \langle v , X \rangle ] = R^2 (I_d - v v^T) $ almost surely [@li2018sufficient Corollary 5.1]. \[CCV\] is true for the normal distribution [@li2018sufficient Proposition 5.1], and again approximately true in high dimension [@diaconis1984; @hall1993]. Some care is required when assuming both \[LCM\] and \[CCV\]: imposing \[LCM\] for every $v$ is equivalent to assuming spherical symmetry [@EATON1986], and the only spherical distribution satisfying \[CCV\] is the normal distribution [@Kelker Theorem 7]. Two possible relaxations of \[CCV\] are the following upper and lower bounded conditional variance conditions:
1. \[UCV\] There is $\alpha\ge1$ such that $ {\mathrm{Var}}[ \langle w , X \rangle \mid \langle v , X \rangle ] \le \alpha R^2 $ almost surely for all $ w \in {\operatorname{span}}\{v\}^\perp \cap {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1} $.
<!-- -->
1. \[LCV\] There is $\alpha\ge1$ such that $ {\mathrm{Var}}[ \langle w,X\rangle\mid \langle v,X\rangle] \ge R^2 / \alpha $ almost surely for all $ w \in {\operatorname{span}}\{v\}^\perp \cap {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1} $.
We present bounds separately on estimators for $v$ in the next subsection, and on regression of $f$ in subsection \[sec:regression\]: this will be useful to understand properties of SIR, SAVE and SCR, besides SVR. Our main result, Theorem \[thm:main\], will give near-optimal bounds on the SVR estimator for $F$, in both probability and expectation, in the form $${\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - F(X) |^2 ] \le K' d^{2(s\vee1)} \log d \log^{s\vee1} n \left( \frac{\log n}{n} \right)^{\frac{2s}{2s+1}}$$ for ${\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}$ as in , $j$ selected according to Theorem \[thm:main\], $f\in{\mathcal{C}}^s$, $ s \in [\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}] $, $K'$ a constant independent of $n$ and $d$, and once assumptions \[X\], \[Y\], \[Z\], \[Om\], \[LCM’\], \[LCV\] and \[Theta\] (the latter is discussed below) are satisfied.
Bounds on estimators of the index vector {#sec:index-bounds}
----------------------------------------
For SIR, SAVE and SCR, all population statistics will be taken on the distribution of $ X $ conditioned on $ X \in B(0,\sqrt{2d\log(4)} R) $. In view of assumption \[X\] and Lemma \[lem:sub-gauss-ball\], neglecting events of probability lower than $ 2 e^{-cn} $ we may assume $ \|X_i\| \le \sqrt{2d\log(4)} R $ almost surely for at least $n/4$ many $i$’s, thus losing only a constant fraction of the samples. Assumption \[LCM’\] is not affected by such conditioning. Uniform boundedness of the samples is required for the application of the Bernstein inequality.
\[thm:SIR\] Assume \[X\] and \[LCM’\], and that there are $ {{l}}\ge 1 $ and $ \alpha \ge 1 $ such that
1. \[I\] $ \sum_{{h}}| \langle v, {\mathbb{E}}[ X \mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] |^2 {\mathbb{P}}\{Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} \ge R^2/\alpha \,.$
Let ${{{\widehat{v}}}_l}$ be the direction estimated by SIR, as defined in Section \[s:SIR\]. Then:
1. \[it:SIR-P\] $ \| {{{\widehat{v}}}_l}- v \| \lesssim \alpha \sqrt{t + {{l}}+ \log d} \ 2^{{{l}}/2} \frac{d}{\sqrt{n}} $ with probability higher than $ 1 - e^{-t} $;
2. \[it:SIR-E\] $ {\mathbb{E}}[\| {{{\widehat{v}}}_l}- v \|^2] \lesssim \alpha^2 ({{l}}+ \log d) 2^{{l}}\frac{d^2}{n} $ .
Condition \[I\] says that the variance of the means of the level sets of $F$ is comparable with the variance of $X$. Thus, it is satisfied whenever $f$ is monotone, or at least “monotone at scale coarser than $2^{-{{l}}}$” – this will reappear formally below, in particular in condition \[Om\]. Note that \[I\] is the quantized version of $ {\mathbb{E}}[ |\langle v , {\mathbb{E}}[ X \mid Y ] \rangle|^2 ] > 0 $, which is equivalent to saying that $ E[ \langle v , X \rangle \mid Y ] $ is nondegenerate, that is, non almost surely equal to a constant.
\[thm:SAVE\] Assume \[X\], \[LCM’\] and \[UCV\] with $ R = \alpha = 1 $, and that there are $ {{l}}\ge 1 $ and $ \alpha \ge 1 $ such that, for every $ w \in {\operatorname{span}}\{v\}^\perp \cap {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1} $,
1. \[V\] $
{\mathrm{Var}}[ \langle w , X \rangle \mid Y \in {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}} ] - {\mathrm{Var}}[ \langle v , X \rangle \mid Y \in {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}} ] \ge R^2/\alpha, \qquad {{h}}= 1,\dots,2^{{l}}\,.
$
Let ${{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}}$ be the direction estimated by SAVE as described in Section \[s:SAVE\]. Then:
1. \[it:SAVE-P\] $ \| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}} - v \| \lesssim \alpha^2 \sqrt{t + {{l}}+ \log d} \ 2^{{{l}}/2} \frac{d^2}{\sqrt{n}} $ with probability higher than $ 1 - e^{-t} $;
2. \[it:SAVE-E\] $ {\mathbb{E}}[\| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}} - v \|^2] \lesssim \alpha^4 ({{l}}+ \log d) 2^{{l}}\frac{d^4}{n} $ .
\[thm:SCR\] Assume \[X\] and \[LCM’\], and that there are $ {{l}}\ge 1 $ and $ \alpha \ge 1 $, such that, for every $ w \in {\operatorname{span}}\{v\}^\perp \cap {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1} $,
1. \[C\] $ {\mathrm{Var}}[ \langle w , X-\widetilde{X} \rangle \mid |Y-\widetilde{Y}| \le 2^{-{{l}}} ] - {\mathrm{Var}}[ \langle v , X -\widetilde{X}\rangle \mid |Y-\widetilde{Y}| \le 2^{-{{l}}} ] \ge R^2 / \alpha $ .
Let ${{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}}$ be the direction estimated by SCR as described in Section \[s:SCR\]. Then:
1. \[it:SCR-P\] $ \| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}} - v \| \lesssim \frac{\alpha \sqrt{t + \log d}}{{\mathbb{P}}\{ |\widetilde{Y} - Y| \le 2^{-{{l}}} \}^{1/2}} \sqrt{\frac{d}{n}} $ with probability higher than $ 1 - e^{-t} $;
2. \[it:SCR-E\] $ {\mathbb{E}}[\| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}} - v \|^2] \lesssim \frac{\alpha^2 \log d}{{\mathbb{P}}\{ |\widetilde{Y} - Y| \le 2^{-{{l}}} \}} \frac{d}{n} $ .
The parameter ${{l}}$ should be chosen sufficiently large to satisfy \[C\], but still small enough so that $ {\mathbb{P}}\{ |\widetilde{Y} - Y| \le 2^{-{{l}}} \} $ is high. For conditions sufficient to imply \[C\], see [@CR Theorem 2.3, Theorem 3.1]. The proofs of Theorems \[thm:SIR\], \[thm:SAVE\] and \[thm:SCR\] are postponed to Section \[sec:proofsmain\].
We now turn to the analysis of SVR. It is possible to prove that SVR achieves
1. $ \| {{{\widehat{v}}}_l}- v \| \lesssim \alpha \sqrt{t + {{l}}+ \log d} \ 2^{{{l}}/2} \sqrt{\frac{d}{n}} $ with probability higher than $ 1 - e^{-t} $,
2. $ {\mathbb{E}}[\| {{{\widehat{v}}}_l}- v \|^2] \lesssim \alpha^2 ({{l}}+ \log d) 2^{{l}}\frac{d}{n} $,
under assumptions \[X\], \[LCM’\] and \[V\]. We prefer however to work with more interpretable conditions, that better decouple the geometry of the distribution of $X$ and properties of the function $f$. For this purpose, we introduce:
1. \[Om\] There are $ \omega \ge 0 $ and $ \ell > 0 $ such that, for every interval $C$ with $ |C| \ge \omega $, $ f^{-1}(C) $ is an interval and $ | f^{-1}(C) | \le |C|/\ell $.
Assumption \[Om\] may be regarded as a large scale sub-Lipschitz property for the set-valued function $f^{-1}$. Note that, if $f$ is bi-Lipschitz, then \[Om\] is satisfied with $\omega=0$. However, $\ref{Om}$ for $\omega>0$ does not imply that $f$ is monotone; it relaxes monotonicity to monotonicity “at scales larger than $\omega$”.
In the following, we will condition the statistics ${{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}$ on $\|X\| \lesssim \sqrt{d} R $ and $ |Y| \lesssim R $. In doing so, we only discard a constant fraction of $X_i$’s and $Y_i$’s with confidence $ 1 - 4e^{-cn} $, thanks to assumptions \[X\] and \[Y\] and Lemma \[lem:sub-gauss-ball\], while not invalidating assumption \[LCM’\].
We may now state the main result for the SVR estimator of $v$:
\[thm:SVR\] Suppose \[X\], \[Y\], \[Z\], \[Om\], \[LCM’\] and \[LCV\] hold true. Let ${{l}}$ be such that $ |{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}| \gtrsim \max\{\sigma , \omega\} $, $ h = 1,\dots,2^{{l}}$. Then, for $n$ large enough so that $ \frac{n}{\sqrt{\log n}} \gtrsim (t + {{l}}+ \log d) 2^{2{{l}}} $ we have
1. $
\| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}} - v \| \lesssim \alpha \ell^{-1} \sqrt{t + {{l}}+ \log d} \ 2^{-{{l}}/2} \sqrt{\frac{ d }{ n / \sqrt{\log n} }}
$ with probability higher than $ 1 - e^{-t} $. \[it:SVR-P\]
Moreover, if $ \frac{n}{\log n \sqrt{\log n}} \gtrsim \alpha^2 \ell^{-2} d 2^{{{l}}} $, then
1. $
{\mathbb{E}}[\| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}} - v \|^2] \lesssim \alpha^2 \ell^{-2} ({{l}}+ \log d) 2^{-{{l}}} \frac{d}{n/\sqrt{\log n}} \,.
\label{it:SVR-E}
$
If, furthermore, $ | \zeta | \le \sigma $ a.s., then \[it:SVR-P\] and \[it:SVR-E\] hold with $n/\sqrt{\log n}$ replaced by $n$.
Theorem \[thm:SVR\] not only proves convergence for SVR, but also shows that finer scales give more accurate estimates, provided the number of local samples ${\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} $ is not too small and we stay above the critical scales $\sigma$ and $\omega$, representing the noise and the non-monotonicity levels, respectively. Without assumption \[LCM\], both SIR and SVR provide biased estimates of the index vector; it is not known if such bias is removable. Nevertheless, Theorem \[thm:SVR\] suggests that the estimation error of SVR could be driven to $0$ by increasing $l$, only limited by the constraint of keeping the scale $l$ larger than $\max\{\sigma,\omega\}$. On the other hand, for distributions not satisfying the assumptions above, the inverse regression curve can deviate considerably from the direction $v$, regardless of the size of the noise (see Figure \[fig:SIRvsUS\_bias\]). In SVR, assuming for a moment monotonicity ($\omega=0$) and zero noise ($\sigma=0$), choosing the scale parameter ${{l}}$ according to the lower bound on $n$ yields a $ O( n^{-2} ) $ convergence rate for the MSE, disregarding $\log$ factors.
To prove Theorem \[thm:SVR\], we first establish bounds on the local statistics involved in the computation of the estimator of $v$:
\[prop:C\] Suppose \[Z\] and \[Om\] hold true. Let ${{C}}$ be a bounded interval with $|C|\ge\omega$. Then:
1. \[it:suppC\] For every $ X_i $ such that $ Y_i \in {{C}}$, and for every $ \tau \ge 1 $, $${\mathbb{P}}\{ | \langle v,X_i\rangle - {\mathbb{E}}[\langle v,X \rangle\mid Y \in {{C}}] | \gtrsim \ell^{-1} (|{{C}}| + \sqrt{\tau\log n}\ \sigma) \} \le 2n^{-\tau}\,.$$ If $ | \zeta | \le \sigma $ a.s., then $${\mathbb{P}}\{ | \langle v,X_i\rangle - {\mathbb{E}}[\langle v,X \rangle\mid Y \in {{C}}] | \lesssim \ell^{-1} (|{{C}}| + \sigma) \} =1\,.$$
2. \[it:varC\] $ {\mathrm{Var}}[ \langle v,X \rangle\mid Y \in {{C}}] \lesssim \ell^{-2} (|{{C}}|^2+\sigma^2) $ .
Let $ Z_t = (-\sqrt{2(t+1)}\sigma,-\sqrt{2t}\sigma] \cup [\sqrt{2t}\sigma,\sqrt{2(t+1)}\sigma) $ for $t\in{\mathbb{N}}$. To prove \[it:suppC\] we first note that, thanks to \[Z\], we have $ \zeta_i \in \bigcup_{t\le\tau\log n}Z_t $ for every $i$ with probability higher than $ 1- 2n^{-\tau} $. Conditioned on this event, $ \langle v,X_i\rangle \in f^{-1}({{C}}+\bigcup_{t\le\tau\log n}Z_t) $ if $ Y_i \in {{C}}$. On the other hand, $ {\mathbb{E}}[ \langle v,X\rangle\mid Y \in {{C}}, \zeta \in Z_t ] \in f^{-1}({{C}}+Z_t) $. It follows from assumption \[Om\] that $$| \langle v,X_i \rangle- {\mathbb{E}}[ \langle v,X\rangle\mid Y \in {{C}}, \zeta \in Z_t ] | \lesssim \ell^{-1} ( |{{C}}| + \sqrt{\max\{t,\tau\log n\}}\sigma) .$$ Thus, by the law of total expectation, $$\begin{aligned}
| \langle v,X_i\rangle - {\mathbb{E}}[\langle v,X \rangle\,|\, Y \in {{C}}] | & \le \sum_{t=0}^\infty | \langle v,X_i\rangle - {\mathbb{E}}[ \langle v,X \rangle\,|\, Y \in {{C}}, \zeta \in Z_t ] | {\mathbb{P}}\{ \zeta \in Z_t \} \\
& \lesssim \ell^{-1} \bigg( |{{C}}| + \sqrt{\tau\log n}\sigma + \sigma \sum_{t>\tau} \sqrt{t} e^{-t} \bigg) \\
& \lesssim \ell^{-1} (|{{C}}| + \sqrt{\tau\log n}\ \sigma) .\end{aligned}$$ The case where $ |\zeta| \le \sigma $ almost surely is similar and simpler. For \[it:varC\], we write $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Var}}[ \langle v,X \rangle\mid Y \in {{C}}] & = {\mathbb{E}}[ (\langle v,X \rangle- {\mathbb{E}}[ \langle v,X \rangle\,|\, Y \in {{C}}])^2 \,|\, Y \in {{C}}] \\
& = \sum_{t=0}^\infty {\mathbb{E}}[ (\langle v,X \rangle- {\mathbb{E}}[ \langle v,X \rangle\,|\, Y \in {{C}}])^2 \,|\, Y \in {{C}}, \zeta \in Z_t ] {\mathbb{P}}\{ \zeta \in Z_t \} .\end{aligned}$$ Conditioned on $ \zeta \in Z_t $, assumption \[Om\] gives $$\begin{aligned}
| \langle v,X \rangle- {\mathbb{E}}[ \langle v,X \rangle\mid Y \in {{C}}] | & \le \sum_{s=0}^\infty | \langle v,X \rangle- {\mathbb{E}}[ \langle v,X \rangle\mid Y \in {{C}}, \zeta \in Z_s ] | {\mathbb{P}}\{\zeta\in Z_s\} \\
& \lesssim \ell^{-1} \bigg( |{{C}}| + \sqrt{t} \sigma + \sigma \sum_{s=0}^\infty \sqrt{s} e^{-s} \bigg) \\
& \lesssim \ell^{-1} (|{{C}}| + \sqrt{t}\sigma) ,\end{aligned}$$ whence $${\mathrm{Var}}[ \langle v,X \rangle\mid Y \in {{C}}] \lesssim \ell^{-2} \bigg( |{{C}}|^2 + \sigma^2 \sum_{t=0}^\infty t e^{-t} \bigg) \lesssim \ell^{-2} ( |{{C}}|^2 + \sigma^2 ) . \qedhere$$
\[prop:eigengap\] Suppose \[X\], \[Y\], \[Z\], \[Om\], \[LCM\] and \[LCV\] hold true. Then, for every $l$ such that $ 2^{-{{l}}} \lesssim \ell/\sqrt{\alpha} $ and $ |{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}| \ge \max\{\sigma,\omega\} $, $ h = 1,\dots,2^{{l}}$, $v$ is the eigenvector of smallest eigenvalue of ${{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}$, and \[V\] holds true, that is, $${\lambda}_{d-1} ( {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} ) - {\lambda}_{d} ( {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} ) \gtrsim R^2 / \alpha \,,$$ with probability higher than $ 1 - 2 e^{-cn} $.
First of all we condition on ${{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}$, which is otherwise random since so are $\min_i Y_i$ and $\max_i Y_i$. We first lower bound $ {\lambda}_{d-1} ( {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} ) $. We have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathrm{Cov}}[ X \mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] & = {\mathbb{E}}[ XX^T \mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] - {\mathbb{E}}[ X \mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] {\mathbb{E}}[ X^T \mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] .\end{aligned}$$ Since $X$ is independent of $\zeta$, implies that $X$ is independent of $Y$ given $\langle v, X\rangle$, hence $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[ XX^T \mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] & = {\mathbb{E}}[ {\mathbb{E}}[ XX^T \mid \langle v,X \rangle, Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] \mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] \\
& = {\mathbb{E}}[ {\mathbb{E}}[ XX^T \mid \langle v,X \rangle] \mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] .\end{aligned}$$ For the same reason, and using assumption \[LCM\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[ X \mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] & = {\mathbb{E}}[ {\mathbb{E}}[ X \mid \langle v,X \rangle, Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] \mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] \\
& = {\mathbb{E}}[ {\mathbb{E}}[ X \mid \langle v,X \rangle] \mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] \\
& = {\mathbb{E}}[ v\langle v,X\rangle\mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] .\end{aligned}$$ Now, let $w$ be a unitary vector orthogonal to $v$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
w^T {\mathbb{E}}[ X \mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] = {\mathbb{E}}[ \langle w , v \rangle \langle v,X \rangle\mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] = 0 ,\end{aligned}$$ while assumption \[LCV\] gives $$\begin{aligned}
w^T {\mathbb{E}}[ XX^T \mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] w = {\mathbb{E}}[ {\mathrm{Var}}[ \langle w,X\rangle\mid \langle v,X\rangle] \mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] \ge R^2 / \alpha .\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, \[LCM\] implies by [@10.2307/2669934 Theorem 1.a] that $v$ is an eigenvector of ${{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
{\lambda}_{d-1} ( {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} ) & = \min_{\substack{w\in{\operatorname{span}}\{v\}^\perp \\ \|w\|=1}} w^T {\mathrm{Cov}}[ X \mid Y \in {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} ] w \ge R^2 / \alpha .\end{aligned}$$ To upper bound $ {\lambda}_d({{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}) $ note that, conditioning on $ | Y_i | \lesssim R $, we have $ | {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} | \lesssim R 2^{-{{l}}} $. Thus, assumption \[Om\] implies by Proposition \[prop:C\]\[it:varC\] that $${\lambda}_d ( {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} ) \lesssim \ell^{-2} R^2 2^{-2{{l}}} .$$ We finally put together lower and upper bound. Taking $ 2^{-{{l}}} \lesssim \ell/\sqrt{\alpha} $ yields the desired inequality.
We now establish convergence in probability for the local estimators $ {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} $.
\[prop:localSVR\] Suppose \[X\], \[Y\], \[Z\], \[Om\], \[LCM’\] and \[LCV\] hold true. Then, conditioned on ${\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}$, for every ${{l}}$ such that $ |{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}| \gtrsim \max\{\sigma , \omega\} $, $ h = 1,\dots,2^{{l}}$, for every $ {\varepsilon}> 0 $ and $ \tau \ge 1 $, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\{ \| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - v \| > {\varepsilon}\}\lesssim d \left[ \exp\!\left({ - \tfrac{c {\# {{{{{C}}}_{},{l}}}}{{h}}{\varepsilon}^2}{ \alpha^2 \ell^{-2} d \sqrt{\tau \log n} (2^{-2{{l}}} + 2^{-{{l}}}{\varepsilon})}}\right) \! + \exp\!\left({ - \tfrac{c {\# {{{{{C}}}_{},{l}}}}{{h}}}{\alpha^2 d}}\right) \right] \! + n^{-\tau} .\end{aligned}$$ If $ |\zeta| \le \sigma $ a.s., then $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\{ \| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - v \| > {\varepsilon}\} \lesssim d\left[ \exp\left({- \tfrac{c {\# {{{{{C}}}_{},{l}}}}{{h}}{\varepsilon}^2}{\alpha^2 \ell^{-2} d (2^{-2{{l}}} + 2^{-{{l}}}{\varepsilon})}}\right) \! + \exp\left({ - \tfrac{c {\# {{{{{C}}}_{},{l}}}}{{h}}}{\alpha^2 d}}\right) \right] \, .\end{aligned}$$
Since $ \| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - v \| \le 1 $, we can assume $ {\varepsilon}^2 \le {\varepsilon}\le 1 $ whenever needed. The Davis–Kahan Theorem [@bhatia Theorem VII.3.1] together with Proposition \[prop:eigengap\] gives $$\begin{aligned}
\| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - v \| & \le \frac{ \| v^T ({\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}- {{\Sigma}}) \| }{ | {\lambda}_{d-1}({\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}) - {\lambda}_d({{\Sigma}})| }
\end{aligned}$$ with $ {{\Sigma}}= {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} $ and $ {\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}= {{{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} $. By Proposition \[prop:eigengap\] and the Weyl inequality we get $$\begin{aligned}
| {\lambda}_{d-1}({\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}) - {\lambda}_d({{\Sigma}}) | \ge {\lambda}_d({{\Sigma}}) - {\lambda}_{d-1}({{\Sigma}}) - | {\lambda}_{d-1}({\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}) - {\lambda}_{d-1}({{\Sigma}}) |
\gtrsim R^2/\alpha - \| {\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}- {{\Sigma}}\| .
\end{aligned}$$ We bound $ \| {\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}- {{\Sigma}}\| $ using the Bernstein inequality. First, we introduce the intermediate term $${\widetilde{{{\Sigma}}}}= \frac{1}{{\# {{C}}}} \sum_i (X_i - \mu) (X_i - \mu)^T {\mathbbm{1}}\{Y_i \in {{C}}\} ,$$ and split $ {\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}- {{\Sigma}}$ into $$\begin{aligned}
{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}- {{\Sigma}}= {\widetilde{{{\Sigma}}}}- {{\Sigma}}- ({{\widehat{\mu}}}- \mu) ({{\widehat{\mu}}}- \mu)^T ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $ {{C}}= {{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} $, $ \mu = {{\mu}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} $ and $ {{\widehat{\mu}}}= {{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} $. We have $ \| X_i - \mu \|^2 \lesssim R^2 d $, hence $${\mathbb{P}}\{ \| {\widetilde{{{\Sigma}}}}- {{\Sigma}}\| \gtrsim R^2/\alpha \} \lesssim d \exp \left( -c \frac{{\# {{C}}}}{\alpha^2 d } \right) .$$ Moreover, $ \| {{\widehat{\mu}}}- \mu \|^2 \lesssim {\mathbb{R}}^2/\alpha $ with same probability.
We now apply the Bernstein inequality to concentrate $ v^T({\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}- {{\Sigma}}) $. By Proposition \[prop:C\]\[it:suppC\] we have, with probability no lower than $ 1 - 2 n^{-\tau} $, $$\begin{aligned}
| v^T (X_i - \mu) | \| X_i - \mu \| \lesssim \ell^{-1} R^2 \sqrt{d \tau \log n} 2^{-{{l}}} ,\end{aligned}$$ or $ | v^T (X_i - \mu) | \| X_i - \mu ] \| \lesssim \ell^{-1} R^2 \sqrt{d} 2^{-{{l}}} $ when $ |\zeta| \le \sigma $. Next, we estimate the variance. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\| v^T ({\widetilde{{{\Sigma}}}}- {{\Sigma}}) \|^2 = v^T ({\widetilde{{{\Sigma}}}}- {{\Sigma}})^2 v = v^T {\widetilde{{{\Sigma}}}}^2 v - v^T {\widetilde{{{\Sigma}}}}{{\Sigma}}v - v^T {{\Sigma}}{\widetilde{{{\Sigma}}}}v + v^T {{\Sigma}}^2 v ,
\end{aligned}$$ hence, taking the expectation (conditioned on $ {{C}}$), $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[ \| v^T ({\widetilde{{{\Sigma}}}}- {{\Sigma}}) \|^2 ] = {\mathbb{E}}[ v^T {\widetilde{{{\Sigma}}}}^2 v] - v^T {{\Sigma}}^2 v,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[ v^T {\widetilde{{{\Sigma}}}}^2 v] & = \frac{1}{({\# {{C}}})^2} v^T {\mathbb{E}}\left [ \left( \sum_i (X_i - \mu)(X_i - \mu)^T \right)^2 \right ] v \\
& \le \frac{1}{{\# {{C}}}} v^T {\mathbb{E}}[ (X-\mu) \|X-\mu\|^2 (X-\mu)^T ] v + v^T \Sigma^2 v \\
& \le \frac{1}{{\# {{C}}}} dR^2 {\mathbb{E}}[ (v^T (X-\mu))^2] + v^T {{\Sigma}}^2 v \\
& = \frac{1}{{\# {{C}}}} dR^2 {\mathrm{Var}}[ v^T X] + v^T {{\Sigma}}^2 v .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, Proposition \[prop:C\]\[it:varC\] gives $${\mathbb{E}}[ \| v^T ({\widetilde{{{\Sigma}}}}- {{\Sigma}}) \|^2 ] \le \frac{1}{{\# {{C}}}} \ell^{-2} d R^4 2^{-2{{l}}} .$$ We therefore obtain $${\mathbb{P}}\{ \| v^T({\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}- {{\Sigma}}) \| > \alpha^{-1} R^2 {\varepsilon}\} \lesssim d \exp \left( -c \frac{{\# {{C}}} {\varepsilon}^2}{ \alpha^2 \ell^{-2} d \sqrt{\tau \log n} \ (2^{-2{{l}}} + 2^{-{{l}}}{\varepsilon})} \right) ,$$ without $ \sqrt{\tau \log n} $ if $ | \zeta | \le \sigma $. Same bounds hold for $ v^T({{\widehat{\mu}}}-\mu)({{\widehat{\mu}}}-\mu)^T $, which completes the proof.
The Davis–Kahan Theorem [@SamWan Theorem 2] yields $$\begin{aligned}
\| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}} - v \| \lesssim \left\| \frac{1}{\sum_{{h}}{\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}} \sum_{{h}}{{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}^T {\# {{{{{C}}}_{},{l}}}}{{h}}- vv^T \right\|
\lesssim \frac{1}{\sum_{{h}}{\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}} \sum_h \| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - v \| {\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} .\end{aligned}$$ Applying Proposition \[prop:localSVR\] and taking the union bound over ${{h}}$ gives now \[it:SVR-P\]. For \[it:SVR-E\], we condition on $ |\zeta_i| \le \sqrt{2\tau\log n} \sigma $ for all $i$’s and calculate $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[ \| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}} - v \|^2 ] - n^{-\tau} & \lesssim \int_0^1 {\varepsilon}\ {\mathbb{P}}\{ \| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}} - v \| > {\varepsilon}\} d{\varepsilon}\\
& = \int_0^{2^{-{{l}}}} {\varepsilon}\ {\mathbb{P}}\{ \| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}} - v \| > {\varepsilon}\} d{\varepsilon}+ \int_{2^{-{{l}}}}^1 {\varepsilon}\ {\mathbb{P}}\{ \| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}} - v \| > {\varepsilon}\} d{\varepsilon}\\
& \le \int_0^{2^{-{{l}}}} \min \left \{ 1 , 2^{{l}}d \exp \left( -\tfrac{c (n/\sqrt{\log n}) {\varepsilon}^2}{\alpha^2 \ell^{-2} \sqrt{\tau} d 2^{-{{l}}}} \right) \right\} {\varepsilon}d{\varepsilon}\\
& + \int_{2^{-{{l}}}}^1 2^{{l}}d \exp \left( - \tfrac{c (n/\sqrt{\log n})}{\alpha^2 \ell^{-2} \sqrt{\tau} d 2^{{{l}}}} \right) {\varepsilon}d{\varepsilon}\\
& \lesssim \alpha^2 \ell^{-2} \sqrt{\tau} d \log(2^{{l}}d) \frac{2^{-{{l}}}}{n/\sqrt{\log n}} \\
& + 2^{{l}}d \exp \left( -\tfrac{c(n/\sqrt{\log n}}{\alpha^2 \ell^{-2} \sqrt{\tau} d 2^{{{l}}}} \right) ,\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows from Lemma \[lem:P-E\]. For $\tau=2$ and $n$ large enough as in the first assumed lower bound, we obtain \[it:SVR-E\]. Analogous computations for the case where $ |\zeta| \le \sigma $ lead to the final claim.
Conditional regression bounds {#sec:regression}
-----------------------------
In this section we study how partitioning polynomial regression is affected by the projection onto an estimate $\widehat v$ of $v$. We view these as estimators conditioned on $\widehat v$; we first prove that, with high probability, conditional estimators as defined in Section \[sec:hf\] differ from an oracle estimator (possessing knowledge of $v$) by the angle between $\widehat v$ and $v$ (Theorem \[thm:hFhv-hFv\]). Then, we show that such estimators achieve the $1$-dimensional min-max convergence rate (up to logarithmic factors) when conditioned on any $\sqrt{n}$-convergent estimate of $v$ (Theorem \[thm:main\]), and thus, in particular, on the $\widehat v$ obtained with SIR, SAVE, SCR or SVR (Corollary \[cor:ICV\]).
To prove Theorem \[thm:hFhv-hFv\] and \[thm:main\] we need to assume that the distribution $\rho$ of $X$ does not change too much when projected onto directions within a small angle. A version of this property may be formalized as follows:
1. \[Theta\] $X$ has an upper bounded density $\rho$ for which there are $ \Theta \in (0,2\pi] $ and $ \delta > 0 $ such that, for every $ {{r}}> 0 $, angle $\theta$ with $ |\theta| \le \Theta $, interval $I$ with $ |I| \le \delta $, and $ u \in {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1} $ with $ \| u - v \| \le \theta $, $$\begin{aligned}
W_1( \rho(x \mid \|x\| \le {{r}}, \langle v,x\rangle \in I ) , \rho(x \mid \|x\| \le {{r}}, \langle u,x\rangle \in I) ) \le C{{r}}\theta \,,
\end{aligned}$$ where $W_1$ denotes the 1$^\text{st}$ Wasserstein distance.
Intuitively, \[Theta\] says that the mass of $\rho$ does not move too far when $\rho$ is slightly rotated, and is a continuity property. Note that, if $\rho$ is rotationally invariant, then \[Theta\] holds trivially with $ \Theta = 2\pi $ and any $ \delta > 0 $.
We will also need to impose some regularity on the function $f$. We recall that a function $ g : {\mathbb{R}}^d \to {\mathbb{R}}$ is $ {\mathcal{C}}^s$ Hölder continuous ($ g \in {\mathcal{C}}^s $) if, for $ s = k + \alpha $, $ k \ge 0 $ an integer and $ \alpha \in (0,1] $, $g$ has continuous derivatives up to order $k$ and $$|g|_{{\mathcal{C}}^s} = \max_{|{\lambda}|=k} \sup_{x\ne z} \frac{\delta^{\lambda}g(x) - \delta^{\lambda}g(z)}{\|x-z\|^\alpha} < \infty .$$
\[thm:hFhv-hFv\] Assume \[X\], \[Y\], \[Z\], \[Theta\] and $ f \in {\mathcal{C}}^\alpha $ with $ \alpha \in [\frac{1}{2},1] $. Let ${\widehat{v}}$ be an estimate of $v$. For $ u \in \{ v , {\widehat{v}}\} $, let $ \widehat{F}_{j|u} $ be a piecewise constant ($ \alpha < 1 $) or linear ($ \alpha = 1 $) estimator of $F$ at scale $j$ conditioned on $u$ as defined in Section \[sec:hf\]. Then, for every $ {\varepsilon}> 0 $, ${{r}}\ge 1 $ and $j$ such that $ 2^{-j} \ge \| {\widehat{v}}- v \|/t $ for some $ t \ge 1 $, conditioned on $ \|X_i\| \le {{r}}$ for all $i$’s, we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \big ({\mathbb{E}}_X[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) |^2 \mid X \in B(0,{{r}}) ]\big)^{\frac1 2} \\
\lesssim \ & t |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha} ( {{r}}^{\frac{1}{2-\alpha}} \| {\widehat{v}}- v \|^{\frac{1}{2-\alpha}} + {{r}}^{\alpha} 2^{-j\alpha} 2^{\frac{j}{2}}\| {\widehat{v}}- v \|^{\frac{1}{2}}) + {\varepsilon}\end{aligned}$$ with probability higher than $ 1 - C \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \exp(-\frac{c \ n {\varepsilon}^2}{\#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} t^2 |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 {{r}}^{2\alpha}} ) $ .
The proof of Theorem \[thm:hFhv-hFv\] is postponed to Section \[sec:proofsmain\]. The key tool to obtain the dependence on $\|{\widehat{v}}-v\|$ in the upper bound is the Wasserstein distance. It enables us to bound the difference between statistics computed on the conditional distribution given ${\widehat{v}}$ rather than $v$.
We can finally establish the intrinsic min-max convergence rate of a conditional partitioning polynomial estimator. We will focus on one standard class of priors for regression functions, namely the class ${\mathcal{C}}^s$ of Hölder continuous functions.
\[thm:main\] Assume \[X\], \[Y\], \[Z\], \[Theta\] and $ f \in {\mathcal{C}}^s \cap {\mathcal{C}}^{s\wedge1} $ with $ s \in [\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}] $. Let ${\widehat{v}}$ be an estimator for $v$ such that
1. \[J\] $ {\mathbb{P}}\{ \| {\widehat{v}}- v \| > {\varepsilon}\} \le A \exp( - n {\varepsilon}^2 / B) $
for some $ A , B \ge 1 $ possibly dependent on $d$ and specific parameters. Let $ \widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}} $ be a piecewise constant $(s\le1)$ or linear $(s>1)$ estimator of $F$ at scale $j$ conditioned on ${\widehat{v}}$, defined as in Section \[sec:hf\] on a ball of radius ${{r}}$, and $0$ outside. Then, setting $ 2^{-j} \asymp \sqrt{B} (\log n / n)^{1/(2s+1)} $ and $ r = \sqrt{2d\log n^{2s/(2s+1)}} R $ we have:
\[it:main-prob\] For every $ \nu > 0 $ there is $ c_\nu(d,R,B,|f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^{s\wedge1}},s) \ge 1 $ such that\
$
{\mathbb{P}}\left\{ ( {\mathbb{E}}_X [ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X)- F(X) |^2 ] )^{\frac1 2} > (\kappa + c_\nu) \log^{\frac{s\vee1}{2}} n \left( \frac{\log n}{n} \right)^{\frac{s}{2s+1}} \right\} \lesssim A n^{-\nu}
$\
for some $ \kappa(d,R,B,F,|f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^{s\wedge1}},|f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^s},s) $.
\[it:main-exp\] $
{\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - F(X) |^2 ] \le K \log^{s\vee1} n \left( \frac{\log n}{n} \right)^{\frac{2s}{2s+1}}
$\
for some $ K = K(d,R,A,B,F,|f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^{s\wedge1}},|f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^s},s) $.
The dependence of all constants upon $d$, $A$ and $B$ is polynomial.
Let $ \alpha=s\wedge1 $ so that $ f \in {\mathcal{C}}^s \cap {\mathcal{C}}^\alpha $. We first prove \[it:main-exp\]. Let us start by isolating the error outside a ball $ B(0,{{r}}) $: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - F(X) |^2 ] \le {\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - F(X) |^2 \mid X \in B(0,{{r}}) ]
+ {\mathbb{E}}[ | F(X) |^2 {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X \notin {B(0,{{r}})} \} ] ,\end{aligned}$$ where, in view of Lemma \[lem:MSE-tail\], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:tail}
{\mathbb{E}}[ | F(X) |^2 {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X \notin {B(0,{{r}})} \} ] \lesssim (| F(0) |^2 + d |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 R^2) \exp(-{{r}}^2/2dR^2) . \tag{T}\end{aligned}$$ Now we can focus on $ {\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - F(X) |^2 \mid X \in B(0,{{r}}) ] $. To lighten the notation, from this point we will spare writing the conditioning $ X \in {B(0,{{r}})}$. Let us split the mean squared error $ {\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - F(X) |^2 ] $ into a bias and a variance term: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - F(X) |^2 ] = {\mathbb{E}}[ | {F_{j|v}}(X) - F(X) |^2 ] + {\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - {F_{j|v}}(X) |^2 ] ,\end{aligned}$$ where $ {F_{j|v}}$ is the population version of $ {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}$. Since, by assumption, $ f \in {\mathcal{C}}^s $, the bias term $ {\mathbb{E}}[ | {F_{j|v}}(X) - F(X) |^2 ] $ is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bias}
{\mathbb{E}}[ | {F_{j|v}}(X) - F(X) |^2 ] \lesssim |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^s}^2 {{r}}^{2s} 2^{-2js} \tag{B}\end{aligned}$$ (see [@GMRARegression Section 3.2]). Now we need to bound the variance. We introduce the intermediate term $\smash{{\widehat{F}_{j|v}}}$, the oracle estimator computed along the true direction $v$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - {F_{j|v}}(X) |^2 ] \lesssim {\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) |^2 ] + {\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) - {F_{j|v}}(X) |^2 ] .\end{aligned}$$ The second term can be bounded in expectation as in [@GMRARegression Proposition 13]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:variance-1}
{\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) - {F_{j|v}}(X) |^2 ] \lesssim |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 \frac{j2^j}{n} . \tag{V1}\end{aligned}$$ To obtain a bound for the first term, we write $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) |^2 ]
& \le {\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) |^2 \mid \| {\widehat{v}}- v \| \le 2^{-j} ] \\
& + {\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) |^2 \mid {{r}}\| {\widehat{v}}- v \| > 2^{-j} ] \ {\mathbb{P}}\{ \| {\widehat{v}}- v \| > 2^{-j} \} .
\end{aligned}$$ By assumption \[J\] we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:variance-2}
{\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) |^2 \mid \| {\widehat{v}}- v \| > 2^{-j} ] \ {\mathbb{P}}\{ \| {\widehat{v}}- v \| > 2^{-j} \}
\lesssim A |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 {{r}}^2 \exp(- n 2^{-2j} / B) . \tag{V2}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, Theorem \[thm:hFhv-hFv\] along with assumption \[J\] gives $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathbb{P}}\{ {\mathbb{E}}_X [ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) |^2 ] > {\varepsilon}^2 \! \mid \| {\widehat{v}}- v \| \le 2^{-j} \} \\
\lesssim \ &\#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \exp\!\left(\! - c \tfrac{n {\varepsilon}^2 } {\#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 {{r}}^{2\alpha}} \!\right) \!
+ A \exp\!\left( \! - \tfrac{n {\varepsilon}^{2(2-\alpha)}}{B |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^{2(2-\alpha)} {{r}}^{2} } \!\right)
+ A \exp\!\left( \! - \tfrac{n {\varepsilon}^4}{ B |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^4 {{r}}^{4\alpha} 2^{-4j\alpha} 2^{2j} } \!\right) ,\end{aligned}$$ hence, using Lemma \[lem:P-E\], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:variance-3}
& {\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) |^2 \mid \| {\widehat{v}}- v \| \le 2^{-j} ] \tag{V3} \\
\lesssim \ & |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 {{r}}^{2\alpha} \frac{j2^j}{n}
+ (\log(A) B)^{\frac{1}{2-\alpha}} |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 {{r}}^{\frac{2}{2-\alpha}} n^{-\frac{1}{2-\alpha}}
+ (\log(A) B)^{\frac{1}{2}} |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 {{r}}^{2\alpha} 2^{-2j\alpha} 2^j n^{-\frac{1}{2}} . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In order to balance the tail , the bias and variance terms , and , we choose $$r = \sqrt{2d\log n^{2s/(2s+1)}} R\,, \qquad 2^{-j} \asymp \sqrt{B} (\log n / n)^{1/(2s+1)} ,$$ which leads to $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - F(X) |^2 ] &\lesssim (| F(0) |^2 + |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 R^2 d) \left(\frac{1}{n}\right)^{\frac{2s}{2s+1}} \\
&+ |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^s}^2 R^{2s} B^s d^s \log^s n \left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)^{\frac{2s}{2s+1}} \\
&+ |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 \left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)^{\frac{2s}{2s+1}} \\
&+ |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 R^2 A d \left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right) \\
&+ |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 R^{\frac{2}{2-\alpha}} (\log(A) B)^\frac{1}{2-\alpha} d^\frac{1}{2-\alpha} \log^\frac{1}{2-\alpha} n \left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)^{\frac{2s}{2s+1}} .\end{aligned}$$ (For , $ \exp(-n2^{-2j}/B) = \exp(-n (\log n /n)^{\frac{2}{2s+1}}) $, bounded by $ n^{-1} $ for $ s \ge \frac{1}{2} $. For , $ n^{-\frac{1}{2-\alpha}} \le n^{-\frac{2s}{2s+1}} $ for all $ \alpha = s \in (0,1] $ and for $ \alpha = 1 $ and all $ s > 0 $; moreover, $ 2^{-j(2\alpha)} 2^j n^{-\frac{1}{2}} \asymp B^{\alpha-\frac{1}{2}} (\log n/n)^{\frac{2\alpha-1}{2s+1}} n^{-\frac{1}{2}} $ where $ n^{-\frac{2\alpha-1}{2s+1}} n^{-\frac{1}{2}} = n^{-\frac{4\alpha+2s-1}{2(2s+1)}} \le n^{-\frac{2s}{2s+1}} $ for all $ \alpha = s \ge \frac{1}{2} $ and for $ \alpha = 1 $ and all $ s \le \frac{3}{2} $.) Collecting the constants we obtain \[it:main-exp\].
We now turn to \[it:main-prob\]. Outside $ B(0,{{r}}) $, reads $$({\mathbb{E}}_X [ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - F(X)|^2 {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X \notin B(0,{{r}}) \} ])^{\frac1 2} \lesssim (|F(0)| + \sqrt{d} |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha} R) {n}^{-\frac{s}{2s+1}} .$$ On $ X \in B(0,{{r}}) $, again skipping the conditioning, we have $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathbb{E}}_X [ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - F(X) |^2 ])^{\frac1 2} \le \ & ({\mathbb{E}}_X [ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) |^2 ])^{\frac1 2} \\
+ \ & ({\mathbb{E}}_X [ | {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) - {F_{j|v}}(X) |^2 ])^{\frac1 2} \\
+ \ & ({\mathbb{E}}[ | {F_{j|v}}(X) - F(X) |^2 ])^{\frac1 2} , \end{aligned}$$ where the last term is bounded by $ |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^s} R^s B^\frac{s}{2} d^\frac{s}{2} \log^\frac{s}{2} n (\log n / n)^{s/(2s+1)} $ by . The middle term can be concentrated with standard calculations (see e.g. [@GMRARegression]), to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\{ ({\mathbb{E}}_X [ | {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) - {F_{j|v}}(X) |^2 ])^{\frac1 2} > {\varepsilon}\} \lesssim \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \exp \left( -c \tfrac{n{\varepsilon}^2}{\#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Setting $ {\varepsilon}= c_\nu \log^{\frac{s}{2}} n \ (\log n / n)^{s/(2s+1)} $, the right hand side becomes $$\begin{aligned}
B^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2s+1}} \exp \left( - c \tfrac{n c_\nu^2 \log^s n \left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)^{\frac{2s}{2s+1}}}{B^{-\frac{1}{2}} \left(\frac{\log n}{n}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2s+1}}|f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2} \right)
\le n^{- \left( c \frac{c_\nu^2 \sqrt{B}}{|f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2} - \frac{1}{2s+1} \right)} .\end{aligned}$$ Finally, in view of Theorem \[thm:hFhv-hFv\] and assumption \[J\], for $ Z = ({\mathbb{E}}_X [ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) |^2 ])^{\frac1 2} $ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathbb{P}}\{ Z > {\varepsilon}\} \le {\mathbb{P}}\{ Z > {\varepsilon}\mid \| {\widehat{v}}- v \| \le \sqrt{c_\nu} 2^{-j} \} + {\mathbb{P}}\{ \| {\widehat{v}}- v \| > \sqrt{c_\nu} 2^{-j} \} \\
\lesssim \ & n^{- \left( c \frac{c_\nu \sqrt{B}}{|f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2R^{2\alpha}d^\alpha} - \frac{1}{2s+1} \right)} + A n^{- \frac{c_\nu^2}{|f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^{2} R^2 B d}} + A n^{- \frac{c_\nu^4}{|f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^4 R^4 B^2 d^2}} + A n^{-\frac{c_\nu}{B}} .\end{aligned}$$ The bound \[it:main-prob\] follows by taking $c_\nu$ large enough.
The additional logarithmic factors in \[it:main-prob\] and \[it:main-exp\] are exclusively due to the unboundedness of the distribution and can be avoided in the bounded case.
As a direct consequence of our findings on index estimation and conditional regression, we obtain:
\[cor:ICV\] Let ${\widehat{v}}$ be estimated by SIR, SAVE, SCR or SVR under the assumptions of Theorems \[thm:SIR\], \[thm:SAVE\], \[thm:SCR\] or \[thm:SVR\], respectively. Then ${\widehat{v}}$ satisfies assumption \[J\], and therefore the assertions \[it:main-prob\] and \[it:main-exp\] of Theorem \[thm:main\] hold true for each of the four methods, with constants depending polynomially on $d$.
Numerical experiments {#s:NumericalExperiments}
=====================
In this section we conduct numerical experiments to demonstrate that the theoretical results above have practical relevance and to investigate how relaxations of the assumptions affect the estimators. In order to highlight specific aspects of different algorithms we use three different functions to conduct our experiments. The first two are $$F_1(x)=\exp(\langle v,x \rangle/3)) \,,\qquad F_2(x)= F_1(x) + \sin(20 \langle v,x\rangle)/15 \,.$$ Both functions are smooth. $F_1$ is monotone and thus we may choose $\omega=0$, while $F_2$ is non-monotone, thus condition \[Om\] is satisfied only for $\omega>0$. This allows us to explore the behavior of $\widehat v$ under monotonicity or lack thereof, and how the estimators are effected by the choice of the scales $l$ and $j$. To investigate the convergence rate of the regression estimator $\widehat F$, we use a monotone function $F_3$ which is piecewise quadratic on a random partition and continuous. The domain of $x$, and its dimension $d$, will be specified in each experiment. $F_1, F_2, F_3$ are shown in Figure \[fig:different\_functions\].
Estimating the index vector $v$ {#s:numestv}
-------------------------------
Here we compare the performances of SIR, SAVE, SCR and SVR in estimating the index vector $v$. We consider two settings S1, S2, corresponding to two different non-elliptical distributions for $X$: $\rho_{X,1},\rho_{X,2}$; $\rho_{X,1}$ is a standard normal $\mathcal{N}(0,1)$ in one coordinate, and a skewed normal with shape parameter $\alpha=5$ in the other coordinate; $\rho_{X,2}$ is uniform on the triangle with vertices (0,0),(1,1),(0,1); all distributions are normalized to have zero mean and standard deviation equal to one. Note that in both settings condition \[LCM\] is not satisfied. For each setting we draw $n=1000$ i.i.d. samples and generate the response variable $Y_i=F(X_i)+\zeta_i$ using functions $F_1$ and $F_2$, where $\zeta_i\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2)$. We use different levels of noise setting $\sigma$ equal to the $0\%$, $1\%$ and $2\%$ of $|f(-4)-f(4)|$. We chose $ v= (1/\sqrt{5},2/\sqrt{5})$ for setting S1, and $v=(1,0)$ for setting S2. The results in Table \[tab:grad\_err\_and\_time\] show the detailed performance of SIR, SAVE, SCR and SVR for all settings, functions, and noise levels. We notice that SCR has overall good performances, especially in setting S1, but its quadratic computational cost makes the average computational time $2$ to $3$ orders of magnitude larger than the one of the other methods. SVR and SAVE have similar performance, although SVR produces most of the times slightly better estimates, especially in S2 where it also outperforms SCR. Note that the cases of $F_1$ with $1\%$ noise and $F_2$ with zero noise produce similar results. This is consistent with the intuition that noise and non-monotonicity levels play a similar role in the accuracy of the estimators.
[c c l r r r c r r r]{} & & &\
& $\pmb{\sigma}$ & & & & & & & &\
& & **SIR** & -3.04 & -2.83 & 0.60 & & -0.68 & -1.83 & 0.60\
& & **SAVE** & -5.97 & -1.06 & 1.30 & & -7.41 & -7.14 & 1.40\
& & **SCR** & -8.42 & -8.16 & 143.80 & & -8.50 & -8.30 & 118.20\
& & **SVR** & -6.42 & -6.06 & 1.00 & & -7.60 & -6.65 & 0.70\
& & **SIR** & -3.11 & -2.99 & 0.50 & & -0.67 & -1.83 & 0.50\
& & **SAVE** & -4.39 & -4.10 & 1.30 & & -4.13 & -4.01 & 1.30\
& & **SCR** & -4.80 & -4.40 & 150.70 & & -4.00 & -3.77 & 115.40\
& & **SVR** & -4.41 & -4.08 & 0.90 & & -4.16 & -3.92 & 0.70\
& & **SIR** & -2.97 & -2.69 & 0.50 & & -0.68 & -1.81 & 0.50\
& & **SAVE** & -4.57 & -4.24 & 1.40 & & -4.16 & -4.03 & 1.30\
& & **SCR** & -4.85 & -4.55 & 152.70 & & -4.20 & -4.05 & 117.20\
& & **SVR** & -4.58 & -4.28 & 1.00 & & -4.12 & -3.75 & 0.80\
& & **SIR** & -2.94 & -2.72 & 0.50 & & -0.68 & -1.77 & 0.50\
& & **SAVE** & -4.06 & -3.57 & 1.40 & & -3.42 & -3.45 & 1.40\
& & **SCR** & -4.41 & -4.07 & 150.80 & & -3.43 & -3.44 & 117.30\
& & **SVR** & -4.08 & -3.87 & 0.90 & & -3.45 & -3.46 & 0.80\
& & **SIR** & -2.92 & -2.67 & 0.50 & & -0.68 & -1.38 & 0.60\
& & **SAVE** & -3.92 & -3.58 & 1.30 & & -3.08 & -3.01 & 1.40\
& & **SCR** & -4.20 & -3.87 & 149.90 & & -3.09 & -3.24 & 119.10\
& & **SVR** & -3.91 & -3.61 & 0.90 & & -3.21 & -3.06 & 0.80\
& & **SIR** & -2.87 & -2.64 & 0.60 & & -0.68 & -1.55 & 0.60\
& & **SAVE** & -3.64 & -1.98 & 1.40 & & -2.90 & -2.85 & 1.40\
& & **SCR** & -4.00 & -3.68 & 150.40 & & -2.91 & -3.10 & 119.00\
& & **SVR** & -3.66 & -3.45 & 0.90 & & -3.02 & -2.80 & 0.80\
In Figure \[fig:SIRvsUS\_bias\] we show graphically how the empirical inverse regression curve may drift away from $v$, resulting in a poor SIR estimate. On the other hand, the local gradients used by SVR provide good local estimates.
(img) [![Behavior of the SVR estimate $\widehat{v}_l$ with respect to scale and sample size, for regression of $F_2$ (see text). Left: error versus scale $l$. Right: error versus sample size $n$.[]{data-label="fig:sim_grad_rates"}](Fig/GraErr_vs_l_sinexp "fig:"){width=".99\textwidth"}]{}; ; ;
(img) [![Behavior of the SVR estimate $\widehat{v}_l$ with respect to scale and sample size, for regression of $F_2$ (see text). Left: error versus scale $l$. Right: error versus sample size $n$.[]{data-label="fig:sim_grad_rates"}](Fig/GraErr_vs_n_sinexp "fig:"){width=".99\textwidth"}]{}; ; ;
To investigate more extensively the performance of SVR in estimating $v$, we perform another experiment: we draw $X$ from a $10$-dimensional standard normal distribution, and to generate the response variable we use function $F_2$ plus an additive Gaussian noise with standard deviation $\sigma=0.01|f_2(-4)-f_2(4)|$. We repeat the experiment for different values of the sample size $n$. Results are shown in Figure \[fig:sim\_grad\_rates\]. The left inset shows that the error in $\widehat v$ stabilizes at scales comparable to the noise level $\sigma$, which suggests that the assumption $ |{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}| \gtrsim \sigma $ is needed. The right plot shows that the rate of the error of $\widehat v$, for scales $l$ coarser than the noise level, is approximately $-\frac12$, which is again consistent with Theorem \[thm:SVR\].
Estimating the regression function $F$
--------------------------------------
In this section we perform some experiments to support our theoretical results regarding the regression estimator obtained with SVR. The first experiment we perform consists on drawing $X_i$, $i=1,...,n$, from a $d$-dimensional standard Normal distribution and obtain $Y_i =F_3(X_i)+\zeta_i$ where $\zeta_i \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\sigma^2)$. Here we use function $F_3$ because we want to limit the function smoothness in order to obtain concentration rates comparable with the min-max rate with $s=1$. We vary the dimension $d=5,10,50,100$, the size of the noise $\sigma$, equal to the $5\%$ and $10\%$ of $|f_3(-4)-f_3(4)|$. To investigate the convergence rates of the estimator we repeat each experiment for different sample sizes $n$. In Figure \[fig:sim\_rates\] we show the empirical MSE, averaged over $10$ repetitions, as a function of the sample size, in logarithmic scale, for both our estimator and the k-Nearest-Neighbor (kNN) regression. We see that the MSE of the SVR estimator decays with a rate slightly better than the optimal value $-2/3$, independently from the dimension $d$ and the noise level $\sigma$: this is all consistent with Theorem \[thm:main\]. As expected, kNN-regression has a convergence rate which severely deteriorates with the dimension (curse of dimensionality). We can also notice that the MSE drops far below the noise level, which confirms the de-noising feature of the SVR estimator.
(img) [![Comparison of convergence rates for the regression estimator with SVR and KNN-regression in different settings.[]{data-label="fig:sim_rates"}](Fig/fun_rates_noise5 "fig:"){width=".99\textwidth"}]{}; ; ;
(img) [![Comparison of convergence rates for the regression estimator with SVR and KNN-regression in different settings.[]{data-label="fig:sim_rates"}](Fig/fun_rates_noise10 "fig:"){width=".99\textwidth"}]{}; ; ;
To explore the behavior of the empirical MSE as a function of the scales $l$ and $j$ we conduct another experiment: we draw $X$ from a $10$-dimensional standard normal distribution, and obtain the response variable $Y=F_2(X)+\zeta$, with $\zeta$ Gaussian noise with standard deviation $\sigma=0.01|f_2(-4)-f_2(4)|$. Figure \[fig:heatmaps\] shows the behavior of the $\log_{10}(\text{MSE})$, obtained with SVR, for different values of $l$, $j$ and $n$. To obtain robust estimates in regions with high Monte Carlo variability, in regimes where our results do not hold, the errors are averaged over 50 repetition of each setting with a $10\%$ trimming. By observing each row, we notice that the MSE reaches its minimum for low values of $l$ and stays constant for larger $l$. By looking at the plot column-wise, we observe the bias variance trade-off, with coarse scales giving rough estimates, and fine scales resulting in overfitting. As expected, as the sample size grows, the optimal scale $j$ increases.
(img) ; ; ;
Proofs of Theorems \[thm:SIR\], \[thm:SAVE\], \[thm:SCR\] and \[thm:hFhv-hFv\] {#sec:proofsmain}
==============================================================================
By the Davis–Kahan Theorem [@SamWan Theorem 2] we have, up to possibly a choice of sign for ${{{\widehat{v}}}_l}$, which will subsume here and in all that follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\| {{{\widehat{v}}}_l}- v \| &\lesssim \frac{\| {{{{\widehat{M}}}}_{{{l}}}} - {{M}_{{{l}}}} \|}{{\lambda}_1 ( {{M}_{{{l}}}} ) - {\lambda}_2 ( {{M}_{{{l}}}} )} \le \frac\alpha{R^2} \| {{{{\widehat{M}}}}_{{{l}}}} - {{M}_{{{l}}}} \|\,,
\end{aligned}$$ since assumption \[LCM\] implies $ {\lambda}_2({{M}_{{{l}}}}) = 0 $, while $ {\lambda}_1({{M}_{{{l}}}}) \ge R^2 / \alpha $ by assumption \[I\]. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\| {{{{\widehat{M}}}}_{{{l}}}} - {{M}_{{{l}}}} \| &\le \sum_{{{h}}} \| {{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} \|^2 | {\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}/n - {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} | \\
&\quad+ \sum_{{{h}}} ( \| {{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} \| + \| {{\mu}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} \| ) \| {{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - {{\mu}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} \| {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} \\
&\lesssim d R^2 \sum_{{{h}}} | {\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}/n - {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} | \\
&\quad+ \sqrt{d} R \sum_{h} \| {{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - {{\mu}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} \| {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} .
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}} - v \| &\lesssim \alpha d \sum_{{{h}}} | {\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}/n - {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} | \\
&\quad+ \alpha \sqrt{d} R^{-1}\sum_{{{h}}} \| {{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - {{\mu}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} \| {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} .\end{aligned}$$ Notice that, since $ \| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}} - v \| \le 1 $, we may assume $ {\varepsilon}^2 \le {\varepsilon}\le 1 $, and we will make these substitutions in the probability exponential bounds wherever is convenient. For the first term, we use Lemma \[lem:hrho-rho\] with $ t = {\varepsilon}/2^{{l}}\alpha d $ for the ${{h}}$’s such that $ {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} \le 2^{-{{l}}} $, and with $ t = \sqrt{{\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\}} {\varepsilon}/ 2^{{{l}}/2} \alpha d $ for the ${{h}}$’s such that $ {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} > 2^{-{{l}}} $. This gives that the first term is bounded by ${\varepsilon}$ with probability $ 1 - C2^{{l}}\exp ( -c n {\varepsilon}^2/\alpha^2 2^{{l}}d^2 ) $. We now deal with the second term. For all $h$’s s.t. $ {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} \le {\varepsilon}/ \alpha 2^{{l}}d $ we have directly $$\alpha R^{-1} \sqrt{d} \sum_{{{h}}} \| {{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - {{\mu}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} \| {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} \le {\varepsilon}.$$ For all other ${{h}}$’s, we condition on $ \smash{{\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} \ge \frac12 {\mathbb{E}}{\# {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} = \frac12n{\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\}} $ up to events of probability lower than $$C \exp(-c n {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\}) \le C \exp(-c n {\varepsilon}/ \alpha 2^{{l}}d ) ,$$ thanks to Lemma \[lem:hrho-rho\]. We finally apply the Bernstein inequality: for $ {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} \in ( {\varepsilon}/ \alpha 2^{{l}}d , 1/2^{{{l}}} ] $, we have $${\mathbb{P}}\left\{ \| {{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - {{\mu}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} \| > \frac{ R {\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{2^{{l}}{\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\}} \alpha \sqrt{d}} \right\} \lesssim d \exp \left( - c \frac{ n {\varepsilon}^2 }{ \alpha^2 2^{{l}}d^2 } \right)\,;$$ and for $ {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} > 1/2^{{l}}$ $$P \left\{ \| {{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - {{\mu}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} \| > \frac{ R {\varepsilon}}{\alpha \sqrt{d}} \right\} \lesssim d \exp \left( - c \frac{ n {\varepsilon}^2 }{ \alpha^2 2^{{l}}d^2} \right)\,.$$ The union bound over ${{h}}$ gives \[it:SIR-P\], while \[it:SIR-E\] follows from \[it:SIR-P\] and Lemma \[lem:P-E\].
Assumption \[LCM\] implies by [@10.2307/2669934 Theorem 1.a] that $v$ is an eigenvector of $S_{{l}}$. Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
v^T S_{{l}}v = \sum_h \| (I - {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}})v \|^2 {\mathbb{P}}\{ Y \in {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}} \}
= \sum_h (1 - {\lambda}_d({{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}))^2 {\mathbb{P}}\{ Y \in {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}} \} ,\end{aligned}$$ while $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{\substack{w \in {\operatorname{span}}\{v\}^\perp \\ \|w\|=1}} w^T S_{{l}}w
& \le \sum_h \max_{\substack{w_h \in {\operatorname{span}}\{v\}^\perp \\ \|w_h\|=1}} \|(I - {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}})w_h\|^2 {\mathbb{P}}\{Y \in {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}\} \\
&= \sum_h (1 - {\lambda}_{d-1}({{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}))^2 {\mathbb{P}}\{Y \in {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}\} ,\end{aligned}$$ hence, thanks to \[UCV\] and \[V\], $v$ is the eigenvector of largest eigenvalue of $S_{{l}}$. Now, the Davis–Kahan theorem [@SamWan Theorem 2] gives $$\begin{aligned}
\| {{{\widehat{v}}}_{{{l}}}} - v \| \lesssim \frac{\| {{\widehat{S}}_{{{l}}}} - S_{{l}}\|}{{\lambda}_1(S_{{l}}) - {\lambda}_2(S_{{l}})},\end{aligned}$$ where, using \[V\] and \[UCV\], $$\begin{aligned}
{\lambda}_1(S_{{l}}) - {\lambda}_2(S_{{l}}) & \ge \sum_h [(1-{\lambda}_d({{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}))^2 - (1-{\lambda}_{d-1}({{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}))^2] {\mathbb{P}}\{ Y \in {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}} \} \ge \alpha^{-2} .\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $ \| {\widehat{v}}_{{l}}- v \| \lesssim \alpha^2 \| {{\widehat{S}}_{{{l}}}} - S_{{l}}\| $, where $$\begin{aligned}
\| {{\widehat{S}}_{{{l}}}} - S_{{l}}\| \lesssim &\ d^2 \sum_h | \#{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}/n - {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} | + \sum_h \| (I - {{{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}})^2 - (I - {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}})^2 \| {\mathbb{P}}\{ Y \in {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}} \}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\| (I - {{{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}})^2 - (I - {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}})^2 \| = & \ \| {{{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}^2 - {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}^2 - 2 ({{{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}) \| \\
= & \ \| {{{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} ( {{{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} ) + ( {{{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} ) {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - 2 ({{{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}) \| \\
\lesssim & \ d \| {{{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} \| .\end{aligned}$$ Recall that the maximum error of ${\widehat{v}}_{{l}}$ is $1$, hence we can always take $ {\varepsilon}^2 \le {\varepsilon}\le 1 $. Applying Lemma \[lem:hrho-rho\] with $ t = {\varepsilon}/2^{{l}}\alpha^2 d^2 $ when $ {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} \le 2^{-{{l}}} $ and with $ t = \sqrt{{\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\}} {\varepsilon}/ 2^{{{l}}/2} \alpha^2 d^2 $ when $ {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} > 2^{-{{l}}} $, we obtain $${\mathbb{P}}\{ d^2 \sum_h | \#{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}/n - {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} | > {\varepsilon}\} \lesssim 2^{{l}}\exp(-c n {\varepsilon}^2/\alpha^4 d^4 2^{{l}}) .$$ For the $h$’s with $ {\mathbb{P}}\{ Y \in {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}} \} \le {\varepsilon}/\alpha^2 d^2 2^{{{l}}} $ we already have $$\sum_h \| {{{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} \| {\mathbb{P}}\{ Y \in {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}} \} \le {\varepsilon}.$$ Thus we can assume $ {\mathbb{P}}\{ Y \in {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}} \} > {\varepsilon}/\alpha^2 d^2 2^{{{l}}} $, and condition on $ \#{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}} > n {\mathbb{P}}\{ Y \in {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}} \} $ with confidence $ 1 - C \exp(-c n {\varepsilon}/ \alpha^2 d^2 2^{{l}}) $, thanks to Lemma \[lem:hrho-rho\]. We split $ {{{\widehat{{{\Sigma}}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} = {\widetilde{{{\Sigma}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}} - {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - ({{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - {{\mu}_{{{l}},{{h}}}})({{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - {{\mu}_{{{l}},{{h}}}})^T $ with $${\widetilde{{{\Sigma}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}} = \frac{1}{\#{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}} \sum_h (X_i = {{\mu}_{{{l}},{{h}}}})(X_i - {{\mu}_{{{l}},{{h}}}})^T {\mathbbm{1}}\{ Y_i \in {{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}} \} ,$$ and use the Bernstein inequality to concentrate $ {\widetilde{{{\Sigma}}}}_{{{l}}{{h}}} - {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} $ and $ {{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - {{\mu}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} $. For $ {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} \in ( {\varepsilon}/ \alpha^2 d^2 2^{{l}}, 1/2^{{{l}}} ] $ we get $${\mathbb{P}}\left\{ \| {\widetilde{{{\Sigma}}}}_{{{l}}{{h}}} - {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} \| > \frac{{\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{2^{{l}}{\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\}} \alpha^2 d} \right\} \lesssim d \exp \left( - c \frac{ n {\varepsilon}^2 }{ \alpha^4 2^{{l}}d^4 } \right)\,;$$ and for $ {\mathbb{P}}\{Y\in{{{{{{C}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}}}}\} > 1/2^{{l}}$ $$P \left\{ \| {\widetilde{{{\Sigma}}}}_{{{l}}{{h}}} - {{{{\Sigma}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} \| > \frac{ {\varepsilon}}{\alpha^2 d} \right\} \lesssim d \exp \left( - c \frac{ n {\varepsilon}^2 }{ \alpha^4 2^{{l}}d^4} \right)\,.$$ Similarly for $ {{{{\widehat{\mu}}}}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} - {{\mu}_{{{l}},{{h}}}} $. Summing these bounds over $h$ yields \[it:SAVE-P\], and \[it:SAVE-E\] follows by Lemma \[lem:P-E\].
The calculations in [@li2018sufficient Theorem 6.1] show that under \[LCM\] (and even without \[CCV\]) one has $$K_{{l}}= P K_{{l}}P + 2 P^\perp {\mathbb{E}}[ {\mathrm{Cov}}[ X \mid Y ] \mid | Y - \widetilde{Y} | < 2^{-{{l}}} ] P^\perp ,$$ where $P$ is the orthogonal projection onto $ {\operatorname{span}}\{v\} $. Hence, $v$ is an eigenvector of $K_{{l}}$, and, by assumption \[C\], it is the eigenvector of smallest eigenvalue. Moreover, the matrix $$H_{{l}}= {\mathbb{E}}[ (X - \widetilde{X}) (X - \widetilde{X})^T {\mathbbm{1}}\{ | Y - \widetilde{Y} | \le 2^{-{{l}}} \} ]$$ differs from $K_{{l}}$ only by the factor $ \rho_{{l}}= {\mathbb{P}}\{ | Y - \widetilde{Y} | \le 2^{-{{l}}} \} $. Using the Davis–Kahan theorem [@SamWan Theorem 2] and assumption \[C\] we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\widehat{v}}_{{l}}- v \| \lesssim \frac{\| \widehat{H}_{{l}}- H_{{l}}\|}{{\lambda}_{d-1} (H_{{l}}) - {\lambda}_d (H_{{l}})} \le \frac{\alpha}{R^{2} \rho_{{l}}} \| \widehat{H}_{{l}}- H_{{l}}\| .
\end{aligned}$$ Concentration inequalities for U-statistics (see [@pitcan2017]) now imply $${\mathbb{P}}\left\{ \| \widehat{H}_{{l}}- H_{{l}}\| > \alpha^{-1}R^2 \rho_{{l}}{\varepsilon}\right\} \lesssim d \exp \left( - c \frac{ n \rho_{{l}}{\varepsilon}^2 }{ \alpha^2 d } \right) .$$ This gives \[it:SCR-P\], which in turn implies \[it:SCR-E\] by Lemma \[lem:P-E\].
First, we set out some notation and exclude some low-probability events. In all expressions ${\mathbb{E}}_X[\cdot]$ we will drop the random variable $X$ and simply write ${\mathbb{E}}[\cdot]$. We define $\rho$ to be the distribution of $X$, and $\rho(\cdot \mid E)$ the conditional distribution of $X$ given $ X \in E $. All integrations in $d\rho(x)$ are implicitly taken on $ x \in B(0,{{r}}) $. Let $ u \in \{ v , {\widehat{v}}\} $; when a property is stated for $u$, it is meant to hold for both $v$ and ${\widehat{v}}$. Abusing the notation, we write $ {{I_{j,k|u}}} $ for $ \{ x \in {\mathbb{R}}^d : \langle u,x\rangle \in {{I_{j,k|u}}} \} $.
Thanks to the Hölder continuity of $F$, we can restrict to the sets $ I_{j,k|u} $ with $$\label{eq:heavysets}
\rho(I_{j,k|u}) \gtrsim {\varepsilon}^2 / \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 {{r}}^{2\alpha} . \tag{E1}$$ We further condition on the event $$\label{eq:enoughsamples}
{\# I}_{j,k|u} \gtrsim n\rho(I_{j,k|u}) \text{ for all $k$'s} , \tag{E2}$$ which has probability at least $ 1 - C \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \exp(-c \ n {\varepsilon}^2 / \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 {{r}}^{2\alpha} ) $, thanks to Lemma \[lem:hrho-rho\]. For two probability measures $\mu$ and $\nu$, we define the Kantorovich distance $$K_\alpha(\mu,\nu) = \sup_{g \in {\mathcal{C}}^\alpha, |g|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha} \le 1} \int g(x) d(\mu-\nu)(x) .$$ We can now work to establish the main bound.
We start with decomposing $ {\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) |^2 ] \le A + B $ with $$\begin{aligned}
&A = \sum_{k\in{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}}} {\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) |^2 \mid X \in {{I_{j,k|v}}} \cap{{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}] \\
&B = \sum_{k\in{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}}} {\mathbb{E}}[ | {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) |^2 \mid X \in {{I_{j,k|v}}}\setminus{{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}] \rho( {{I_{j,k|v}}}\setminus{{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}) .\end{aligned}$$
Let us first focus on $B$. Observe that, for all $k'$ with $ \rho({{I_{j,k|v}}} \cap {{I_{j,k'|{\widehat{v}}}}}) > 0 $, $ | v^T({{I_{j,k|v}}} \cup {{I_{j,k'|{\widehat{v}}}}}) | \lesssim {{r}}(2^{-j} + \| {\widehat{v}}- v \|) \lesssim t {{r}}2^{-j} $, hence, using the Hölder continuity of $F$ and the sub-Gaussian tail inequality [@Vershynin:NARMT Proposition 5.10] (recall ), we have $$\begin{aligned}
| {\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(X) - {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(X) |^2 &\lesssim t^2 |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 {{r}}^{2\alpha} 2^{-2j\alpha} + \frac{{\varepsilon}^2}{\#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \rho({{I_{j,k|v}}}\setminus {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}})}\end{aligned}$$ with probability higher than $ 1 - C \exp(-c \ n {\varepsilon}^2 / \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \sigma^2) $. Thus, since $ \rho( {{I_{j,k|v}}}\setminus{{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}) \lesssim \|{\widehat{v}}- v\| $ and $ \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} = 2^j $, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
B \lesssim \sum_{k\in{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}}} t^2 |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 {{r}}^{2\alpha} 2^{-2j\alpha} \rho( {{I_{j,k|v}}}\setminus I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}} )
+ {\varepsilon}^2
\lesssim t^2 |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 {{r}}^{2\alpha} 2^{-2j\alpha} 2^{j}\| {\widehat{v}}- v \| + {\varepsilon}^2 .\end{aligned}$$
We now pass to $A$. For $ x \in {{I_{j,k|v}}}\cap{{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}$ we can write $${\widehat{F}_{j|{\widehat{v}}}}(x) - {\widehat{F}_{j|v}}(x) = {\widehat{f}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}( \langle {\widehat{v}},x\rangle ) - {\widehat{f}_{j,k|v}}(v^T x ) ,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\widehat{f}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}(t) = {\widehat{b}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}+ {\widehat{m}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}t, \qquad {\widehat{f}_{j,k|v}}(t) = {\widehat{b}_{j,k|v}}+ {\widehat{m}_{j,k|v}}t\end{aligned}$$ are our local empirical estimators with respect to the estimated direction ${\widehat{v}}$ and the oracle direction $v$, respectively. Let us separate the constant and the linear components. Defining $$\widehat{x}_{j,k|u} = \frac{1}{{\# {{I_{},j|k}}}u} \sum_{i} X_i {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X_i \in {{I_{j,k|u}}} \}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
| {\widehat{f}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}( \langle {\widehat{v}},x\rangle ) - {\widehat{f}_{j,k|v}}( v^T x ) | & \le | {\widehat{b}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\widehat{b}_{j,k|v}}| \\
&+ |{\widehat{m}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}{\widehat{v}}^T(x - {\widehat{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}) - {\widehat{m}_{j,k|v}}v^T(x - {\widehat{x}_{j,k|v}}) |.\end{aligned}$$ We first approach the constant part: $ | {\widehat{b}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\widehat{b}_{j,k|v}}| \le C_1 + C_2 + C_3 $ with $$\begin{aligned}
&C_1 = \biggl| \frac{1}{{{\# {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}}}} \sum_i Y_i {\mathbbm{1}}\{X_i\in{{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}\} - {\mathbb{E}}[ F(X) \mid X \in {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}} ] \biggr| \\
&C_2 = | {\mathbb{E}}[ F(X) \mid X \in {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}} ] - {\mathbb{E}}[ F(X) \mid X \in {{I_{j,k|v}}} ] | \\
&C_3 = \biggl| {\mathbb{E}}[ F(X) \mid X \in {{I_{j,k|v}}} ] - \frac{1}{{{\# {{I_{j,k|v}}}}}} \sum_i Y_i {\mathbbm{1}}\{X_i\in{{I_{j,k|v}}}\} \biggr| .\end{aligned}$$ $C_1$ can be further split by $ C_1 \le C_{11} + C_{12} $ where $$\begin{aligned}
& C_{11} = \biggl| \frac{1}{{{\# {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}}}} \sum_i F(X_i) {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X_i \in {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}} \} - {\mathbb{E}}[ F(X) \mid X \in {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}} ] \biggr| \\
& C_{12} = \biggl| \frac{1}{{{\# {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}}}} \sum_i \zeta_i {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X_i \in {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}} \} \biggr| .\end{aligned}$$ By the Bernstein inequality (exploiting and ), we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\{ C_{11} > {\varepsilon}/\sqrt{\#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}}\rho({{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}})} \} &\le C\exp\biggl( -c \frac{ n \rho({{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}) \frac{{\varepsilon}^2}{\#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}}\rho({{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}})} }{ |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2r^{2\alpha} + |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha} r^{\alpha} \frac{{\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{\#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \rho({{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}})}} } \biggr) \\
&= C\exp\biggl( -c \frac{ n {\varepsilon}^2 / \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}}}{ |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2r^{2\alpha} + |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha} r^{\alpha} \frac{{\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{\#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \rho({{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}})}} } \biggr) \\
&\le C\exp(- c \ n {\varepsilon}^2/ \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 r^{2\alpha}) \,.
\end{aligned}$$ Also, $ {\mathbb{P}}\{C_{12} > {\varepsilon}/\sqrt{\smash[b]{ \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}}\rho({{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}) }} \} \le C\exp(-c \ n {\varepsilon}^2/ \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \sigma^2 ) $ by [@Vershynin:NARMT Proposition 5.10]. $C_3$ can be concentrated in the same way as $C_1$. For $C_2$, in view of [@kuksin2012 Proposition 1.2.6] (bounding $K_\alpha$ in terms of $W_1$) and Kantorovich-Rubinstein duality for $W_1$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
C_2 &= \biggl| \frac{1}{\rho({{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}})} \int_{{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}F(x) d\rho(x) - \frac{1}{\rho({{I_{j,k|v}}})} \int_{{I_{j,k|v}}}F(x) d\rho(x) \biggr| \\
&\le |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha} K_\alpha (\rho(\cdot \mid {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}),\rho(\cdot \mid {{I_{j,k|v}}})) \\
&\le |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha} \left( W_1(\rho(\cdot \mid {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}),\rho(\cdot \mid {{I_{j,k|v}}})) \right)^{\frac{1}{2-\alpha}} \\
&\lesssim |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha} {{r}}^{\frac{1}{2-\alpha}} \| {\widehat{v}}- v \|^{\frac{1}{2-\alpha}} ,\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality we have used assumption \[Theta\].
We now take care of the linear part, for which we can assume $ \alpha = 1 $. We have $$\begin{aligned}
&|{\widehat{m}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}{\widehat{v}}^T (x - {\widehat{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}) - {\widehat{m}_{j,k|v}}v^T (x - {\widehat{x}_{j,k|v}}) | \\
\le \ & |{\widehat{m}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}| | {\widehat{v}}^T (x - {\widehat{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}) - v^T (x - {\widehat{x}_{j,k|v}}) | + | {\widehat{m}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\widehat{m}_{j,k|v}}| | v^T (x - {\widehat{x}_{j,k|v}}) | \\
\lesssim \ &|{\widehat{m}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}| \min \{ \| {\widehat{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\widehat{x}_{j,k|v}}\| + {{r}}\| {\widehat{v}}- v \| ) , {{r}}2^{-j} \} + | {\widehat{m}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\widehat{m}_{j,k|v}}| {{r}}2^{-j} .
\end{aligned}$$ Defining $$\begin{aligned}
&\widehat{y}_{j,k|u} = \frac{1}{{\# {{I_{},j|k}}}u} \sum_i F(X_i) {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X_i \in {{I_{j,k|u}}} \} \\
&\widehat{{\mathrm{Cov}}}_{j,k|u} = \frac{1}{{\# {{I_{},j|k}}}u} \sum_i u^T(X_i - \widehat{x}_{j,k|u}) \left( F(X_i) - \widehat{y}_{j,k|u} \right) {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X_i \in {{I_{j,k|u}}} \} \\
&\widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|u} = \frac{1}{{\# {{I_{},j|k}}}u} \sum_i | u^T ( X_i - \widehat{x}_{j,k|u} ) |^2 {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X_i \in {{I_{j,k|u}}} \} ,\end{aligned}$$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
|{\widehat{m}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}| &\le {\widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}^{-1} \biggl( |{\widehat{{\mathrm{Cov}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}| + \biggl| \frac{1}{{{\# {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}}}} \sum_i {\widehat{v}}^T(X_i - {\widehat{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}) \zeta_i {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X_i \in {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}} \} \biggr| \biggr) ,
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
|{\widehat{m}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\widehat{m}_{j,k|v}}| &\le {\widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}^{-1} | {\widehat{{\mathrm{Cov}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\widehat{{\mathrm{Cov}}}_{j,k|v}}| \\
&+ {\widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}^{-1} {\widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|v}}^{-1} |{\widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|v}}| |{\widehat{{\mathrm{Cov}}}_{j,k|v}}| \\
&+ {\widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}^{-1} \biggl| \frac{1}{{{\# {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}}}} \sum_i {\widehat{v}}^T(X_i - {\widehat{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}) \zeta_i {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X_i \in {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}} \} \biggr| \\
&+ {\widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|v}}^{-1} \biggl| \frac{1}{{{\# {{I_{j,k|v}}}}}} \sum_i v^T(X_i - {\widehat{x}_{j,k|v}}) \zeta_i {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X_i \in {{I_{j,k|v}}} \} \biggr| . \end{aligned}$$ Note that $ |\widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|u}| \le {{r}}^2 2^{-2j} $, $ | \widehat{{\mathrm{Cov}}}_{j,k|v} | \le |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} {{r}}^2 2^{-2j} $ and $ | \widehat{{\mathrm{Cov}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}} | \le t |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} {{r}}^2 2^{-2j} $. Introducing $$\begin{aligned}
&{{\overline{x}_{j,k|u}}} = {\mathbb{E}}[ X \mid X \in {{I_{j,k|u}}} ] \\
&{\mathrm{Var}}_{j,k|u} = {\mathrm{Var}}[ \langle v,X \rangle\mid X \in {{I_{j,k|u}}} ] \\
&\widetilde{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|u} = \frac{1}{{\# {{I_{},j|k}}}u} \sum_i | v^T(X_i - {{\overline{x}_{j,k|u}}}) |^2 {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X_i \in {{I_{j,k|u}}} \} ,\end{aligned}$$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
| \widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|u} - {\mathrm{Var}}_{j,k|u} | &= | \widetilde{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|u} - {\mathrm{Var}}_{j,k|u} - | u^T(\widehat{x}_{j,k|u} - {{\overline{x}_{j,k|u}}}) |^2 | \\
&\le | \widetilde{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|u} - {\mathrm{Var}}_{j,k|u} | + {{r}}^2 2^{-2j} .\end{aligned}$$ The Bernstein inequality (together with and ) yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\{ | \widetilde{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|u} - {\mathrm{Var}}_{j,k|u} | \gtrsim {{r}}^2 2^{-2j} \} \le C \exp(-c \ n \rho({{I_{j,k|v}}}))
\le C \exp(-c \ n {\varepsilon}^2/ \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1}^2 {{r}}^2) .\end{aligned}$$ Thus $ | \widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|u} - {\mathrm{Var}}_{j,k|u} | \lesssim {{r}}^2 2^{-2j} $, and hence $ \widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|u} \gtrsim {{r}}^2 2^{-2j} $ , with probability higher than $ 1 - C \exp(-c \ n {\varepsilon}^2/ \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1}^2 {{r}}^2) $. Moreover, thanks to [@Buldygin-Pechuk Theorem 3.1], $$\biggl| \frac{1}{{\# {{I_{},j|k}}}u} \sum_i u^T(X_i - \widehat{x}_{j,k|u} ) \zeta_i {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X_i \in {{I_{j,k|u}}} \} \biggr| \lesssim {{r}}2^{-j} \frac{ {\varepsilon}}{ \sqrt{\#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \rho({{I_{j,k|u}}})} }$$ with probability higher than $ 1 - C \exp(-c \ n {\varepsilon}^2/ \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \sigma^2) $. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
& |{\widehat{m}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}{\widehat{v}}^T(x - {\widehat{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}) - {\widehat{m}_{j,k|v}}v^T(x - {\widehat{x}_{j,k|v}}) | \\
\lesssim \ & t |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} (\| {\widehat{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\widehat{x}_{j,k|v}}\| + {{r}}\| {\widehat{v}}- v \|) \\
+ \ & {{r}}^{-1} 2^{j} \left( | {\widehat{{\mathrm{Cov}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\widehat{{\mathrm{Cov}}}_{j,k|v}}| + |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} |{\widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|v}}| \right) \\
+ \ &\frac{{\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{\#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \rho({{I_{j,k|v}}})\wedge\rho({{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}})}}\end{aligned}$$ with probability higher than $ 1 - C \exp(-c \ n {\varepsilon}^2/ \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1}^2 {{r}}^2 \}) $. Now, $$\begin{aligned}
| {\widehat{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\widehat{x}_{j,k|v}}|
\le \| {\widehat{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {{\overline{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}} \| + \| {{\overline{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}} - {{\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}} \| + \| {{\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}} - {\widehat{x}_{j,k|v}}\| .\end{aligned}$$ The middle term is bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\| {{\overline{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}} - {{\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}} \| \le W_1(\rho(\cdot \mid {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}),\rho(\cdot \mid {{I_{j,k|v}}})) \lesssim {{r}}\| {\widehat{v}}- v \| ,\end{aligned}$$ thanks to assumption \[Theta\]. For the first and third terms, applying the Bernstein inequality (and ,) we get $$\begin{aligned}
\| \widehat{x}_{j,k|u} - {{\overline{x}_{j,k|u}}} \| \le t^{-1} |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1}^{-1} \frac{{\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{\#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \rho({{I_{j,k|u}}})}}
\end{aligned}$$ with probability higher than $ 1 - C \exp\left(-c \ n {\varepsilon}^2/ \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} t^2 |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1}^2 {{r}}^2 \right) $.
We are now left to estimate $ | {\widehat{{\mathrm{Cov}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\widehat{{\mathrm{Cov}}}_{j,k|v}}| $ and $ | {\widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|v}}| $. First, we break down $ | {\widehat{{\mathrm{Cov}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\widehat{{\mathrm{Cov}}}_{j,k|v}}| \le \sum_{a=1}^8 T_a $ where, defining $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{y}_{j,k|u} = {\mathbb{E}}[ F(X) \mid X \in I_{j,k|u} ] ,\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
T_1 = &\biggl| \frac{1}{{{\# {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}}}} \sum_i \langle{\widehat{v}}, {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}- {\widehat{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}\rangle (F(X_i) - {\widehat{{y}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}) {\mathbbm{1}}\{X_i \in {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}\} \biggr| \\
T_2 = &\biggl| \frac{1}{{{\# {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}}}} \sum_i \langle{\widehat{v}}- v,X_i - {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}\rangle (F(X_i) - {\widehat{{y}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}) {\mathbbm{1}}\{X_i \in {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}\} \biggr| \\
T_3 = &\biggl| \frac{1}{{{\# {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}}}} \sum_i \langle v,X_i - {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}\rangle ({{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}}- {\widehat{{y}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}) {\mathbbm{1}}\{X_i \in {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}\} \biggr| \\
T_4 = &\biggl| \frac{1}{{{\# {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}}}} \sum_i \langle v,X_i - {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}\rangle (F(X_i) - {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}}) {\mathbbm{1}}\{X_i \in {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}\} \\
& - {\mathbb{E}}[ \langle v,X - {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}\rangle (F(X) - {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}}) \mid X \in {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}} ] \biggr| \\
T_5 = & | {\mathbb{E}}[ \langle v,X - {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}\rangle (F(X) - {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}}) \mid X \in {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}} ] \\
& - {\mathbb{E}}[ \langle v,X - {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}\rangle (F(X) - {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}}) \mid X \in {{I_{j,k|v}}} ] | \\
T_6 = &\biggl| {\mathbb{E}}[ \langle v,X - {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}\rangle (F(X) - {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}}) \mid X \in {{I_{j,k|v}}} ] \\
& - \frac{1}{{{\# {{I_{j,k|v}}}}}} \sum_i \langle v,X_i - {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}\rangle (F(X_i) - {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}}) {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X_i \in {{I_{j,k|v}}} \} \biggr| \\
T_7 = &\biggl| \frac{1}{{{\# {{I_{j,k|v}}}}}} \sum_i \langle v,{\widehat{x}_{j,k|v}}- {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}\rangle (F(X_i) - {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}}) {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X_i \in {{I_{j,k|v}}} \} \biggr| \\
T_8 = &\biggl| \frac{1}{{{\# {{I_{j,k|v}}}}}} \sum_i \langle v , X_i - {\widehat{x}_{j,k|v}}\rangle ({\widehat{{y}}_{j,k|v}}- {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}}) {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X_i \in {{I_{j,k|v}}} \} \biggr| .\end{aligned}$$ We bound the terms $T_i$’s as follows.
$ \pmb T_1 $. $$T_1 \le \| {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}- {\widehat{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}\| \frac{1}{{{\# {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}}}} \sum_i | F(X_i) - {\widehat{{y}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}| {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X_i \in {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}} \}$$ with $$| F(X_i) - {\widehat{{y}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}| \lesssim |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} {{r}}(2^{-j} + \|{\widehat{v}}- v\|) \lesssim t |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} {{r}}2^{-j} .$$ Hence $${{r}}^{-1} 2^j T_1 \le t |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} \| {\widehat{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}\| \le t |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} (\| {\widehat{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\overline{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}\| + \| {\overline{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}\|) ,$$ where $${\mathbb{P}}\{ \| {\widehat{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\overline{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}\| > t^{-1} |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1}^{-1} \tfrac{{\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{\#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \rho({{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}})}} \} \le C \exp\left(-c \ n {\varepsilon}^2 / \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} t^2|f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1}^2 {{r}}^2 \right)$$ by the Bernstein inequality, and $$\| {\overline{x}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}\| \le W_1(\rho(\cdot \mid {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}),\rho(\cdot \mid {{I_{j,k|v}}})) \lesssim {{r}}\| {\widehat{v}}- v \|$$ by assumption \[Theta\].
$ \pmb T_2 $. $$T_2 \lesssim \| {\widehat{v}}- v \| {{r}}|f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} {{r}}(2^{-j} + \|{\widehat{v}}-v\|) \lesssim 2^{-j} t |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} {{r}}^2 \| {\widehat{v}}-v \| ,$$ hence $${{r}}^{-1} 2^j T_2 \le t |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} {{r}}\| {\widehat{v}}- v \| .$$
$ \pmb T_3 $. $$T_3 \le \frac{1}{{{\# {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}}}} \sum_i | \langle v,X_i - {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}\rangle| |{{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}}- {\widehat{{y}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}| {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X_i \in {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}} \}$$ with $ |\langle v,X_i - {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}\rangle)| \lesssim {{r}}(2^{-j} + \|{\widehat{v}}- v\|) \lesssim t {{r}}2^{-j} $. Hence $${{r}}^{-1} 2^j T_3 \le t | {\widehat{{y}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}}| \le t (|{\widehat{{y}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}| + | {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}}|) ,$$ where $${\mathbb{P}}\{ |{\widehat{{y}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}| > t^{-1} \tfrac{{\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{\#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \rho({{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}})}} \} \le C\exp\left(-c \ n {\varepsilon}^2 / \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} t^2 |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1}^2 {{r}}^2 \right)$$ by the Bernstein inequality, and $$| {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}}| \le |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} W_1(\rho(\cdot \mid {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}),\rho(\cdot \mid {{I_{j,k|v}}})) \lesssim |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} {{r}}\| {\widehat{v}}- v \|$$ by assumption \[Theta\].
$ \pmb T_4 $. We apply the Bernstein inequality. Since $$\begin{aligned}
| v^T(X_i - {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}) (F(X_i) - {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}})| &\lesssim |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} {{r}}^2 (2^{-j} + \|{\widehat{v}}- v\|) \lesssim t |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} {{r}}^2 2^{-j} ,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $${\mathbb{P}}\{ {{r}}^{-1} 2^j T_4 > \tfrac{{\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{\#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \rho({{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}})}} \} \le C \exp\left( -c \ n {\varepsilon}^2 / \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} t^2|f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1}^2 {{r}}^2 \right) .$$
$ \pmb T_5 $. $$T_5 = \left| \int G(x) (d\rho(x \mid {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}) - d\rho(x \mid {{I_{j,k|v}}})) \right|$$ where $ G(x) = v^T(x - {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}) (F(x) - {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}}) $, $ x \in {{I_{j,k|v}}}\cup {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}$, is Lipschitz of constant $\lesssim t |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} 2^{-j} {{r}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
| G(x) - G(z) | &\le | v^T(x - z) | | F(x) - {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}}| + | v^T(z - {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}) | | F(x) - F(z) | \\
&\lesssim |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} {{r}}(2^{-j} + \| {\widehat{v}}- v \|) \| x - z \| \\
&\lesssim t |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} {{r}}2^{-j} \| x - z \| .\end{aligned}$$ Thus, by assumption \[Theta\], $${{r}}^{-1} 2^j T_5 \lesssim t |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} W_1(\rho(\cdot \mid {{I_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}}) - \rho(\cdot \mid {{I_{j,k|v}}})) \lesssim t |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} {{r}}\| {\widehat{v}}- v \| .$$
$ \pmb T_6 $. As for $T_4$.
$ \pmb T_7 $. $$T_7 \le \| {\widehat{x}_{j,k|v}}- {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}\| |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1} {{r}}2^{-j} ,$$ where, by the Bernstein inequality, $${\mathbb{P}}\{ \| {\widehat{x}_{j,k|v}}- {\overline{x}_{j,k|v}}\| > |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1}^{-1} \tfrac{{\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{\#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \rho({{I_{j,k|v}}})}} \} \le C \exp\left(-c \ n {\varepsilon}^2 / \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1}^2{{r}}^2 \right) .$$
$ \pmb T_8 $. $$T_8 \le {{r}}2^{-j} | {\widehat{{y}}_{j,k|v}}- {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}}| ,$$ where, by the Bernstein inequality, $${\mathbb{P}}\{ |{\widehat{{y}}_{j,k|v}}- {{\overline{{y}}}_{j,k|v}}| > \tfrac{{\varepsilon}}{\sqrt{\#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} \rho({{I_{j,k|v}}})}} \} \le C\exp\left(-c \ n {\varepsilon}^2 / \#{{\mathcal{K}}_{j}} |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^1}^2 {{r}}^2\right) .$$
The quantity $ |{\widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|{\widehat{v}}}}- {\widehat{{\mathrm{Var}}}_{j,k|v}}| $ can be estimated through an analogous decomposition. We can finally put all the terms together, and taking the union bound over the ${{\mathcal{K}}_{j}}$’s completes the proof.
Proofs of technical results {#sec:proofs}
===========================
In our proofs, we make use of the following Lemma to ensure that we have enough local samples, or to concentrate the empirical measure on the underlying distribution.
\[lem:hrho-rho\] Let $X$ be a random variable, and let $ X_1,\dots,X_n $ be independent copies of $X$. Given a measurable set $E$, define $ \rho(E) = {\mathbb{P}}\{X\in E\} $ and $ {\widehat{\rho}}(E) = n^{-1} \sum_i \mathbbm{1}\{X_i \in E\} $. Then $${\mathbb{P}}\{ | {\widehat{\rho}}(E) - \rho(E) | > t \} \le 2 \exp \left( - \frac{n t^2/2}{\rho(E) + t/3} \right) .$$ In particular, for $ t = \rho(E)/2 $ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{P}}\left\{ {\widehat{\rho}}(E) \notin \left[ \frac{1}{2}\rho(E) , \frac{3}{2}\rho(E) \right] \right\} \le {\mathbb{P}}\left\{ | {\widehat{\rho}}(E) - \rho(E) | > \frac{1}{2}\rho(E) \right\} \le 2 \exp\left(-\tfrac{3}{28} n \rho(E)\right) .
\end{aligned}$$
The bound follows by a direct application of the Bernstein inequality to the random variables $ \mathbbm{1}\{X_i \in E \} $.
When working with possibly unbounded distributions, we need some control on their tails. A common choice is to assume sub-Gaussian decay. We recall that a random variable $X$ is sub-Gaussian of variance proxy $R^2$ if $${\mathbb{P}}\{ |X| > t \} \le 2 \exp \left( - \frac{t^2}{2 R^2} \right) .$$ A random vector $ X \in {\mathbb{R}}^d $ is sub-Gaussian if $ \langle u,X\rangle $ is sub-Gaussian for every $ u \in {\mathbb{S}}^{d-1} $. In particular, bounded and normal distributions are sub-Gaussian.
\[lem:sub-gauss-tail\] Let $ X \in {\mathbb{R}}^d $ be a sub-Gaussian vector with variance proxy $ R^2 $. Then $${\mathbb{P}}\{ \|X\| > t \} \le 2 \exp\left( - \frac{t^2}{2dR^2} \right) .$$
Let $ X_k $ be the $k$-th coordinate of $X$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}\left[ \exp\left( \frac{\| X \|^2}{2 d R^2} \right) \right] = {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \prod_{k=1}^d \exp\left( \frac{|X_k|^2}{2 d R^2} \right) \right]
\le \left( \prod_{k=1}^d {\mathbb{E}}\left[ \exp\left( \frac{|X_k|^2}{2 R^2} \right) \right] \right)^{1/d}
\hspace{-10pt} \le 2\, . \end{aligned}$$ The result follows from [@vershynin_2018 Proposition 2.5.2].
The lemma below shows that most samples from a $d$-dimensional sub-Gaussian distribution of variance proxy $R^2$ fall into a ball of radius $ \sqrt{d} R $.
\[lem:sub-gauss-ball\] Let $ X_1,\dots,X_n $ be independent copies of a sub-Gaussian vector $ X \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$ with variance proxy $R^2$. Then, for every $ \alpha \ge 2 $ and $ \beta \in (0,1) $, $${\mathbb{P}}\left\{ {\# B}(0,\sqrt{2d\log(2\alpha)} R)) < \left(1-\tfrac{1}{\alpha}\right)\beta n \right\} \le 2 e^{- \left(1-\tfrac{1}{\alpha}\right) \tfrac{(1-\beta)^2/2}{1+(1-\beta)/3} n}.$$
Let $ B = B(0,\sqrt{2d\log(2\alpha)} R)) $ and $ \rho(B) = {\mathbb{P}}\{ X \in B \} $. Lemma \[lem:sub-gauss-tail\] gives $$\begin{aligned}
\rho( B ) \ge 1 - 2 \exp(-\log (2\alpha) ) = \left(1-\tfrac{1}{\alpha}\right)\,;
\end{aligned}$$ an application of Lemma \[lem:hrho-rho\] with $ t = (1-\beta) \rho(B) $ yields $$\begin{aligned}
& {\mathbb{P}}\left\{ {\# B} < \left(1-\tfrac{1}{\alpha}\right)\beta n \right\} \le {\mathbb{P}}\left\{ {\# B} < \beta \rho(B) n \right\} \\
\le \ & 2 \exp\left(- \tfrac{(1-\beta)^2/2}{1+(1-\beta)/3} \rho(B) n \right) \le 2 \exp\left(- \left(1- \tfrac{1}{\alpha}\right) \tfrac{(1-\beta)^2/2}{1+(1-\beta)/3} n\right) . \qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
We often carry out the following integration to obtain expectation bounds from bounds in probability.
\[lem:P-E\] Let $ X $ be a random variable. Suppose there are $ p \in [1,2] $, $ a \ge e $ and $ b > 0 $ such that $ {\mathbb{P}}\{ |X| > {\varepsilon}\} \le a e^{-b{\varepsilon}^{2p}} $ for every $ {\varepsilon}> 0 $. Then $ {\mathbb{E}}|X|^2 \le \bigl(\frac{\log a}{b}\bigr)^{1/p} $.
Integrating over $ {\varepsilon}> 0 $ we get $
{\mathbb{E}}|X|^2 \le \int_0^{{\varepsilon}_0} {\varepsilon}\ d{\varepsilon}+ \int_{{\varepsilon}_0}^\infty a e^{-b{\varepsilon}^{2p}}{\varepsilon}d{\varepsilon}$ with $ {\varepsilon}_0 = (\log a/b)^{1/2p} $. The first integral is equal to $ \frac{1}{2} (\log a/b)^{1/p} $, while the substitution $ b {\varepsilon}^{2p} \to {\varepsilon}$ in the second integral gives $$\frac{a}{2p} \int_{\log a}^\infty {\varepsilon}^{1/p - 1} e^{-{\varepsilon}} d{\varepsilon}\left(\frac{1}{b}\right)^{1/p}
\le \frac{a}{2} \int_{\log a}^\infty e^{-{\varepsilon}} d{\varepsilon}\left(\frac{1}{b}\right)^{1/p}
= \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{1}{b}\right)^{1/p} . \qedhere$$
The following Lemma describes the expected decay of a Hölder function of a sub-Gaussian vector outside a large ball. This result is useful to bound the mean squared error on the tails of a sub-Gaussian distribution, where the strong decay of the measure can offset poor pointwise predictions.
\[lem:MSE-tail\] Let $X$ be a sub-Gaussian vector in ${\mathbb{R}}^d$ with variance proxy $R^2$, and let $ F : {\mathbb{R}}^d \to {\mathbb{R}}$ be a ${\mathcal{C}}^\alpha$ Hölder continuous function with $ \alpha \in (0,1] $. Then, for every $ {{r}}\ge 1 $, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[ | F(X) |^2 ] \lesssim {\mathbb{E}}[ | F(X) |^2 \mid X \in B(0,{{r}}) ] + ( | F(0) |^2 + d |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 R^2 ) \exp(-{{r}}^2/2dR^2) .
\end{aligned}$$
We split the left hand side into $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[ | F(X) |^2 \mid X\!\in\!B(0,{{r}}) ] + {\mathbb{E}}[ | F(X) |^2 {\mathbbm{1}}\{X\!\notin\!B(0,{{r}})\} ]
\end{aligned}$$ and bound the second term. The Hölder continuity of $F$ entails $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[ | F(X) |^2 {\mathbbm{1}}\{X \!\notin\! B(0,{{r}})\} ]
\lesssim | F(0) |^2 {\mathbb{P}}\{ \|X\| \!>\! {{r}}\} \! + \! |f|_{{\mathcal{C}}^\alpha}^2 {\mathbb{E}}[\|X\|^2{\mathbbm{1}}\{ X \!\notin\! B(0,r) \}] .
\end{aligned}$$ Using Lemma \[lem:sub-gauss-tail\] we get $ {\mathbb{P}}\{ \|X\| > {{r}}\} \le 2 \exp (-r^2/2dR^2) $ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}[\|X\|^2{\mathbbm{1}}\{ X \notin B(0,r) \}] = \ & \int_0^{\infty}\mathbb{P}\{ \|X\|^2 {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X \notin B(0,r) \}>t \} dt \\
= \ & \int_{r^2}^{\infty}\mathbb{P}\{ \|X\|^2 {\mathbbm{1}}\{ X \notin B(0,r) \}>t \} dt \le \int_{r^2}^{\infty}\mathbb{P} \{ \|X\|^2>t \} dt \\
= \ & 2 \int_{r}^{\infty} \mathbb{P} \{ \|X\|>t \} t dt \le 4 \int_r^\infty \exp(-t^2/2dR^2) t dt \\
= \ & 4 d R^2 \exp(-r^2/2dR^2) . \qedhere\end{aligned}$$
0.5in [**[Acknowledgements]{}**]{}. This research was partially supported by AFOSR FA9550-17-1-0280, NSF-DMS-1821211, NSF-ATD-1737984. SV thanks Timo Klock for the discussion and the useful exchange of views about this and related problems.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Information about an unknown quantum state can be encoded in weak values of projectors belonging to a complete eigenbasis. We present a protocol that enables one party – Bob – to remotely determine the weak values corresponding to weak measurements performed by another spatially separated party – Alice. The particular set of weak values contains complete information of the quantum state encoded on Alice’s register, which enacts the role of the preselected system state in the aforementioned weak measurement. Consequently, Bob can determine the quantum state from these weak values, which can also be termed as remote state determination or remote state tomography. A combination of non-product bipartite resource state shared between the two parties and classical communication between them is necessary to bring this statistical scheme to fruition. Significantly, the information transfer of a pure quantum state of any known dimensions can be effected even with a resource state of low dimensionality and purity with a single measurement setting at Bob’s end.'
author:
- 'Varad R. Pande$^{1,2,3}$'
- 'Som Kanjilal$^{2}$'
bibliography:
- 'RSD.bib'
title: 'Quantum Information Transfer Using Weak Measurements and Any Non-product Resource State'
---
*Motivation.—* Quantum teleportation [@bennett1993teleporting] is one of the most outstanding discoveries consequent to quantum entanglement [@einstein1935can; @schrodinger1935discussion]. One party can send an unknown quantum state to another spatially separated party using a pure entangled shared resource state supplemented by classical communication and specific local operations on both parts. The method, which was theoretically restricted to qudit states (d-level quantum systems) and pure bipartite qudit resources, has since been extended to teleport continuous variable quantum states [@vaidman1994teleportation; @braunstein1998teleportation; @koniorczyk2001wigner; @pirandola2015advances; @yonezawa2004demonstration; @andersen2013high] as well as to teleport from continuous to discrete variable quantum registers [@PhysRevLett.118.160501]. These extensions and experimental implementations are conditional upon the dimensionality and purity of the entangled resource state. Teleportation using mixed entangled resource states has been studied with varying degrees of efficiency, quantified either by the number of classical bits to be communicated or the fidelity with which the quantum state is transferred [@joo2003quantum; @luo2013faithful; @zhao2011faithful; @albeverio2002optimal; @PhysRevLett.119.110501; @agrawal2002probabilistic]. Thus, perfect teleportation of a given quantum state defined in a continuous or discrete Hilbert space of more than two dimensions imposes constraining requirements on the dimensionality, purity and the extent of entanglement in the shared resource state. Although teleportation suffices to transfer the quantum state, it can only be processed further by a quantum computer: a classical observer has no access to the information contained in it and an ordinary computer cannot process it. This has been called the output problem in the literature [@biamonte2017quantum]. To enable the latter, state tomography [@vogel1989determination; @cramer2010efficient] is necessary on a large number of perfectly teleported copies. This, in itself, is a challenge because the number of measurements for specific sets of observables to determine the respective probabilities and phases scales exponentially with the dimensionality of the state at hand.
Weak values proposed in Aharonov, Albert and Vaidman’s seminal paper [@aharonov1988result] are complex entities which appear as a shift in the expectation value of a pointer observable when a weak von Neumann interaction between the system and pointer states is followed by post selection on the system state [@PhysRevD.40.2112; @kanjilal2016manifestation]. Although weak measurements were initially introduced in the context of continuous variable Gaussian pointer states, the paradigm has since been theoretically and experimentally established for qubit pointer states [@wu2009weak; @brun2008test; @lundeen2005practical], entangled pointer states [@menzies2008weak; @ho2016experimental] and most generally to arbitrary pointer states [@johansen2004weak; @kofman2012nonperturbative]. The concept of weak values and measurement has led to the development of ingenious methods for the direct determination of a quantum wave-function and density matrix of mixed states followed by their experimental demonstration [@lundeen2011direct; @lundeen2012procedure; @PhysRevLett.117.120401; @wu2013state]. These schemes enable the state of the quantum system being probed appear directly as a shift in the expectation value of the pointer observable in terms of the weak values. For a continuous variable pure state expressed as a quantum wave-function $ \psi(x) $, the wave-function at a particular position is equal to the weak value of position observable $ \ket{x_0}\bra{x_0} $ obtained after post-selection on a zero momentum eigenstate [@lundeen2011direct]. Measuring a number of these weak values for several position eigenkets is thus enough to faithfully approximate the wave-function. A discrete variable pure state defined on a $d$-dimensional Hilbert space can be expressed in terms of vectors of a $d$-element orthonormal basis set: $ \ket{\psi}=\Sigma_{k=0}^{d-1} \braket{a_{k}}{\psi}\ket{a_{k}} $. Given such a set, it is possible to find another basis set which is mutually unbiased with respect to the former and has an element $ \ket{b_0} $ which is a discrete analogue ($ \ket{+} $ state corresponding to the d-dimensional Hadamard transform of $ \ket{0} $) of the zero momentum eigenstate in the continuous basis. This element satisfies $\braket{b_{0}}{a_{k}}=1 /\sqrt{d}$ $ \forall $ $k$. Thus, one can write: $$\label{stwv}
\braket{a_{k}}{\psi}=\sqrt{d}\braket{b_{0}}{\psi}\frac{\braket{b_{0}}{a_{k}}\braket{a_{k}}{\psi}}{\braket{b_{0}}{\psi}}=\sqrt{d}\braket{b_{0}}{\psi} ( \hat{\Pi}^{k} )_{w},$$ where $\hat{\Pi}^{k}$ is the projector corresponding to $\ket{a_{k}}$. The state can be rewritten in terms of these weak values: $\ket{\psi}=\sqrt{d}\braket{b_{0}}{\psi}\Sigma_{k=0}^{d-1} ( \hat{\Pi}^{k} )_{w}\ket{a_{k}}$.
Here we effectively combine broad characteristics of the above two seemingly distinct quantum information theoretic schemes and devise a non-local scenario of weak measurement to accomplish remote state determination (*RSD*). This is a powerful alternative for transferring the information of an unknown pure quantum state of any known dimensionality from one party to another spatially separated party with any non-product resource state thereby providing a simultaneous resolution to the threefold issues of resource dimensionality, purity and its extent of entanglement. We begin with a mathematical description of our protocol which enables the remote determination of a single weak value. Then we delineate the physical entities that need to be pre-decided, the classical communication requirements and the necessary and sufficient conditions to facilitate the complete information transfer of any pure state. This is followed by a representative example, remarks on noise and error analysis, and an outlook of this work.
*Protocol.—* Alice and Bob share a bipartite non-product pure or mixed quantum state, $ \rho_{AB} $, which enacts the role of the resource. Alice has an system register on which the state $ \rho_{I} $, unknown to her, is encoded. As explained before, the state’s probability amplitudes can be expressed as a set of weak values $ ( \hat{\Pi}^k_I )_w $ where index $k$ corresponds to one of the projectors belonging to its complete basis. In a single round of experimental runs, we seek to transfer one of these weak values. From hereon, we shall drop the index $k$. Alice begins by performing a weak interaction between her part ($ A $) of the shared state and system ($ I $) by letting them jointly evolve under the unitary $ \hat{U} = e^{ig\hat{\Pi}_I \otimes \hat{A} } $ [@von1955mathematical]. The total state after the weak interaction, characterized by expanding the coupling unitary up to the first order is $ \rho_{tw} \approx [\openone + ig\hat{\Pi}_I \otimes \hat{A} \otimes \openone] \rho_{I} \otimes \rho_{AB} [\openone - ig\hat{\Pi}_I \otimes \hat{A} \otimes \openone], $ where $\rho_{tw}$ is the total ($t$) post weak-interaction ($w$) state.
We first describe the procedure with which Bob obtains imaginary part of the concerned weak value. To this end, Alice must perform a projective post-selection on $ \rho_I $ using the projector $ \ket{b_0}\bra{b_0} \equiv \hat{\pi}_{I}^v $. Index $ v $ denotes selection of the $v^{th}$ eigenvector of the chosen projection basis. After the post-selection, Bob’s state can be obtained by tracing over parts $ A $ and $ I $ of the total state \[see Der. (1) in supplemental materials [@supp]\]. Hence, the unnormalized state on Bob’s side is $\rho_{B}^{un} = \Tr_{I,A} ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{tw})$: $$\begin{aligned}
%\rho_B^{un} & = \Tr_{I,A} ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{tw})\\
\rho_B^{un} & \approx \Tr (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I}) ( ( \Tr_{A} ( \rho_{AB}) - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* \Tr_{A} ( \rho_{AB} ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone)) \nonumber\\
& + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_{A} ( (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) )).\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have used the definition of the complex weak value corresponding to the weak measurement performed by Alice between her part $ A $ of the shared state and the system $ I $ on which the state whose information is to be transferred is encoded: $ ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \equiv \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \hat{\Pi}_I \rho_{I} ) / \Tr( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I} ). $ It can be decomposed into its real and imaginary components: $ ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w = \Re ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w + i \Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w $. When Bob measures the expectation value of an observable $ \hat{B} $ with respect to the normalized version of the above state \[see Der. (3) and (4) in [@supp]\], it allows us to write the imaginary part of the weak value as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{im}
\Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w = \frac{\langle \hat{B} \rangle_f^{Im} - \Tr ( \hat{B} \rho_B^{in} ) }{\left( \splitfrac{2 g \bigg(\Tr ( (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) \Tr ( \hat{B} \rho_B^{in} ) }{- \Tr ( \hat{B} \Tr_{A}((\hat{A} \otimes \hat{B})\rho_{AB}) ) \bigg)} \right) }.\end{aligned}$$ $ \langle \hat{B} \rangle_f^{Im} $ denotes the expectation value obtained by Bob on measuring his observable in this (first) set of experimental runs. $ \rho_{B}^{in} $ denotes Bob’s initial reduced state. At this point, the expectation value with Bob has no information about the real part of $ ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w $. Once he obtains the imaginary part of the weak value from the first set of experimental runs, Alice and Bob will proceed to the scheme for obtaining the real part.
In the $ 2^{nd} $ set of experimental runs, Alice changes the post-selection process. In addition to post-selecting on $ \rho_{I} $, she also post-selects on part $A$ of the shared state $ \rho_{AB} $ using the projector $ \hat{\pi}_{A}^l $ (index $ l $ denotes the $l^{th}$ eigenvector of the chosen projection basis) which does not commute with $ \hat{A} $. We can therefore write Bob’s unnormalized final state \[see Der. (5) in [@supp]\] by tracing over parts $ I $ and $ A $ corresponding to Alice’s quantum registers: $ \rho_B^{un} = \Tr_{I,A} ( (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \otimes \hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{tw}) $. In order to normalize, we compute its norm by tracing over its entire Hilbert space \[see Der. (6) in [@supp]\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Tr} (\rho_B^{un}) & \approx \text{Tr} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I}) \text{Tr} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}) ( ( 1 \nonumber\\
& - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* ( \hat{A} )_{w'}^* + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w ( \hat{A} )_{w'} )).\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have defined the complex entity $ ( \hat{A} )_{w'}$ to be the *weak-partial-value*. “Partial” because while the quantum state (density matrix $ \rho_{AB} $) appearing in it is bipartite and the trace operation is performed over the entire Hilbert space, the system measurement observable $ \hat{A} $ and the post-selection projector $ \pi_A^l $ both act only on part $ A $ of $ \rho_{AB} $. Thus, we have $ ( \hat{A} )_{w'}$ $\equiv$ $\Tr ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) / \Tr ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) . $ Bob will now measure expectation value of the observable $ \hat{B} $ with respect to the above state (after normalization) using the complex decomposition of the weak-partial-value: $ ( \hat{A} )_{w'} = \Re ( \hat{A} )_{w'} + i \Im ( \hat{A} )_{w'} $ \[see Der. (9) in [@supp]\]. Note that the expectation value $ \langle \hat{B} \rangle_f^{Re} $ in the second set of runs would be different from the first set. Since we already know the imaginary part of the weak value from the first set of runs, the real part can be obtained from the second set of runs:
$$\begin{gathered}
\Re ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w = \nonumber\\
\label{re}
\dfrac{\langle \hat{B} \rangle_f^{Re} \times \Tr ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) - \Tr ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \hat{B}) \rho_{AB} ) - g \Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \bigg( 2 \Re ( \hat{A} )_{w'} \Tr ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \hat{B}) \rho_{AB} ) + \Tr ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \hat{B}) \{ (\hat{A} \otimes \openone), \rho_{AB} \} ) \bigg)}{ 2 g \Im ( \hat{A} )_{w'} \Tr ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \hat{B}) \rho_{AB} ) + i g \Tr ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \hat{B}) [(\hat{A} \otimes \openone), \rho_{AB}] ) }. \end{gathered}$$
Here, $ [x,y] $ and $\{x,y\} $ denote the commutator and the anticommutator respectively.
*Pre-decided entities.—* In order to obtain the full weak value using expressions \[im\] and \[re\], Bob must know the shared state $ \rho_{AB} $ , the weak interaction observable $ \hat{A} $, the projector $ \hat{\pi}_{A}^l $ used by Alice for the post-selection and the interaction strength $ g $. To allow Bob obtain the full quantum state, they must have also pre-decided the mutually unbiased bases corresponding to the observables involved in the weak interaction and the post-selection. The sequence in which projectors from these basis sets will be used for the weak measurement must be fixed so as to ensure that Bob knows what projector corresponds to the weak value he obtained in a given round of the protocol. Also, they must know the dimensionality of the unknown quantum state so that basis sets with appropriate number of elements can be chosen. Upon obtaining all the weak values and normalizing, Bob can find the overall factor $ \sqrt{d} \braket{b_0}{\psi} $ to express the full quantum state (ignoring the overall phase).
*Classical information transfer.—* Akin to quantum teleportation, here too communication from Alice to Bob via classical channel(s) aids the remote determination of the weak value (see Figure \[fig1\]).
![(a) The first set of experimental runs entails post-selection only on Alice’s system. Bob will measure observable $ \hat{B} $ upon receiving the classical bit $1$. Classical channel is represented by a dashed line. Upon action of the Hadamard operator $ \hat{H} $ on the state of interest, $ \ket{+} $ and $\ket{F}$ represent post-selection success and failure and correspond to $1$ and $0$ on the classical channel respectively. (b) The second set of experimental runs requires post-selection on Alice’s system as well as part $A$ of the shared resource. $ \ket{l} $ corresponds to successful post-selection and its outcome is carried by the second classical channel. Bob measures observable $ \hat{B} $ upon receiving the outcome $1$ from the classical *AND* gate which corresponds to instances of simultaneous post-selection success on parts $I$ and $A$. []{data-label="fig1"}](RSD_fig1_3.pdf){width="7cm" height="7.5cm"}
On receiving the appropriate message, Bob measures the value of observable $ \hat{B} $ with respect to his state. After sufficiently many such measurements, the recorded statistics will give him the expectation value of $ \hat{B} $. The total number of classical bits communicated from Alice to Bob is given by the sum of bits communicated during the first and second sets of experimental runs corresponding to the real ($ C_{Rk} $) and imaginary ($ C_{Ik} $) parts of each weak value respectively. Thus, we have $ C = \sum_{k = 0}^{d-1} ( C_{Ik} + C_{Rk} ) $: $$\label{cbits}
C = N \sum_{k = 0}^{d-1} \bigg[ \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{twk}^2 ) + \Tr ( ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \otimes \hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{twk}^2 ) \bigg],$$ where $ N $ is the number of shared copies of the resource in a single set of experimental runs (total number is $ 2Nd $), $d$ is the dimensionality of the unknown quantum state, $ k $ indexes the weak interaction of the $ k^{th} $ projector and the two entities appearing in the parentheses are probabilities of successful post-selection for the $1^{st}$ and $2^{nd}$ set of runs of the protocol respectively. These probabilities are determined by the overlap between the total state after weak interaction and the total state after post-selection. If a continuous variable state is to be transferred, the sum would be over several position eigenkets (or another continuous variable observable) whose weak values are to be remotely measured by Bob to know the full state. We note that if Alice can choose the mutually unbiased bases such that all the weak values of projectors in which information about the quantum state is encoded are purely imaginary, the second set of experiments would not be necessary. This can happen provided Alice has sufficient information about the quantum state beforehand. Therefore, there is a trade off between complexity of the protocol and the predetermined knowledge of the quantum state whose information is to be transferred.
*Necessary and sufficient conditions.—* We prove by contradiction that non-product nature of the shared resource state is a necessary condition for *RSD* to work. Let us assume that $ \rho_{AB} = \rho_{A} \otimes \rho_{B} $. Substituting this product form in the expressions of Bob’s state for sets of experimental runs corresponding to the real as well as the imaginary parts, it is found that $ \rho_{B}^N = \rho_{B}^{un}/\Tr(\rho_B^{un}) = \rho_B $ \[see Der. (10) and (11) in [@supp]\]. Thus, Bob’s state does not preserve any signature of the weak measurement performed by Alice. Additionally, in order to ensure that the denominator in \[im\] and \[re\] does not go to zero, at least $ \Tr(\hat{B} \Tr_{A}((\hat{A} \otimes \openone)\rho_{AB})) \neq 0$ and $ \text{Tr} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \hat{B}) [(\hat{A} \otimes \openone), \rho_{AB}] ) \neq 0 $. These conditions, taken together with the non-product resource, are sufficient for effective functioning of the protocol.
*Example.—* We demonstrate *RSD* using the Bell-diagonal state in $ H^2 \otimes H^2 $ as the shared resource: $
\rho_{AB}=(1/4)[ \openone + \sum_{i=1}^{3} c_i (\sigma_i \otimes \sigma_i)]
$. Here $ \sigma_i $ represent Pauli matrices in $ H^2 $ and $c_i \in [-1,1]$. We choose $ \hat{A} = \hat{n}.\vec{\sigma} $, $ \hat{B} = \hat{m}.\vec{\sigma} $, and $ \hat{\pi}_A^l = \ket{\sigma_z = -1}\bra{\sigma_z = -1} $. From these choices, Equations \[im\] and \[re\] reduce to simple forms \[see Eq. (12) and (13) in [@supp]\]. Lets consider the transfer of a d-dimensional pure state $ \ket{\psi} = \sum_{k=0}^{d-1} a_k \ket{a_k} $. Therefore, $ \ket{b_0} = (1/\sqrt{d}) \sum_{k=0}^{d-1} \ket{a_k} $ and all the weak values would be $ ( \hat{\Pi}_I^m )_w = a_{m} / (\sum_{k=0}^{d-1} a_k ) $. Plugging these entities in Eq. \[cbits\], using $ \hat{\pi}^v_I = \ket{b_0}\bra{b_0} $, and $ \rho_{I} = \ket{\psi}\bra{\psi} $, we have $ C = (3Nd/2) \Tr(\hat{\pi}^v_I \rho_{I}) \Tr(\rho_{AB}^2),$ where $\Tr(\rho_{AB}^2) = 1/4(1 + c_1^2 + c_2^2 + c_3^3)$ is the purity of the Bell-diagonal state.
*Noise, error and experimental implementation.—* Statistical error in determining the state $ \ket{\psi}_I $ on Bob’s side originates from his measurement of the expected value of $ \hat{B} $ and propagates [@ku1966notes] through the expressions \[im\] and \[re\] for the real and imaginary parts of the individual weak values respectively. In Eq. \[im\], replacing $\Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I^k )_w \equiv W_{Ik}$, $ \langle \hat{B} \rangle_f^{Im} \equiv B_{Ik} $, $ \Tr ( \hat{B} \rho_B^{in} ) \equiv A $ and the denominator with $ X_{Ik} $, we get $$\label{imer}
W_{Ik} = \frac{B_{Ik} - A}{X_{Ik}}.$$ Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{deltai}
(\Delta W_{Ik})^2 = \bigg( \frac{\partial W_{Ik}}{\partial B_{Ik}} \bigg)^2 \frac{(\Delta B_{Ik})^2}{C_{Ik}} = \bigg( \frac{\Delta B_{Ik}}{X_{Ik}} \bigg)^2 \frac{1}{C_{Ik}}.\end{aligned}$$ Likewise, in Eq. \[re\], replacing $\Re ( \hat{\Pi}_I^k )_w \equiv W_{Rk} $, $ \langle \hat{B} \rangle_f^{Re} \equiv B_{Rk} $, the other constant elements in the numerator and the denominator as $ Y_{1Rk} $, $ Y_{2Rk} $, $ Y_{3Rk} $ and $ Y_{4Rk} $ respectively, and using Eq. \[imer\], we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{reer}
W_{Rk} &=& \frac{X_{Ik} B_{Rk} Y_{1Rk} - Y_{2Rk} X_{Ik} - B_{Ik} Y_{3Rk} + A Y_{3Rk}}{Y_{4Rk} X_{Ik}}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the error is, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{deltar}
(\Delta W_{Rk})^2 &=& \bigg( \frac{\partial W_{Rk}}{\partial B_{Rk}} \bigg)^2 \frac{(\Delta B_{Rk})^2}{C_{Rk}} + \bigg( \frac{\partial W_{Rk}}{\partial B_{Ik}} \bigg)^2 \frac{(\Delta B_{Ik})^2}{C_{Ik}} \nonumber\\
&=& \bigg( \frac{Y_{1Rk} \Delta B_{Rk}}{Y_{4Rk}} \bigg)^2 \frac{1}{C_{Rk}} + \bigg( \frac{Y_{3Rk} \Delta B_{Ik}}{Y_{4R} X_{Ik}} \bigg)^2 \frac{1}{C_{Ik}} . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ From the above, we see that the errors in determining the respective weak values and in effect, the coefficients characterizing the state scale as $\sim 1/\sqrt{C}$ and therefore as $ \sim 1/\sqrt{\Tr (\rho_{AB}^2)} $ \[see Der. (14) in [@supp]\].
It is known that sharing a resource state over a noisy quantum channel decreases its purity. A tractable example to demonstrate this would be the Werner state, with a singlet content quantified by $z \in [0,1] $, and a non-product nature for the full range of $z$ encompassing the regimes of discord and entanglement: $ \rho_w$ $=$ $z \ket{\psi^-}\bra{\psi^-} + \frac{1-z}{4} \openone_4 $. Its purity is given by $ (1/4) ( 1 + 3 z^2 ) $. Upon sending this state through a decoherent optical fibre [@2016APS..DMP.H4009G; @MKGThesis16], it changes to $$\rho_w' = \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\frac{1-z}{4} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & \frac{z+1}{4} & -\frac{z}{2} e^{-4 \Delta \phi^2} & 0 \\
0 & -\frac{z}{2} e^{-4 \Delta \phi^2} & \frac{z+1}{4} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{1-z}{4} \\
\end{array}
\right).$$ The purity now becomes $ (1/4) [ 1 + (1 + 2 e^{-8 \Delta \phi ^2} ) z^2 ] $ clearly indicating $ \Tr (\rho_{w}'^2) < \Tr (\rho_w^2) $. Suppose the accepted error threshold for a faithful run of the protocol demands $N$ copies of the Werner state shared via noiseless channels. To obtain the same efficiency when the resources are shared over noisy channels, one would have to increase the number of copies shared to $ N' $ given by $$\begin{aligned}
N' &=& \frac{N \Tr (\rho_{w}^2)}{\Tr (\rho_{w}'^2)}. \end{aligned}$$ This would also allow to switch between fibers with different noise profiles or different lengths without compromising the faithfulness of the protocol. For example, typical range of $ \Delta \phi $ corresponding to telecommunication-wavelength for an optical fiber of 500 meters is 190-250 radians [@2016APS..DMP.H4009G; @MKGThesis16]. Comparing the case where there is no noise ($N$ shared copies) to the case where $ \Delta \phi = 200 \text{rad} $ ($N'$ shared copies) for a state characterized by $ z = 0.4 $ would give us $ N' = 1.27586 N $. Thus, irrespective of the amount of noise in the channel, faithfulness of the protocol would not be compromised provided enough number of noisy but non-product resource states are shared by the two parties. It may also be noted that the protocol would continue to work even if $ z < 1/3 $, when the Werner state is solely discordant [@modi2012classical; @pande2017minimum]. Here the sole focus was on the error due to noise in the channel reflected statistically through the entity $ \langle \hat{B} \rangle_f^{Re/Im} $. A full reconstruction of the state possible either through real [@PhysRevLett.117.120401] or simulated experiments [@maccone2014state] would allow a comparison between the state determined by Bob and the state that was intended to be transferred using a metric such as fidelity or trace distance. This would also account for the error pertaining to imperfectly restricting the coupling interaction strength to the first order due to the weak approximation.
Due to the flexibility in choice of the resource state with regard to dimensionality as well as purity, the protocol can, in principle, be implemented in all architectures [@yonezawa2004demonstration; @nielsen1998complete; @PhysRevLett.118.160501; @xu2010experimental] that admit at least one kind of non-product resources – whether shared Bell pairs, Laguerre Gauss (LG)-mode pointer states with non-zero orbital angular momentum (OAM), or entangled multi-mode Gaussian states, among others. This also opens the tantalizing possibility of implementing the protocol by constructing quantum communication networks involving more than two parties [@bae2005three; @pirandola2005conditioning; @pirandola2015advances; @yonezawa2004demonstration; @hu2016experimental], even when it is difficult to maintain a high degree of multipartite entanglement.
*Conclusion and outlook.—* In essence, we have developed a method to transfer information of an unknown quantum state of any known dimensions, encompassing continuous variable states, from one party to another spatially separated party using a non-product bipartite quantum state of any dimensionality as a resource. The fundamental principle underlying *RSD* as well as other quantum communication protocols like teleportation [@bennett1993teleporting] and remote state preparation (*RSP*) [@pati2000minimum; @lo2000classical; @bennett2001remote] is the creation of *transitive correlation* between parts $ I $ and $ B $ due to the von Neumann interaction [@von1955mathematical] and the subsequent entanglement caused between $ I $ and $ A $ and the correlation (encompassing non-product nature of all states in our case) which is already present between $ A $ and $ B $. In case of teleportation, the von Neumann interaction is strong and translates to the *C-NOT* gate for qubit registers [@nielsen2010quantum]. For *RSP*, the strong interaction translates to a *C-U* gate (controlled unitary [@nielsen2010quantum]), where the rotation $U$ is determined by Alice’s knowledge of the quantum state which is to be prepared at Bob’s end. The transitive correlation facilitates information sharing between spatially separated parts. In this protocol, we operationally exploit all correlations manifested in any non-product state [@roszak2015relation; @wiseman2007steering; @buscemi2012all; @guo2014quantum; @masanes2008all; @peres1996separability; @maccone2015complementarity; @PhysRevLett.104.140404; @PhysRevA.73.022311; @PhysRevA.81.052318] using local operations and classical communication. In light of this, it has become imperative to establish robust non-locality criteria [@bell1964einstein; @roszak2015relation; @werner1989quantum; @wiseman2007steering; @masanes2008all; @buscemi2012all; @silva2015multiple; @gisin1991bell] which encompass such wide class of correlations.
On the lines similar to *Maccone and Rusconi* [@maccone2014state], one may be able to perform an analysis comparing this protocol to its conventional analogue: teleportation followed by state tomography. Such an analysis, of course, would be possible only if a given resource state can be used to teleport the state of interest. For the many state-resource pairs where this is not possible, the protocol may serve as an alternative method for quantum state transfer provided a reliable state preparation mechanism is in place at the receiver’s end. While the protocol is trivially secure against attack by a classical eavesdropper (assuming he even knows the basis), it would be interesting to investigate security against an attack by a quantum eavesdropper as done for teleportation [@PhysRevA.64.010301].
In addition to quantum information transfer, remote determination of a single weak value in itself is useful in that all of the characteristics of the weak value and the weak measurement are now available to be explored remotely. These include parameter estimation via weak value amplification [@coto2017power], resolution of quantum paradoxes etc. \[see *Dressel et. al.* [@dressel2014colloquium] for an instructive review\]. During the development of the protocol, we introduced an entity called the weak-partial-value, where the interaction and post-selection is performed only on a part of a non-product state. It can be generalized to an entire class wherein Hilbert space selective weak interaction(s) and post-selection(s) are performed. Such quantities might indeed arise when the protocol is extended to enable communication between more than two parties. It is therefore worthwhile investigating the properties, their implications, and the operational significance of the weak-partial-value. The protocol could be extended to enable information transfer of mixed states if one is able to remotely determine the joint weak values and use these to express the joint weak averages which constitute all elements of the density matrix [@lundeen2012procedure]. Although it is difficult to achieve this for a general pointer state, it could be possible with the non-product tripartite version of specific pointers like the separable(on one part) Gaussian [@PhysRevLett.92.130402] or the LG-mode pointer states [@PhysRevLett.109.040401] with non-zero OAM.
**Acknowledgements:** We are grateful to Dipankar Home, T. S. Mahesh, Arun Kumar Pati, Anil Shaji, Ujjwal Sen, Giuseppe Vallone, Lev Vaidman and Raul Coto for useful feedback. Special thanks to Manish Gupta for discussions on noise in optical fibers and to an anonymous referee for insightful comments. V. R. P. acknowledges support from the DST, Govt. of India through the INSPIRE scheme and the hospitality of Bose Institute. S. K. acknowledges the support of a fellowship from Bose Institute. Research at HRI is supported by the DAE, Govt. of India.
*Note added.—* After completion of this manuscript, we were made aware of a slightly related work by *Pati and Singh* [@pati2013weak]. There, the post-selection is performed by Bob, dimensions of the system state and the resource state are interdependent, and the method depends on the entanglement of the resource state.
Supplemental Materials
======================
Protocol algebraic details – imaginary part of weak value
---------------------------------------------------------
1. Bob’s unnormalized state corresponding to the measurement of the imaginary part of the weak value: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_B^{un} &=& \Tr_{I,A} ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{tw}) \nonumber\\
&=& \Tr_{I,A} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v (\openone + ig\hat{\Pi}_I \otimes \hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{I} \otimes \rho_{AB} (\openone - ig\hat{\Pi}_I \otimes \hat{A} \otimes \openone)) \nonumber\\
&\approx& \Tr_{I,A} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v (\rho_{I} \otimes \rho_{AB} + ig\hat{\Pi}_I \rho_{I} \otimes (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) (\openone - ig\hat{\Pi}_I \otimes \hat{A} \otimes \openone)) \nonumber\\
&=& \Tr_{I,A} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v (\rho_{I} \otimes \rho_{AB} - ig \rho_{I} \hat{\Pi}_I \otimes \rho_{AB} ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone) + ig\hat{\Pi}_I \rho_{I} \otimes (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) ) \nonumber\\
&=& \Tr_{I,A} ( (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I} \otimes \rho_{AB}) - ig \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I} \hat{\Pi}_I \otimes \rho_{AB} ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone) + ig ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \hat{\Pi}_I \rho_{I} ) \otimes (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) \nonumber\\
&=& \Tr_{I} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I}) ( ( \Tr_{A} ( \rho_{AB}) - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* \Tr_{A} ( \rho_{AB} ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone)) + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_{A} ( (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) )).
\end{aligned}$$
2. Normalizing the above state:\
Cyclic property of the trace allows us to write $ \Tr_{A} ( \rho_{AB} ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone)) = \Tr_{A} ( (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) $. Bob’s initial state is $ \Tr_{A} ( \rho_{AB}) \equiv \rho_B^{in} $. Thus, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_B^{un} &\approx& \Tr_{I} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I}) (\rho_B^{in} - 2 g \Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_{A} ((\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}) ).
\end{aligned}$$ Further, using $ \Tr (\rho_B^{in}) = 1 $: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{imbun}
\rho_{B}^N = \frac{\rho_{B}^{un}}{\Tr(\rho_B^{un})} &\approx& \frac{\bigg(\rho_B^{in} - 2 g \Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_{A} ((\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}) \bigg)}{\bigg( 1 - 2 g \Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr ( (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) \bigg)}.
\end{aligned}$$ In line with the weak approximation, one can bring the denominator to the numerator and Taylor expand up to the first order in $g$: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_B^N &\approx& \bigg( \rho_B^{in} - 2 g \Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_{A} ((\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}) \bigg) \bigg(1 + 2 g \Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr ((\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}) \bigg) \nonumber\\
&=& \rho_B^{in} + 2g \Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr((\hat{A} \otimes \openone)\rho_{AB}) \rho_{B}^{in} - 2g \Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_A ((\hat{A} \otimes \openone)\rho_{AB}) \nonumber\\
&=& \rho_B^{in} + 2 g \Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \bigg(\Tr ((\hat{A} \otimes \openone)\rho_{AB})\rho_{B}^{in} - \Tr_{A} ((\hat{A} \otimes \openone)\rho_{AB})\bigg).
\end{aligned}$$
3. Bob’s expectation value: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \hat{B} \rangle_f^{Im} &=& \Tr (\hat{B} \rho_B^N) \nonumber\\
&\approx& \Tr(\hat{B} \rho_B^{in}) + 2 g \Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \bigg( \Tr ((\hat{A}\otimes \openone)\rho_{AB}) \Tr(\hat{B}\rho_B^{in}) - \Tr(\hat{B} \Tr_{A} ((\hat{A} \otimes \openone)\rho_{AB}))\bigg).
\end{aligned}$$
Protocol algebraic details – real part of weak value
----------------------------------------------------
1. Bob’s unnormalized state: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_B^{un} &=& \Tr_{I,A} ((\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \otimes \hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{tw}) \nonumber\\
&\approx& \Tr_{I,A} ((\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \otimes \hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\openone + ig\hat{\Pi}_I \otimes \hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{I} \otimes \rho_{AB} (\openone - ig\hat{\Pi}_I \otimes \hat{A} \otimes \openone)) \nonumber\\
&=& \Tr_{I,A} ((\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \otimes \hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\rho_{I} \otimes \rho_{AB} + ig\hat{\Pi}_I \rho_{I} \otimes (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) (\openone - ig\hat{\Pi}_I \otimes \hat{A} \otimes \openone)) \nonumber\\
&=& \Tr_{I,A} ((\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \otimes \hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\rho_{I} \otimes \rho_{AB} - ig \rho_{I} \hat{\Pi}_I \otimes \rho_{AB} ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone) + ig\hat{\Pi}_I \rho_{I} \otimes (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) ) \nonumber\\
&=& \Tr_{I,A} ( (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I} \otimes (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} - ig \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I} \hat{\Pi}_I \otimes (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone) + ig \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \hat{\Pi}_I \rho_{I} \otimes (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) ) \nonumber\\
&=& \Tr_{I} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I}) ( ( \Tr_{A} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}) - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* \Tr_{A} ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone)) + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_{A} ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) )).
\end{aligned}$$ Taking the partial trace operation over $ I$ and $ A $ inside the parenthesis, one finds: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_B^{un} &\approx& ( ( \Tr_{I} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I}) \Tr_{A} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}) - ig \Tr_{I} ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I} \hat{\Pi}_I) \Tr_{A}( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone)) \nonumber\\ %\nonumber\\
&& + ig \Tr_{I} ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \hat{\Pi}_I \rho_{I}) \Tr_{A} ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) )) \nonumber\\
&=& \Tr_{I} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I}) ( ( \Tr_{A} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}) - ig \Tr_{I} ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I} \hat{\Pi}_I) \Tr_{A}( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone)) \nonumber\\
&& + ig \Tr_{I} ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \hat{\Pi}_I \rho_{I}) \Tr_{A} ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) )) \nonumber\\
&=& \Tr_{I} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I}) ( ( \Tr_{A} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}) - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* \Tr_{A} ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone)) + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_{A} ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) )). \nonumber\\
\end{aligned}$$
2. Trace of the unnormalized state: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{Tr} (\rho_b^{un})
&\approx& \text{Tr} ( \text{Tr}_{I} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I}) ( ( \text{Tr}_{A} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}) - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* \text{Tr}_{A}( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone)) + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \text{Tr} ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) ))) \nonumber\\
&=& \text{Tr}_{I} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I}) ( ( \text{Tr} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}) - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* \text{Tr}( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone)) + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \text{Tr} ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) ))\nonumber\\
&=& \text{Tr}_{I} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I}) \text{Tr} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}) ( ( 1 - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* ( \hat{A} )_{w'}^* + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w ( \hat{A} )_{w'} )).
\end{aligned}$$
3. Now, let us normalize Bob’s state using its norm in the denominator: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{rebunn}
\rho_B^{N} = \frac{\rho_B^{un}}{\Tr (\rho_B^{un})} \nonumber\\
\approx \frac{ \Tr_{I} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I}) ( ( \Tr_{A} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}) - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* \Tr_{A}( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone)\rho_{AB} ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone)) + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_{A} ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) }{ \Tr_{I} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I}) \Tr ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}) ( 1 - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* ( \hat{A} )_{w'}^* + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w ( \hat{A} )_{w'} )}.
\end{gathered}$$ Using the weak approximation, the inverse of the denominator can be Taylor expanded up to the first order in $g$: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_B^{N} &\approx& \frac{1}{\Tr ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB})} ( \Tr_{A} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}) - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* \Tr_{A}( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone)) \nonumber\\
&& + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_{A} ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} )) ( 1 + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* ( \hat{A} )_{w'}^* - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w ( \hat{A} )_{w'} ) \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{\Tr ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB})} ( \Tr_{A} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}) + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* ( \hat{A} )_{w'}^* \Tr_{A} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB})
- ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w ( \hat{A} )_{w'}\Tr_{A} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}) \nonumber\\
&& - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* \Tr_{A}( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone)) + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_{A} ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} )).
\end{aligned}$$
4. Bob’s expectation value: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \hat{B} \rangle_f^{Re} &=& \Tr (\hat{B}\rho_B^{N}) \nonumber\\
&\approx& \frac{1}{\Tr ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB})} \bigg[ \Tr ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\openone \otimes \hat{B}) \rho_{AB}) + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* ( \hat{A} )_{w'}^*\Tr ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\openone \otimes \hat{B}) \rho_{AB}) \nonumber\\
&& - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w ( \hat{A} )_{w'}\Tr ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\openone \otimes \hat{B}) \rho_{AB}) - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* \Tr ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\openone \otimes \hat{B}) \rho_{AB} ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone)) \nonumber\\
&& + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\openone \otimes \hat{B}) (\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB} ) \bigg] \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{\text{Tr} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB})} \bigg[ \text{Tr} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\openone \otimes \hat{B}) \rho_{AB}) - ig \Re ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w (2 i \Im ( \hat{A} )_{w'}\text{Tr} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\openone \otimes \hat{B}) \rho_{AB}) \nonumber\\
&& - \text{Tr} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\openone \otimes \hat{B}) [(\hat{A} \otimes \openone), \rho_{AB}] )) + g \Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w ( 2 \Re ( \hat{A} )_{w'} \text{Tr} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\openone \otimes \hat{B}) \rho_{AB}) + \nonumber\\
&& \text{Tr} ((\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) (\openone \otimes \hat{B}) \{ (\hat{A} \otimes \openone), \rho_{AB} \} ))\bigg],
\end{aligned}$$ where $ [x,y] $ and $\{x,y\} $ denote the commutator and the anticommutator respectively.
Algebraic details: necessary and sufficient conditions
------------------------------------------------------
1. Non-product nature as a necessary condition for the first set:\
Substituting $ \rho_{AB} = \rho_{A} \otimes \rho_{B} $ in Eq. 2, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_{B}^N = \frac{\rho_{B}^{un}}{\Tr(\rho_B^{un})}
&\approx& \frac{\rho_B - 2 g \Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_{A} ((\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{A} \otimes \rho_{B}) }{ \bigg(\rho_B - 2 g \Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr ((\hat{A} \otimes \openone) \rho_{A} \otimes \rho_{B}) \bigg)} \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{(1 - 2 g \Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_{A} (\hat{A} \rho_{A}) ) \rho_B}{(1 - 2 g \Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_A (\hat{A} \rho_{A} ) ) \Tr_B \rho_{B}} \nonumber\\
&=& \rho_B.
\end{aligned}$$
2. Non-product nature as a necessary condition for the second set:\
For the second set of experimental runs, substituting the product form in Eq. 7, we have: $$\begin{gathered}
\rho_{B}^N = \frac{\rho_{B}^{un}}{\Tr(\rho_B^{un})} \approx \nonumber\\
\frac{\Tr_{I} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I}) ( ( \Tr_{A} (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \rho_{A}) \rho_B - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* \Tr_{A}( \hat{\pi}_{A}^l \rho_{A} \hat{A} ) \rho_B + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_{A} ( \hat{\pi}_{A}^l \hat{A} \rho_{A} ) \rho_B ))}{\Tr_{I} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I}) \Tr(\rho_B) ( ( \Tr_{A} (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \rho_{A}) - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* \Tr_{A}( \hat{\pi}_{A}^l \rho_{A} \hat{A} ) + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_{A} ( \hat{\pi}_{A}^l \hat{A} \rho_{A} ) ))} \nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
= \frac{ \Tr_{I} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I}) ( ( \Tr_{A} (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \rho_{A}) - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* \Tr_{A}( \hat{\pi}_{A}^l \rho_{A} \hat{A} ) + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_{A} ( \hat{\pi}_{A}^l \hat{A} \rho_{A} ) )) \rho_B}{\Tr_{I} (\hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I}) ( ( \Tr_{A} (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \rho_{A}) - ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w^* \Tr_{A}( \hat{\pi}_{A}^l \rho_{A} \hat{A} ) + ig ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w \Tr_{A} ( \hat{\pi}_{A}^l \hat{A} \rho_{A} ) ))} \nonumber\\
= \rho_B.
\end{gathered}$$ Like in the case of the first set of experiments, here too, Bob’s state contains no signature of the weak measurement performed by Alice if $ \rho_{AB} $ is a product state. Thus, it is proven by contradiction that non-product form of the resource state is a necessary condition for this protocol to work.
Algebraic details: Bell-diagonal state as resource
--------------------------------------------------
1. Imaginary part: $$\Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w = \frac{ - \langle \hat{B} \rangle_f^{Im} }{2g(m_1 n_1 c_1 + m_2 n_2 c_2 + m_3 n_3 c_3)}.$$ Here, $ \langle \rangle^{Im} $ represents expectation value obtained in the set of experiments which correspond to obtaining the imaginary part of the weak value.
2. Real part: $$\begin{gathered}
\Re ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w = \nonumber\\
\dfrac{ 2 g \Im ( \hat{\Pi}_I )_w (m_1 n_1 c_1 + m_2 n_2 c_2 + m_3 n_3 c_3) - \langle \hat{B} \rangle_f^{Re} - m_3 c_3 }{2g(m_1 n_2 c_1 - m_2 n_1 c_2)}.
\end{gathered}$$ Here too, $ \langle \rangle^{Re} $ represents expectation value obtained in the set of experiments which correspond to obtaining the real part of the weak value.
3. Number of classical bits to be communicated:\
\
The total state after weak interaction is $ \rho_{twk} = U \rho_{I} \otimes \rho_{AB} U^\dagger \approx \rho_{I} \otimes \rho_{AB} + ig [\ket{a_k}\bra{a_k}, \rho_{I}] \otimes [\hat{A} \otimes \openone, \rho_{AB}] $. Similarly, $ \rho_{twk}^2 = U \rho_{I}^2 \otimes \rho_{AB}^2 U^\dagger \approx \rho_{I}^2 \otimes \rho_{AB}^2 + ig \ket{a_k}\bra{a_k} \rho_{I}^2 \otimes ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone \rho_{AB}^2 ) - ig \rho_{I}^2 \ket{a_k}\bra{a_k} \otimes ( \rho_{AB}^2 \hat{A} \otimes \openone) $. Here, we have chosen $ \hat{\Pi}^k_I = \ket{a_k}\bra{a_k} $. Substituting $ \hat{\pi}_{I}^v = \ket{b_0} \bra{b_0} = (1/d) \sum_{a,b = 0}^{d-1} \ket{a}\bra{b} $ and $ \rho_{I}^2 = \rho_{I} = \sum_{a,b = 0}^{d-1} \psi_a \psi_b^\ast \ket{a}\bra{b} $, we get: $$\begin{aligned}
C &=& N \sum_{k = 0}^{d-1} \bigg[ \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{twk}^2 ) + \Tr ( ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \otimes \hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) \rho_{twk}^2 ) \bigg] \nonumber\\
&\approx& N \sum_{k = 0}^{d-1} \bigg[ \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_I \otimes \rho_{AB}^2 + i g \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \ket{a_k}\bra{a_k} \rho_{I} \otimes ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone \rho_{AB}^2 ) - i g \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I} \ket{a_k}\bra{a_k} \otimes ( \rho_{AB}^2 \hat{A} \otimes \openone ) ) \nonumber\\
&& + \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_I \otimes ( (\hat{\pi}^l_A \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}^2 ) + ig \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \ket{a_k}\bra{a_k} \rho_{I} \otimes (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone \rho_{AB}^2) - ig \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I} \ket{a_k}\bra{a_k} \otimes (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) ( \rho_{AB}^2 \hat{A} \otimes \openone) ) \bigg] \nonumber\\
&=& N \sum_{k = 0}^{d-1} \bigg[ \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_I ) \Tr ( \rho_{AB}^2 ) + i g \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \ket{a_k}\bra{a_k} \rho_{I} ) \Tr ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone \rho_{AB}^2 ) - i g \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I} \ket{a_k}\bra{a_k} ) \Tr ( \rho_{AB}^2 \hat{A} \otimes \openone ) \nonumber\\
&& + \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_I ) \Tr ( (\hat{\pi}^l_A \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}^2 ) + ig \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \ket{a_k}\bra{a_k} \rho_{I} ) \Tr (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \hat{A} \otimes \openone \rho_{AB}^2) \nonumber\\
&& - ig \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I} \ket{a_k}\bra{a_k} ) \Tr ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) ( \rho_{AB}^2 \hat{A} \otimes \openone) ) \bigg] \nonumber\\
&=& N \bigg[ \sum_{k = 0}^{d-1} ( \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_I ) \Tr ( \rho_{AB}^2 ) ) + i g \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \sum_{k = 0}^{d-1} \ket{a_k}\bra{a_k} \rho_{I} ) \Tr ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone \rho_{AB}^2 ) - i g \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I} \sum_{k = 0}^{d-1} \ket{a_k}\bra{a_k} ) \Tr ( \rho_{AB}^2 \hat{A} \otimes \openone ) \nonumber\\
&& + \sum_{k = 0}^{d-1} \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_I ) \Tr ( (\hat{\pi}^l_A \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}^2 ) + ig \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \sum_{k = 0}^{d-1} \ket{a_k}\bra{a_k} \rho_{I} ) \Tr (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \hat{A} \otimes \openone \rho_{AB}^2) \nonumber\\
&& - ig \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I} \sum_{k = 0}^{d-1} \ket{a_k}\bra{a_k} ) \Tr ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) ( \rho_{AB}^2 \hat{A} \otimes \openone) ) \bigg];
%Put the summation inside the trace, show identity and you are done.
\end{aligned}$$ since $\sum_{k = 0}^{d-1} \ket{a_k}\bra{a_k} = \openone$ and $\sum_{k = 0}^{d-1} 1 = d $, we have, $$\begin{aligned}
C &\approx& N \bigg[ d \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_I ) \Tr ( \rho_{AB}^2 ) + i g \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I} ) \Tr ( \hat{A} \otimes \openone \rho_{AB}^2 ) - i g \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I} ) \Tr ( \rho_{AB}^2 \hat{A} \otimes \openone ) \nonumber\\
&& + d \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_I ) \Tr ( (\hat{\pi}^l_A \otimes \openone) \rho_{AB}^2 ) + ig \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I} ) \Tr (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \hat{A} \otimes \openone \rho_{AB}^2) \nonumber\\
&& - ig \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_{I} ) \Tr ( (\hat{\pi}_{A}^l \otimes \openone) ( \rho_{AB}^2 \hat{A} \otimes \openone) ) \bigg].
\end{aligned}$$ Substituting $ \hat{A} = \hat{n}.\vec{\sigma} $ and $ \hat{\pi}_A^l = \ket{\sigma_z = -1}\bra{\sigma_z = -1} $, we get $$\begin{aligned}
C &\approx& N [d \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_I ) \Tr ( \rho_{AB}^2 ) + (d/2) \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_I ) \Tr ( \rho_{AB}^2 )] \nonumber\\
&=& (3/2) N d \Tr ( \hat{\pi}_{I}^v \rho_I ) \Tr ( \rho_{AB}^2 ).
\end{aligned}$$ As expected, in the second set of experimental runs, post-selection succeeds exactly half the number of the times it does in the first set. We also see that the success probability is unlikely to go to zero for any state of interest that is to be transferred, since the solution space for $ \sum_{k = 0}^{d - 1} a_k = 0 $ is negligible compared to rest of the possibilities.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Sitabhra Sinha and Raj Kumar Pan
title: |
Blockbusters, Bombs and Sleepers:\
[The income distribution of movies]{}
---
The distribution of gross earnings of movies released each year show a distribution having a power-law tail with Pareto exponent $\alpha \simeq 2$. While this offers interesting parallels with income distributions of individuals, it is also clear that it cannot be explained by simple asset exchange models, as movies do not interact with each other directly. In fact, movies (because of the large quantity of data available on their earnings) provide the best entry-point for studying the dynamics of how “a hit is born” and the resulting distribution of popularity (of products or ideas). In this paper, we show evidence of Pareto law for movie income, as well as, an analysis of the time-evolution of income.
Introduction {#sec:1}
============
While the personal income distribution has been a subject of study for a long time [@Par97], it is only recently that other kinds of income distribution, e.g., the income of companies [@Oku99], have come under close scrutiny. More than a century ago, Vilfredo Pareto had reported that the income distribution of individuals or households follows a power law with an universal exponent of $\alpha = 1.5$. While recent studies have shown this claim about universality to be untenable, it has indeed been extensively verified that the higher-end (i.e., the tail) of the income, as well as wealth, distribution follows a power law. Whether similar power laws occur for other types of income distribution is therefore of high topical interest.
The income (or gross) of movies released commercially in theaters every year provides an opportunity to study a very different kind of income distribution from those usually studied. Not only is movie income a very well-defined quantity, but high-quality data is publicly available from web-sites such as [*The Numbers*]{} [@numbers] and [*Movie Times*]{} [@movietimes]. The income distribution, as well, as the time evolution of the income, can be empirically determined with high accuracy. Movie income distribution is also of theoretical interest because such a distribution clearly cannot be explained in terms of asset exchange models, one of the more popular class of models used for explaining the nature of personal income distribution. As movies don’t exchange anything between themselves, one needs a different theoretical framework to explain the observed distribution for movie income [@Sin04b].
Even more significantly, movie income can be considered to be a measure of popularity [@Sin04]. Seen in this light, this distribution is a prominent member of the class of popularity distributions, that looks at how the success of various products (or ideas) in appealing to public taste is distributed. Examples of such distributions include the popularity of scientific papers as measured by the number of citations [@Red98], books as measured by the sales figures from an online bookstore [@Sor04], etc. Of course, income is not the only measure of a movies’ popularity; e.g., one possibility is to use the number of votes per film from registered users of IMDB [@imdb]. However, such voting may not reflect the true popularity of movies as it costs nothing to give a vote. On the other hand, when one is voting with one’s wallet, by going to see a movie in a theater, it is a far more reliable indicator of the film’s popularity.
A Pareto Law for Movies {#sec:2}
=======================
Previous studies of movie income distribution [@Sor99; @Dev99; @Dev03] had looked at limited data sets and found some evidence for a power-law fit. A more rigorous demonstration has been given in Ref. [@Sin04], where data for all movies released in theaters across USA during 1997-2003 were analysed. It was shown that the rank distribution of the opening gross as well as the total gross of the highest earning movies for all these years follow a power-law with an exponent close to $-1/2$. As the rank distribution exponent is simply the inverse of the cumulative gross distribution exponent [@Red98], this gives a power-law tail for the income distribution with a Pareto exponent $\alpha \simeq 2$. It is very interesting that this value is identical to that of corresponding exponents for citations of scientific papers [@Red98] and book sales [@Sor04], and is suggestive of an universal exponent for many different popularity distributions.
![Income distribution of movies released in theaters across USA for the year 2004: (Left) Scaled rank-ordered plot of movies according to opening gross (squares) and total gross (diamonds). The rank $k$ has been scaled by the total number of movies released that year ($N = 326$) while the gross ($G_O, G_T$) has been scaled by its average. The broken line of slope $-0.5$ has been shown for visual reference. The inset shows the total gross earned by a movie, plotted against its opening gross (in millions of \$). As indicated by the data, there is a high degree of correlation between the two. (Right) Scaled rank-ordered plot of movies according to weekend gross, $G_W$, for six arbitrarily chosen weekends. The top 89 movies in a weekend are shown, and the weekend gross of each movie has been scaled by the average weekend gross of all movies playing that weekend. The inset shows the average of the scaled rank-ordered plots for all the weekends in 2004.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](fig1a.eps "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"} ![Income distribution of movies released in theaters across USA for the year 2004: (Left) Scaled rank-ordered plot of movies according to opening gross (squares) and total gross (diamonds). The rank $k$ has been scaled by the total number of movies released that year ($N = 326$) while the gross ($G_O, G_T$) has been scaled by its average. The broken line of slope $-0.5$ has been shown for visual reference. The inset shows the total gross earned by a movie, plotted against its opening gross (in millions of \$). As indicated by the data, there is a high degree of correlation between the two. (Right) Scaled rank-ordered plot of movies according to weekend gross, $G_W$, for six arbitrarily chosen weekends. The top 89 movies in a weekend are shown, and the weekend gross of each movie has been scaled by the average weekend gross of all movies playing that weekend. The inset shows the average of the scaled rank-ordered plots for all the weekends in 2004.[]{data-label="fig:1"}](fig1b.eps "fig:"){width="0.51\linewidth"}
Fig. \[fig:1\] (left) demonstrates the Pareto law of movie income for the movies released across theaters in USA in 2004. Both the opening gross, $G_O$, as well as the total gross, $G_T$, (scaled by their respective averages over all the movies released that year) show a power-law behavior with the same exponent. The similarity of these two curves can be partially explained from the inset figure, which shows that there is strong degree of correlation between the income of a movie at its opening, and its total income. Movies which open poorly but perform well later ([*sleepers*]{}) are relatively uncommon and are seen as the points deviating from the linear trend in the inset figure. Arguably, a better comparison with the Pareto distribution of personal income can be made by looking at the income distribution of movies running on a particular weekend \[Fig. \[fig:1\] (right)\]. However, the smaller number of data points available for such a plot means that the scatter is larger. As a result, it is difficult to make a judgement on the nature of the weekend income distribution.
Time-evolution of movie income {#sec:3}
==============================
In this section, we focus on how the gross of a movie changes with time after its theatrical release, until it is withdrawn from circulation. Based on how they perform over this time, movies can be classified into [*blockbusters*]{} having both high opening and high total gross, [*bombs*]{} (or flops) having low opening as well as low total gross and [*sleepers*]{} that have low opening but high total gross. Not surprisingly, the corresponding theatrical lifespans also tend to be high to intermediate for blockbusters, low for bombs and high to very high for sleepers.
Consider a classic blockbuster movie, [*Spiderman*]{} (released in 2002). Fig. \[fig:2\] (left) shows how the daily gross decays with time after release, with regularly spaced peaks corresponding to large audiences on weekends. To remove the intra-week fluctuations and observe the overall trend, we focus on the time series of weekend gross. This shows an exponential decay, a feature seen not only for almost all other blockbusters, but for bombs as well \[Fig. \[fig:2\] (right)\]. The only difference between blockbusters and bombs is in their initial, or opening, gross. However, sleepers behave very differently, showing an increase in their weekend gross and reaching their peak performance (in terms of income) quite a few weeks after release, before undergoing an exponential decay.
![ Classifying movies according to time-evolution of the gross (income): (Left) Daily gross of a typical blockbuster movie (Spiderman) showing weekly periodic fluctuations (with gross peaking on weekends), while the overall trend is exponential decay. (Right) Comparing examples of blockbusters (Spiderman), bombs (Bulletproof Monk) and sleepers (My Big Fat Greek Wedding) in terms of the time-evolution of weekend gross. Time is measured in weekends to remove intra-week fluctuations. []{data-label="fig:2"}](fig2a.eps "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"} ![ Classifying movies according to time-evolution of the gross (income): (Left) Daily gross of a typical blockbuster movie (Spiderman) showing weekly periodic fluctuations (with gross peaking on weekends), while the overall trend is exponential decay. (Right) Comparing examples of blockbusters (Spiderman), bombs (Bulletproof Monk) and sleepers (My Big Fat Greek Wedding) in terms of the time-evolution of weekend gross. Time is measured in weekends to remove intra-week fluctuations. []{data-label="fig:2"}](compare_movies_fig_a.eps "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"}\
To make a quantitative analysis of the relative performance of movies in a given year (say 2002), we define the persistence time $\tau$ of a movie as the time (measured in number of weekends) upto which it is being shown at theaters. Fig. \[fig:3\] (left) shows that most movies run for upto about 10 weekends, after which there is a steep drop in their survival probability. The tail is almost entirely composed of sleepers, the best performance being by [*My Big Fat Greek Wedding*]{} ($\tau = 51$ weekends). The inset shows the time-evolution of the average number of theaters showing a movie. It suggests an initial power-law decay followed by an exponential cut-off. We also look at the time-evolution of the gross per theater, $g$. This is a better measure of movie popularity, because a movie that is being shown in a large number of theaters has a bigger income simply on account of higher accessibility for the potential audience. Unlike the overall gross that decays exponentially with time, the gross per theater shows a power-law decay with exponent $\beta \simeq -1$ \[Fig. \[fig:3\] (right)\].
![Time evolution of movie income for all movies released across theaters in USA in the year 2002. (Left) Cumulative probability distribution of movie persistence time $\tau$ (in terms of weekends). The broken line shows fit with a stretched exponential distribution $P ( x ) = exp (-[x/x_0]^c)$, with $x_0
\simeq 16.5$ and $c \simeq 1.75$. The inset shows the number of theaters (scaled by the average number of theaters that a movie was shown in its theatrical lifespan) in which a movie runs after $W$ weekends, averaged over the number of movies that ran for that long. (Right) Weekend gross per theater for a movie (scaled by the average weekend gross over its theatrical lifespan), $g ( W )$, after it has run for $W$ weekends, averaged over the number of movies that ran for that long. The initial decline follows a power-law with exponent $\beta \simeq -1$ (the fit is shown by the broken line). []{data-label="fig:3"}](fig3a.ps "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"} ![Time evolution of movie income for all movies released across theaters in USA in the year 2002. (Left) Cumulative probability distribution of movie persistence time $\tau$ (in terms of weekends). The broken line shows fit with a stretched exponential distribution $P ( x ) = exp (-[x/x_0]^c)$, with $x_0
\simeq 16.5$ and $c \simeq 1.75$. The inset shows the number of theaters (scaled by the average number of theaters that a movie was shown in its theatrical lifespan) in which a movie runs after $W$ weekends, averaged over the number of movies that ran for that long. (Right) Weekend gross per theater for a movie (scaled by the average weekend gross over its theatrical lifespan), $g ( W )$, after it has run for $W$ weekends, averaged over the number of movies that ran for that long. The initial decline follows a power-law with exponent $\beta \simeq -1$ (the fit is shown by the broken line). []{data-label="fig:3"}](fig3b.ps "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"}
Conclusions
===========
To conclude, we have shown that movie income distribution has a power-law tail with Pareto exponent $\alpha \simeq 2$. This is suggestive of a possible universal exponent for many popularity distributions. The exponent is identical for the opening as as well as the total gross distribution. Since the Pareto tail appears at the opening week itself, it is unlikely that the mechanism for generating this behavior involves information exchange between moviegoers. Also, as mentioned before, conventional asset exchange models don’t apply in this case. Therefore, explaining the Pareto tail of the income distribution, as well as the distribution of the time-evolution of movie income, is an interesting challenge to theories of distributions with power-law tails.
[We would like to acknowledge helpful discussions with S. Raghavendra, S. S. Manna, D. Stauffer, P. Richmond and B. K. Chakrabarti.]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose nonparametric estimators of the occupation measure and the occupation density of the diffusion coefficient (stochastic volatility) of a discretely observed Itô semimartingale on a fixed interval when the mesh of the observation grid shrinks to zero asymptotically. In a first step we estimate the volatility locally over blocks of shrinking length, and then in a second step we use these estimates to construct a sample analogue of the volatility occupation time and a kernel-based estimator of its density. We prove the consistency of our estimators and further derive bounds for their rates of convergence. We use these results to estimate nonparametrically the quantiles associated with the volatility occupation measure.'
address:
- |
J. Li\
G. Tauchen\
Department of Economics\
Duke University\
Durham, North Carolina 27708-0097\
USA\
\
- |
V. Todorov\
Department of Finance\
Northwestern University\
Evanston, Illinois 60208-2001\
USA\
author:
-
-
-
title: Volatility occupation times
---
,
Introduction
============
Continuous-time Itô semimartingales are used widely to model stochastic processes in various areas such as finance. The general Itô semimartingale process is given by $$\label{eqXintro} X_{t} = X_{0}+\int_{0}^{t}b_{s}\,ds+
\int_{0}^{t}\sigma_{s}\,dW_{s}+J_{t},$$ where $b_t$ and $\sigma_t$ are processes with càdlàg paths, $W_t$ is a Brownian motion and $J_t$ is a jump process; formal conditions are given in the next section. Inference for model (\[eqXintro\]) in the general case (either in a parametric or a nonparametric context) is quite complicated because of the many “layers of latency,” for example, as typical in financial applications, $\sigma_t$ and $J_t$ can have randomness not captured by $X_t$.
When $X$ is sampled at discrete times but with the mesh of the observation grid shrinking to zero, that is, high-frequency data of $X$ are available, the distinct pathwise behavior of the components in (\[eqXintro\]) can be used to nonparametrically separate them. Indeed, various techniques have been already proposed to estimate nonparametrically the integrated variance $\int_0^T\sigma_s^2\,ds$ over a specific interval $[0,T]$ (see, e.g., [@BNS06] and [@Ma1]), and more generally integrated variance measures of the form $\int_{0}^{T}g(\sigma_{s}^2)\,ds$, where $g(\cdot)$ is a continuous function with polynomial growth \[and there are more smoothness requirements on $g(\cdot)$ for determining the rate of convergence\]; see Theorems 3.4.1 and 9.4.1 in [@jacodprotter2012] and the recent work of [@JR].
This paper extends the existing literature on high-frequency nonparametric volatility estimation by developing a nonparametric jump-robust estimator of the occupation time of the latent volatility process $(V_{t})_{t\geq
0}\equiv(\sigma_{t}^2)_{t\geq0}$ where the volatility occupation time is defined by $$\label{eqot} F_{t}(x)=\int_{0}^{t}1_{\{V_{s}\leq x\}
}\,ds\qquad
\forall x>0,\ t\in [ 0,T ].$$ Evidently, the right-hand side of (\[eqot\]) is of the form $\int_0^tg(V_s)\,ds$ with $g(v) =
1_{\{v\leq x\}}$, which unlike earlier work is a discontinuous function.
If $F_{t} ( \cdot ) $ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure, its derivative $f_{t} ( \cdot ) $, that is, the volatility occupation density, is well-defined. By the Lebesgue differentiation theorem, the occupation density can be equivalently defined as $$\label{eqod} f_{t}(x)=\lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow0}\frac{1}{2\varepsilon}
\bigl(F_{t}(x+\varepsilon)-F_{t}(x-\varepsilon) \bigr).$$ In addition to estimating $F_t(x)$, in this paper we also develop a consistent estimator for the volatility occupation density $f_t(x)$ using the high-frequency record of $X$.
The occupation measure of the volatility process “summarizes” in a convenient way the information regarding the volatility behavior over the given time interval. Indeed, for any bounded (or nonnegative) Borel function $g(\cdot)$ (see, e.g., Theorem 6.4 of [@GH80]), we have $$\label{eqotheorem} \int_{0}^{t}g(V_{s})\,ds=
\int_{\mathbb{R}_{+}}g(x)f_{t}(x)\,dx=\int_{\mathbb
{R}_{+}}g(x)\,dF_{t}(x).$$ Thus, the occupation time and its density can be considered as the pathwise analogues of the cumulative distribution function and its density. Our interest in occupation times stems from the fact that they are natural measures of risk, particularly in nonstationary settings where invariant distributions do not exist; see, for example, the discussion in [@BP03]. Indeed, there has been a significant interest (both theoretically and in practice) in pricing options based on the occupation times of an underlying asset; see for example, [@Dassios] and [@Yor] and references therein. Here, we show how to measure nonparametrically occupation times associated with the volatility risk of the price process. As a by-product, we also estimate the corresponding quantiles of the actual path of the volatility process over the fixed time interval. Since the pathwise volatility quantiles are preserved under monotone transformations, they provide a convenient way of studying the variability of the volatility and the relationship of the latter with the volatility process itself.=-1
We summarize our estimation procedure as follows. We first split the fixed time interval into blocks of decreasing length and form local estimates of the unobserved stochastic variance over each of the blocks. The volatility estimates over the blocks are truncated variations (see, e.g., [@Ma1] and [@jacodprotter2012]), and we further allow for adaptive choice of the truncation level that makes use of some preliminary estimates of the stochastic variance. Then, our estimator of the volatility occupation time is simply the empirical cumulative distribution function of the local volatility estimates over the blocks. Analogously, we estimate the volatility occupation density from the local volatility estimates using kernel smoothing.
Our estimation problem can be compared with the recent work of [@JR]. Jacod and Rosenbaum [@JR] show that an estimator of $\int_0^Tg(\sigma_s^2)\,ds$, for $g(\cdot)$ a $C^3$ function, formed by plugging in local variance estimates formed over blocks of decreasing length, can achieve the efficient $\Delta_n^{-1/2}$ rate of convergence (for $\Delta_n$ being the length of the high-frequency intervals). Similar to [@JR], our estimator here is formed by plugging local variance estimates in our function of interest.
The main difference between the current work and [@JR] is that in our case the function $g(\cdot)$ in (\[eqotheorem\]) is discontinuous. As a result, the precision of estimating the volatility occupation time depends on the uniform rate of recovering the volatility process outside of the times of the “big” volatility jumps (with the size of the “big” jumps shrinking asymptotically to zero). Therefore, in the basic case when $X$ and $V$ are continuous, the rate of convergence of the volatility occupation time estimator is (almost) $\Delta_n^{-1/4}$ which, as we show in the paper, is the optimal uniform rate for recovering the volatility trajectory from high-frequency observations. By contrast, [@JR] derive a central limit theorem for the convergence of their estimator to $\int_0^Tg(\sigma_s^2)\,ds$ by making use of the assumed smoothness of $g$ and applying second-order Taylor expansion of the function $g$ evaluated at the local volatility estimator in their bias-correction and asymptotic negligibility arguments.
Finally, our inference for the volatility occupation time and its density can be compared with the estimation of occupation time and density of a recurrent Markov diffusion process from discrete observations of the process; see, for example, [@FZ93] and [@BP03]. The main difference is that here the state vector, and therefore the stochastic volatility, is not fully observed. Hence, we first need to recover nonparametrically the unobserved volatility trajectory, and the error associated with recovering the volatility trajectory determines the asymptotic behavior of our estimators.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[secsetup\] we introduce the formal setup and state our assumptions. In Section \[sec-c\] we develop our estimator of the volatility occupation measure and prove its consistency. In Section \[sec-r\] we derive bounds for the rate of convergence of the volatility occupation time estimator. Section \[sec-ker\] derives a consistent estimator for the volatility occupation density. Section \[secmc\] reports results from a Monte Carlo study of our estimation technique. Section \[secconcl\] concludes. Section \[sec-pf\] contains all proofs.
Setup and assumptions {#secsetup}
=====================
We start with introducing the formal setup and stating our assumptions about $X$. The process $X$ in (\[eqXintro\]) is defined on a filtered space $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},(\mathcal{F}_{t})_{t\geq0},\mathbb{P})$ with $b_t$ and $\sigma_t$ being adapted to the filtration. Further, the jump component $J_t$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqj}
J_{t}&=&\int
_{0}^{t}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\delta (
s,z ) 1_{ \{
{\vert}\delta ( s,z ) {\vert}\leq1 \}
} ( \mu -\nu ) ( ds,dz )
\nonumber
\\[-8pt]
\\[-8pt]
\nonumber
&&{}+\int_{0}^{t}\int
_{\mathbb{R}}\delta ( s,z ) 1_{ \{ {\vert}\delta ( s,z ) {\vert}>1 \}
}\mu ( ds,dz ),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ is a Poisson measure on $\mathbb{R}_{+}\times\mathbb{R}$ with compensator $\nu$ of the form $\nu ( dt,dz )
=dt\otimes
\lambda (dz ) $ for some $\sigma$-finite measure $\lambda$ on $\mathbb{R}$ and $\delta\dvtx \Omega\times\mathbb{R}_{+}\times
\mathbb
{R}\mapsto\mathbb{R}$ is a predictable function. Regularity conditions on $X_{t}$ are collected below.
\[assA\] Let $r\in [ 0,2 ] $ be a constant. The process $X$ is an Itô semimartingale given by (\[eqXintro\]) and (\[eqj\]), with $b_{t}$ locally bounded and $\sigma_{t}$ càdlàg. Moreover ${\vert}\delta ( \omega,t,z ) {\vert}\wedge1\leq\Gamma_{m} ( z ) $ for all $ ( \omega,t,z )
$ with $t\leq\tau_{m} ( \omega ) $, where $ ( \tau
_{m} ) $ is a localizing sequence of stopping times, and each function $\Gamma_{m}$ on $\mathbb{R}$ satisfies $\int_{\mathbb{R}}\Gamma
_{m} (
z ) ^{r}\lambda ( dz ) <\infty$.
Assumption \[assA\] can be viewed as a regularity-type condition. The coefficient $r$ in Assumption \[assA\] controls the degree of activity of the jump component $J$ and will play an important role in the rate of convergence of our estimator. We note that $r$ provides an upper bound for the (generalized) Blumenthal–Getoor index of $J_t$; see, for example, Lemma 3.2.1 in [@jacodprotter2012]. We next state our assumption for the volatility occupation time.
\[assB\] Fix $x\geq0$. We have $F_{T} (
\cdot
) $ a.s. differentiable with derivative $f_{T} ( \cdot
) $ in a neighborhood $\mathcal{N}_{x}$ containing $x$. Moreover, $\sup_{z\in
\mathcal{N}_{x}}\mathbb{E}[f_{T} ( z ) ]<\infty$.
Assumption \[assB\] is mainly concerned with the pathwise smoothness of the occupation time. The differentiability condition amounts to the existence of occupation density $f_{T} ( \cdot ) $, which is not a strong requirement; see, for example, [@GH80] and [@Protter]. The condition $\sup_{z\in\mathcal{N}_{x}}\mathbb{E}[f_{T} ( z ) ]<\infty$ only requires the temporal average (over $[ 0,T ] $) of the probability density of $V_{t}$ uniformly bounded in the neighborhood $\mathcal{N}_{x}$, which is satisfied by most stochastic volatility models. This condition is of course much weaker than requiring $\mathbb{E[}\sup_{z\in\mathcal{N}_{x}}f_{T} (
z )
]<\infty$, as the latter would demand more on the pathwise regularity of the occupation density.
Let $V_t$ solve the following stochastic differential equation: $$dV_t = a_t^{V}\,dt+s(V_t)\,dW_t^{V}+dJ_t^{V},$$ where $a_t^{V}$ is a locally bounded process, $W_t^{V}$ is a Brownian motion, $J_t^{V}$ is a finite-variational jump process and $s
(\cdot
)$ has twice continuously differentiable reciprocal. Assume further that $V$ has an invariant distribution which is $C^1$ in a neighborhood of $x$. Then Assumption \[assB\] holds. This follows from an application of Itô’s formula and Theorem IV.75 in [@Protter]. This example includes many parametric models of interest like the square-root diffusion model and the more general constant elasticity of variance model.
For some of the results we will need a stronger condition on the volatility occupation density, mainly its continuity which we state formally in the next assumption.
\[assBprime\] $F_{T} ( \cdot ) $ is a.s. continuously differentiable on $\mathbb{R}$ with derivative $f_{T}
(\cdot ) $.
Assumption \[assBprime\] is harder to verify than Assumption \[assB\]. Necessary and sufficient conditions for the continuity of the occupation density (local time) of a Borel right Markov process are discussed in [@EK07].
We finally state a slightly stronger condition on the volatility process that we will need for deriving the rate of convergence of our estimator.
\[assC\] The process $\sigma_{t}$ is an Itô semimartingale with the form $$\sigma_{t}=\sigma_{0}+\int_{0}^{t}
\tilde{b}_{s}\,ds+\int_{0}^{t}\tilde {
\sigma}_{s}\,dW_{s}+\int_{0}^{t}
\tilde{\sigma}_{s}^{\prime}\,dW_{s}^{\prime
}+\int
_{0}^{t}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\tilde{
\delta} ( s,z ) ( \mu -\nu ) ( ds,dz ),$$ where the processes $\tilde{b}$, $\tilde{\sigma}$, $\tilde{\sigma
}^{\prime}$ are locally bounded and adapted, $W^{\prime}$ is a Brownian motion orthogonal to $W$, and $\tilde{\delta} ( \cdot ) $ is a predictable function. Moreover $|\tilde{\delta} ( \omega,t,z ) |\wedge1\leq\tilde{\Gamma
}_{m} (
z ) $ for all $ ( \omega,t,z ) $ with $t\leq\tau
_{m} (
\omega ) $, where $ ( \tau_{m} ) $ is a localizing sequence of stopping times, and for some $\tilde{r}\in(0,2]$, each function $\tilde{\Gamma}_{m}$ on $\mathbb{R}$ satisfies $\int_{\mathbb{R}}\tilde
{\Gamma}_{m} ( z ) ^{\tilde{r}}\lambda ( dz ) <\infty$.
Assumption \[assC\] assumes that $\sigma_t$ is an Itô semimartingale, an assumption that is satisfied by most stochastic volatility models. We impose no restriction on the activity of the volatility jumps as well as the dependence between $\sigma_t$ and $X_t$, a generality that is important in practical applications (particularly in finance).
The estimator and its consistency {#sec-c}
=================================
We next introduce our estimator of the volatility occupation time and derive its consistency. We suppose that the process $X_t$ is observed at discrete times $i\Delta_n$, $i=0,1,\ldots,$ on $[0,T]$ for a fixed $T>0$ with the time lag $\Delta_n\rightarrow0$ when $n\rightarrow
\infty
$. The assumption for equidistant observations is merely for simplicity, and the theoretical results that follow (except Theorem \[thmevt\]) will continue to hold in the case of irregular (but nonrandom) sampling with $\Delta_n$ replaced by the mesh of the irregular observation grid. In what follows the high-frequency increment of any process $Y$ is denoted as $\Delta_{i}^{n}Y=Y_{i\Delta
_{n}}-Y_{ ( i-1 ) \Delta_{n}}$.
Our strategy of estimating $F_{T} ( \cdot ) $ is to first form an approximation of the volatility trajectory and then use the latter to form a sample analogue of $F_{T} ( \cdot ) $. To recover the volatility trajectory we construct local approximations for the spot variance process $V$ over blocks of shrinking length. To this end, let $k_{n}$ be a sequence of integers with $k_{n}\rightarrow\infty$ and $k_{n}\Delta_{n}\rightarrow0$. Henceforth we use the shorthand notation $u_{n}=k_{n}\Delta_{n}$. We also set a truncation process $v_{n,t}$ verifying the following assumption, which is maintained throughout the paper without further mention.
\[assD\] We have $v_{n,t}=\alpha_{n,t}\Delta
_{n}^{\varpi}$, where $\varpi\in ( 0,1/2 ) $ is constant, and $\alpha_{n,t}$ is a strictly positive real-valued process such that for some localizing sequence of stopping times $ ( \tau_{m} )$, $(\sup_{t\in [ 0,T ] }(\alpha_{n,t\wedge\tau_{m}}\vee
\alpha
_{n,t\wedge\tau_{m}}^{-1}))_{n\geq1}$ is tight for each $m\geq1$.
With this notation, for each $i=0,\ldots, \lfloor T/\Delta
_{n} \rfloor-k_{n}$, we set $$\label{eqvh}
\cases{ \displaystyle\widehat{V}_{i\Delta_{n}}^{\ast}=
\frac{1}{u_{n}}\sum_{j=1}^{k_{n}} \bigl(
\Delta_{i+j}^{n}X \bigr) ^{2},\vspace*{2pt}\cr
\displaystyle\widehat{V}_{i\Delta_{n}}=\frac{1}{ u_{n}}\sum_{j=1}^{k_{n}}
\bigl( \Delta_{i+j}^{n}X \bigr) ^{2}1_{ \{
{\vert}\Delta_{i+j}^{n}X{\vert}\leq v_{n,i\Delta_n}
\} }.}$$ Here, $\widehat{V}_{i\Delta_{n}}^{\ast}$ is a local approximation of $
V_{i\Delta_{n}}$ when $X$ is continuous, while $\widehat{V}_{i\Delta_{n}}$ serves the same purpose but is robust to the presence of jumps in $X$. As a generalization to the standard truncation-based methods (see e.g., Chapter 9 of [@jacodprotter2012]), we allow explicitly the truncation parameter $\alpha_{n,t}$ to be time-varying and depend on $\{X_{i\Delta_n}\}_{i=1,\ldots,\lfloor
T/\Delta
_n\rfloor}$. For example, one convenient and commonly used choice is to set $\alpha
_{n,t} = c \overline{\sigma}_n$, where $c$ is a constant \[typically in the range $(3,5)$\], and $\overline
{\sigma}_n$ is a preliminary estimate of the average volatility over $[0,T]$. Assumption \[assD\] is verified as soon as $\overline{\sigma}_n$ and $\overline{\sigma}_n^{-1}$ are tight. Another possibility is to make $\alpha_{n,t}$ adaptive by setting $\alpha_{n,t} = c \hat{\sigma}_{i}$ for $t\in[(i-1)u_n, iu_n)$, where $\hat{\sigma}_{i}$ is a preliminary estimate for the volatility in the local window $[(i-1)u_n, iu_n)$. For example, one may take $\hat{\sigma}_{i}$ to be a localized version of the Bipower variation estimator of [@BNS04a]: $\hat{\sigma}_{i} = ((\pi/2)u_n^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{k_n} |\Delta^n_{i+j}
X||\Delta^n_{i+j+1} X|)^{1/2}$. The tightness requirement in Assumption \[assD\] can be easily fulfilled by replacing $\hat{\sigma}_{i}$ with $(\hat{\sigma}_{i}\vee(1/C))\wedge C$ for some pre-specified regularization constant $C\geq1$. Finally, in the above two examples for $\alpha_{n,t}$, we can further replace the constant $c$ with a deterministic sequence $c_n$ increasing at a logarithmic rate as $\Delta
_n\rightarrow0$.
We will use $\widehat{V}_{i\Delta_{n}}^{\ast}$ and $\widehat
{V}_{i\Delta_{n}}$ to approximate for the volatility trajectory within the block. That is for $0\leq i\leq
\lfloor T/u_{n} \rfloor-1$, $$\label{eqvp}
\cases{ \widehat{V}_{t}^{\ast}=
\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}^{\ast
}\quad\mbox{and}\quad\widehat{V}_{t}=\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}},&\quad $t\in\bigl\lbrack
iu_{n}, ( i+1 ) u_{n}\bigr)$,
\vspace*{2pt}\cr
\widehat{V}_{t}^{\ast}=\widehat{V}_{ (
\lfloor
T/u_{n} \rfloor-1 ) u_{n}}^{\ast}
\quad\mbox{and}\quad\widehat {V}_{t}=\widehat{V} _{ ( \lfloor T/u_{n} \rfloor-1 ) u_{n}}, &\quad $\lfloor
T/u_{n} \rfloor u_{n}\leq t\leq T$. }\hspace*{-35pt}$$
We can alternatively define local estimators of volatility for each $i=1,\ldots,\lfloor T/\Delta_n\rfloor$ by averaging the $k_n$ past squared increments below the threshold. All the results in the paper, except for Theorem \[thmevt\] below, will hold for this alternative way of recovering the spot volatility.
Using $\widehat{V}_{t}^{\ast}$ and $\widehat{V}_{t}$, our proposed estimators of $F_{T} ( \cdot ) $ are defined as $$\widehat{F}_{n,T}^{\ast} ( x ) =\int_{0}^{T}1_{ \{
\widehat{V}_{s}^{\ast}\leq x \} }\,ds,\qquad
\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x ) =\int_{0}^{T}1_{ \{ \widehat{V}_{s}\leq x \} }\,ds,\qquad
x\in\mathbb{R}.$$ We first consider the pointwise consistency of $\widehat
{F}_{n,T}^{\ast
} ( x ) $ and $\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x ) $. As a matter of fact, it is not much harder to prove a more general result as follows.
\[lem-1\]Let $g\dvtx \mathbb{R}_{+}\mapsto [ 0,1 ] $ be a measurable function and $D_{g}$ be the collection of discontinuity points of $g$. Suppose:
(i) Assumption \[assA\] holds for $r=2$;
(ii) for Lebesgue a.e. $t\in[ 0,T ] $, $\mathbb{P} ( V_{t}\in D_{g} ) =0$.
Then we have
1. $$\int_{0}^{T}g(\widehat{V}_{s})\,ds
\stackrel{\mathbb {P}} {\longrightarrow}\int_{0}^{T}g
( V_{s} ) \,ds; \label{thm-1a}$$
2. if, in addition, $X$ is continuous, then (\[thm-1a\]) also holds when replacing $\widehat{V}$ with $\widehat{V}^{\ast}$.
Lemma \[lem-1\] extends Theorem 9.4.1 in [@jacodprotter2012] by allowing for discontinuities in the test function $g ( \cdot
) $. For fixed $x\geq0$, the pointwise consistency of $\widehat
{F}_{n,T} (
x ) $, and $\widehat{F}_{n,T}^{\ast} ( x ) $ if $X$ is continuous, follows immediately \[with $g ( \cdot )
=1_{ \{
\cdot \leq x \} }$\] provided that $\mathbb{P} (
V_{t}=x )
=0$ for Lebesgue a.e. $t\in [ 0,T ] $. The uniform consistency of $\widehat{F}_{n,T}^{\ast} ( \cdot ) $ and $\widehat
{F}_{n,T} (
\cdot ) $ is available if the occupation time $F_{T} (
\cdot
) $ is a.s. continuous, as shown below.
\[thm-1\]Suppose Assumption \[assA\] holds for $r=2$ and $F_{T} (
\cdot ) $ is a.s. continuous. We have:
$\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}|\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x ) -F_{T} ( x ) |\stackrel
{\mathbb
{P}}{\longrightarrow}0$;
if, in addition, $X$ is continuous, then still holds when replacing $\widehat{F}_{n,T}$ with $\widehat
{F}_{n,T}^{\ast}$.
Analogous to the classical notion of quantile for cumulative distribution functions, the quantile of the occupation time $F_{T} ( \cdot
) $ is naturally defined as the left-continuous functional inverse of $F_{T} ( \cdot ) $: for $\alpha\in ( 0,T ) $, we set $Q_{T} ( \alpha ) =\inf\{x\in\mathbb{R}\dvtx F_{T} (
x )
\geq
\alpha\}$. A natural estimator for $Q_{T} ( \alpha ) $ is $
\widehat{Q}_{n,T} ( \alpha ) =\inf\{x\in\mathbb
{R}\dvtx \widehat
{F}_{n,T} ( x ) \geq\alpha\}$, and $\widehat{Q}_{n,T}^{\ast
} ( \alpha
) $ can be defined analogously for $\widehat{F}_{n,T}^{\ast
} (
\cdot ) $. The consistency of the quantile estimators is given by the next corollary.
\[cor-Q\]Suppose Assumption \[assA\] holds for $r=2$ and $F_{T} (
\cdot ) $ is a.s. continuous. Let $\mathcal{Q}\equiv\{\alpha
\in
( 0,T ) \dvtx Q_{T} ( \cdot ) $ is continuous at $\alpha$ a.s.$\}$. We have for each $\alpha\in\mathcal{Q}$:
$\widehat{Q}_{n,T} ( \alpha ) \stackrel{\mathbb{P}}{\longrightarrow}Q_{T} ( \alpha ) $;
if, in addition, $X$ is continuous, then $\widehat{Q}_{n,T}^{\ast} ( \alpha ) \stackrel{\mathbb
{P}}{\longrightarrow}Q_{T} ( \alpha ) $.
Rate of convergence of F n,T {#sec-r}
============================
We next study the rate of convergence of $\widehat{F}_{n,T} (
x )$. We first consider in Section \[sec-rc\] the case when $V$ is continuous and then the general case with discontinuous $V$ is studied in Section \[sec-rd\], where the uniform rate of convergence of $\widehat{F}_{n,T}(\cdot)$ is also considered.
The continuous volatility case and the uniform approximation of $V$ {#sec-rc}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the continuous volatility case we can link the rate of convergence of our volatility occupation time estimators with the rate of convergence of $\widehat{V}_{t}^{\ast}$ and $\widehat{V}_{t}$ toward $V_t$ on the space of càdlàg functions equipped with the uniform norm. We denote the latter as $$\eta_{n}^{\ast}=\sup_{t\in [ 0,T ] }\bigl{\vert}\widehat {V}_{t}^{\ast}-V_{t}\bigr
{\vert}, \qquad \eta_{n}=\sup_{t\in
[
0,T] }{\vert}\widehat{V}_{t}-V_{t}{\vert}.$$ The rate of convergence of $\widehat{F}_{n,T}$ and $\widehat{Q}_{n,T}$ is then related with $\eta_{n}$ through Lemma \[lem-fu\] below; an analogous result holds for $\widehat{F}_{n,T}^{\ast}$, $\widehat
{Q}_{n,T}^{\ast}$ and $\eta_{n}^{\ast}$, but is omitted here for brevity.
\[lem-fu\] For any $x\geq0$ and $\alpha\in ( 0,T ) $, we have $|\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x ) -F_{T} ( x ) |\leq
F_{T}(x+\eta_{n})-F_{T}(x-\eta_{n})$ and $|\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha
)-Q_{T}(\alpha)|\leq\eta_{n}$.
Suppose Assumption \[assB\] and $\eta_{n}=O_{p} ( a_{n} ) $ for some nonrandom sequence $a_{n}\rightarrow0$. Then $\widehat
{F}_{n,T} (x ) -F_{T} ( x ) =O_{p} (
a_{n} ) $.
In view of Lemma \[lem-fu\], bounding the rate of convergence of the occupation time estimators boils down to establishing the asymptotic order of magnitude of $\eta_{n}$ and $\eta_{n}^{\ast}$. Our main result concerning the uniform approximation of the $V$ process is given by the following theorem.
\[thm-u\]Suppose Assumptions \[assA\] and \[assC\] with $\Delta V_s=0$ for $s\in
[0,T]$. Let $k_{n}\asymp\Delta
_{n}^{-\gamma}$ for some $\gamma\in(r\varpi+(1\vee r)(1-2\varpi
),1)$, $\varpi\in((1\vee r-1)/(2 ( 1\vee r ) -r),1/2)$ and $\iota
>0$ be arbitrarily small but fixed. We have:
$\eta_{n}=O_{p} ( a_{n} )
$, where $$\label{an}
\qquad a_{n}=\cases{ \Delta_{n}^{\gamma-1+ ( 2-r ) \varpi}
\vee\Delta _{n}^{\gamma
/2-\iota}\vee\Delta_{n}^{ ( 1-\gamma ) /2-\iota},
&\quad $\mbox {if } r\leq1$,
\vspace*{2pt}\cr
\Delta_{n}^{\gamma/r- ( 1-\varpi ) -\iota}\vee\Delta _{n}^{\gamma/2-\iota}
\vee\Delta_{n}^{ ( 1-\gamma )
/2-\iota}, & \quad$\mbox{if } r>1$,
\vspace*{2pt}\cr
\Delta_{n}^{\gamma/2-\iota}\vee\Delta_{n}^{ ( 1-\gamma )
/2-\iota}, &\quad
$\mbox{if } X\mbox{ is continuous;}$}$$
if $X$ is continuous, we also have $\eta_{n}^{\ast}=O_{p}
(a_{n} ) $.
When $X$ is continuous, the terms $\Delta_{n}^{\gamma/2-\iota}$ and $\Delta_{n}^{ ( 1-\gamma ) /2-\iota}$ capture, respectively, the sampling variability and the discretization bias in the approximation of the spot variance. When $X$ is discontinuous, $a_{n}$ contains an additional term arising from the elimination of jumps, which of course depends on the concentration of “small” jumps through $r$ (recall Assumption \[assA\]). The conditions on $\varpi$ and $\gamma$ imply $a_n\to0$. In particular, when $r$ is close to $2$, $\varpi$ and $\gamma$ need to be chosen close to $1/2$ and $1$, respectively, to ensure that $a_{n}\rightarrow0$, rendering the rate of convergence arbitrarily slow. Nonetheless, if $X$ is discontinuous, $\eta_{n}$ still has the same rate of convergence as in the continuous case, that is, $\Delta_{n}^{1/4-\iota}$, provided $r\in (
0,1/2 ) $. This rate can be achieved by setting $\varpi\in
(3/ ( 8-4r ),1/2 ) $ and $\gamma=1/2$.
Of course Theorem \[thm-u\] provides only a bound for the rate of convergence of $\eta_n$ and $\eta_n^*$. The following theorem, however, establishes the exact asymptotic distributions of $\eta_n$ and $\eta^*_n$ in a simple model with constant volatility.
\[thmevt\] Suppose:
Assumption \[assA\] holds with $V_t$ constant and $b_t=0$ on $[0,T]$;
$r<1/2$ and $\varpi\in(3/(8-4r),1/2)$.
Then $$\label{thmevt1} \sqrt{\log\bigl(\lfloor T/u_n\rfloor\bigr)} (
\sqrt{k_n}\eta_n - \sqrt {2}Vm_{n} )
\stackrel{\mathcal{L}} {\longrightarrow} V\times \Lambda,$$ provided $k_n \asymp\Delta_n^{-1/2}$ and where $\Lambda$ is a random variable with c.d.f.$\exp(-2\exp(-x))$, and $$\label{thmevt2} m_{n} = \sqrt{2\log\bigl(\lfloor T/u_n
\rfloor\bigr)} - \frac{\log(\log
(\lfloor
T/u_n\rfloor))+\log(4\pi)}{2\sqrt{2\log(\lfloor T/u_n\rfloor)}}.$$ If we further assume $X_t$ is continuous, then (\[thmevt1\]) still holds with $\eta_n$ replaced by $\eta_n^*$.
Theorem \[thmevt\] shows that the rates given in (\[an\]) are almost optimal when the jumps of $X_t$ are not very active ($r<1/2$). To be precise, we observe that (\[an\]) suggests $\eta_n = O_p(\Delta_n^{1/4-\iota})$ for $\iota>0$ fixed but arbitrarily small, while the optimal rate in Theorem \[thmevt\] provides a slightly sharper bound $\eta_n = O_p(\Delta_n^{1/4}\log
(\lfloor T\Delta_n^{-1/2}\rfloor)^{1/2})$.
The rate of convergence of our volatility occupation time estimators and their quantiles is a direct corollary of Lemma \[lem-fu\] and Theorem \[thm-u\]; the proof is omitted for brevity.
\[cor-ratec\]Let $x\geq0$ and $\alpha\in(0,T)$. Suppose Assumption \[assB\] and the same setting as in Theorem \[thm-u\]. Then $\widehat
{F}_{n,T} ( x ) -F_{T} ( x ) $ and $\widehat
{Q}_{n,T} (
\alpha ) -Q_{T} ( \alpha ) $ are $O_{p} (
a_{n} ) $. If $X$ is continuous and $k_{n}\asymp\Delta_{n}^{-1/2}$, then $\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x ) -F_{T} ( x ) $, $\widehat
{F}_{n,T}^{\ast
} ( x ) -F_{T} ( x ) $, $\widehat
{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha
)-Q_{T} ( \alpha ) $ and $\widehat{Q}_{n,T}^{\ast}(\alpha
)-Q_{T} ( \alpha ) $ are $O_{p}(\Delta_{n}^{1/4-\iota})$ for $\iota>0$ arbitrarily small but fixed.
We should point out that in the trivial cases when $x<\inf_{t\in
[0,T]}V_t$ or $x>\sup_{t\in[0,T]}V_t$ on a given path, the error in recovering the occupation time will become identically zero for $n$ sufficiently high (up to taking a subsequence).
More generally, we can use Theorem \[thm-u\] to show in the setting of the theorem that if $\mathcal{L}\dvtx \mathcal{D}([0,T])\rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$, where $\mathcal{D}([0,T])$ is the space of càdlàg functions on the interval $[0,T]$ equipped with the uniform topology, is a continuous function, we have $\mathcal{L}(\widehat{V})\stackrel
{\mathbb{P}}{\longrightarrow}\mathcal{L}(V)$. If further $|\mathcal
{L}(f)-\mathcal{L}(g)|\leq K\sup_{s\in[0,T]}|f_s-g_s|$ for any elements $f, g\in\mathcal{D}([0,T])$ and some positive constant $K$, then the rate of convergence of $\mathcal{L}(\widehat{V})$ to $\mathcal{L}(V)$ is bounded by the order of magnitude of $\eta_n$ (under the conditions of Theorem \[thm-u\]). An example of such a function is $\mathcal
{L}(f) = \sup_{s\in[0,T]}f_s$.
The discontinuous volatility case {#sec-rd}
---------------------------------
We now turn to the general case when the volatility process contains jumps. When $V$ is discontinuous, bounding the rate of convergence of the volatility occupation time estimators is much less straightforward. Lemma \[lem-fu\] is still valid, however, and the uniform approximation error $\eta_{n}$ no longer vanishes asymptotically, due to the discontinuity in $V$. This is true even if we consider the ideal case where $\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}=V_{iu_{n}}$, that is, perfect pointwise approximation is available. Indeed, the lack of uniform approximation for a discontinuous process with its discretized version is well known in the study of convergence of processes.
Our strategy of bounding the rate of convergence of $\widehat
{F}_{n,T} ( x )$ and $\widehat{F}_{n,T}^* ( x )$ is to pick out the “big” jumps in the $V$ process and then consider the uniform rate of approximation to the “remainder” process. The idea is best illustrated in the basic case where the jumps in $V$ is finitely active. In this case, the volatility jumps only occur within finitely many time blocks with the form $[iu_{n}, ( i+1 ) u_{n})$ and hence their total effect on the estimation is $O_{p} ( u_{n} )$. On time blocks not containing the jumps of $V$, $V$ is continuous, so Theorem \[thm-u\] can be used to provide uniform bound. The situation becomes considerably more complicated when $V$ has infinitely active, or even infinite variational, jumps. In this case, one needs to compute the trade-off between picking out a smaller number of big jumps with less accurate uniform approximation to the remainder process, and picking out a larger number of big jumps with more accurate uniform approximation to the remainder process. The end result of this calculation is Theorem \[thm-rd\] below.
\[thm-rd\]Suppose Assumptions \[assA\], \[assB\] and \[assC\]. Let $k_{n}\asymp\Delta
_{n}^{-\gamma}$ for some $\gamma\in(r\varpi+(1\vee r)(1-2\varpi
),1)$, $\varpi\in((1\vee r-1)/(2 ( 1\vee r ) -r),1/2)$ and $\iota
>0$ be arbitrarily small but fixed. We have:
$\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x )
-F_{T} ( x ) =O_{p} ( d_{n} ) $, where $d_{n}=a_{n}\vee
\Delta_{n}^{ ( 1-\gamma ) / ( 1+\tilde{r} )
-\iota}$ and $a_{n}$ is given by (\[an\]);
if $X$ is continuous, we also have $\widehat{F}_{n,T}^{\ast} ( x ) -F_{T} ( x )
=O_{p} (
d_{n} ) $.
Theorem \[thm-rd\] establishes an upper bound for the pointwise rate of convergence of the occupation time estimators. We remind the reader that the rate $d_n$ depends on $r$ through $a_n$; recall (\[an\]) and the discussion following Theorem \[thm-u\]. Whether the rate is optimal or not is an open question. The rate optimality for jump-robust estimation of the integrated variance, that is, $\int_0^T V_s\, ds =
\int_0^{\infty} x F_T(dx)$, is studied by [@jacodreiss2012].
In order to establish a uniform bound, we invoke the stronger Assumption \[assBprime\] which assumes continuity of the volatility occupation density.
\[thm-rdu\]Consider the same setting as in Theorem \[thm-rd\] except with Assumption \[assBprime\] replacing Assumption \[assBprime\]. Then and in Theorem [thm-rd]{} hold uniformly in $x\in\mathbb{R}$. Moreover, for $\alpha
\in(0,T)
$ with $f_{T}(Q_{T}(\alpha))>0$ a.s., we have $|\widehat
{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha
)-Q_{T}(\alpha)|=O_{p} ( d_{n} ) $ and, if $X$ is continuous, $|\widehat{Q}_{n,T}^{\ast}(\alpha)-Q_{T}(\alpha)|=O_{p} (
d_{n} ) $.
Theorem \[thm-rdu\] establishes a bound for the uniform rate of convergence of the occupation time estimators; the rate of convergence of the quantiles follows as a consequence.
Estimation of the volatility occupation density {#sec-ker}
===============================================
We now turn to estimating the volatility occupation density $f_{T}(x)$. Clearly, the uniform convergence of the occupation time (Theorem \[thm-1\]) does not directly lead to valid estimation for the occupation density. While the focus of the current paper is on the occupation time, we consider the estimation of $f_{T}(\cdot)$ theoretically complementary and empirically relevant. Our occupation density estimator is based on the local volatility estimates $\widehat{V}_{t}$ and $\widehat{V}_{t}^{\ast}$ and kernel smoothing. In particular, we propose the following kernel estimator of Nadaraya–Watson type: $$\widehat{f}_{n,T} ( x ) \equiv\int_{0}^{T}
\frac
{1}{h_{n}}\kappa \biggl(\frac{\widehat{V}_{s}-x}{h_{n}}\biggr)\,ds,$$ where $h_{n}\rightarrow0$ is a bandwidth sequence and the kernel function $\kappa\dvtx \mathbb{R}\mapsto\mathbb{R}_{+}$ is bounded $C^{1}$ with bounded derivative and $\int_{\mathbb{R}}\kappa ( x ) \,dx=1$. We can define $\widehat{f}_{n,T}^{\ast}(x)$ similarly but with $\widehat
{V}_{s}^{\ast}$ replacing $\widehat{V}_{s}$.
Below, we consider a weight function $w\dvtx \mathbb{R}\mapsto\mathbb{R}_{+}$ with $\int_{\mathbb{R}}w ( x ) \,dx<\infty$. For generic real-valued functions $g_{1}$ and $g_{2}$ on $\mathbb{R}$, we denote $${\Vert}g_{1}-g_{2}{\Vert}_{w}\equiv\int
_{\mathbb{R}}\bigl{\vert}g_{1} ( x ) -g_{2} (
x ) \bigr{\vert}w ( x ) \,dx.$$
\[thm-kd\]Suppose:
Assumptions \[assA\], \[assBprime\] and \[assC\];
$r\in (
0,2 ) $ and $\varpi\in((1\vee r-1)/(2(1\vee r)-r),1/2)$;
$k_{n}\asymp\Delta_{n}^{-\gamma}$ for some $\gamma\in (
0,1 ) $;
$V_{t}^{-1}$ is locally bounded;
for some $\beta\in(0,1]$ and any compact $\mathcal{K}\subset ( 0,\infty ) $, there exists a constant $C_{\mathcal{K}}>0$, such that for all $x,y\in\mathcal{K}$, $\mathbb{E}|f_{T}(x)-f_{T}(y)|\leq C_{\mathcal{K}}|x-y|^{\beta}$;
$\int_{\mathbb{R}}\kappa ( z ) {\vert}z{\vert}^{\beta
}\,dz<\infty$.
We set $$\bar{a}_{n}^{\ast}\equiv\Delta_{n}^{\gamma/2}
\vee\Delta _{n}^{ (
1-\gamma ) /2},\qquad \bar{a}_{n}\equiv
\bar{a}_{n}^{\ast}\vee \Delta _{n}^{{(1-r\varpi-\theta)}/{(1\vee r)}- ( 1-2\varpi ) },$$ where $\theta=0$ when $r\leq1$ and $\theta>0$ is arbitrarily fixed when $r>1$. Then for each $x\geq0$, we have:
$\widehat{f}_{n,T} ( x )
-f_{T} ( x ) $ and $\Vert\widehat{f}_{n,T}-f_{T}\Vert_{w}$ are $O_{p}(h_{n}^{-2}\bar{a}_{n}\vee h_{n}^{\beta})$;
if $X$ is continuous, $\widehat{f}_{n,T} ( x ) -f_{n,T} ( x ) $ and $\Vert
\widehat{f}_{n,T}-f_{T}\Vert_{w}$ are $O_{p}(h_{n}^{-2}\bar
{a}_{n}^{\ast
}\vee h_{n}^{\beta})$ and moreover, the results still hold with $\widehat{f}_{n,T}(\cdot)$ replaced by $\widehat{f}_{n,T}^{\ast}(\cdot)$.
Condition (v) in Theorem \[thm-kd\] requires the occupation density of $V_{t}$ to be Hölder continuous on compacta with exponent $\beta$ under the $L_1$-norm. We preclude the analysis for cases in which $f_{T}(\cdot)$ is differentiable, or in a Hölder class of higher order, because occupation densities of semimartingales in general do not enjoy such higher-order smoothness; recall from Assumption \[assC\] that $V_t$ is a semimartingale. For example, the occupation density of a one-dimensional Brownian motion is Hölder continuous in $L_1$ with exponent $\beta= 1/2$; see Exercise VI.1.32 in [@revuzyor]. That being said, occupation densities of other processes, such as certain Gaussian processes (see, e.g., Table 2 in [@GH80]), may enjoy higher-order smoothness. Such models have rarely been studied in the analysis of high-frequency financial data and are not directly compatible with Assumption \[assC\], so we do not pursue further results here. Notice that the rate $\bar
{a}_{n}^{\ast}$ is optimized by setting $\gamma=1/2$, resulting in $\bar{a}_{n}^{\ast}=\Delta_{n}^{1/4}$. Furthermore, when $X$ is continuous, the estimation error of the occupation density is $O_{p}(\Delta_{n}^{\beta/4(2+\beta)})$, which is achieved by setting $h_{n}\asymp\Delta_{n}^{1/4(2+\beta)}$. Not surprisingly, the smoother the occupation density (larger $\beta$), the faster the rate of convergence.
Theorem \[thm-kd\](a) implies $\widehat{f}_{n,T} ( x )
-f_{T} ( x ) \stackrel{\mathbb{P}}{\longrightarrow}0$ and $\Vert
\widehat{f}_{n,T}-f_{T}\Vert_{w}\stackrel{\mathbb
{P}}{\longrightarrow}0$, provided that $h_{n}\rightarrow0$ and $h_{n}^{-2}\bar
{a}_{n}\rightarrow0$. These results can be shown directly without conditions (iv)–(vi) using a very similar proof; the details are omitted for brevity. A similar comment applies to Theorem \[thm-kd\](b).
Monte Carlo {#secmc}
===========
We test the performance of our nonparametric procedures on two popular stochastic volatility models. The first is the square-root diffusion volatility model, given by $$\label{mc1} dX_t = \sqrt{V_t}\,dW_t,\qquad
dV_t = 0.03(1.0-V_t)\,dt+0.2\sqrt{V_t}\,dB_t,$$ $W_t$ and $B_t$ are two independent Brownian motions. Our second model is a jump-diffusion volatility model in which the log-volatility is a Lévy-driven Ornstein–Uhlenbeck (OU) process, that is, $$\label{mc2} dX_t = e^{V_t-1}\,dW_t,\qquad
dV_t = -0.03V_t\,dt+\,dL_t,$$ where $L_t$ is a Lévy martingale uniquely defined by the marginal law of $V_t$ which in turn has a selfdecomposable distribution (see Theorem 17.4 of [@SATO]) with characteristic triplet (Definition 8.2 of [@SATO]) of $(0,1,\nu)$ for $\nu(dx) =
\frac{2.33e^{-2.0|x|}}{|x|^{1+0.5}}1_{\{x>0\}}\,dx$ with respect to the identity truncation function. The mean and persistence of both volatility specifications are calibrated realistically to observed financial data, and the two models differ in the presence of volatility jumps as well as in the modeling of the volatility of volatility: for model (\[mc1\]), the transformation $\sqrt{V_t}$ is with constant diffusion coefficient while for (\[mc2\]) this is the case for the transformation $\log{V_t}$.
In the Monte Carlo we fix the time span to $T=22$ days (our unit of time is a day), equivalent to one calendar month, and we consider $n=80$ and $n=400$, which correspond to $5$-minute and $1$-minute, respectively, of intraday observations of $X$ in a $6.5$-hour trading day. We set $k_n=20$ for $n=80$ and we increase it to $k_n=40$ when $n=400$, which, respectively, correspond to $4$ and $10$ blocks per unit of time. We finally set the truncation process at $v_{n,t} = 3\sqrt {BV_j}\Delta_n^{0.49}$ for $t\in[j-1,j)$ and where $BV_j = \frac{\pi
}{2}\sum_{i=\lfloor(j-1)/\Delta_n\rfloor+2}^{\lfloor j/\Delta
_n\rfloor
}|\Delta_{i-1}^nX||\Delta_{i}^nX|$ is the Bipower Variation on the unit interval $[j-1,j)$. For each realization we compute the $25$th, $50$th and $75$th volatility qunatiles over the interval $[0,T]$. The results from the Monte Carlo are summarized in Table \[tbmc\]. Overall, the performance of our volatility quantile estimator is satisfactory. The highest bias arises for the square-root diffusion volatility model when volatility was started from a high value (the $75$th quantile of its invariant distribution). Intuitively, in this case volatility drifts toward its unconditional mean, and this results in its larger variation over $[0,T]$, which in turn is more difficult to accurately disentangle from the Gaussian noise in the price process, that is, the Brownian motion $W_t$ in $X_t$. Consistently with our asymptotic results, the biases and the mean absolute deviations of all volatility quantiles shrink as we increase the sampling frequency from $n=80$ to $n=400$ in all considered scenarios.
=
[@lccccccccc@]{} & & &\
& & &\
**Start value**& **True** & **Bias** & **MAD** & **True** & **Bias** & **MAD** & **True** & **Bias** & **MAD**\
\
$V_0 = Q^V(0.25)$ & $0.3798$ & $-0.0536$ & $0.0547$ & $0.5394$ & $-0.0478$ & $0.0514$ & $0.7324$ & $-0.0190$ & $0.0473$\
$V_0 = Q^V(0.50)$ & $0.6223$ & $-0.0916$ & $0.0929$ & $0.8170$ & $-0.0651$ & $0.0703$ & $1.0513$ & $-0.0081$ & $0.0626$\
$V_0 = Q^V(0.75)$ & $0.9865$ & $-0.1516$ & $0.1525$ & $1.2359$ & $-0.0949$ & $0.1027$ & $1.5310$ & $ 0.0110$ & $0.0911$\
\
$V_0 = Q^V(0.25)$ & $0.3798$ & $-0.0305$ & $0.0315$ & $0.5394$ & $-0.0304$ & $0.0327$ & $0.7324$ & $-0.0178$ & $0.0293$\
$V_0 = Q^V(0.50)$ & $0.6223$ & $-0.0519$ & $0.0529$ & $0.8170$ & $-0.0412$ & $0.0453$ & $1.0513$ & $-0.0146$ & $0.0375$\
$V_0 = Q^V(0.75)$ & $0.9865$ & $-0.0868$ & $0.0882$ & $1.2359$ & $-0.0596$ & $0.0654$ & $1.5310$ & $-0.0043$ & $0.0554$\
\
$V_0 = Q^V(0.25)$ & $0.1737$ & $-0.0231$ & $0.0249$ & $0.2860$ & $-0.0269$ & $0.0302$ & $0.4519$ & $-0.0171$ & $0.0358$\
$V_0 = Q^V(0.50)$ & $0.3293$ & $-0.0428$ & $0.0455$ & $0.5243$ & $-0.0460$ & $0.0524$ & $0.8069$ & $-0.0245$ & $0.0610$\
$V_0 = Q^V(0.75)$ & $0.6337$ & $-0.0809$ & $0.0866$ & $0.9945$ & $-0.0807$ & $0.0968$ & $1.5162$ & $-0.0434$ & $0.1117$\
\
$V_0 = Q^V(0.25)$ & $0.1737$ & $-0.0131$ & $0.0142$ & $0.2860$ & $-0.0158$ & $0.0180$ & $0.4519$ & $-0.0116$ & $0.0224$\
$V_0 = Q^V(0.50)$ & $0.3293$ & $-0.0248$ & $0.0268$ & $0.5243$ & $-0.0276$ & $0.0318$ & $0.8069$ & $-0.0169$ & $0.0358$\
$V_0 = Q^V(0.75)$ & $0.6337$ & $-0.0452$ & $0.0490$ & $0.9945$ & $-0.0480$ & $0.0575$ & $1.5162$ & $-0.0305$ & $0.0682$\
Conclusion {#secconcl}
==========
In this paper we propose nonparametric estimators of the volatility occupation time and its density from discrete observations of the process over a fixed time interval with asymptotically shrinking mesh of the observation grid. We derive the asymptotic properties of our volatility occupation time estimator and further invert it to estimate the corresponding quantiles of the volatility path over the fixed time interval. Monte Carlo shows satisfactory performance of the proposed estimation techniques.
Proofs {#sec-pf}
======
This section contains all proofs. Throughout the proof, we denote by $K$ a generic constant that may change from line to line. We sometimes emphasize its dependence on some parameter $p$ by writing $K_{p}$. As is typical in this kind of problem, by a standard localization procedure, Assumptions \[assA\], \[assC\] and \[assD\] can be strengthened into the following stronger versions without loss of generality.
\[assSA\] We have Assumption \[assA\]. The processes $
b_{t}$ and $\sigma_{t}$ are bounded, and for some bounded nonnegative function $\Gamma$ on $\mathbb{R}$, $|\delta
(\omega,t,z)|\leq\Gamma(z)$ and $\int_{\mathbb{R}}\Gamma ( z ) ^{r}\lambda (
dz )
<\infty$.
\[assSC\]We have Assumption \[assC\]. The processes $
\tilde{b}_{t}$, $\tilde{\sigma}_{t}$ and $\tilde{\sigma}_{t}^{\prime}$ are bounded, and for some bounded nonnegative function $\Gamma_{\sigma}$ on $\mathbb{R}$, $|\tilde{\delta}(\omega,t,z)|\leq\Gamma_{\sigma}(z)$ and $\int_{\mathbb{R}}\Gamma_{\sigma} ( z ) ^{\tilde{r}}\lambda
( dz ) <\infty$.
\[assSD\] We have Assumption \[assD\]. Moreover, $\alpha
_{n,t}$ and $\alpha_{n,t}^{-1}$ are uniformly bounded for all $n,t$.
Proofs in Section 3
-------------------
[Proof of Lemma \[lem-1\]]{} (a) We set $\widehat
{V}_{t}^{+}=\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}$ for $t\in\lbrack ( i-1 )
u_{n},iu_{n})$. Denote the left-hand side of (\[thm-1a\]) by $S_{n}$ and $T_{n}= \lfloor T/u_{n} \rfloor u_{n}$. We have $$S_{n}=\int_{0}^{ ( \lfloor T/u_{n} \rfloor-1 )
u_{n}}g\bigl(\widehat{V}_{s}^{+}\bigr)\,ds+\int_{0}^{u_{n}}g(
\widehat{V}_{s})\,ds+\int_{T_{n}}^{T}g(
\widehat{V}_{s})\,ds.$$ Since $g$ is bounded,$$\quad
\mathbb{E}\biggl{\vert}S_{n}-\int_{0}^{T}g
( V_{s} ) \,ds\biggr{\vert}\leq Ku_{n}+\int
_{0}^{ ( \lfloor T/u_{n} \rfloor
-1 )
u_{n}}\mathbb{E}\bigl{\vert}g\bigl(
\widehat{V}_{s}^{+}\bigr)-g(V_{s})\bigr{\vert}\,ds. \label{thm-1-101}$$ Observe that for each $s\in\lbrack0, ( \lfloor
T/u_{n} \rfloor-1 ) u_{n})$, $\widehat
{V}_{s}^{+}\stackrel
{\mathbb{P}}{\longrightarrow}V_{s}$. To see this, we recall from Assumption \[assSD\] that $\alpha_{n,t}\in[\underline{\alpha},\overline{\alpha}]$ for some constant $\overline{\alpha}\geq\underline{\alpha}>0$. Let $\widehat{V}_{s}^{+}(\overline{\alpha})$ and $\widehat{V}_{s}^{+}(\underline{\alpha})$ be defined as $\widehat
{V}_{s}^{+}$ except with $\alpha_{n,t}$ replaced, respectively, by $\overline{\alpha}$ and $\underline{\alpha}$. By Theorem 9.3.2 in [@jacodprotter2012], the right continuity of $V$ and $u_{n}\rightarrow0$, $\widehat
{V}_{s}^{+}(\overline{\alpha})$ and $\widehat{V}_{s}^{+}(\underline{\alpha})$ converge in probability to $V_s$. The claim then follows $\widehat{V}_{s}^{+}(\underline{\alpha})\leq\widehat{V}_{s}^{+}
\leq
\widehat{V}_{s}^{+}(\overline{\alpha})$.
Hence, by condition (ii) and bounded convergence, for Lebesgue a.e. $s\in [ 0,T ]
$, $\mathbb{E}|g(\widehat{V}_{s}^{+})-g(V_{s})|=\mathbb{E}|(g(\widehat
{V}_{s}^{+})-g(V_{s}))1_{ \{ V_{s}\notin D_{g} \} }|\rightarrow0$. Applying bounded convergence on (\[thm-1-101\]), we readily obtain ([thm-1a]{}). Part (b) can be shown similarly.
[Proof of Theorem \[thm-1\]]{} (a) For each $x\geq
0$, $F_{T} ( x ) =F_{T} ( x- ) $ a.s. by the continuity of $F_{T} ( \cdot ) $. Hence, $$\int_{0}^{T}\mathbb{P} ( V_{s}=x )
\,ds = \mathbb{E} \bigl[ F_{T} ( x ) -F_{T} ( x- ) \bigr] =
0.$$ Therefore, $\mathbb{P} ( V_{s}=x ) =0$ for Lebesgue a.e. $s\in
[ 0,T ] $. By Lemma \[lem-1\] with $g ( \cdot
)
=1_{ \{ \cdot \leq x \} }$, $\widehat{F}_{n,T} (
x )
\stackrel{\mathbb{P}}{\longrightarrow}F_{T} ( x ) $. Since $\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( \cdot ) $ and $F_{T} ( \cdot
)
$ are increasing, and $F_{T} ( \cdot ) $ is continuous, this convergence also holds locally uniformly. Since $V$ is càdlàg, $\bar
{V}\equiv
\sup_{t\in [ 0,T ] }V_{t}=O_{p} ( 1 ) $. For any $\eta>0$, there exists some $M>0$, such that $\mathbb{P} ( \bar
{V}>M )
<\eta$, yielding $\mathbb{P} ( T\not=F_{T} ( M )
)
<\eta
$. Hence, for any $\varepsilon>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P} \Bigl( \sup_{x\in\mathbb
{R}}
\bigl{\vert}\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x ) -F_{T} ( x ) \bigr
{\vert}>\varepsilon \Bigr)
\\
&&\qquad\leq\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P} \Bigl( \sup
_{0\leq
x\leq
M}\bigl{\vert}\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x )
-F_{T} ( x ) \bigr{\vert}>\varepsilon \Bigr)
\\
&&\qquad\quad{}+\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P} \Bigl( \sup_{x\geq
M}
\bigl{\vert}\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x ) -F_{T} ( x ) \bigr
{\vert}>\varepsilon \Bigr)
\\
&&\qquad\leq\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P} \bigl( \bigl{\vert}\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( M ) -F_{T} ( M ) \bigr{\vert}>\varepsilon /2 \bigr) +\mathbb{P} \bigl( T-F_{T} ( M ) >\varepsilon
/2 \bigr)
\\
&&\qquad<\eta.\end{aligned}$$ Sending $\eta\rightarrow0$, we readily derive the assertion in part (a). Part (b) can be proved similarly.
[Proof of Corollary \[cor-Q\]]{} By Theorem \[thm-1\], $\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( \cdot ) \stackrel{\mathbb
{P}}{\longrightarrow}F_{T} ( \cdot ) $ uniformly. By a subsequence argument, we can then assume $\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( \cdot ) \stackrel{\mathrm{a.s.}}{\longrightarrow}F_{T} ( \cdot ) $ uniformly without loss. The assertion in part (a) then follows Lemma 21.2 of [@vandervaart1998]. The proof of part (b) is similar.
Proofs in Section 4.1
---------------------
[Proof of Lemma \[lem-fu\]]{} (a) Observe$$\begin{aligned}
\label{lem-fu-101}
F_{T} ( x-\eta_{n} ) &=&\int_{0}^{T}1_{ \{ V_{s}\leq x-\eta_{n} \} }\,ds
\nonumber
\\[-8pt]
\\[-8pt]
\nonumber
&\leq&\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x ) \leq
\int_{0}^{T}1_{ \{
V_{s}\leq
x+\eta_{n} \} }\,ds=F_{T}
( x+\eta_{n} ).$$ Since $F_{T} ( x-\eta_{n} ) \leq F_{T} ( x )
\leq
F_{T} ( x+\eta_{n} ) $, the first assertion in part (a) readily follows. Now consider the quantiles. By definition, $\widehat{F}_{n,T}(
\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha))\geq\alpha$. By (\[lem-fu-101\]), $F_{T}(
\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha)+\eta_{n})\geq\alpha$. Therefore, $Q_{T}(\alpha
)\leq\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha)+\eta_{n}$. For any $\varepsilon>0$, by (\[lem-fu-101\]), we have $F_{T}(\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha)-\eta
_{n}-\varepsilon)\leq\widehat{F}_{n,T}(\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha
)-\varepsilon)<\alpha$. Hence, $\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha)-\eta
_{n}-\varepsilon<Q_{T}(\alpha)$. Since $\varepsilon>0$ is arbitrary, $\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha)-\eta_{n}\leq Q_{T}(\alpha)$. The second assertion of part (a) is then obvious.
\(b) Fix some $\varepsilon>0$. There exists $M>0$ such that $\mathbb{P}
( \eta_{n}\geq Ma_{n} ) <\varepsilon/2$ for $n$ sufficiently large. Since $a_{n}\rightarrow0$, $ [ x-\eta_{n},x+\eta
_{n}
] $ is contained in $\mathcal{N}_{x}$ with probability approaching one (w.p.a.1) and by part (a), $$\bigl{\vert}\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x ) -F_{T} ( x ) \bigr
{\vert}\leq\int_{x-\eta_{n}}^{x+\eta_{n}}f_{T} ( z )
\,dz.$$ Let $M^{\prime}=4M\sup_{z\in\mathcal{N}_{x}}\mathbb{E} [
f_{T} (
z ) ] /\varepsilon$. We have for $n$ sufficiently large, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathbb{P} \biggl( \int_{x-\eta_{n}}^{x+\eta_{n}}f_{T} (
z ) \,dz>M^{\prime}a_{n} \biggr)
\\
&&\qquad\leq\mathbb{P} \biggl(
\int_{x-Ma_{n}}^{x+Ma_{n}}f_{T} ( z )
\,dz>M^{\prime}a_{n} \biggr) +\mathbb{P} ( \eta_{n}\geq
Ma_{n} )
\\
&&\qquad<\frac{2M\sup_{z\in\mathcal{N}_{x}}\mathbb{E} [
f_{T} ( z ) ] }{M^{\prime}}+
\varepsilon/2
\\
&&\qquad\leq\varepsilon.$$ Hence, $\int_{x-\eta_{n}}^{x+\eta_{n}}f_{T} ( z )
\,dz=O_{p} (
a_{n} ) $. The assertion in part (b) then readily follows.
We now prove Theorem \[thm-u\], starting with two lemmas. Below, $\Vert \cdot \Vert_p$ denotes the $L_p$ norm.
\[lem-vstar\]Let $p\geq1$ be a constant and $k_{n}\asymp\Delta
_{n}^{-\gamma}$ for some $\gamma\in ( 0,1 ) $. Suppose Assumption \[assSA\] holds with $X$ continuous and Assumption \[assSD\]. Then for each $0\leq i\leq
\lfloor T/u_{n} \rfloor-1$,$$\bigl{\vert}\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}^{\ast}-V_{iu_{n}}\bigr
{\vert}\vee{\vert}\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}-V_{iu_{n}}
{\vert}\leq \xi_{n,i}+ \sup_{s\in\lbrack iu_{n}, ( i+1 )
u_{n})}{\vert}V_{s}-V_{iu_{n}}{\vert}, \label{lem-vstar-a}$$ where the variable $\xi_{n,i}$ satisfies $\Vert\xi_{n,i} \Vert_p
\leq
K_p k_n^{-1/2}$. If we further have Assumption \[assSC\] with $\Delta V_s =0$ for $s\in[0,T]$, then the majorant side of the above can be bounded by $K_{p}(k_{n}^{-1/2}+u_{n}^{1/2})$ in $L_p$.
By Itô’s formula, $\widehat
{V}_{iu_{n}}^{\ast}-V_{iu_{n}} =\zeta_{n,i}^{\prime}+\zeta
_{n,i}^{\prime\prime}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\zeta_{n,i}^{\prime} &=&\frac{2}{u_{n}}\int
_{iu_{n}}^{ (
i+1 )
u_{n}} ( X_{s}-X_{n,s} )
\,dX_{s},
\\
\zeta_{n,i}^{\prime\prime} &=&\frac{1}{u_{n}}\int
_{iu_{n}}^{ (
i+1 ) u_{n}} ( V_{s}-V_{iu_{n}} )
\,ds,\end{aligned}$$ and $X_{n,s}$ is the discretized process given by $X_{n,s}=X_{iu_{n}+ ( j-1 ) \Delta_{n}}$ when $s\in
\lbrack iu_{n}+ ( j-1 ) \Delta_{n},iu_{n}+j\Delta_{n})$. By classical estimates (note that $X$ is continuous), $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\biggl{\vert}\frac{2}{u_{n}}\int_{iu_{n}}^{ (
i+1 )
u_{n}}
( X_{s}-X_{n,s} ) b_{s}\,ds\biggr{\vert}^{p} &\leq &K_{p}\Delta _{n}^{p/2},
\\
\mathbb{E}\biggl{\vert}\frac{2}{u_{n}}\int_{iu_{n}}^{ (
i+1 )
u_{n}}
( X_{s}-X_{n,s} ) \sigma_{s}\,dW_{s}
\biggr{\vert}^{p} &\leq &K_{p}k_{n}^{-p/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $k_{n}=o ( \Delta_{n}^{-1} ) $, we have $\Vert\zeta
_{n,i}^{\prime}\Vert_{p}\leq K_{p}k_{n}^{-1/2}$ by Minkowski’s inequality. We also observe $\vert\zeta_{n,i}^{\prime\prime}\vert
\leq\sup_{s\in\lbrack iu_{n},(
i+1) u_{n})}\vert V_{s}-V_{iu_{n}}\vert$.
Now note that $\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}^{\ast}-\widehat
{V}_{iu_{n}}=k_{n}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{k_{n}}(\Delta_{ik_{n}+j}^{n}X/\Delta
_{n}^{1/2})^{2}1_{\{|\Delta_{ik_{n}+j}^{n}X|>v_{n,iu_n}\}}$. Under Assumption \[assSD\], $\alpha_{n,t}\geq\underline{\alpha}$ for some constant $\underline
{\alpha}>0$. Hence, $v_{n,t}\geq\underline{v}_n\equiv\underline{\alpha} \Delta
_{n}^{\varpi}$. Since $X$ is continuous, for any $q\geq0$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\bigl{\Vert}\bigl(\Delta_{ik_{n}+j}^{n}X/\Delta_{n}^{1/2}
\bigr)^{2}1_{ \{
{\vert}\Delta_{ik_{n}+j}^{n}X{\vert}>v_{n,iu_n} \}
}\bigr{\Vert}_{p}\\
&&\qquad\leq \biggl(
\frac{\mathbb{E}{\vert}\Delta
_{ik_{n}+j}^{n}X/\Delta
_{n}^{1/2}{\vert}^{2p+q}}{ ( \underline{v}_{n}/\Delta
_{n}^{1/2} ) ^{q}}\biggr) ^{1/p}
\\
&&\qquad\leq K_{p,q}\Delta_{n}^{q ( 1/2-\varpi ) /p}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\varpi\in ( 0,1/2 ) $, when $q$ is taken sufficiently large, terms in the above display can be further bounded by $K_{p}k_{n}^{-1/2}$. Hence, $\Vert\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}^{\ast
}-\widehat
{V}_{iu_{n}}\Vert_{p}\leq K_{p}k_{n}^{-1/2}$. The first assertion then readily follows by setting $\xi_{n,i} = |\zeta^{\prime}_{n,i}| + \vert
\widehat
{V}_{iu_{n}}^{\ast}-\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}} \vert$.
Now, suppose Assumption \[assSC\] together with $V$ being continuous. By standard estimates, for each $p\geq1$, the second term on the right-hand side of (\[lem-vstar-a\]) can be bounded by $K_{p}u_{n}^{1/2}$ in $L_p$. The second assertion of the lemma is then obvious.
Under Assumption \[assSA\], we set $$\begin{aligned}
X_{t}^{\prime} &=&X_{t}-X_{t}^{\prime\prime},
\\
X_{t}^{\prime\prime} &=&\cases{ \displaystyle \int
_{0}^{t}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\delta (
s,z ) \mu ( ds,dz ), & \quad$\mbox{if } r\leq1$,
\vspace*{2pt}\cr
\displaystyle\int_{0}^{t}\int_{\mathbb{R}}
\delta ( s,z ) ( \mu -\nu ) ( ds,dz ), &\quad $\mbox{if } r>1.$}\end{aligned}$$ We define $\widehat{V}^{\prime}$ as $\widehat{V}^{\ast}$ in (\[eqvh\]) but with $X^{\prime}$ in place of $X$; in particular, $\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}^{\prime}\equiv u_{n}^{-1}\sum_{j=1}^{k_{n}}(\Delta
_{ik_{n}+j}^{n}X^{\prime})^{2}$.
\[lem-eoj\]Suppose that Assumption \[assSA\] holds with some $r\in(0,2)$ and Assumption \[assSD\]. Let $p\geq r\vee1$ and $\varpi\in ( \frac{p-1}{2p-r},\frac
{1}{2}
) $. Let $\theta\in ( 0,\infty ) $ be arbitrarily fixed if $r>1$ and $\theta=0$ if $r\leq1$. We have for each $i$, $$\bigl{\Vert}\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}-\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}^{\prime}
\bigr{\Vert}_{p}\leq K_{p}\Delta_{n}^{{(1-r\varpi-\theta)}/{p}- (
1-2\varpi
) }.$$
Under Assumption \[assSD\], $\alpha_{n,t}\in
\lbrack
\underline{\alpha},\overline{\alpha}]$ for constants $\overline
{\alpha}\geq\underline{\alpha}>0$. We set $\bar{v}_{n}=\overline{\alpha
}\Delta
_{n}^{\varpi}$ and $\underline{v}_{n}=\underline{\alpha}\Delta
_{n}^{\varpi}$. By applying Lemma 13.2.6 in [@jacodprotter2012] \[with $s=1$, $s^{\prime}=2$, $m=p$, $p^{\prime}=1$, $k=1$, $F ( x )
=x^{2}$\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\mathbb{E} \bigl\vert \bigl( \Delta
_{ik_{n}+j}^{n}X/\Delta _{n}^{1/2} \bigr)
^{2}1_{ \{ {\vert}\Delta
_{ik_{n}+j}^{n}X{\vert}\leq\bar{v}_{n} \} }
- \bigl( \Delta _{ik_{n}+j}^{n}X^{\prime}/
\Delta_{n}^{1/2} \bigr) ^{2}1_{ \{
{\vert}\Delta_{ik_{n}+j}^{n}X^{\prime}{\vert}\leq\bar{v}_{n} \} }
\bigr\vert^{p}
\\
&&\qquad\leq K_{p}\Delta_{n}^{{(2-r)}/{2}-\theta
}+K_{p}
\Delta_{n}^{1-r\varpi
-p ( 1-2\varpi ) -\theta}
\\
&&\qquad\leq K_{p}\Delta_{n}^{1-r\varpi-p (
1-2\varpi
) -\theta}.\end{aligned}$$ By a similar argument as in the proof of Lemma \[lem-vstar\], $$\bigl{\Vert}\bigl(\Delta_{ik_{n}+j}^{n}X^{\prime}/
\Delta_{n}^{1/2}\bigr)^{2}1_{\{|\Delta
_{ik_{n}+j}^{n}X^{\prime}|>\bar{v}_{n}\}}\bigr
{\Vert}_{p}\leq K_{p,q}\Delta _{n}^{q ( 1/2-\varpi ) /p}$$ for any $q\geq0$. Taking $q$ sufficiently large, we then derive$$\begin{aligned}
\label{lem-eoj-101}
&&\bigl{\Vert}\bigl( \Delta_{ik_{n}+j}^{n}X/\Delta_{n}^{1/2}
\bigr) ^{2}1_{ \{ {\vert}\Delta_{ik_{n}+j}^{n}X{\vert}\leq
\bar
{v}_{n} \} }- \bigl( \Delta_{ik_{n}+j}^{n}X^{\prime}/
\Delta _{n}^{1/2} \bigr) ^{2}\bigr{\Vert}_{p}
\nonumber
\\[-8pt]
\\[-8pt]
\nonumber
&&\qquad\leq K_{p}
\Delta_{n}^{{(1-r\varpi)}/{p}- ( 1-2\varpi
) -{\theta}/{p}}.\end{aligned}$$ By a similar argument, we can derive (\[lem-eoj-101\]) when $\bar{v}_{n}$ is replaced with $\underline{v}_{n}$. Since $\underline{v}_{n}\leq
v_{n,iu_n}\leq
\bar{v}_{n}$, (\[lem-eoj-101\]) also holds when $\bar{v}_{n}$ is replaced with $v_{n,iu_n}$. The assertion of the lemma then follows from Minkowski’s inequality.
[Proof of Theorem \[thm-u\]]{} *Step* 1. We first suppose $X$ is continuous. Observe that $$\eta_{n}\leq\sup_{0\leq i\leq \lfloor T/u_{n} \rfloor
-1}{\vert}\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}-V_{iu_{n}}{\vert}+2\sup_{0\leq
i\leq
\lfloor T/u_{n} \rfloor}
\sup_{s\in\lbrack iu_{n}, (
i+1 ) u_{n})}{\vert}V_{s}-V_{iu_{n}}{\vert}.$$ Since $V$ is continuous, $\Vert\sup_{s\in\lbrack iu_{n}, (
i+1 )
u_{n})}{\vert}V_{s}-V_{iu_{n}}{\vert}\Vert_{p}\leq
K_{p}u_{n}^{1/2} $ for any $p\geq1$ by standard estimates. By Lemma [lem-vstar]{} and the maximal inequality (e.g., Lemma 2.2.2 in [vandervaartwellner]{}), for any $p\geq1$, ${\Vert}\eta_{n}{\Vert}_{p}\leq K_{p}u_{n}^{-1/p}(k_{n}^{-1/2}+u_{n}^{1/2})$. Since $k_{n}\asymp
\Delta_{n}^{-\gamma}$ by assumption, we derive $\Vert\eta_{n}\Vert
_{p}\leq K\Delta_{n}^{ ( \gamma\wedge ( 1-\gamma )
)
/2-\iota} $ by taking $p$ sufficiently large. The same argument yields $\Vert\eta_{n}^{\ast}\Vert_{p}\leq K\Delta_{n}^{ ( \gamma
\wedge
( 1-\gamma ) ) /2-\iota}$. This finishes the proof of part (a) with $X$ continuous, as well as part (b).
*Step* 2. We now consider part (a) allowing $X$ to be discontinuous. Let $\widehat{V}^{\prime}$ be defined as in Lemma \[lem-eoj\]. Observe that $$\begin{aligned}
\eta_{n} &\leq&\sup_{0\leq i\leq \lfloor T/u_{n} \rfloor
-1}\bigl{\vert}\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}-\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}^{\prime
}\bigr{\vert}+\eta_{n}^{\prime},\qquad \mbox{where}
\\
\eta_{n}^{\prime} &=&\sup_{0\leq i\leq \lfloor T/u_{n}
\rfloor
-1}\bigl{\vert}\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}^{\prime}-V_{iu_{n}}\bigr{\vert}+2\sup
_{0\leq i\leq \lfloor T/u_{n} \rfloor}\sup_{s\in
\lbrack
iu_{n}, ( i+1 ) u_{n})}{\vert}V_{s}-V_{iu_{n}}
{\vert}.\end{aligned}$$ A similar argument as in part (a) yields $\eta_{n}^{\prime}=
O_p(\Delta_{n}^{ ( \gamma\wedge ( 1-\gamma ) )
/2-\iota})$. By the maximal inequality and Lemma \[lem-eoj\] for $p=1\vee
r $, $$\begin{aligned}
\Bigl{\Vert}\sup_{0\leq i\leq \lfloor T/u_{n} \rfloor
-1}\bigl{\vert}\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}-
\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}^{\prime}\bigr{\vert}\Bigr{\Vert}_{p} &\leq&Ku_{n}^{-1/p}\Delta_{n}^{{(1-r\varpi-\theta)
}/{p}- (
1-2\varpi ) }
\\
&\leq&K\Delta_{n}^{{(\gamma-r\varpi-\theta)}/{p}- (
1-2\varpi
) }
\\
&\leq&\cases{ K\Delta_{n}^{\gamma-r\varpi- ( 1-2\varpi ) },
& \quad$\mbox {if } r\leq1$,
\vspace*{2pt}\cr
K\Delta_{n}^{ ( \gamma-\theta ) /r- ( 1-\varpi
)
}, & \quad$\mbox{if } r>1.$}\end{aligned}$$ Taking $\theta$ sufficiently small in the $r>1$ case, we readily derive the assertion in part (a).
[Proof of Theorem \[thmevt\]]{} *Step* 1. We first prove the assertion on $\eta_n^*$, so condition (iii) is in force. In the constant volatility setting of the theorem, we have $\sqrt{k_n}\eta_n^* = \sqrt{2}V\times M_n$, where we denote $$\begin{aligned}
M_n &=& \sup_{i=0,\ldots,\lfloor{T}/{u_n}\rfloor-1}\bigl{\vert}Z_i^n
\bigr{\vert},
\nonumber
\\[-8pt]
\\[-8pt]
\nonumber
Z_i^n &=& \frac{\sqrt{k_n}}{\sqrt{2}V} \bigl(
\widehat{V}^*_{iu_n} -V \bigr),\qquad
i=0,\ldots,\lfloor T/u_n
\rfloor-1.\end{aligned}$$
Under our constant volatility assumption $\{Z_i^n\}_i$ are independent and identically distributed with distribution which is approximately standard normal. Therefore, we can use Edgeworth expansion of the c.d.f. together with extreme value theory to pin down the limit distribution of $M_n$. To this end, we set $$\cases{ \displaystyle c_{n} = \bigl(2
\log(b_n)\bigr)^{-1/2},\qquad m_{n} = \sqrt{2
\log(b_n)} - \frac
{\log
(\log(b_n))+\log(4\pi)}{2\sqrt{2\log(b_n)}},
\vspace*{2pt}\cr
\tau_{n}(x) = c_{n}x+m_{n}, \qquad b_n =
\lfloor T/u_n\rfloor,\qquad x\in\mathbb{R}_+. }\hspace*{-35pt}$$ Note that $\tau_{n}(x)\asymp\sqrt{2\log(b_n)}$ and hence increases to infinity as the number of blocks increases to infinity for every fixed $x$.
Using second-order Edgeworth expansion and denoting with $\Phi(\cdot)$, the c.d.f. of standard normal random variable (see Theorem 2.2 and Lemma 5.4 of [@Hall]), we have $$\mathbb{P} \bigl(\bigl|Z_i^n\bigr|\leq\tau_n(x)
\bigr) = \Phi\bigl(\tau _n(x)\bigr)-\Phi \bigl(-\tau_n(x)
\bigr) + \frac{(\log(b_n))^4}{b_n\sqrt{k_n}}K(x)+o \biggl(\frac
{1}{k_n} \biggr)\hspace*{-35pt}$$ for any $x$ where $K(x)$ is a polynomial of $x$. Then we have $$\label{eqproofevtt} \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \biggl[\frac{\mathbb{P}
(|Z_i^n|\leq\tau
_n(x) )}{\Phi(\tau_n(x))-\Phi(-\tau_n(x))}
\biggr]^{b_n} = 1,$$ provided $k_n \asymp\Delta_n^{-1/2}$. This assumption on the rate of growth of $k_n$ guarantees that the distribution of $Z_i^n$ is “sufficiently close” to standard normal. Now we can use (\[eqproofevtt\]) to get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}\bigl(c_{n}^{-1}(M_n-m_{n})
\leq x\bigr) &=& \bigl[\mathbb{P} \bigl(\bigl|Z_i^n\bigr|\leq
\tau_n(x) \bigr)\bigr]^{b_n}
\nonumber
\\[-8pt]
\\[-8pt]
\nonumber
&\sim&\bigl[\Phi\bigl(
\tau_n(x)\bigr)-\Phi\bigl(-\tau_n(x)\bigr)
\bigr]^{b_n}\end{aligned}$$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. From here, using the results for the maximum domain of attraction of the Gumbel distribution (see e.g., Example 1.1.7 of [@Haan]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl[\Phi\bigl(\tau_n(x)\bigr)-\Phi\bigl(-\tau_n(x)
\bigr)\bigr]^{b_n} &=& \bigl[2\Phi\bigl(\tau _n(x)\bigr)-1
\bigr]^{b_n}
\nonumber
\\[-8pt]
\\[-8pt]
\nonumber
& \longrightarrow &\exp\bigl(-2\exp(-x)\bigr) \qquad \forall x,\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$c_{n}^{-1}(M_n-m_{n}) \stackrel{
\mathcal{L}} {\longrightarrow } \Lambda$$ for $\Lambda$ being a random variable with c.d.f. $\exp(-2\exp(-x))$. From here the result in (\[thmevt1\]) (with $\eta_n$ replaced by $\eta
_n^*$) follows.
*Step* 2. We now prove (\[thmevt1\]) with condition (iii) relaxed. Let $\eta_n^{\prime\ast}$ be defined as $\eta_n^*$ but with $\widehat
{V}_t^{\ast}$ replaced by $\widehat{V}_t^{\prime}$. By step 1, (\[thmevt1\]) holds with $\eta_n$ replaced by $\eta_n^{\prime\ast}$. It remains to show that $$\log\bigl(\lfloor T/u_n\rfloor\bigr)^{1/2}
\Delta_n^{-1/4} \bigl(\eta_n - \eta
_n^{\prime\ast}\bigr) = o_p(1).\label{eta301}$$ Note that $|\eta_n-\eta_n^{\prime\ast}| \leq\sup_{0\leq i \leq
\lfloor T/u_n \rfloor-1} |\widehat{V}_{iu_n} - \widehat{V}^{\prime
}_{iu_n}| = O_p(\Delta_n^{(2-r)\varpi-1/2})$, where the stochastic order is shown in step 2 of the proof of Theorem \[thm-u\]. (\[eta301\]) then follows condition (ii). This completes the proof.
Proofs in Section 4.2
---------------------
Under Assumption \[assC\], by Itô’s formula, we can represent $V$ as $$\begin{aligned}
V_{t} &=&V_{0}+\int_{0}^{t}
\tilde{b}_{V,s}\,ds+\int_{0}^{t}\tilde {
\sigma}_{V,s}\,dW_{s}+\int_{0}^{t}
\tilde{\sigma}_{V,s}^{\prime
}\,dW_{s}^{\prime}
\\
&&{}+\int_{0}^{t}\int_{\mathbb{R}}
\tilde{\delta}_{V} ( s,z ) ( \mu-\nu ) ( ds,dz ),\end{aligned}$$ where, by localization, we can assume without loss that the coefficients $\tilde{b}_{V}$, $\tilde{\sigma}_{V}$, $\tilde{\sigma}_{V}^{\prime
}$ are bounded, and $|\tilde{\delta}_{V} ( \omega,s,z ) |\leq
\tilde{
\Gamma} ( z ) $ for any $ ( \omega,s,z ) $, where $\tilde{\Gamma} ( \cdot ) $ is bounded and deterministic, and satisfies $\int_{\mathbb{R}}\tilde{\Gamma} ( z ) ^{\tilde
{r}}\lambda (
dz ) <\infty$.
We consider the following decomposition: for $q>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
V_{t}&=&V_{t}^{\prime} ( q ) +V_{t}^{\prime\prime}
( q ),\qquad\mbox{where }
\\
V_{t}^{c}&=&V_{0}+
\int_{0}^{t}\tilde{b}_{V,s}\,ds+\int
_{0}^{t}\tilde {\sigma} _{V,s}\,dW_{s}+\int_{0}^{t}
\tilde{\sigma}_{V,s}^{\prime
}\,dW_{s}^{\prime
},
\\
V_{t}^{\prime}
( q ) &=&V_{t}^{c}+\int_{0}^{t}
\int_{ \{
z\dvtx \tilde{\Gamma} ( z ) \leq q \} }\tilde{\delta}_{V} ( s,z ) ( \mu-\nu ) (
ds,dz )
\\
&&{}-\int
_{0}^{t}\int_{ \{
z\dvtx \tilde
{\Gamma} ( z ) >q \} }\tilde{
\delta}_{V} ( s,z ) \nu ( ds,dz ),
\\
V_{t}^{\prime\prime}
( q ) &=&\int_{0}^{t}\int_{ \{
z\dvtx \tilde{\Gamma} ( z ) >q \} }
\tilde{\delta}_{V} ( s,z ) \mu ( ds,dz ).$$ Denote $I ( n,i ) =[iu_{n}, ( i+1 ) u_{n})$. We also set $\mathcal{I}_{n} ( q ) =\{0 \leq i\leq \lfloor
T/u_{n} \rfloor-1\dvtx \mu(I ( n,i ) \times\{z\dvtx \tilde
{\Gamma
}( z ) >q\})=0\}$ and $\mathcal{T}_{n} ( q )
=\bigcup_{i\in\mathcal{I}_{n} ( q ) }I ( n,i ) $. Here, $\mathcal{I}_{n} ( q ) $ collects indices of intervals not containing “big” jumps. We can decompose $\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x ) =\widehat{F}_{n,T} (
x;q ) +\widehat{R}_{n,T} ( x;q )$ where $$\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x;q ) =u_{n}\sum
_{i\in\mathcal
{I}_{n} (
q ) }1_{ \{ \widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}\leq x \} },\qquad \widehat{R}_{n,T} ( x;q ) =
\int_{ [ 0,T ]
\setminus
\mathcal{T}_{n} ( q ) }1_{ \{ \widehat{V}_{s}\leq
x
\} }\,ds.$$ Analogously, we have $F_{T}(x)=F_{n,T}(x;q)+R_{n,T}(x;q)$, where $$F_{n,T} ( x;q ) =\int_{\mathcal{T}_{n} ( q )
}1_{
\{
V_{s}\leq x \} }\,ds,\qquad
R_{n,T} ( x;q ) =\int_{ [
0,T ] \setminus\mathcal{T}_{n} ( q ) }1_{ \{
V_{s}\leq
x \} }\,ds.$$ Finally, we set $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\eta}_{n} ( q ) &=&\sup_{i\in\mathcal{I}_{n} (
q )
}{\vert}\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}-V_{iu_{n}}{\vert},
\\
\eta_{n}^{\prime} ( q ) &=&\sup_{0\leq i\leq
\lfloor
T/u_{n} \rfloor}\sup
_{s\in\lbrack iu_{n}, ( i+1 )
u_{n})}\bigl{\vert}V_{s}^{\prime} ( q )
-V_{iu_{n}}^{\prime
} ( q ) \bigr{\vert},
\\
\eta_{n} ( q ) &=&\hat{\eta}_{n} ( q ) +\eta
_{n}^{\prime} ( q ).\end{aligned}$$
We now generalize Lemma \[lem-fu\] as follows.
\[lem-rd\]Suppose $\eta_{n} ( q_{n} ) =O_{p} (
w_{n} ) $ for some nonrandom sequences $q_{n}\rightarrow0$ and $w_{n}\rightarrow0$ and Assumption \[assSA\] with $r=2$. Then under Assumption \[assB\], $\widehat{F}_{n,T} (
x ) -F_{T} ( x ) =O_{p} ( w_{n} )
+O_{p} (
u_{n}q_{n}^{-\tilde{r}} ) $; under Assumption \[assBprime\], the assertion in holds uniformly in $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and moreover $|\widehat
{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha)
-Q_{T}(\alpha)|\leq\xi_{n}\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}|\widehat{F}_{n,T}(x)-F_{T}(x)|$ for some tight sequence of variables $\xi
_{n}$, provided $f_{T}(Q_{T}(\alpha))>0$ a.s.
\(a) Observe that $\mathbb{E}[\int_{ [
0,T] \setminus\mathcal{T}_{n} ( q_{n} ) }\,ds]\leq
Ku_{n}q_{n}^{-\tilde{r}}$, yielding$$\qquad\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}R_{n,T} ( x;q_{n} )
=O_{p} \bigl( u_{n}q_{n}^{-\tilde{r}} \bigr), \qquad\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}\widehat{R}_{n,T} (
x;q_{n} ) =O_{p} \bigl( u_{n}q_{n}^{-\tilde
{r}}
\bigr). \label{lem-rd1-101}$$ By definition, $\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x;q_{n} ) =\int_{\mathcal
{T}_{n} ( q_{n} ) }1_{ \{ \widehat{V}_{s}\leq x \}
}\,ds$. Note that over $\mathcal{T}_{n} ( q_{n} ) $, the process $V_{t}^{\prime
\prime} ( q_{n} ) $ is identically zero. Hence, $\sup_{t\in
\mathcal{T}_{n} ( q_{n} ) }|\widehat{V}_{t}-V_{t}|\leq
\eta
_{n} ( q_{n} ) $. By a similar argument as in (\[lem-fu-101\]), we deduce$$\begin{aligned}
\label{lem-rd1-201}
&&\bigl{\vert}\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x;q_{n} ) -F_{n,T}
( x;q_{n} ) \bigr{\vert}\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\leq F_{n,T}
\bigl( x+\eta_{n} ( q_{n} );q_{n} \bigr)
-F_{n,T} \bigl( x-\eta_{n} ( q_{n} );q_{n} \bigr)
\\
&&\qquad\leq F_{T}
\bigl( x+\eta_{n} ( q_{n} ) \bigr) -F_{T} \bigl(
x-\eta_{n} ( q_{n} ) \bigr).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By an argument similar to part (b) of Lemma \[lem-fu\], we derive $F_{T} ( x+\eta_{n} ( q_{n} ) ) -F_{T} (
x-\eta
_{n} ( q_{n} ) ) =O_{p} ( w_{n} ) $. The assertion of part (a) then follows (\[lem-rd1-101\]) and (\[lem-rd1-201\]).
\(b) By localization, we can suppose that $V$ is bounded and thus $f_{T} ( \cdot ) $ is compactly supported. Since $f_{T} (
\cdot
) $ is continuous, $\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}f_{T} (
x ) =O_{p} ( 1 ) $. By (\[lem-rd1-201\]),$$\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}\bigl|\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x;q_{n} )
-F_{n,T} ( x;q_{n} ) \bigr|\leq2\eta_{n} (
q_{n} ) \sup_{z\in
\mathbb{R}
}f_{T} ( z ).
\label{lem-rd-203}$$ The assertion then readily follows (\[lem-rd1-101\]) and (\[lem-rd-203\]).
\(c) Observe that $\widehat{F}_{n,T}(\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha))\geq
\alpha
=F_{T}(Q_{T}(\alpha))$, where the inequality follows the definition of quantiles and the equality is due to the continuity of $F_{T}(\cdot)$. Hence,$$\begin{aligned}
\label{lem-rd-304}
F_{T}\bigl(Q_{T}(\alpha)\bigr)-F_{T}\bigl(
\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha)\bigr) & \leq& \widehat{F}_{n,T}\bigl(
\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha)\bigr)-F_{T}\bigl(\widehat
{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha )\bigr)
\nonumber
\\[-8pt]
\\[-8pt]
\nonumber
& \leq&
\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}
\bigl{\vert}\widehat {F}_{n,T}(x)-F_{T}(x)\bigr{\vert}.$$ For any $\varepsilon>0$, $\widehat{F}_{n,T}(\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha
)-\varepsilon)<\alpha=F_{T}(Q_{T}(\alpha))$, yielding $$\begin{aligned}
F_{T}\bigl(\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha)-\varepsilon
\bigr)-F_{T}\bigl(Q_{T}(\alpha)\bigr) &<&F_{T}
\bigl(\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha)-\varepsilon\bigr)-\widehat
{F}_{n,T}\bigl(\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha)-
\varepsilon\bigr)
\\
&\leq&\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}\bigl\vert \widehat {F}_{n,T}(x)-F_{T}(x)
\bigr\vert.\end{aligned}$$ Since $F_{T} ( \cdot ) $ is continuous, by sending $\varepsilon
\downarrow0$ we deduce$$F_{T}\bigl(\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha)\bigr)-F_{T}
\bigl(Q_{T}(\alpha)\bigr)\leq\sup_{x\in
\mathbb{R}}\bigl{\vert}\widehat{F}_{n,T}(x)-F_{T}(x)\bigr{\vert}.
\label{lem-rd-305}$$ Let $\mathcal{K}_{n,T} ( \alpha ) $ be the closed interval with endpoints $Q_{T}(\alpha)$ and $\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha)$. Set $\xi
_{n}\equiv\sup_{x\in\mathcal{K}_{n,T} ( \alpha )
}f_{T}^{-1} ( x ) $. By a mean-value expansion,$$\qquad\bigl{\vert}F_{T}\bigl(\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha)
\bigr)-F_{T}\bigl(Q_{T}(\alpha )\bigr)\bigr{\vert}\geq\inf
_{x\in\mathcal{K}_{n,T} ( \alpha )
}f_{T} ( x ) \bigl{\vert}\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(
\alpha )-Q_{T}(\alpha )\bigr{\vert}. \label{lem-rd-306}$$ Since $f_{T}(Q_{T}(\alpha))>0$ a.s., $\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha
)\stackrel{\mathbb{P}}{\longrightarrow}Q_{T}(\alpha)$ by Corollary \[cor-Q\]. Since $f_{T} ( \cdot ) $ is continuous, $\inf_{x\in\mathcal{K}_{n,T} ( \alpha ) }f_{T} ( x ) \stackrel
{\mathbb{P}}{\longrightarrow}f_{T}(Q_{T}(\alpha))>0$; hence $\xi_{n}$ is tight. The assertion then follows (\[lem-rd-304\]), (\[lem-rd-305\]) and ([lem-rd-306]{}).
[Proof of Theorem \[thm-rd\]]{} *Step* 1. We first consider $\eta_{n}^{\prime} ( q_{n} ) $. For each $i$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sup_{s\in\lbrack iu_{n}, ( i+1 ) u_{n})}\bigl{\vert}V_{s}^{\prime
} (
q_{n} ) -V_{iu_{n}}^{\prime} ( q_{n} ) \bigr
{\vert}\leq\zeta_{n,i}+\zeta_{n,i}^{\prime}+
\zeta_{n,i}^{\prime\prime
},\qquad\mbox{where}
\\
&&\qquad\zeta_{n,i}=\sup
_{s\in\lbrack iu_{n}, ( i+1 )
u_{n})}\biggl{\vert}\int_{iu_{n}}^{s}
\int_{ \{ z\dvtx \tilde{\Gamma} ( z )
>q_{n} \} }\tilde{\delta}_{V} ( s,z ) \nu ( ds,dz )
\biggr{\vert},
\\
&&\qquad\zeta_{n,i}^{\prime}=
\sup_{s\in\lbrack iu_{n}, ( i+1 )
u_{n})}\biggl{\vert}\int_{iu_{n}}^{s}
\int_{ \{ z\dvtx \tilde{\Gamma
} (
z ) \leq q_{n} \} }\tilde{\delta}_{V} ( s,z ) ( \mu -\nu ) (
ds,dz ) \biggr{\vert},
\\
&&\qquad\zeta_{n,i}^{\prime\prime}=
\sup_{s\in\lbrack iu_{n}, (
i+1 )
u_{n})}\bigl{\vert}V_{s}^{c}-V_{iu_{n}}^{c}
\bigr{\vert}.\end{aligned}$$ For $\zeta_{n,i}$, observe that$$\begin{aligned}
\label{thm-rd-101}\quad
\Bigl{\vert}\sup_{0\leq i\leq \lfloor T/u_{n} \rfloor
}\zeta _{n,i}\Bigr{\vert}&
\leq& \sup_{0\leq i\leq \lfloor T/u_{n} \rfloor}
\int_{iu_{n}}^{ (
i+1 ) u_{n}}\int_{ \{ z\dvtx \tilde{\Gamma} ( z )
>q_{n} \} }\tilde{
\Gamma} ( z ) \nu ( ds,dz )
\nonumber
\\[-8pt]
\\[-8pt]
\nonumber
\quad & \leq& Ku_{n}q_{n}^{ ( 1-\tilde{r} ) \wedge0}.\end{aligned}$$
Now turn to $\zeta_{n,i}^{\prime}$. Let $p\geq2$. For each $i\geq
0$, by Lemma 2.1.5 in [@jacodprotter2012], $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\bigl{\vert}\zeta_{n,i}^{\prime}\bigr{\vert}^{p} &\leq &K_{p}u_{n}\int_{ \{ z\dvtx \tilde{\Gamma} ( z ) \leq
q_{n} \} }\tilde{\Gamma} ( z ) ^{p}\lambda ( dz )
\\
&&{}+K_{p}u_{n}^{p/2} \biggl( \frac{1}{u_{n}}\int
_{I ( n,i )
}\,ds\int_{ \{ z\dvtx \tilde{\Gamma} ( z ) \leq q_{n}
\}
}\tilde{\Gamma} ( z ) ^{2}\lambda ( dz ) \biggr) ^{p/2}
\\
&\leq&K_{p}u_{n}q_{n}^{p-\tilde{r}}+K_{p}u_{n}^{p/2}q_{n}^{ (
2-\tilde{r} ) p/2}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $\Vert\zeta_{n,i}^{\prime}\Vert_{p}\leq
K_{p}u_{n}^{1/p}q_{n}^{1-\tilde{r}/p}+K_{p}u_{n}^{1/2}q_{n}^{1-\tilde{r}/2}$. By the maximal inequality (Lemma 2.2.2 in [@vandervaartwellner]),$$\Bigl{\Vert}\sup_{0\leq i\leq \lfloor T/u_{n} \rfloor
}\zeta _{n,i}^{\prime}
\Bigr{\Vert}_{p}\leq K_{p}q_{n}^{1-\tilde{r}/p}+K_{p}u_{n}^{1/2-1/p}q_{n}^{1-\tilde{r}/2}.
\label{thm-rd-102}$$ Since $V^{c}$ is continuous, by a standard estimate for $\zeta
_{n,i}^{\prime\prime}$ and the maximal inequality,$$\Bigl{\Vert}\sup_{0\leq i\leq \lfloor T/u_{n} \rfloor
}\zeta _{n,i}^{\prime\prime}
\Bigr{\Vert}_{p}\leq K_{p}u_{n}^{1/2-1/p}.
\label{thm-rd-103}$$ Combining (\[thm-rd-101\]), (\[thm-rd-102\]) and (\[thm-rd-103\]), we derive for $p\geq2$, $\Vert\eta_{n}^{\prime}( q_{n}) \Vert_{p}
\leq
K_{p}a_{n,p}^{\prime}$, where $$a_{n,p}^{\prime} \equiv u_{n}q_{n}^{ ( 1-\tilde{r} )
\wedge0}
\vee q_{n}^{1-\tilde{r}/p}\vee u_{n}^{1/2-1/p}.$$
*Step* 2. Observe that$$\hat{\eta}_{n} ( q_{n} ) \leq\sup_{i\in\mathcal
{I}_{n} (
q_{n} ) }
\bigl{\vert}\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}-\widehat {V}_{iu_{n}}^{\prime
}
\bigr{\vert}+\sup_{i\in\mathcal{I}_{n} ( q_{n} ) }\bigl{\vert}\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}^{\prime}-V_{iu_{n}}
\bigr{\vert}. \label{thm-rd-201}$$ By Lemma \[lem-vstar\], for $i\in\mathcal{I}_{n} (
q_{n} )
$, for some $\xi_{n,i}$ with $\Vert\xi_{n,i} \Vert_p \leq K_p k_n^{-1/2}$, $$\bigl{\vert}\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}^{\prime}-V_{iu_{n}}\bigr
{\vert}\leq \xi_{n,i}+\sup_{s\in\lbrack iu_{n}, ( i+1 )
u_{n})}\bigl{\vert}V_{s}^{\prime} ( q_{n} ) -V_{iu_{n}}^{\prime
}
( q_{n} ) \bigr{\vert}.$$ Therefore, by a similar argument as in step 1,$$\Bigl{\Vert}\sup_{i\in\mathcal{I}_{n} ( q_{n} ) }\bigl{\vert}\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}^{\prime}-V_{iu_{n}}
\bigr{\vert}\Bigr{\Vert}_{p}\leq K_{p}u_{n}^{-1/p}k_{n}^{-1/2}+K_{p}a_{n,p}^{\prime}.
\label{thm-rd-202}$$ Similarly as in step 2 of the proof of Theorem \[thm-u\] \[recall that $\theta
=0$ if $r\leq1$ and $\theta\in ( 0,\infty ) $ can be arbitrarily fixed when $r>1$\]$$\sup_{i\in\mathcal{I}_{n} ( q_{n} ) }\bigl{\vert}\widehat {V}_{iu_{n}}-\widehat{V}_{iu_{n}}^{\prime}\bigr{\vert}=O_{p} \bigl( \Delta _{n}^{{(\gamma-r\varpi-\theta)}/{(1\vee r)}- ( 1-2\varpi
)
} \bigr).
\label{thm-rd-203}$$ Combining (\[thm-rd-201\])–(\[thm-rd-203\]), we derive $\hat
{\eta}_{n} ( q_{n} ) =O_{p} ( w_{n,p} ) $ for $p\geq2$, where $$w_{n,p} \equiv\Delta_{n}^{{(\gamma-r\varpi-\theta)}/{(1\vee r)}- ( 1-2\varpi ) }\vee
u_{n}^{-1/p}k_{n}^{-1/2}\vee
a_{n,p}^{\prime
}.$$ By step 1, we further derive $\eta_{n} ( q_{n} )
=O_{p} (
w_{n,p} ) $.
By Lemma \[lem-rd\](a), we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x ) -F_{T} ( x )
\\
&&\qquad=O_{p} (
w_{n,p} ) +O_{p} \bigl( u_{n}q_{n}^{-\tilde{r}}
\bigr)
\\
&&\qquad=O_{p} \bigl(
\Delta_{n}^{{(\gamma-r\varpi-\theta)}/{(1\vee r)}
- ( 1-2\varpi ) }\vee u_{n}^{-1/p}k_{n}^{-1/2}
\vee q_{n}^{1-\tilde{r}/p}\vee u_{n}^{1/2-1/p}\\
&&\hspace*{280pt}{}\vee
u_{n}q_{n}^{-\tilde{r}} \bigr).\end{aligned}$$ Taking $q_{n}=u_{n}^{1/ ( 1+\tilde{r}-\tilde{r}/p ) }$ and recalling $k_{n}\asymp\Delta_{n}^{-\gamma}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x ) -F_{T} ( x )
\\
&&\qquad=O_{p} \bigl(
\Delta_{n}^{{(\gamma-r\varpi-\theta)}/{(1\vee r)}
- ( 1-2\varpi ) }\vee\Delta_{n}^{{\gamma}/{2}-
{(1-\gamma)}/{p}}\vee
\Delta_{n}^{ ( 1-\gamma ) (
{1}/{2}-{1}/{p})}\\
&&\hspace*{193pt}{}\vee\Delta _{n}^{{((1-\gamma)(1-\tilde{r}/p))}/{(1+\tilde{r}-\tilde
{r}/p)}}
\bigr)\end{aligned}$$ and by taking $p$ sufficiently large, $$\begin{aligned}
&&\widehat{F}_{n,T} ( x ) -F_{T} ( x )
\\
&&\qquad=O_{p} \bigl(
\Delta_{n}^{{(\gamma-r\varpi-\theta)}/{(1\vee r)}
- ( 1-2\varpi ) }\vee\Delta_{n}^{\gamma/2-\iota}\vee
\Delta _{n}^{ ( 1-\gamma ) /2-\iota}\vee\Delta_{n}^{ (
1-\gamma
) / ( 1+\tilde{r} ) -\iota}
\bigr).\end{aligned}$$
The discontinuous case in part (a) then readily follows the definitions of $\theta$, $a_{n}$ \[see (\[an\])\] and $d_{n}$. The continuous case in part (a), as well as part (b), can be proved in a similar (but simpler) way.
[Proof of Theorem \[thm-rdu\]]{} We first show that $\sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}|\widehat{F}_{n,T}(x)-F_{T}(x)|=O_{p}(d_{n})$. The proof is similar as that of Theorem \[thm-rd\], except in step 2 of the proof, we use Lemma \[lem-rd\](b) instead of Lemma \[lem-rd\](a). The result for $\widehat{F}_{n,T}^{\ast}$ can be proved similarly. The assertion concerning $\widehat{Q}_{n,T}(\alpha)$ then follows from Lemma \[lem-rd\](c). The assertion on $\widehat{Q}^{*}_{n,T}(\alpha)$ can be proved in a similar (but simpler) way; the details are omitted for brevity.
Proofs in Section 5
-------------------
[Proof of Theorem \[thm-kd\]]{} (a) By localization and condition (iv), we can assume that $V_{t}$ takes value in some compact $
\mathcal{K}\subset ( 0,\infty ) $, and thus $f_{T} (
\cdot
) $ is supported on $\mathcal{K}$. We set $f_{n,T}(x)=\int_{0}^{T}h_{n}^{-1}\kappa( h_{n}^{-1}(V_{s}-x)) \,ds$. For each $x\in\mathbb{R}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\bigl\vert \widehat{f}_{n,T} ( x ) -f_{n,T} ( x
) \bigr\vert &\leq&\mathbb{E} \biggl[ h_{n}^{-1}\int
_{0}^{T}\biggl\vert\kappa \biggl(\frac{\widehat{V}_{s}-x}{h_{n}}\biggr)-\kappa \biggl(\frac{V_{s}-x}{h_{n}}\biggr)\biggr\vert \,ds \biggr]
\\
&\leq&Kh_{n}^{-2}\mathbb{E} \biggl[ \int
_{0}^{T}\vert \widehat {V}_{s}-V_{s}{\vert}ds \biggr].\end{aligned}$$ By Lemmas \[lem-vstar\] and \[lem-eoj\], $\mathbb{E}|\widehat{V}
_{s}-V_{s}|\leq K\bar{a}_{n}$. Hence, $$\mathbb{E}\bigl{\vert}\widehat{f}_{n,T} ( x ) -f_{n,T} ( x
) \bigr{\vert}\leq Kh_{n}^{-2}\bar{a}_{n},\qquad
\mathbb {E} \bigl[ \Vert\widehat{f}_{n,T}-f_{n,T}
\Vert_{w} \bigr] \leq Kh_{n}^{-2}\bar{a}_{n},
\label{ker-1}\hspace*{-35pt}$$ where $K$ does not depend on $x$. Now observe that $f_{n,T}(x)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}h_{n}^{-1}\kappa( h_{n}^{-1}(y-x)) f_{T}(y)\,dy$. By a change of variable, $f_{n,T}(x)=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\kappa ( z )
f_{T}(x+h_{n}z)\,dz$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}\bigl{\vert}f_{n,T}(x)-f_{T} ( x ) \bigr{\vert}&\leq &\int_{\mathbb{R}}\kappa ( z ) \mathbb{E}\bigl{\vert}f_{T} ( x+h_{n}z ) -f_{T} ( x ) \bigr{\vert}\,dz
\\
&\leq&Kh_{n}^{\beta}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\kappa ( z )
{\vert}z{\vert}^{\beta}\,dz\leq Kh_{n}^{\beta},\end{aligned}$$ which further implies $\mathbb{E}[\Vert f_{n,T}-f_{T}\Vert_{w}]\leq
Kh_{n}^{\beta}$. Combining these estimates with (\[ker-1\]) completes the proof of part (a). Part (b) can be proved in a similar way.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Tim Bollerslev, Nathalie Eisenbaum, Jean Jacod, Andrew Patton and Philip Protter for helpful discussions as well as an Associate Editor and two referees for very helpful suggestions. We are particularly grateful to Markus Reiss for suggesting the direct estimation approach adopted in the paper and the link with the uniform error in estimating the volatility path given in Lemma \[lem-fu\] of the paper.
[20]{}
(). . .
(). . .
(). . .
(). . .
(). . , .
(). . .
(). . .
(). . .
(). . , .
(). . . , .
().
().
(). . .
(). , ed. . , .
(). , ed. . , .
(). . . , .
(). . . , .
(). . , .
(). . .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
\
[Dipartimento di Fisica ed Astronomia, Università di Padova, and INFN, Sezione di Padova, Via Marzolo 8, 35131 Padova, Italy]{}\
- |
Tiziano Peraro\
[Higgs Centre for Theoretical Physics, School of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, Scotland, UK]{}\
- |
Amedeo Primo\
[Dipartimento di Fisica ed Astronomia, Università di Padova, and INFN, Sezione di Padova, Via Marzolo 8, 35131 Padova, Italy]{}\
- |
William J. Torres Bobadilla\
[Dipartimento di Fisica ed Astronomia, Università di Padova, and INFN, Sezione di Padova, Via Marzolo 8, 35131 Padova, Italy]{}\
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Adaptive Integrand Decomposition
---
Introduction
============
The decomposition of multiloop scattering amplitudes in terms of independent functions, together with the subsequent determination of the latter, is a viable alternative to the direct integration which, for non-trivial processes, may require the calculation of a prohibitively large number of complicated Feynman integr[*als*]{}.
Decomposing multi-loop amplitudes in terms of independent integrals can become problematic when the number of the scales of the diagrams increases, due to the exchange or to the production of massive particles, or when a large number of external particles are scattered, or when the morphology of the contributing diagrams becomes involved. The integr[*and*]{} decomposition algorithm has the advantage of treating scattering amplitudes involving massive particles at the same [*price*]{} of amplitudes for massless scattering. The output of the reduction procedure is the partial fractioning of the original integrand, namely the determination of the remainders of the successive division between the numerator and (the partitions of the product of) the denominators. Upon inte gration, the partial fraction formula correspond to rewrite the original amplitudes as a combination of independent integrals. However, the result of the integrand decomposition represents an intermediate step towards the complete amplitude reduction. In fact, additional relations among those integrals, like integration-by-parts identities, can minimise the number of independent master integrals (MIs) which can appear in the final formulas.
The integrand decomposition algorithm [@Ossola:2006us; @Ossola:2007bb; @Ellis:2007br; @Ellis:2008ir; @Ossola:2008xq; @Mastrolia:2008jb; @Mastrolia:2012bu] played a key role for the automation of one-loop corrections to high-multiplicity scattering processes [@Ossolaproc]. The extension of this approach at two-loop and beyond [@Mastrolia:2011pr; @Badger:2012dp; @Zhang:2012ce; @Mastrolia:2012an] has been under intense investigation. The recent developments on the integrand side have been accompanied by important developments for novel derivation of the integral relations needed to identify MIs [@Ita:2015tya; @Larsen:2015ped; @VonManteuffel:2014ixa; @Kant:2013vta], as well as by progress in the ability of computing the latter analytically [@Henn:2013pwa; @Argeri:2014qva; @Papadopoulos:2014lla] as well as numerically [@Borowka:2015mxa; @Smirnov:2015mct]. This vivid research has been largely due to the deeper understanding of the properties of the integrands of Feynman graph, and of the refined algebraic and differential calculus which control them.
In these proceedings, we summarise the results of ref. [@Mastrolia:2016dhn].
Parallel and orthogonal space for multiloop Feynman integrals
=============================================================
In this contribution, we elaborate on a representation of dimensionally regulated Feynman integrals where, for any given diagram, the number of space-time dimensions $d \ ( = 4 - 2 \epsilon)$ is split into [*parallel*]{} (or longitudinal) and [*orthogonal*]{} (or transverse) dimensions, as $d=d_{\parallel}+ d_{\perp}$ [@Collins:105730; @Kreimer:1991wj; @Kreimer:1992zv; @Czarnecki:1994td; @Frink:1996ya; @kreimer:1996qy]. Accordingly, the parallel space is spanned by the independent four-dimensional external momenta of the diagram, namely $d_{\parallel} = n - 1$, where $n$ is the number of legs, whereas the transverse space is spanned by the complementary orthogonal directions. For diagrams with a number of legs $n \ge 5$, the orthogonal space embeds the $-2 \epsilon$ regulating dimensions, $d_\perp = - 2 \epsilon$, while, for diagrams with $n \le 4$, the orthogonal space is larger and it embeds, beside the regulating dimensions, also the four-dimensional complement of the parallel space, namely $d_\perp = (5-n) - 2 \epsilon$. In this sense, the decomposition of the space-time dimensions in parallel and orthogonal directions can be considered as [*adaptive*]{}, since it depends on the number of legs of the individual diagram.\
A generic $\ell$-loop Feynman integral with $n$ external legs in a $d$-dimensional Euclidean space can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
I_{n}^{d\,(\ell)}[\mathcal{N}]=\int\left( \prod_{i=1}^{\ell}\frac{d^dq_{i}}{\pi^{d/2}}\right)\frac{\mathcal{N}(q_{i})}{\prod_{j}D_{j}(q_{i})}.
\label{eq:Ilk+1}\end{aligned}$$ In the previous equation $\mathcal{N}(q_{i})$ is an arbitrary tensor numerator and the denominators $D_j(q_i)$ are quadratic in the loop momenta and can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
&D_j=l_j^2+m_j^2, \quad\text{with}\quad l_j^{\alpha}=\sum_{i}\alpha_{ij}q_i^{\alpha}+\sum_{i}\beta_{ij}p_i^{\alpha},
\label{eq:dens2l}\end{aligned}$$ where $\{p_1,\,\dots,\,p_{n-1}\}$ is the set of independent external momenta and $\alpha,\beta \in\{0,\pm 1\}$.
When dealing with regularisation schemes where the external kinematics is kept in four dimensions, the $d$-dimensional loop momenta are often split into a four-dimensional part and a $(-2\epsilon)$-dimensional one, $$\begin{aligned}
q^{\alpha}_{i}=&q_{[4]\,i}^{\alpha}+\mu_i^{\alpha},\qquad q_i\cdot q_{j}=q_{[4]\, i}\cdot q_{[4]\, j}+\mu_{ij},\quad (\mu_{ij}=\mu_{i}\cdot\mu_{j}),
\label{4mu}
\end{aligned}$$ and the denominators read $$\begin{aligned}
&D_i=l_{i[4]}^2+\sum_{j,k}\alpha_{ij}\alpha_{ik}\,\mu_{jk}+m_i^2,\quad\text{with}\quad l_{i[4]}^{\alpha}=\sum_{j}\alpha_{ij}q_{i[4]}^{\alpha}+\sum_{j}\beta_{ij}p_j^{\alpha}.
\label{eq:densmu}
\end{aligned}$$ Therefore both the numerator in and the denominators become polynomials in ${\ell(\ell+9)}/{2}$ variables, namely the $(-2\epsilon)$-dimensional scalar products $\mu_{ij}$ and the components of $q_{i[4]}^{\alpha}$ with respect to a four-dimensional basis of vectors $\{e_i^{\alpha}\}$, $q_{[4]\, i}^{\alpha}=\sum_{j=1}^{4}x_{ji}e_j^{\alpha}$. Thus, in $d=4-2\epsilon$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
I_{n}^{d\,(\ell)}[\mathcal{N}]=\Omega^{(l)}_d\int\prod_{i=1}^{\ell} d^4q_{[4]\,i}\int \prod_{1\leq i\leq j\leq \ell} d\mu_{ij}\left[G(\mu_{ij})\right]^{\frac{d-5-\ell}{2}} \frac{\mathcal{N}(q_{[4]\,i},\mu_{ij})}{\prod_{m}D_{m}(q_{[4]\,i},\mu_{ij})},
\label{eq:oldpar}
\end{aligned}$$ where $G(\mu_{ij})=\text{det}[(\mu_i\cdot\mu_j)]$ is the Gram determinant and the prefactor $\Omega^{(\ell)}_d$ is the result of the angular integration over the angular directions.
For a number of external legs $n\leq 4$, the external momenta define a $d_{\parallel}$-dimensional subspace with $d_{\parallel}=n-1$. In these cases one can parametrise the integral in such a way that the number of variables appearing in the denominators is reduced to ${\ell(\ell+2d_{\parallel}+1)}/{2}$. The numerator will instead still have a polynomial dependence over the remaining $\ell(4-d_{\parallel})$ variables. These can however be integrated out via a straightforward expansion of the numerator in terms of orthogonal polynomials. More in detail, if $d_{\parallel}\leq 3$, one can choose $4-d_{\parallel}$ of the vectors in the basis $\{e_i^{\alpha}\}$ to lie into the subspace orthogonal to the external kinematics, *i.e.* $e_i\cdot p_j=0\: (i> d_{\parallel},\,\forall j)$, and $e_i\cdot e_j =\delta_{ij} \;(i,j> d_{\parallel})$. In this way, loop momenta in $d=d_{\parallel}+d_{\perp}$ read $$\begin{aligned}
q_{i}^{\alpha}=q_{\parallel\, i}^{\alpha}+\lambda^{\alpha}_{i},
\label{eq:newdeco}
\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
q_{\parallel\, i}^{\alpha}=\sum_{j=1}^{d_{\parallel}}x_{ji}e_{j}^{\alpha},\qquad
\lambda^{\alpha}_i=\sum_{j=d_{\parallel}+1}^4x_{ji}e_j^{\alpha}+\mu_i^{\alpha},
\end{aligned}$$ where $q_{\parallel\, i}$ is a vector of the $d_{\parallel}$-dimensional space spanned by the external momenta, and $\lambda_{i}$ belongs the $d_{\perp}$-dimensional orthogonal subspace. In this parametrisation, all denominators become independent of the transverse components of the loop momenta, $$\begin{aligned}
&D_i=l_{\parallel\, i}^2+\sum_{j,l}\alpha_{ij}\alpha_{il}\,\lambda_{jl}+m_i^2,\quad
&l_{\parallel\, i}^{\alpha}=\sum_{j}\alpha_{ij}q_{\parallel\, i}^{\alpha}+\sum_{j}\beta_{ij}p_j^{\alpha},
\qquad \lambda_{ij}=\sum_{l=d_{\parallel}+1}^4x_{li}x_{lj}+\mu_{ij},
\label{eq:dens2l2}
\end{aligned}$$ and they depend on a reduced set of ${\ell(\ell+2d_{\parallel}+1)}/{2}$ variables, corresponding to the $\ell d_{\parallel}$ components of $q_{\parallel\, i}^{\alpha}$ and the $\ell(\ell+1)/2$ scalar products $\lambda_{ij}$. In $d=d_{\parallel}+d_{\perp}$, the integral can thus be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
I_{n}^{d\,(\ell)}[\mathcal{N}]=\Omega^{(\ell)}_d\!\int\prod_{i=1}^{\ell} d^{n-1}q_{\parallel \, i}\int\! d^{\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{2}} \boldsymbol{\Lambda}\int\! d^{(4-d_{\parallel})\ell}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{\perp}\frac{\mathcal{N}(q_{i \,\parallel},\boldsymbol{\Lambda},\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{\perp})}{\prod_{j}D_{j}(q_{ \parallel\, i},\boldsymbol{\Lambda})},
\label{eq:lambth}
\end{aligned}$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lambdaShout}
\int d^{\frac{\ell(\ell+1)}{2}} \boldsymbol{\Lambda}
=\int \prod_{1\leq i\leq j}d\lambda_{ij}\left[G(\lambda_{ij})\right]^{\frac{d_{\perp}-1-\ell}{2}}
\end{aligned}$$
defines the integral over the norm of the transverse vectors $\lambda_{i}^{\alpha}$ and their relative orientations and $\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{\perp}$ parametrises the integral over the components of $\lambda_{i}^{\alpha}$ lying in the four-dimensional space.
Remarkably, eq. allows to express a subset of components of $q_{\parallel i}^\alpha$ and $\lambda_{ij}$ as combinations of loop denominators by solving linear relations. Therefore, one can always build differences of denominators which are linear in the loop momenta and independent of $\lambda_{ij}$, while the relation between $\lambda_{ij}$ and the denominators is always linear by definition, as it can be seen from eq. . Since the denominators do not depend on the $\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{\perp}$-components, their integration can be easily performed. In fact, the integration over $\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{\perp}$ amounts to a product of factorised, univariate integrations of polynomial integrands, each of the type $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-1}^{1}\!d\!\cos\theta_{ij} (\sin\theta_{ij})^{\alpha}(\cos\theta_{ij})^{\beta}.
\label{eq:angularint}
\end{aligned}$$ The values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ depend on the specific expression of the numerator. Nevertheless, these integrals can be computed once and for all up to the desired rank and then re-used in every calculation, when occurring. These integrals can be evaluated by performing the Passarino-Veltman tensor reduction in the orthogonal space. Alternatively, they can be evaluated by exploiting the properties of of *Gegenbauer polynomials* $C^{(\alpha)}_{n}(\cos\theta)$, a particular class of orthogonal polynomials over the interval $[-1,1]$, which obey the orthogonality relation $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{-1}^{1}\!d\!\cos\theta (\sin\theta)^{2\alpha-1}C^{(\alpha)}_{n}(\cos\theta)C^{(\alpha)}_{m}(\cos\theta)=\delta_{mn}\frac{2^{1-2\alpha}\pi\Gamma(n+2\alpha)}{n!(n+\alpha)\Gamma^2(\alpha)}.
\label{eq:ortcos}
\end{aligned}$$
We observe that there are special classes of multiloop integrals, associated to factorised and ladder topologies, whose denominators are independent of a certain number of transverse orientations $\lambda_{ij}$. For these cases, the Gegenbauer integration can be applied, besides to all $\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{\perp}$, also to the $\lambda_{ij}$ which do not appear in the denominators.
Adaptive Integrand Decomposition
=================================
Integrand recurrence relation {#sec:integrrecrel}
-----------------------------
In the framework of the integrand reduction method [@Ossola:2006us; @Ellis:2007br; @Mastrolia:2011pr; @Badger:2012dp; @Zhang:2012ce; @Mastrolia:2013kca], the computation of dimensionally regulated $\ell$-loop integrals $$\begin{aligned}
I^{d\,(\ell)}_{i_1\dots i_r}=\int \prod_{j=1}^{\ell}\frac{d^dq_{j}}{\pi^{d/2}}\,\frac{\mathcal{N}_{i_1\dots i_r}(q_j)}{D_{i_1}(q_j)\cdots D_{i_r}(q_j)}
\end{aligned}$$ is rephrased in terms of the reconstruction of the integrand function as a sum of integrands with irreducible numerators (or *residues*) and a subset of denominators $D_{i_k}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{I}_{i_1\dots i_r}(q_j)\equiv\frac{\mathcal{N}_{i_1\dots i_r}(q_j)}{D_{i_1}(q_j)\cdots D_{i_r}(q_j)}=\sum_{k=0}^{r}\sum_{\{i_1\cdots i_k\}}\frac{\Delta_{j_1\cdots j_k}(q_j)}{D_{j_1}(q_j)\cdots D_{j_{k}}(q_j)}.
\label{eq:intdec}
\end{aligned}$$ For an integral with an arbitrary number $n$ of external legs, the integrand decomposition formula can be obtained by observing that both numerator and denominators are polynomials in the components of the loop momenta with respect to some basis, which we collectively label as $\mathbf{z}=\{z_1,\dots,z_{\frac{\ell(\ell+9)}{2}}\}$. Thus, we can fix a monomial ordering and build a Gröebner basis $\mathcal{G}_{i_1\cdots i_r}(\mathbf{z})$ of the ideal $\mathcal{J}_{i_1\cdots i_r}$ generated by the set of denominators, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J}_{i_1\cdot\cdot \cdot i_r}\equiv \bigg\{\sum_{k=1}^{r}h_k(\mathbf{z})D_{i_k}(\mathbf{z})\,:\,h_k(\mathbf{z})\in P[\mathbf{z}]\bigg\},
\end{aligned}$$ being $P[\mathbf{z}]$ the ring of polynomials in $\mathbf{z}$. By performing the polynomial division of $\mathcal{N}_{i_1\cdots i_r}(\mathbf{z})$ modulo $\mathcal{G}_{i_1\cdot\cdot\cdot i_r}(\mathbf{z})$, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}_{i_1\cdots i_r}(\mathbf{z})=\sum_{k=1}^{r}\mathcal{N}_{i_1\cdots i_{k-1}i_{k+1}\cdots i_{r}}(\mathbf{z})D_{i_k}(\mathbf{z})+\Delta_{i_1\cdots i_r}(\mathbf{z})
\label{eq:q+r}
\end{aligned}$$ we obtain the recurrence relation $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{I}_{i_1\cdots i_r}=\sum_{k=1}^{r}\mathcal{I}_{i_1\cdots i_{k-1}i_{k+1}\cdots i_{r}}+\frac{\Delta_{i_1\cdots i_r}(\mathbf{z})}{D_{i_1}(\mathbf{z})\,\cdots D_{i_n}(\mathbf{z})\,},
\label{eq:rec}
\end{aligned}$$ whose iterative application to the integrands corresponding to subtopologies with fewer loop propagators yields to the complete decomposition .\
Depending on the choice of variables $\mathbf{z}$ and the monomial order, the picture presented in this section can significantly simplify. A particular convenient choice of variables turns out to be the one presented in eq. . Indeed, as already observed, we can always express a subset of the components of $q_{\parallel i}^\alpha$ and $\lambda_{ij}$ as a combination of denominators by solving linear relations. This set of relations is in turn equivalent to the definition of the denominators themselves. This implies that if we choose the lexicographic monomial order with $\lambda_{ij}\prec x_{kl}$ for $k\leq d_{\parallel}$, the polynomials in the Gröbner bases are linear in the $\lambda_{ij}$ and the reducible components of $q_{\parallel i}^\alpha$. The polynomial division can thus equivalently be performed by applying the aforementioned set of linear relations without explicitly computing the corresponding Gröbner basis.
Divide, integrate and divide
----------------------------
When dealing with an integral with $n\leq 4$ external legs, we can use the $d=d_{\parallel}+d_{\perp}$ parametrisation which removes the dependence of the denominators on the transverse components of the loop momenta. Thus, if we indicate with $\mathbf{z}$ the full set of $\ell(\ell+9)/2$ variables $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{z}=&\{\mathbf x_{\parallel\,i},\mathbf x_{\perp\,i},\lambda_{ij}\},\quad i,j=1,\dots\ell,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{x}_{\parallel\,i}$($\mathbf{x}_{\perp\,i}$) are the components of the loop momenta parallel(orthogonal) to the external kinematics, the denominators are reduced to polynomials in the subset of variables $$\begin{aligned}
\boldsymbol{\tau}=&\{\mathbf{x}_{\parallel},\lambda_{ij}\},\quad \boldsymbol{\tau}\subset \mathbf{z},
\end{aligned}$$ so that the general $r$ denominators integrand has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{I}_{i_1\dots i_r}(\boldsymbol{\tau},\mathbf{x}_{\perp})\equiv\frac{\mathcal{N}_{i_1\dots i_r}(\boldsymbol{\tau},\mathbf{x}_{\perp})}{D_{i_1}(\boldsymbol{\tau})\cdots D_{i_r} (\boldsymbol{\tau})}.
\end{aligned}$$ This observation suggests an *adaptive* version of the integrand decomposition algorithm, where the polynomial division is simplified by working on the reduced set of variables $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ and the expansion of the residues in terms of Gegenbauer polynomials allows the systematic identification of spurious terms. The algorithm is organised in three steps:
1. **Divide:** we adopt lexicographic ordering $\lambda_{ij}\prec \mathbf x_{\parallel}$ for the $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ variables and we divide the numerator $\mathcal{N}_{i_1\dots i_r}(\boldsymbol{\tau},\mathbf{x}_{\perp})$ modulo the Gröebner basis $\mathcal{G}_{i_1\cdots i_r}(\boldsymbol{\tau})$ of the ideal $\mathcal{J}_{i_1\cdots i_r}(\boldsymbol{\tau})$ generated by the denominators, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{N}_{i_1\dots i_r}(\boldsymbol{\tau},\mathbf{x}_{\perp})=\sum_{k=1}^{r}\mathcal{N}_{i_1\dots i_{k-1}i_{k+1}\dots i_r}(\boldsymbol{\tau},\mathbf{x}_{\perp})D_{i_k}(\boldsymbol{\tau})+\Delta_{i_1\dots i_{r}}(\mathbf x_{\parallel},\mathbf x_{\perp}).
\end{aligned}$$ As a consequence of the specific monomial ordering, the residue $\Delta_{i_1\dots i_{r}}$ can depend on the transverse components $\mathbf x_{\perp\,i}$, which are left untouched by the polynomial division, as well as on $\mathbf x_{\parallel\,i}$ but not on $\lambda_{ij}$ that are expressed in terms of denominators and irreducible physical scalar products. Conversely, the quotient, from which the numerators corresponding to the subdiagrams to be further divided are obtained, still depends on the full set of loop variables. As we explained at the end of sec. \[sec:integrrecrel\], the Gröbner basis does not need to be explicitly computed, since, with the choice of variables and the ordering described here, the division is equivalent to applying the set of linear relations described above.
2. **Integrate:** by writing the contribution of the residue $\Delta_{i_1\dots i_{r}}$ to the integral in the $d=d_{\parallel}+d_{\perp}$ parametrisation, we can integrate over transverse directions through the expansion of $\Delta_{i_1\dots i_{r}}$ in terms of Gegenbauer polynomials, which sets to zero spurious terms and reduce all non-vanishing contributions to monomials in $\lambda_{ij}$. It should be noted that, due to the angular prefactors produced by the integration of the transverse directions, the integrated residue $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^{\text{int}}_{i_1\dots i_{r}}(\boldsymbol{\tau})=\int\! d^{(4-d_{\parallel})\ell}\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{\perp}\Delta_{i_1\dots i_{r}}(\boldsymbol{\tau},\boldsymbol{\Theta}_{\perp})
\end{aligned}$$ is, in general, a polynomial in $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ whose coefficients depend explicitly on the space-time dimension $d$. The full set of $\Delta^{\text{int}}_{i_1\dots i_{r}}(\boldsymbol{\tau})$, obtained by iterating on each subdiagram numerator the polynomial division and the integration over the transverse space, provides already a spurious term-free representation of the integrand .
3. **Divide:** however, since $\Delta^{\text{int}}_{i_1\dots i_{r}}(\boldsymbol{\tau})$ depends on the same variables as the denominators $D_{i_k}(\boldsymbol{\tau})$, we can perform a further division modulo the Gröebner basis $\mathcal{G}_{i_1\cdots i_r}(\boldsymbol{\tau})$ and get $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_{i_1\dots i_r}^{\text{int}}(\boldsymbol{\tau})=\sum_{k=1}^{r}\mathcal{N}^{\text{int}}_{i_1\dots i_{k-1}i_{k+1}\dots i_r}(\boldsymbol{\tau})D_{i_k}(\boldsymbol{\tau})+\Delta^{\prime}_{i_1\dots i_r}(\mathbf x_{\parallel}),
\end{aligned}$$ where, due to the choice of lexicographic ordering, the new residue $\Delta^{\prime}_{i_1\dots i_r}(\mathbf x_{\parallel})$ can only depend on $\mathbf x_{\parallel}$. Therefore, this additional polynomial division allows us to obtain an integrand decomposition formula , where all irreducible numerators are function of the components of the loop momenta parallel to the external kinematics. As in the previous case, the division modulo Gröbner can equivalently be implemented via a set of linear relations.
The interpretation of the monomials appearing in the residues $\Delta^{\prime}_{i_1\cdots i_r}(\mathbf{x}_{\parallel})$ in terms of a basis of tensor integrals can be additionally simplified by making use of the Gram determinant $G[\lambda_{ij}]$ (or $G[\mu_{ij}]$ for cases with more than four external legs, where $\mathbf{x}_\parallel\equiv \mathbf{x}$). In fact, as it can be easily understood from and , $G[\mu_{ij}]$ and $G[\lambda_{ij}]$ can be interpreted as operators that, when acting on an arbitrary numerator of a $d$-dimensional integral, produce a dimensional shift $d\to d+2$. Therefore, Gram determinants can be used in order to trade some of the $d$-dimensional tensor integrals originating from the residues with lower rank integrals in higher dimensions.
Integrate and divide
--------------------
In the three-step algorithm [*divide-integrate-divide*]{}, outlined in the previous section, the integration over the transverse angles is performed after the integrand reduction, namely after determining the residues. This first option follows the standard integrand reduction procedure, where the spurious monomials are present in the decomposed integrand, although they do not contribute to the integrated amplitude. Alternatively, if the dependence of the numerators on the loop momenta is known, then the integration over the orthogonal angles can be carried out before the reduction. Within this second option, which we can refer to as [*integrate-divide*]{}, after eliminating the orthogonal angles from the integrands, the residues resulting from the polynomial divisions contain only non-spurious monomials. In order to integrate before the reduction, the dependence of the numerator on the loop momenta should be either known analytically or reconstructed semi-analytically [@Heinrich:2010ax; @Hirschi:2016mdz]. Such situation may indeed occur when the integrands to be reduced are built by automatic generators or they emerge as quotients of the subsequent divisions.
Applications
============
We summarise the results obtained from the application of the *adaptive* integrand decomposition (AID) at one loop in Table \[tab:1l\]. In the first column, $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ labels the variables the denominators depend on. $\Delta_{i_1\,\cdots\,i_n}$ indicates the residue obtained after the polynomial division of an arbitrary $n$-rank numerator and $\Delta_{i_1\,\cdots\,i_n}^{\text{int}}$ the result of its integral over transverse directions. $\Delta_{i_1\,\cdots\,i_n}^{'}$ corresponds to the minimal residue obtained from a further division of $\Delta_{i_1\,\cdots\,i_n}^{\text{int}}$. In the figures, wavy lines indicate massless particles, whereas solid ones stands for arbitrary masses.
As an exceptional property of one-loop integrands, we find that by working with $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ variables, all unitarity cuts are reduced to zero-dimensional systems. Moreover, we show that the last step of the algorithm, *i.e.* the further polynomial division after angular integration over the transverse space, provides an implementation of the dimensional recurrence relations at the integrand level.
Beside revisiting the one-loop, we applied the AID in order to determine the universal parametrisation of the residues appearing in the integrand decomposition of the three eight-point topologies shown in fig. \[fig:maxcutP\]-\[fig:maxcutNP2\]. The results obtained are valid for arbitrary (internal and external) kinematic configuration. For the complete results of the two-loop decomposition, we refer the reader to the ref. [@Mastrolia:2016dhn].
[0.33]{} {height="0.8in"}
[0.33]{} {height="0.9in"}
[0.33]{} {height="0.9in"}
Furthermore, we applied the AID to the leading color contribution to the two-loop all-plus five-gluon amplitude [@Badger:2013gxa; @Badger:2015lda; @Papadopoulos:2015jft; @Gehrmann:2015bfy; @Dunbar:2016aux; @Dunbar:2016cxp; @Badger:2016ozq], which, after the first step of the division algorithm, admits a decomposition of the form $$\begin{gathered}
A^{(2)}(1^{+},2^{+},3^{+},4^{+},5^{+})=
\int \frac{d^{d}q_{1}}{\pi^{d/2}}\frac{d^{d}q_{2}}{\pi^{d/2}} \ \Bigg\{
\frac{\Delta\bigg(\parbox[h][0.07\linewidth][c]{0.09\linewidth}{
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figures//pentagon.pdf}}\bigg)}{D_{1}\,D_{2}\,D_{3}\,D_{4}\,D_{5}\,D_{6}\,D_{7}\,D_{8}}
+\frac{\Delta\bigg(\parbox[h][0.07\linewidth][c]{0.09\linewidth}{
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figures//BoxTriangle.pdf}}\bigg)}{D_{1}\,D_{2}\,D_{3}\,D_{4}\,D_{5}\,D_{6}\,D_{7}}
\\+\frac{\Delta\bigg(\parbox[h][0.07\linewidth][c]{0.09\linewidth}{
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figures//DoubleBox5L.pdf}}\bigg)}
{D_{1}\,D_{2}\,D_{3}\,D_{5}\,D_{6}\,D_{7}\,D_{8}}
+\frac{\Delta\bigg(
\parbox[h][0.07\linewidth][c]{0.09\linewidth}{
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figures//DoubleBox.pdf}}\bigg)}{D_{1}\,D_{3}\,D_{4}\,D_{5}\,D_{6}\,D_{7}\,D_{8}}
+\frac{\Delta\bigg(
\parbox[h][0.07\linewidth][c]{0.09\linewidth}{
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figures//DoubleBox23.pdf}}\bigg)}
{D_{1}\,D_{2}\,D_{4}\,D_{5}\,D_{6}\,D_{7}D_{8}}\\
+\frac{\Delta\bigg(\parbox[h][0.07\linewidth][c]{0.09\linewidth}{
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figures//DoubleTriangle5L.pdf}}\bigg)}{D_{1}\,D_{2}\,D_{3}\,D_{5}\,D_{6}\,D_{7}}
+\frac{\Delta\bigg(\parbox[h][0.07\linewidth][c]{0.09\linewidth}{
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figures//DoubleTriangle.pdf}}\bigg)}{D_{1}\,D_{3}\,D_{4}\,D_{5}\,D_{6}\,D_{7}}
+\frac{\Delta\bigg(\parbox[h][0.07\linewidth][c]{0.09\linewidth}{
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{Figures//DoubleTriangle23.pdf}}\bigg)}{D_{1}\,D_{2}\,D_{4}\,D_{5}\,D_{6}\,D_{7}}
\Bigg\}\\
+\text{cycl. perm.}\end{gathered}$$ The residue have been obtained from numerators constructed through Feynman diagrams in Feynman gauge, including both gluon and ghost loop contributions. The relevant Feynman graphs, a selection of which is shown in fig. \[fig:5ptdiag\], have been generated by using [@Hahn:2000kx] and [@Mertig:1990an; @Shtabovenko:2016sxi]. The expression of the residues have been numerically checked against the results of [@Badger:2013gxa]. The integration of the transverse directions of both four-point and factorised topologies and the further division of the integrated residues may lead to a new representation of the amplitude, whose discussion is, nevertheless, beyond the scope of this report.
![Selection of Feynman diagrams contributing to the five-gluons amplitude. Curly lines represent gluons and dashed ones indicate ghosts.[]{data-label="fig:5ptdiag"}](Figures/fivegluons.pdf)
Conclusions
===========
Owing to the representation of Feynman integrals in parallel and orthogonal space, numerators and denominators of integrands appear to depend on different sets of integration variables. By exploiting the different origin and role of these variables, we engineered a novel variant of the integrand decomposition algorithm, defined as [*adaptive integrand decomposition*]{} (AID), where the multivariate polynomial division is simplified and the integration over transverse space variables can be efficiently carried out by means of Gegenbauer polynomials. Orthogonality relations for Gegenbauer polynomials detect and annihilate the so called spurious integrals at any loop order, and can be used any time that a certain subset of integration variables do not appear in the denominators, as it happens also in the case of factorised diagrams and ladder topologies.
As a result of the AID, each amplitude is written in terms of a set of integrals which, beside the scalar ones, contains tensor integrals with irreducible scalar products depending on the parallel directions and on the lengths of the transverse vectors only. In addition, we have shown that the integration over the transverse directions leads to integrals which can be subject to additional polynomial divisions, which in some cases correspond to dimension-shifting recurrence relations implemented at the integrand level.
We revisited the one-loop integrand decomposition, showing that it is completely determined by the maximum-cut theorem in different dimensions. Furthermore, we considered the complete reduction of two-loop planar and non-planar integrals for arbitrary kinematics, classifying the corresponding residues and identifying the independent integrals contributing to eight-particle scattering amplitudes. The proposed algorithm can be simply extended to higher loops.
In view of the development of automated tools for the evaluation of multi-loop amplitudes, the AID can be used as an intermediate reduction phase to achieve an expression in terms of an independent set of integrals. The latter can be further simplified by means of relations arising from additional symmetries that can occur, such as integration-by-parts identities and color-kinematics duality.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA 02139'
author:
- Gunther Uhlmann and András Vasy
bibliography:
- 'sm.bib'
date: 'October 15, 2001'
title: 'Low energy inverse problems in three-body scattering'
---
macro.tex
[^1]
Introduction
============
Scattering theory is the analysis of the motion of several interacting particles. Inverse problems in scattering theory seek the answer to the question: can one determine the interactions between particles by a scattering experiment, so, for instance, does the scattering matrix, or a part of the scattering matrix, determine the interaction? The answer, and the difficulty, greatly depends on the part of the scattering data one wishes to use. Before explaining the various settings, we remark that the inverse problems are highly non-linear since the scattering data do not depend linearly on the interactions. Hence, one of the usual methods in the field is to transfer the problem to an asymptotically linear one, which is then easier to analyze.
The simplest setting is the study of high energy asymptotics of the scattering matrix, for then the potentials behave like small perturbations of the Laplacian. In addition, the leading term in the asymptotics depends linearly on them. This problem was studied, under various assumptions, by Enss and Weder [@Enss-Weder:Geometrical; @Enss-Weder:Inverse], Novikov [@Novikov:N-body] and Wang [@Wang:High].
Here we are interested in finite energy problems, i.e. where the scattering data are known either only at a fixed energy, or in a fixed bounded interval of energies. Thus, the problems are not immediately equivalent to a linear perturbation problem. The flavor of the problem greatly depends on the part of the scattering matrix one wishes to use.
In some situations a principal symbol calculation for an S-matrix allows one to use the 2-body inverse results. An example of this is free-to-free scattering: as shown in [@Vasy:Structure], in three-body scattering the singularities of the free-to-free S-matrix at energy $\lambda>0$ determine the S-matrices in all proper subsystems at all energies in $(0,\lambda)$, which then determine the pair interactions by two-body results. More precisely, the principal symbol of the part of the free-to-free S-matrix corresponding to a single collision is essentially given by the subsystem S-matrix at the energies in $(0,\lambda)$. Slightly more involved arguments using the results of [@Vasy:Bound-States] are expected to work in the many-body setting to show that the free-to-free S-matrix determines all pair interactions.
However, one may wish to study inverse problems where the parts of the S-matrix that are known do not have any singularities, so the previous method cannot be applied. An example is two-cluster to any other cluster scattering. Indeed, Skibsted [@Skibsted:Smoothness] has shown that the corresponding S-matrices have smooth kernels apart from the diagonal singularity of the 2-cluster to same 2-cluster S-matrix. The latter agrees with the diagonal singularity of the kernel of the identity operator if the potentials are Schwartz, hence is of no help for the inverse problem; this is also the case with the two-body problem with Schwartz potentials. In certain ways, these are the most realistic problems, for in a scattering experiment one typically shoots a particle at a nucleus, atom, molecule, or other such composite ‘cluster’, which may break up as a result of the collision. One then measures the outcome of the experiment – this is exactly the information contained in the two-cluster to other-cluster S-matrices.
We study two-cluster to same two-cluster scattering for three-body Hamiltonians with real-valued potentials under the assumption that all unknown interactions are short-range and small. We show that the S-matrices $S_{\alpha\alpha'}(\lambda)$ in an energy interval $I_\lambda$ below the break-up energy determine the Fourier transform of the effective interaction in a ball, whose radius is determined by the energy of the bound state under consideration. More precisely we prove the following theorem, whose statement uses some notation that we describe in detail in the next section.
\[thm:main\] Suppose that $\alpha$ is a channel in a 2-cluster $a$, $\dim X_a\geq 2$, and $\mu>\dim X_a$, and $V_a\in S^{-s}(X^a)$ for some $s>0$. There exists a constant $\delta>0$ such that the following statement holds.
Suppose that $\sup|\langle w^b\rangle^\mu V_b|<\delta$ for all $b\neq a$. Suppose also that $I\subset(\ep_\alpha,0)$ is a non-empty open interval, and let $R=2\sqrt{\sup I-\ep_\alpha}$. Then $S_{\alpha'\alpha''}(\lambda)$, $\lambda\in I$, given for all bound states $\alpha'$, $\alpha''$ with energy $\ep_{\alpha'},\ep_{\alpha''}<0$, determines the Fourier transform $\hat V_\alpha$ of the effective interaction, $$\label{eq:pair-101-intro}
V_\alpha=\int_{X^a}
I_a|\psi_{\alpha}|^2\,dw^a,$$ in the ball $B_0(R)$ of radius $R$ centered at the origin in $X_a$.
If we only want to determine $\hat V_\alpha$ in a smaller ball, we need even less information. There is a variety of statements one can make using different information; we only make the following one.
\[thm:main2\] Suppose that $a$ is a 2-cluster, $\dim X_a\geq 2$, $V_a\in S^{-s}(X^a)$ for some $s>0$, $\alpha$ is the ground state of $H^a$ with $\ep_\alpha<0$. Let $\ep'>\ep_\alpha$ be the next eigenvalue of $H^a$, or $0$ if this does not exist. Let $\mu>\dim X_a$. There exists a constant $\delta>0$ such that the following statement holds.
Suppose that $\sup|\langle w^b\rangle^\mu V_b|<\delta$, for all $b\neq a$. Suppose also that $I\subset(\ep_\alpha,0)$ is a non-empty open interval, and let $R=2\sqrt{\min(\sup I,\ep')-\ep_\alpha}$. Then $S_{\alpha\alpha}(\lambda)$, $\lambda\in I$, determines the Fourier transform $\hat V_\alpha$ of the effective interaction, $$\label{eq:pair-101-intro-p}
V_\alpha=\int_{X^a}
I_a|\psi_{\alpha}|^2\,dw^a,$$ in the ball $B_0(R)$ of radius $R$ centered at the origin in $X_a$.
Since we are working below the break-up energy, heuristically one expects that the composite particle may be regarded as a single particle, and two-body methods may be applied. This turns out to be false, at least when taken literally. Indeed, many two-body methods, one of which we describe below, rely on allowing large complex momenta for the particles, which in turn permits the break-up of a cluster. Hence, one of the themes of this paper is the extent to which composite particles may be regarded as a single unit below break-up energies for the purposes of inverse problems in scattering theory.
Our strategy is similar to how one approaches low energy inverse problems in two-body scattering, which we now briefly recall. Then the kernel of the (relative) S-matrix is also smooth for Schwartz potentials, once the kernel of $\Id$ is subtracted, and is conormal to the diagonal for symbolic potentials. Faddeev [@Faddeev:Increasing; @Faddeev:Factorization; @Faddeev:Inverse] started the study of exponential solutions, i.e. solutions of $(H-\lambda)u=0$ of the form $u=u_\rho=
e^{i\rho\cdot w}(1+v_\rho(w))$, $v_\rho$ ‘small’, $\rho$ not necessarily real, and $\rho\cdot\rho=\lambda$. Even if $\lambda$ is fixed, by allowing $\rho$ to be complex, one can take $\rho\to\infty$, so that $v_\rho\to 0$ in an appropriate sense. Provided that one can relate the pairing $$\label{eq:pairing-int}
\int u_\rho V e^{-i\rho'\cdot w}\,dw,$$ taking the limit $\rho\to\infty$ (and $\rho'\to\infty$) becomes an analogue of the high energy limit, with the leading term linear in the potential. In other words, the high energy asymptotics is replaced by high complex momentum asymptotics, as pioneered by Calderón, see [@Calderon:Inverse; @Sylvester-Uhlmann:Global; @RBMGeo].
While the S-matrix is not analytic in the energy $\lambda$ unless other assumptions are made, for a very large class of potentials (including Schwartz potentials) $u_\rho$ is meromorphic (indeed, analytic if $V$ is small) in the complex one-dimensional space (i.e. line) spanned by $\im\rho$, provided this line is fixed. In other words, $u_\rho$ is analytic in $z$ (in $\im z\neq 0$), where we write $\rho=z\nu+\rho_\perp$, $\nu,\rho_\perp$ real, $\nu\cdot\rho_\perp=0$. Moreover, from $\im z>0$, $u_\rho$ extends continuously to $\im z=0$ if $V$ is small, and to a large subset of the real line in $z$ otherwise. This can be exploited in problems where the S-matrix is known in an interval, as in the work of Novikov [@Novikov-Khenkin:D-bar], Weder [@Weder:Global] and Isozaki [@Isozaki:Multi-dimensional]. Indeed, one shows first that the S-matrix in an energy interval determines the pairing in a corresponding interval in $z$, then uses that the boundary values of a meromorphic function determine the function, finally lets $z\to\infty$ and uses the high momentum limit to determine the Fourier transform of $V$.
In the three-body setting, there are similar exponential solutions corresponding to a bound state $\psi_\alpha$ of a subsystem $H^a$, so $(H^a-\ep_\alpha)\psi_\alpha=0$. Namely, one considers solutions of $(H-\lambda)u_\rho=0$ of the form $u_\rho=e^{i\rho\cdot w_a}(\psi_\alpha(w^a)+v_\rho(w))$ where $\rho$ is in the complexification $\Cx(X_a)$ of $X_a$, $\rho\cdot\rho=\lambda-\ep_\alpha$, $\lambda\in\Cx$. In fact, this construction works in great generality, though the structure of $u_\rho$ changes with $\rho$. In this paper we keep $|\rho_\perp|<\sqrt{-\ep_\alpha}$, in which case $u_\rho$ can be constructed by perturbation theory. In particular, it is easy to see that $u_\rho$ depends analytically on $z$. Here perturbation theory is understood loosely, for even if the unknown interactions $V_b$ are small, they are [*not*]{} a compact perturbation of $H_a=\Delta+V_a$, for they do [*not*]{} decay at infinity. In particular, if $V_b$ becomes large, the structure of $u_\rho$ changes drastically, and its analyticity in $z$ is far from clear. Even for small $V_b$, if we take $\rho_\perp$ large, the cluster will be allowed to break up, creating a major difficulty for fixed energy inverse problems.
On the other hand, the connection to the S-matrices is less immediate than in the two-body setting. In general, one expects that all parts of the S-matrix need to be known at a certain energy to determine the pairing $\int u_\rho I_a \overline{\psi_{\alpha}(w^a)}
e^{-i\rho'\cdot w_a}\,dw$. This can be seen explicitly from the statement of our main theorem, when it is applicable: $S_{\alpha'\alpha''+}(\lambda)$ play a role in the statement for all $\alpha'$, $\alpha''$. In fact, analogously to an observation of Novikov [@Novikov:Determination], by reducing $|\rho_\perp|$ further (than $|\rho_\perp|<\sqrt{-\ep_\alpha}$ mentioned above), some of the two-cluster to two-cluster S-matrices can be eliminated, as was done in the second theorem. However, the restriction on $\rho_\perp$ implies restrictions on the frequencies at which $\hat V_\alpha$ can be recovered.
The structure of this paper is the following. After recalling the usual many-body notation, we construct the exponential eigenfunctions, and we study their limit as $\rho$ becomes real. We use this to relate the corresponding pairing to the S-matrix. Finally, we apply this to the study of the inverse problem by taking $\rho\to\infty$, and prove Theorems \[thm:main\] and \[thm:main2\].
The authors are grateful to Rafe Mazzeo, Richard Melrose, Roman Novikov and Maciej Zworski for helpful discussions.
Notation and preliminaries
==========================
Below the notation is that of [@Vasy:Bound-States], which is to say it is the standard many-body notation as in [@Derezinski-Gerard:Scattering]. First, $X=X_0=\Rn$ is the total configuration space, equipped with the standard Euclidean metric $g$. The collision planes, $X_a$, $a\in I$, $I$ finite, are linear subspaces of $X_0$, and $X^a$ is the orthocomplement of $X_a$ in $X_0$. We assume that $\{X_a:\ a\in I\}$ is closed under intersections, includes $X_0$ and $X_1=\{0\}$. We write $w=(w_a,w^a)$ for coordinates on $X=X_a\oplus X^a$, and identify $X_a^*$ with $X_a$ via the metric $g$.
We write $\sphere_a=C_a$ for the unit sphere in $X_a$ (with respect to the metric inherited from $X_0$). Geometrically it is better to consider $C_a$ as ‘the sphere at infinity’, but for the sake of simplicity (and to conform with the usual many-body conventions) we adopt the unit sphere point of view. We also let $C_{a,\sing}=\cap_{C_b\subsetneq C_a} C_b$ be the singular, $C_{a,\reg}=C_a\setminus C_{a,\sing}$ the regular part of $C_a$. Recall also that a two-cluster $a$, denoted by $\#a=2$, is a (non-trivial) cluster such that $C_b\subset C_a$ implies $b=a$ (or $b=1$ or $a=1$ provided that $C_1=\emptyset$ is included in the collection of $C_c$’s). Thus, two-clusters are the most singular clusters, and in particular if $a$ is a 2-cluster, then $C_{a,\sing}=\emptyset$. The collection of collision plans corresponds to a three-body geometry if every cluster, except $0$ and $1$, is a two-cluster.
Concerning the analytic aspects, we write $L^2_p(X_a)$ for the weighted $L^2$ space $L^2(X_a,\langle w_a\rangle^{2p}\,dw_a)$ on $X_a$. We also write $H^s_p(X_a)=H^{s,p}(X_a)$ for the Sobolev space corresponding to this weight.
We let $H^a$ be the subsystem Hamiltonian on $X^a$, i.e.$$H^a=\Delta_{X^a}+\sum_{X^b\subset X^a} V_b,$$ and $I_a$ is the intercluster interaction $I_a=V-\sum_{X^b\subset X^a} V_b$. The unreduced subsystem Hamiltonian acts on functions on the whole space $\Rn$; it is $$H_a=\Delta_{X_a}+H^a.$$ In addition, $R^a$, resp. $R_a$, denote the resolvent of the reduced, resp. unreduced, Hamiltonian of the subsystem $a$, i.e. $R^a(\sigma)=(H^a-\sigma)^{-1}$, $R_a(\sigma)=(H_a-\sigma)^{-1}$ for $\sigma\nin\Real$. We write $\Lambda$ for the set of thresholds of $H$, which is defined inductively over the proper subsystems by $$\Lambda_a=\cup_{X_b\supsetneq X_a} \Lambda'_b,
\quad \Lambda'_b=\Lambda_b\cup\pspec(H^b),$$ and we usually denote the spectral parameter by $\lambda$. In particular, for a three-body Hamiltonian $H$, if $a$ is a 2-cluster then $\Lambda_a=\{0\}$, $\Lambda'_a=\{0\}\cup\pspec(H^a)$, and $\Lambda_1=\Lambda
=\cup_{\#a=2}\Lambda'_a$, $\Lambda'=\Lambda_1'=\Lambda\cup\pspec(H)$.
Let $\psi_\alpha$ denote the normalized $L^2$ eigenfunctions of $H^a$, and let $\ep_\alpha$ be the bound state energy in $\psi_\alpha$: $(H^a-\ep_\alpha)\psi_\alpha=0$. If $\ep_\alpha$ is not an eigenvalue of a proper subsystem of $H^a$, then $\psi_\alpha\in
e^{-\mu_\alpha|w_a|}L^2(X^a)$ for some $\mu_\alpha>0$ given by the next threshold above $\ep_\alpha$ (see [@FroExp]). We call such a bound state $\alpha$ a non-threshold bound state.
Usually the Poisson operator and the scattering matrices are considered as operators on functions on unit spheres in appropriate spaces. When we investigate the real-frequency behavior of the exponential solutions that we construct in the next section, it will be convenient to consider the Poisson operators and S-matrices as operators acting on functions on spheres of different radii. Thus, we replace the unit sphere in $X_a$ by the sphere $\sphere_a(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\alpha})$ as the parameterization space for the Poisson operators; here $$\sphere_a(\sigma)=\{\xi_a\in X_a:\ |\xi_a|=\sigma\}.$$ The regular and singular parts of $\sphere_a(\sigma)$ are defined analogously to those of $C_a$.
The thus normalized forward Poisson operator of $H_a$ in channel $\alpha$ is given by $$\begin{split}
\calPt_{\alpha,+}(\lambda)g=c_\alpha\psi_{\alpha}(w^a)&
\int_{\sphere_a(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\alpha})} e^{-iw_a\cdot\omega_a}
g\,d\omega_a,\quad g\in\Cinf_c(\sphere_{a,\reg}(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\alpha})),\\
&c_\alpha=(\lambda-\ep_\alpha)^{\frac{m-1}4}e^{-\frac{m-1}4\pi i}
(2\pi)^{-\frac{m-1}2},\ m=\dim X_a,
\end{split}$$ where $d\omega_a$ is the standard measure on $\sphere_a(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\alpha})$ normalized to have volume equal to that of the unit sphere. The Poisson operator of $H$ in channel $\alpha$ is then $$\begin{split}
\calP_{\alpha,+}(\lambda)g&=\calPt_{\alpha,+}(\lambda)g
-R(\lambda+i0)((H-\lambda)
\calPt_{\alpha,+}(\lambda)g)\\
&=\calPt_{\alpha,+}(\lambda)g-R(\lambda+i0)I_a
\calPt_{\alpha,+}(\lambda)g.
\end{split}$$ Note that if $\langle w^b\rangle^\mu V_b\in L^\infty(X^b)$, then $$\langle w_a\rangle^{p} I_a\calPt_{\alpha,+}(\lambda)g\in L^2(X_0),
\ g\in\Cinf_c(\sphere_{a,\reg}(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\alpha})),\ p<\mu-1/2,$$ so the preceeding expression makes $\calP_{\alpha,+}(\lambda)$ well-defined for $\mu>1$. There is some arbitrariness in the normalization of $\calPt_{\alpha,+}(\lambda)$. The present definition is adopted because of its connection with the asymptotic behavior of $\calPt_{\alpha,+}(\lambda)g$ at infinity, see [@Vasy:Scattering].
The backward Poisson operator is defined similarly, with $$\label{eq:P*-F}
\calPt_{\alpha,-}(\lambda)g=\overline{c_\alpha}\psi_{\alpha}(w^a)
\int_{\sphere_a(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\alpha})} e^{iw_a\cdot\omega_a}
g\,d\omega_a,\quad g\in\Cinf_c(\sphere_{a,\reg}(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\alpha})),$$ $$\begin{split}
\calP_{\alpha,-}(\lambda)g&=\calPt_{\alpha,-}(\lambda)g
-R(\lambda-i0)((H-\lambda)
\calPt_{\alpha,-}(\lambda)g)\\
&=\calPt_{\alpha,-}(\lambda)g-R(\lambda-i0)I_a
\calPt_{\alpha,-}(\lambda)g.
\end{split}$$
The scattering matrix relates the forward and backward Poisson operators, i.e. connects incoming and outgoing data. Here we only need an expression connecting the S-matrices to the ‘Green pairing’.
\[prop:boundary-pair\] Let $\alpha$ and $\beta$ be channels associated to the clusters $a$ and $b$ respectively, and suppose that $\lambda\nin\Lambda'$. Let $u_+=\calP_{\alpha,+}(\lambda)g_+$, $u_-=\calPt_{\beta,-}(\lambda)g_-$, $g_+\in\Cinf_c(\sphere_{a,\reg}(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\alpha}))$, $g_-\in\Cinf_c(C_{b,\reg}(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\beta}))$. Then $$\begin{split}\label{eq:boundary-pair}
\langle u_+,I_b u_-\rangle&=\langle u_+,(H-\lambda)u_-\rangle
-\langle(H-\lambda) u_+,u_-\rangle\\
&=2i\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\beta}(\langle \calS_{\alpha\beta+}(\lambda)g_+,g_-\rangle-
\delta_{\alpha\beta}\langle g_+,\calSt_{\beta\beta-}(\lambda)g_-\rangle)\\
&=2i\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\beta}
\langle (\calS_{\alpha\beta+}(\lambda)-\delta_{\alpha\beta}
\calS_+(\lambda))g_+,g_-\rangle.
\end{split}$$ where the $L^2$ pairings on the spheres are with respect to the standard measures normalized to have the volume of the unit sphere, $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ is the Kronecker delta function, and $\calS_{\beta\beta-}(\lambda)$ is the free scattering matrix on $X_a$ at energy $\lambda-\ep_\beta$, hence it is a constant multiple of pull-back by the antipodal map on $\sphere_b(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\beta})$.
In each of the two relevant microlocal regions, namely incoming and outgoing, one of the two functions $u_+$ and $u_-$ has trivial asymptotics. Thus, the calculation of [@Vasy:Scattering Section 3] applies separately in each region.
With the current normalization, the S-matrix is geometric, i.e. under the free evolution particles incoming at direction $\omega$ exit in the opposite direction $-\omega$. We now introduce the relative S-matrix (relative to free motion) as follows. Let $p^*$ denote pull-back by the antipodal map, and let $$\calS^\sharp_{\alpha\beta+}(\lambda)=\frac{1}{2i\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\beta}}
\left(
\calS_{\alpha\beta+}(\lambda)-\delta_{\alpha\beta}
\calSt_+(\lambda)\right)p^*.$$ If $\alpha$, $\beta$ are 2-clusters, and $V_b\in S^{-s}(X^b)$, $s>0$, is a symbol, then the kernel of $\calS^\sharp_{\alpha\beta+}(\lambda)$ is conormal to the diagonal (in the sense that it is smooth for $\alpha\neq\beta$, conormal for $\alpha=\beta$), and if $V_b$ is Schwartz, $\calS^\sharp_{\alpha\beta+}(\lambda)$ is a smoothing operator, i.e. it has a smooth kernel, as was proved by Skibsted [@Skibsted:Smoothness]. If $V_b\in\Sch(X^b)$ for all $b$, this can be seen from , for $I_a\calPt_{\alpha,-}(\lambda):
\dist(\sphere_a(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\alpha}))\to\Sch(X_0)$. In general, one needs to construct a better approximation for $\calP_{\alpha+}(\lambda)$ (better than $\calPt_{\alpha+}(\lambda)$); this is what Skibsted did in [@Skibsted:Smoothness]. If $\langle w^b\rangle^\mu V_b\in L^\infty(X^b)$, with $\mu>\dim X_a$, we may take $g_\pm$ to be delta distributions directly (without using Skibsted’s construction, hence without a symbolic assumption), $g_+=\delta_\omega$, $g_-=\delta_{\omega'}$, $\omega\in \sphere_a(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\alpha})$, $\omega'\in\sphere_b(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\beta})$. Writing $$U_\rho=(\Id-R(\lambda+i0)I_a)u^0_\rho,\ \lambda=\rho^2+\ep_\alpha,$$ we thus deduce the following.
\[cor:pair-8\] For $\lambda\nin\Lambda'$, $\langle w^b\rangle^\mu V_b\in L^\infty(X^b)$, $\mu>\dim X_a$, $$\label{eq:pair-8}
\calS^\sharp_{\alpha\beta+}
(\lambda,\omega,\omega')=\int_{\Rn} I_b U_\omega
\overline{e^{iw_b\cdot\omega'}\psi_\beta}=\int_{\Rn} I_b U_\omega
e^{-iw_b\cdot\omega'}\overline{\psi_\beta},$$ hence $\calS^\sharp_{\alpha\beta+}$ has a continuous kernel.
Exponential eigenfunctions for three-body Hamiltonians
======================================================
In this section we construct exponential solutions of $(H-\lambda)u=0$ in the three-body setting. First, for $\rho\in\Cx(X_a)$, i.e. $\re\rho,\im\rho\in X_a$, let $$u^0_\rho=u^0_{\alpha,\rho}=e^{i\rho\cdot w_a}\psi_\alpha(w^a).$$ Thus, $u^0_\rho$ is an ‘exponential eigenfunction’ of $H_a$, namely $$(H_a-\lambda)u^0_\rho=0,\qquad \rho\cdot\rho=\lambda-\ep_\alpha.$$ We assume everywhere that $\dim X_a\geq 2$.
For the Hamiltonian $H$, we then seek exponential solutions $u$ of the form $$u=u_\rho
=e^{i\rho\cdot w_a}(\psi_\alpha(w^a)+v),\ \rho\cdot\rho=\lambda-\ep_\alpha,
\ \rho\in \Cx(X_a),$$ where $v$ is supposed to be ‘small’, and $\Cx(X_a)$ denotes the complexification of $X_a$, i.e. $\re\rho,\im\rho\in X_a$. Substituting into $(H-\lambda)u=0$, we obtain $$(\Delta+2\rho\cdot D_w+V_a+I_a-\ep_\alpha)v=-I_a\psi_\alpha.$$ The right hand side decays at infinity since $\psi_\alpha$ does so in $X^a$, and $I_a$ decays away from $\cup_{\#b=2,\ b\neq a}C_b$. More precisely, we have the following lemma.
Suppose that $\mu>0$. There exists $C>0$ with the following property. If $\langle w^b\rangle^{\mu}V_b\in L^\infty(X^b)$ for all two-clusters $b$ with $b\neq a$ then $$\label{eq:I_a-w_a}
|I_a|\leq C\langle w_a\rangle^{-\mu}
\langle w^a\rangle^{\mu}\sup|\langle w^b\rangle^{\mu}V_b|$$
As $X_a\cap X_b=\{0\}$ for $b\neq a$, $X^a\oplus
X^b=X_0$, hence for some $C'>0$ $$\langle w^a\rangle\langle w^b\rangle\geq C'\langle w\rangle.$$ Thus, for $\mu>0$, $$\langle w^b\rangle^{-\mu}\leq C \langle w_a\rangle^{-\mu}
\langle w^a\rangle^{\mu},$$ proving the lemma.
Let $\mu>0$ and $V_b$ as above. Then $$\label{eq:I_a-psi_a}
I_a\psi_\alpha\in L^2_p(X_0),\ p<\mu-\frac{\dim X_a}{2}.$$
Thus, we need to construct a right inverse $G(\rho)$ to $$P(\rho)=\Delta+2\rho\cdot D_w+V-\ep_\alpha$$ that can be applied to elements of $L^2_p(X_0)$. Once this is done, $$u(\rho)=e^{i\rho\cdot w_a}(\psi_\alpha(w^a)-G(\rho) I_a\psi_\alpha)$$ is the solution to the original problem. Below we write $$\begin{split}\label{eq:P_a-def}
&P_0(\rho)=\Delta+2\rho\cdot D_w-\ep_\alpha,\\
&P_a(\rho)=\Delta+2\rho\cdot D_w+V_a-\ep_\alpha\\
&\qquad=(\Delta_{w_a}+2\rho\cdot D_{w_a}-\ep_\alpha)
+(\Delta_{w^a}+2\rho\cdot D_{w^a}+V_a(w^a)).
\end{split}$$ Since a right inverse $G_a(\rho)$ of $P_a(\rho)$ can be constructed explicitly, perturbation theory will give the existence of $G(\rho)$, provided that $I_a$ is small.
It is convenient to represent $\rho$ as $$\rho=z\nu+\rho_\perp,\ \rho_\perp,\nu\in X_a,\ z\in\Cx,\ \rho_\perp\cdot\nu=0.$$ We will take $|\rho_\perp|$ sufficiently small. To see why the size of $\rho_\perp$ matters, consider $$G_0(\rho)=\Frinv (|\xi|^2+2\rho\cdot\xi-\ep_\alpha)^{-1} \Fr,$$ so $P_0(\rho)G_0(\rho)=\Id$ e.g. on Schwartz functions. Thus, on the Fourier transform side $G_0(\rho)$ acts via multiplication by $(|\xi|^2+2\rho\cdot\xi-\ep_\alpha)^{-1}$. For $z\nin\Real$, this distribution is conormal to $$\begin{split}
S(\rho)&=\{\xi\in X_0:\ |\xi|^2+2\re\rho\cdot\xi-\ep_\alpha=0,
\ \im\rho\cdot\xi=0\}\\
&=\{\xi\in X_0:\ (\xi+\rho_\perp)^2=\rho_\perp^2+\ep_\alpha,
\ \nu\cdot\xi=0\}.
\end{split}$$ Note that $S(\rho)$ actually depends only on $\rho_\perp$ and $\nu$, not on $z$. Now, for $|\rho_\perp|<\sqrt{-\ep_\alpha}$ (note that $\ep_\alpha<0$), $S(\rho)=\emptyset$, so $P_0(\rho)$ is elliptic ‘at infinity’ in a sense discussed by Melrose [@RBMSpec], namely as an element of $\Diffsc^2(\overline{X_0})$, $\overline{X_0}$ being the radial compactification of $X_0$.
Below we assume that $$\label{eq:rho_perp-bd}
|\rho_\perp|<\sqrt{-\ep_\alpha},$$ where $P_0(\rho)$ is elliptic. This does [*not*]{} mean that $P(\rho)$ itself is elliptic; indeed $P_a(\rho)$ cannot be such thanks to the bound state $\psi_\alpha$. For $$\label{eq:ep_1-def}
\evpr\in [|\rho_\perp|^2+\ep_\alpha,0)\setminus
\Lambda'_a,$$ let $e_a(\evpr)$ be the orthogonal projection to the $L^2$ eigenfunctions of $H^a$ with eigenvalue $\leq\evpr$, $$e_a(\evpr)=\sum_{\alpha':\ \ep_{\alpha'}\leq \evpr}
(\psi_{\alpha'}\otimes\overline{\psi_{\alpha'}})\in\bop(L^2(X^a),L^2(X^a)),$$ and let $E_a$ be its extension to $X_0$ via tensoring by $\Id_{X_a}$, so $$E_a(\evpr)=\sum_{\alpha'}
\Id_{X_a}\otimes(\psi_{\alpha'}\otimes\overline{\psi_{\alpha'}}).$$ Since eigenvalues of $H^a$ can only accumulate at $\Lambda_a=\{0\}$, $e_a$ is finite rank. We also let $$\label{eq:ep_0-def}
\evth=\inf\left(\Lambda'_a\cap(\evpr,+\infty)\right)>\evpr.$$ [*The particular choice of $\evpr$, provided that it is sufficiently close to $0$, does not play a major role in our arguments, so we usually simply write $e_a$ for $e_a(\evpr)$, etc.*]{}
We restrict the region slightly further and work in the region $$\Cx(X_a)_\alpha^\circ
=\{(z,\nu,\rho_\perp):\ \im z\neq 0,
\ |\rho_\perp|^2+\ep_\alpha\in(\ep_\alpha,\evth)\setminus\Lambda'_a\},$$ i.e. we also assume that $|\rho_\perp|^2+\ep_\alpha$ is not an eigenvalue of $H^a$. Again, we do not indicate $\evth$ explicitly in the notation.
Since the ranges of $E_a$ and $\Id-E_a$ play a rather different role below, we introduce weighted spaces that reflect this. So for $p\in\Real$ we let $$\begin{split}\label{eq:calH_p-def}
\calH_p=&(L^2_p(X_a)\otimes \Range e_a)\oplus (L^2(X_a)\otimes
\Range (\Id-e_a))\\
&\qquad\subset (L^2_p(X_a)\otimes \Range e_a)\oplus L^2(X_0),
\end{split}$$ with $e_a$ considered as a bounded operator on $L^2(X^a)$. Thus, we allow weights on the range of $E_a$, but not on its orthocomplement. Again, $\Range e_a$ is finite dimensional, hence it is closed in $L^2_r(X^a)$ for all $r\in\Real$, while $\Range(\Id-e_a)$ is closed in $L^2(X^a)$, so $L^2(X_a)\otimes \Range (\Id-e_a)$ is a closed subspace of $L^2(X_0)$. Thus, for all $p\in\Real$, $\calH_p$ is a Hilbert space with norms induced on the summands by the $L^2_p(X_a)$ and $L^2(X_0)$ norms respectively.
We start the construction of $G(\rho)$ by analyzing $G_a(\rho)$. In view of , taking the Fourier transform in $X_a$ makes the invertibility of $P_a(\rho)$ into a question on the behavior of the resolvent of $H^a=\Delta_{w^a}+V_a(w^a)$, uniformly across the spectrum. That is, $$\Fr_{X_a} P_a(\rho)\Fr_{X_a}^{-1}=
\Delta_{X^a}+V_a-(\ep_\alpha-|\xi_a|^2-2\rho\cdot\xi_a),$$ acting pointwise in $\xi_a$, so $$\Fr_{X_a} G_a(\rho)\Fr_{X_a}^{-1}=R^a(\ep_\alpha-|\xi_a|^2-2\rho\cdot\xi_a),$$ with $R^a(\sigma)=(H^a-\sigma)^{-1}$, provided we show that this makes sense – the only issues being the behavior for real $\sigma$ and bounds as $|\xi_a|\to\infty$.
So let $$F_\rho:\xi_a\mapsto \ep_\alpha-|\xi_a|^2-2\rho\cdot\xi_a.$$ Thus, $$\begin{split}\label{eq:re-z-im-z}
&\im F_\rho(\xi_a)=-2(\im z)(\nu\cdot\xi_a)\\
&\re F_\rho(\xi_a)=\ep_\alpha+\rho_\perp^2
-((\xi_a)_\perp+\rho_\perp)^2
-(\nu\cdot\xi_a)^2-2(\re z)(\nu\cdot\xi_a)\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad
\leq \ep_\alpha+\rho_\perp^2-(\nu\cdot\xi_a)^2-2(\re z)(\nu\cdot\xi_a)\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\leq \ep_\alpha+\rho_\perp^2+(\re z)^2,
\end{split}$$ where $(\xi_a)_\perp$ is the orthogonal projection of $\xi_a$ to the orthocomplement of the span of $\nu$, and $\nu\cdot\xi_a$ is the component of $\xi_a$ parallel to $\nu$. If $F_\rho(\xi_a)$ is real and $\im z\neq 0$, then $\nu\cdot\xi_a=0$, hence $$\ep_\alpha-|\xi_a|^2-2\rho\cdot\xi_a=\ep_\alpha+\rho_\perp^2
-(\xi_a+\rho_\perp)^2\leq\ep_\alpha+\rho_\perp^2<0$$ under our assumptions. In fact, $$\re F_\rho(\xi_a)\leq \ep_\alpha+\rho_\perp^2
-2(\re z)(\nu\cdot\xi_a)
=\ep_\alpha+\rho_\perp^2+2\frac{\re z}{\im z}\im F_\rho(\xi_a),$$ so $\re F_\rho(\xi_a)>\ep_\alpha+\rho_\perp^2$, which holds in particular if $\re F_\rho(\xi_a)\geq 0$, implies that $\nu\cdot\xi_a$ is non-zero and has the same sign as $-\re z$. Indeed, we deduce that $$\label{eq:sgn-im-F}
\re F_\rho(\xi_a)>\ep_\alpha+\rho_\perp^2\Rightarrow
\frac{\re z}{\im z}\im F_\rho(\xi_a)>0.$$ In fact, we deduce the quantitative bound $$\label{eq:sgn-im-F-p}
\re F_\rho(\xi_a)>\ep_\alpha+\rho_\perp^2\Rightarrow
\im F_\rho(\xi_a)>(\re F_\rho(\xi_a)-(\ep_\alpha+\rho_\perp^2))
\frac{|\im z|}{|\re z|}$$
Moreover, if $\dim X_a\geq 2$, as is assumed throughout this paper, $F_\rho:X_a^*\to\Cx$ (the latter considered as a 2-dimensional real manifold) has a surjective differential unless $(\xi_a)_\perp=-\rho_\perp$. Indeed, since $d\im F_\rho$ is nonzero, and is a multiple of $d(\nu\cdot\xi_a)$, $d\im F_\rho$ and $d\re F_\rho$ are linearly independent if and only if $d(((\xi_a)_\perp+\rho_\perp)^2)\neq 0$, i.e. if and only if $(\xi_a)_\perp\neq-\rho_\perp$.
Note also that for any fixed $\rho$ there exists $C>0$ such that $$\label{eq:re F<0}
\re F_\rho(\xi_a)<C-|\xi_a|^2/2.$$
The structure of $R^a(\sigma)$ corresponds to that of $R^a_0(\sigma)$ and $(\Id+V_a R^a_0(\sigma))^{-1}$, where $R^a_0(\sigma)$ denotes the resolvent of $\Delta_{X^a}$, for $R^a(\sigma)=R^a_0(\sigma)(\Id+V_a R^a_0(\sigma))^{-1}$. It satisfies automatically that for $\re\sigma<\inf\spec H^a$, $$\|R^a(\sigma)\|_{\bop(L^2,L^2)}\leq (\inf\spec H^a-\re\sigma)^{-1}.$$ In view of , for $\phi\in\Cinf_c(X_a^*)$ identically $1$ on a large enough ball, $G_a\Frinv_{X_a}(1-\phi)\Fr_{X_a}$ is bounded on $L^2$. Hence, we only need to be concerned about what happens in a compact set in $X_a^*$. We also mention two other bounds that hold by the selfadjointness of $H^a$ and its spectral properties, namely $$\begin{split}\label{eq:spec-bounds}
&\|(\Id-e_a)R^a(\sigma)\|_{\bop(L^2,L^2)}\leq |\re\sigma-\evth|^{-1},
\ \re\sigma<\evth,\\
&\|R^a(\sigma)\|_{\bop(L^2,L^2)}\leq |\im\sigma|^{-1},\ \im\sigma\neq 0,
\end{split}$$ $\evth$ as in .
Now $R^a(\sigma)$ is analytic in $\sigma$ for $\im\sigma\neq 0$, with values in bounded operators $L^2(X^a)\to H^2(X^a)$, and from $\im\sigma>0$ (and from $\im\sigma<0$) it extends to be smooth to $\Cx\setminus[0,+\infty)$ away from the eigenvalues of $H^a$, where it has a simple pole. With $e_a$ denoting the projection to the $L^2$ eigenspace of $H^a$ with eigenvalues $\leq \evpr$, $\evpr\in[\rho_\perp^2+\ep_\alpha,0)$, and $\evth$ given by as before, $R^a(\sigma)(\Id-e_a)$ is smooth on $\Cx\setminus(\evth,+\infty)$. On the range of $e_{a,\ep}$, the projection to the eigenspace with eigenvalue $\ep$, $R^a(\sigma)$ is multiplication by $(\ep-\sigma)^{-1}$. This is a locally integrable function of $\sigma$ near $\ep$ (in $\Cx$!), so the application of $R^a(F_\rho(.))$ to $\hat u=\Fr_{X_a}u$ is well defined, provided that at every point $\xi_a$ with $F_\rho(\xi_a)=\ep$, the differential of $F_\rho$ is surjective, i.e. $F_\rho(\xi_a)=\ep$ implies that $(\xi_a)_\perp\neq-\rho_\perp$. But if $(\xi_a)_\perp=-\rho_\perp$ and $F_\rho(\xi_a)$ is real, then $\nu\cdot\xi_a=0$, hence $F_\rho(\xi_a)=\ep_\alpha+\rho_\perp^2$. Now let $$\begin{split}
G_a(\rho)&=\Frinv_{X_a}R^a(\ep_\alpha-|.|^2-2\rho\cdot .)\Fr_{X_a}\\
&=\Frinv_{X_a}R^a(\ep_\alpha-|.|^2-2\rho\cdot .)(\Id-E_a)\Fr_{X_a}
+\Frinv_{X_a}R^a(\ep_\alpha-|.|^2-2\rho\cdot .)E_a\Fr_{X_a};
\end{split}$$ both terms are well defined by the preceeding considerations when applied to functions in $\Sch(X_a;L^2(X^a))$. Indeed, application of $G_a(\rho)$ to the range of $E_{a,\ep}$ is the only issue, and there, with $u=v\otimes \psi_{\alpha'}$, $v\in L^2_p(X_a)$, $\hat v=\Fr_{X_a}v$, $$(\Fr_{X_a}E_{a,\ep}G_a(\rho)v)(\xi_a,.)=(\ep-F_\rho(\xi_a))^{-1}\hat v
\otimes \psi_{\alpha'},$$ so the mapping properties of $G_a(\rho)$ on $\Range E_a$ are given by the two-body results of Weder [@Weder:Generalized]. In particular $E_a G_a(\rho)$ is well defined for functions in $L^2_p(X_a)\otimes \Range e_a$, $p>0$. Hence we deduce the following result.
Suppose that $(z,\nu,\rho_\perp)\in\Cx(X_a)_\alpha^\circ$. The operator $$G_a(\rho)=\Frinv_{X_a}R^a(\ep_\alpha-|.|^2-2\rho\cdot .)\Fr_{X_a}$$ is a bounded operator $\calH_p\to \calH_r$ for $p>0$, $r<0$, $r<p-1$. It satisfies $$\begin{split}\label{eq:P_aG_a-Id}
&P_a(\rho)G_a(\rho)=\Id:\calH_p\to \calH_p,\\
&G_a(\rho)P_a(\rho)=\Id:\calH_p\to \calH_p.
\end{split}$$ It is continuous in $\rho\in\Cx(X_a)_\alpha^\circ$ and analytic in $z\in\Cx\setminus\Real$. Moreover, for $p>0$, $r<0$, $r<p-1$, $\rho_\perp$ fixed, for any $C>0$, $G_a(\rho)$ is uniformly bounded in $\bop(\calH_p,\calH_r)$ in $|\im z|\geq C|\re z|$, and $\slim_{|z|\to\infty} G_a(\rho)=0$ as an operator in $\bop(\calH_p,\calH_r)$, provided that $|z|\to\infty$ in the region $|\im z|\geq C|\re z|$.
All of the claims follow from the previous argument, except the behavior of $G_a(\rho)$ as $\rho\to\infty$. That in turn follows from $$\begin{split}
&\lim_{\rho\to\infty}\|E_a G_a(\rho)\|_{\bop(\calH_p,\calH_r)}
= 0,\ p>0,r<0,
r<p-1,\\
&\|(\Id-E_a)G_a(\rho)\|_{\bop(\calH_p,\calH_p)}\leq C,\\
&(\Id-E_a)G_a(\rho)\to 0\ \text{strongly on}\ \calH_p.
\end{split}$$ The first estimate here is a two-body result, relying on a similar estimate for $\|E_{a,\ep} G_a(\rho)\|$ for each $\ep\in\pspec(H^a)$, see [@Weder:Generalized]. Indeed, with $u=v\otimes \psi_{\alpha'}$, $v\in L^2_p(X_a)$, $\hat v=\Fr_{X_a}v$, $$(\Fr_{X_a}E_{a,\ep}G_a(\rho)v)(\xi_a,.)=(\ep-F_\rho(\xi_a))^{-1}\hat v
\otimes \psi_{\alpha'}.$$ The uniform estimate for $(\Id-E_a)G_a(\rho)$ holds because $R^a(\sigma)(\Id-e_a)$ is uniformly bounded as an operator on $L^2(X^a)$ as long as $\sigma$ is uniformly bounded away from $[0,+\infty)$, which holds for $\sigma=F_\rho(\xi_a)$ provided $|\im z|\geq C|\re z|$ by . Then by the Parseval’s formula, and with $\hat u=\Fr_{X_a}u$, $$\begin{split}
\|G_a(\rho)(\Id-E_a)u&\|_{L^2(X_0)}^2
=(2\pi)^{-n}
\int_{X_a}\|R^a(F_\rho(\xi_a))\hat u(\xi_a,.)\|^2_{L^2(X^a)}\,d\xi_a\\
&\leq (2\pi)^{-n}M^2\int_{X_a}\|\hat u(\xi_a,.)\|^2_{L^2(X^a)}\,d\xi_a
=(2\pi)^{-n}M^2\|u\|^2_{L^2(X_0)},\\
&\qquad M=\sup\{\|R^a(F_\rho(\xi_a))(\Id-e_a)\|_{\bop(L^2(X^a),L^2(X^a))} :
\ \xi_a\in X_a\}.
\end{split}$$ Moreover, as $\im z\to\infty$, $\im F_\rho(\xi_a)\to \infty$ for almost every $\xi_a$, namely for $\xi_a$ such that $\xi_a\cdot\nu\neq0$. But $R^a(\sigma)\to 0$ as a bounded operator on $L^2(X^a)$ as $\im\sigma\to\infty$ by . Since $$\|R^a(F_\rho(\xi_a))\hat u(\xi_a,.)\|^2
\leq M^2\|\hat u(\xi_a,.)\|^2_{L^2(X^a)},$$ and $\|\hat u(\xi_a,.)\|^2_{L^2(X^a)}\in L^1(X_a)$, the dominated convergence theorem implies that $G_a(\rho)(\Id-E_a)\to 0$ strongly.
Since $$P(\rho)G_a(\rho)v=(\Id+I_a G_a(\rho))v,\ v\in\calH_p,\ p>0,$$ we next investigate $I_a$ on $\calH_r$.
\[lemma:I\_a-norm\] Suppose that $\mu>0$, and $\langle w^b\rangle^\mu
V_b\in L^\infty(X^b)$ for all $b\neq a$. The multiplication operator $I_a$ is in $\bop(\calH_r,\calH_p)$ provided that $p\leq r+\mu$, $p\leq \mu$, $r\geq -\mu$.
Moreover, there exists $C>0$ (independent of $V_b$) such that the norm of $I_a$ as such an operator is bounded by $C\max_b\sup(\langle w^b\rangle^\mu |V_b|)$.
We decompose $I_a$ as a matrix corresponding to the direct sum in . Since $I_a$ is bounded on $L^2(X_0)$, it follows that $(\Id-E_a)I_a(\Id-E_a):\calH_r\to\calH_p$ for all $r$ and $p$. Moreover, by , for all $\alpha'$, $\alpha''$, $$\langle w_a\rangle^\mu
\int_{X^a} I_a \overline{\psi_{\alpha'}}\psi_{\alpha''}\,dw_a$$ is bounded on $X_a$, hence $E_a I_a E_a:\calH_r\to\calH_p$ for all $r$ and $p$ with $p\leq r+\mu$. In addition, $\langle w_a \rangle^\mu I_a\overline{\psi_{\alpha'}}\in L^\infty(X_0)$, so $E_a I_a:L^2(X_0)\to \calH_p$ for $p\leq\mu$. Similarly, $\langle w_a\rangle^\mu\psi_{\alpha'}I_a\in L^\infty(X_a;L^2(X^a))$, so $I_a E_a:\calH_r\to L^2(X_0)$ provided $r\geq -\mu$. As $\Id-E_a$ is a bounded operator on $L^2(X_0)$, this shows that $I_a:\calH_r\to\calH_p$ as stated.
Combining the preceeding proposition and lemma we deduce the following.
Suppose that $\mu>1$, and $\langle w^b\rangle^\mu
V_b\in L^\infty(X^b)$ for all $b\neq a$. Let $p$ satisfy $0<p<\mu$. Then $I_a G_a(\rho)\in\bop(\calH_p,\calH_p)$, continuous in $\rho\in
\Cx(X_a)_\alpha^\circ$, and analytic in $z$ in this region. Moreover, for $\rho_\perp$ fixed and $C>0$, $I_a G_a(\rho)$ is uniformly bounded in $|\im z|\geq C|\re z|$, $|z|>1$, and $\slim_{|z|\to\infty}I_aG_a(\rho)=0$ inside this region.
We also need to consider the invertibility properties of $\Id+I_a G_a(\rho)$ on $\calH_p$. As $I_a G_a(\rho)\in\bop(\calH_p,\calH_p)$, $\Id+I_a G_a(\rho)$ is invertible and $\|(\Id+I_a G_a(\rho))^{-1}\|_{\bop(\calH_p,\calH_p)}<2$ provided that $\|I_a G_a(\rho)\|_{\bop(\calH_p,\calH_p)}<1/2$. In view of the uniform boundedness of $G_a(\rho)$ as a map in $\bop(\calH_p,\calH_p)$, there exists $\delta'>0$ such that if $\|I_a\|_{\bop(\calH_r,\calH_p)}<\delta'$ then $\|I_a G_a(\rho)\|_{\bop(\calH_p,\calH_p)}<1/2$. Combining this with the norm estimate of Lemma \[lemma:I\_a-norm\] leads to the following theorem.
\[thm:G(rho)-exist)\] Suppose that $\rho_\perp$ satisfies $|\rho_\perp|^2+\ep_\alpha\in
(\ep_\alpha,\evth)\setminus\Lambda'_a$, $\mu>\max(p,1)$, $p>0$, $r<0$, $r<p-1$. There exists $\delta>0$ with the following property. Suppose that for all $b\neq a$, $\sup |\langle
w^b\rangle^\mu V_b|<\delta$. Then the operator $$\label{eq:G(rho)-def}
G(\rho)=G_a(\rho)(\Id+I_a G_a(\rho))^{-1}:\calH_p\to \calH_r$$ satisfies $$\begin{split}\label{eq:PG-Id}
&P(\rho)G(\rho)=\Id:\calH_p\to \calH_p,\\
&G(\rho)P(\rho)=\Id:\calH_p\to \calH_p.
\end{split}$$ Moreover, $G(\rho)$ is a continuous function of $\rho$ in $\Cx(X_a)_\alpha^\circ$, and an analytic function of $z\in\Cx\setminus\Real$, and $\slim_{|z|\to\infty}G(\rho)=0$ as a map $\calH_p\to\calH_r$ provided that $|z|\to\infty$ in $|\im z|\geq C|\re z|$, $C>0$.
With $G(\rho)$ as in , $G(\rho):\calH_p\to \calH_r$, $p>0$, $r<0$, $r<p-1$, since $G_a(\rho)$ has these mapping properties, and $(\Id+I_a G_a(\rho))^{-1}$ is bounded on $\calH_p$. Now, $$\begin{split}
&P(\rho)G(\rho)=(P_a(\rho)+I_a)G_a(\rho)(\Id+I_a G_a(\rho))^{-1},\\
&(P_a(\rho)+I_a)G_a(\rho)=\Id+I_a G_a(\rho):\calH_p\to \calH_p,
\end{split}$$ proving the first line of . The second line follows from the identity $$(\Id+I_a G_a(\rho))^{-1}=\Id-(\Id+I_a G_a(\rho))^{-1}I_a G_a(\rho),$$ and $G_a(\rho)P_a(\rho)=\Id$ on $\calH_p$, $p>0$. The limiting behavior follows from the uniform boundedness of $(\Id+I_a G_a(\rho))^{-1}$ on $\calH_p$, and from $$G(\rho)=G_a(\rho)-G_a(\rho)(\Id+I_a G_a(\rho))^{-1}(I_a G_a(\rho))$$ with the last factor tending to $0$ strongly on $\calH_p$, and the other factors remaining bounded.
Since $I_a\psi_\alpha\in \calH_p$ for some $p>0$ if $\mu>\dim X_a/2$, due the , we deduce the following corollary.
\[cor:u\_rho-exists\] Suppose that $\mu>\dim X_a/2$, $|\rho_\perp|^2+\ep_\alpha\in(\ep_\alpha,\evth)\setminus\Lambda'_a$. Then $$u_\rho=u^0_\rho-e^{i\rho\cdot w_a}G(\rho)I_a \psi_\alpha=e^{i\rho\cdot w_a}
(\psi_\alpha-G(\rho)I_a \psi_\alpha)$$ satisfies $P(\rho)u_\rho=0$, and $$u^0_\rho=e^{i\rho\cdot w_a}(\Id+G_a(\rho)I_a)e^{-i\rho\cdot w_a}u_\rho.$$ Moreover, $u_\rho-u^0_\rho\to 0$ in $\calH_r$, $r<0$, $r<\mu-1-\frac{\dim X_a}{2}$, as $|z|\to\infty$ in $|\im z|>C|\re z|$, $C>0$.
Limit as $\rho$ goes to the reals
=================================
As $\rho$ becomes real, the structure of the operator $G_a(\rho)$ degenerates since $|\xi|^2+2\rho\cdot\xi-\ep_\alpha$ becomes real. Many of the details of the following calculations are similar to the corresponding two-body calculations, see e.g. Weder [@Weder:Generalized]. We proceed as follows.
Recall that for $\rho\in\Cx(X_a)$, $\im\rho\neq 0$, there exist unique $\nu\in X_a$, $z\in \Cx$, $\rho_\perp\in X_a$ such that $$\rho=z\nu+\rho_\perp,\quad|\nu|^2=1,\ \rho_\perp\cdot\nu=0,\ \im z>0.$$ Alternatively, the inequality $\im z>0$ can be replaced by $\im z<0$. Here we keep $\im z>0$ for the sake of definiteness. The behavior as $\rho$ approaches $X_a$ then corresponds to $z$ approaching the real axis. Now, $u_\rho$ solves $(H-\lambda)u_\rho=0$, $\lambda=\rho^2+\ep_\alpha$, i.e. has energy $\rho^2+\ep_\alpha$. Thus, the form of the limit as $\rho\to X_a$ depends on the nature of the spectrum of $H$ near $\lambda=\rho^2+\ep_\alpha$. Here we restrict ourselves to $|\rho_\perp|^2<-\ep_\alpha$. Note that with $\evth$ as in , $$\lambda<0\Miff\rho^2=z^2+\rho_\perp^2<-\ep_\alpha;\ \lambda<\evth\Miff
\rho^2=z^2+\rho_\perp^2<\evth-\ep_\alpha.$$ Below we consider $$\re z\geq 0,\ \im z\geq 0.$$ and show that $u_\rho=u_{\alpha,\rho}$ extends to a continuous function of $(z,\nu,\rho_\perp)$ in $$\begin{split}
\Cx(X_a)_\alpha^+=&\{(z,\nu,\rho_\perp):\ \im z>0,
\ |\rho_\perp|^2+\ep_\alpha\in(\ep_\alpha,\evth)
\setminus\Lambda'_a\}\\
&\cup \{(z,\nu,\rho_\perp):\ |\rho_\perp|^2+\ep_\alpha\in(\ep_\alpha,\evth)
\setminus\Lambda'_a,\ z\geq 0,\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
z^2+\rho_\perp^2+\ep_\alpha\in(\ep_\alpha,\evth)\setminus\Lambda'_a\}.
\end{split}$$
Below we often consider $\rho\in\Cx(X_a)_\alpha^+$, and keep writing $u_\rho$ even when the projection of $\rho$ to $\Cx(X_a)$ lies in $X_a$.
First consider $G_a(\rho)E_a$. It is better to consider this as $\sum_{\ep\in\pspec(H^a)}G_a(\rho)E_{a,\ep}$, where $E_{a,\ep}$ is projection to the $\ep$ eigenspace of $H^a$ tensored with the identity map on $X_a$. Now, for $z\nin\Real$, $$\begin{split}
\Fr_{X_a} G_a(\rho)&E_{a,\ep}\Frinv_{X_a} u
=(|\xi_a|^2+2\rho\cdot\xi_a-\ep_\alpha+\ep)^{-1}E_{a,\ep}u\\
&=(|\xi_a+\re\rho|^2+2i(\im z)\nu\cdot\xi_a-\re\rho^2-\ep_\alpha+\ep)^{-1}
H(\nu\cdot\xi_a)E_{a,\ep}u\\
&\quad+(|\xi_a+\re\rho|^2+2i(\im z)\nu\cdot\xi_a-\re\rho^2-\ep_\alpha+\ep)^{-1}
H(-\nu\cdot\xi_a)E_{a,\ep}u,
\end{split}$$ where $H$ is the Heaviside step function, so $H=1$ on $(0,+\infty)$, $H=0$ on $(-\infty,0)$. Thus, if $\im z>0$, letting $\im z\to 0$, yields $$\begin{split}\label{eq:G_a-lim}
\lim_{\im z\to 0}\Fr_{X_a}& G_a(\rho)E_{a,\ep}\Frinv_{X_a} u\\
&=(|\xi_a+\re\rho|^2-(\re\rho^2+\ep_\alpha-\ep-i0))^{-1}
H(\nu\cdot\xi_a)E_{a,\ep}u\\
&\qquad+(|\xi_a+\re\rho|^2-(\re\rho^2+\ep_\alpha-\ep+i0))^{-1}
H(-\nu\cdot\xi_a)E_{a,\ep}u.
\end{split}$$ This calculation makes sense for $\Frinv_{X_a} u\in\calH_s$, $s>1/2$. Note that if $\ep>\lambda=\re\rho^2-\ep_\alpha$, then $|\xi_a+\re\rho|^2-(\re\rho^2+\ep_\alpha-\ep)$ does not vanish for any $\xi_a$ (as it is positive), so in $E_{a,\ep}$ the factors with $+i0$ and $-i0$ are the same. Conjugating $G_a(\rho)$ by $e^{i\re\rho\cdot w_a}$ replaces $\xi_a$ by $\xi_a+\re\rho$. Writing $H(-\nu\cdot\xi_a)=1-H(\nu\cdot\xi_a)$ and $\lambda=\re\rho^2+\ep_\alpha$, we thus deduce that $$\begin{split}\label{eq:G_a-lim-16}
&\lim_{\im z\to 0}e^{i\re\rho\cdot w_a} G_a(\rho)E_{a,\ep}
e^{-i\re\rho\cdot w_a}\\
&=\Frinv
(|\xi|^2-(\lambda-\ep+i0))^{-1}\Fr E_{a,\ep}\\
&\quad +\Frinv
H(\nu\cdot(\xi_a-\re\rho))((|\xi|^2-(\lambda-\ep-i0))^{-1}
-(|\xi|^2-(\lambda-\ep+i0))^{-1})\Fr E_{a,\ep}\\
&=R_a(\lambda+i0)E_{a,\ep}+\Frinv H(\nu\cdot(\xi_a-\re\rho)
\Fr [R_a(\lambda-i0)-R_a(\lambda+i0)]E_{a,\ep}.
\end{split}$$
Now consider $G_a(\rho)(\Id-E_a)$. This is analytic in $$\{z\in\Cx:\ z^2\nin[\evpr-\ep_\alpha-\rho_\perp^2,+\infty)\},$$ hence in $\Cx(X_a)^+_\alpha$. Indeed, since $$G_a(\rho)(\Id-E_a)=\Fr^{-1}_{X_a}R^a(\ep_\alpha-|\xi_a|^2-2\rho\cdot\xi_a)
(\Id-E_a)\Fr_{X_a},$$ we need to analyze the range of the map $F_\rho:\xi_a\mapsto \ep_\alpha-|\xi_a|^2-2\rho\cdot\xi_a$, which has been done in -. Thus, when $\im z\to 0$ and $0\leq \re z<\sqrt{\evpr-\ep_\alpha-\rho_\perp^2}$ implies $\re F_\rho< \evpr$ by , and $R^a(\sigma)(\Id-e_a)$ is analytic in $\re\sigma<\evpr$. We only need the additional observation that as $\im z\to 0$, $\im F_\rho\to 0$. Thus, in $\im z>0$, by the dominated convergence theorem, $$\lim_{\im z\to 0}G_a(\rho)(\Id-E_a)
=\Fr^{-1}_{X_a}R^a(\ep_\alpha-(|\xi_a|^2+2\rho\cdot\xi_a-i0))
(\Id-E_a)\Fr_{X_a}.$$ Again, conjugating by $e^{i\rho\cdot w_a}$ replaces $\xi_a$ by $\xi_a+\rho$. Thus, $$\begin{split}
&\lim_{\im z\to 0}e^{i\re\rho\cdot w_a}G_a(\rho)(\Id-E_a)e^{-i\re\rho\cdot w_a}\\
&\qquad=\Fr^{-1}_{X_a}R^a(\ep_\alpha+\rho^2-(|\xi_a|^2+i0))
(\Id-E_a)\Fr_{X_a}=R_a(\lambda+i0)(\Id-E_a),
\end{split}$$ where we took into account that $\ep_\alpha+\rho^2=\lambda$. Note that $R_a(\lambda+i0)(\Id-E_a)=R_a(\lambda-i0)(\Id-E_a)$ as $\lambda<\evth$.
Combining these two results we deduce the following proposition.
\[prop:G\_a-limit\] The operator $G_a(\rho):\calH_p\to \calH_r$ extends continuously (from $\Cx(X_a)_\alpha^+\cap\Cx(X_a)_\alpha^\circ$) to $\Cx(X_a)_\alpha^+$ for $p>1/2$, $r<-1/2$, and it satisfies $P_a(\rho)G_a(\rho)=\Id$, $G_a(\rho)P_a(\rho)=\Id$, on $\calH_p$, $p>1/2$. The limit $G_a(\nu,\rho_\perp,z\pm i0)$ satisfies $$\begin{split}\label{eq:G_a-real}
&e^{i\rho\cdot w_a}G_a(\nu,\rho_\perp,z\pm i0)e^{-i\rho\cdot w_a}\\
&=R_a(\rho^2+i0)+\sum_{\alpha'}\Fr^{-1}_{X_a}H(\nu\cdot(\xi_a-\re\rho))
[(|\xi_a|^2-(\lambda-\ep_{\alpha'}-i0))^{-1}\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
-(|\xi_a|^2-(\lambda-\ep_{\alpha'}+i0))^{-1}]\Fr_{X_a}E_{a,\alpha'}.
\end{split}$$
The last term in can be written in terms of the Poisson operators in the bound states of $H^a$, using the following lemma.
Suppose that $\lambda\nin\Lambda'_a$. Then $$\begin{split}\label{eq:G-Poisson}
&\sum_{\alpha'}\Fr^{-1}_{X_a}H(\nu\cdot(\xi_a-\re\rho))\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad[(|\xi_a|^2-(\lambda-\ep_{\alpha'}-i0))^{-1}
-(|\xi_a|^2-(\lambda-\ep_{\alpha'}+i0))^{-1}]\Fr_{X_a}E_{a,\alpha'}\\
&\qquad\qquad=\sum_{\alpha'}\frac{-i}{2\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_{\alpha'}}}
\calPt_{\alpha'-}(\lambda)H(\nu\cdot(.-\rho))
\calPt_{\alpha'-}(\lambda)^*.
\end{split}$$
On $\Range(\Id-E_a)$ both sides vanish. Thus, it suffices to consider the equation on $\Range(E_{a,\ep})$, $\ep\in\pspec(H^a)$, or simply on $\psi_{\alpha'}$ where $\alpha'$ is a bound state of $H^a$ of energy $\ep=\ep_{\alpha'}$. Explicitly, on the $X_a$-Fourier transform side, on this space the equation follows from $$(\rho-(\lambda-\ep-i0))^{-1}
-(\rho-(\lambda-\ep+i0))^{-1}
=-2\pi i \delta_{\rho-(\lambda-\ep)}.$$ Indeed, with $\rho=|\xi_a|^2$, hence $d\xi_a=\frac{1}{2}\rho^{\frac{\dim X_a-2}{2}}\,d\rho\,d\omega_a$, $u=v\otimes\psi_{\alpha'}$, $\hat v=\Fr_{X_a} v$, this gives $$\begin{split}
&(2\pi)^{-\dim X_a}\int_{X_a}\left((|\xi_a|^2-(\lambda-\ep-i0))^{-1}
-(|\xi_a|^2-(\lambda-\ep+i0))^{-1}\right)\hat v(w_a)\,dw_a\\
&\qquad=-(2\pi)^{-\dim X_a}\pi i \lambda^{\frac{\dim X_a-2}{2}}
\int_{\sphere_a(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\alpha})} e^{iw_a\cdot \omega_a}
\hat v(\omega_a)
\,d\omega_a.
\end{split}$$ Comparing with the definition of the Poisson operators, namely that the Fourier transform, followed by restriction to $\sphere_a(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\alpha})$, is essentially given by $\calPt_{\alpha'-}(\lambda)^*$ in view of , with a similar relation connecting the inverse Fourier transform and $\calPt_{\alpha'-}(\lambda)$, follows.
The combination of the preceeding two results yields:
Suppose that $\rho\cdot\rho+\ep_\alpha=\lambda
\in(\ep_\alpha,\evth)\setminus\Lambda_a'$, $\rho_\perp^2+\ep_\alpha\nin\Lambda_a'$. Then $$\begin{split}
e^{i\rho\cdot w_a}G_a(\rho)e^{-i\rho\cdot w_a}
=&R_a(\lambda+i0)\\
&-\sum_{\alpha'}\frac{i}{2\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_{\alpha'}}}
\calPt_{\alpha'-}(\lambda)
H(\nu\cdot (.-\re\rho))\calPt_{\alpha'-}(\lambda)^*,
\end{split}$$ where $\calPt_{\alpha'-}(\lambda)$ is considered as an operator on the sphere of radius $\lambda-\ep_{\alpha'}$.
Proposition \[prop:G\_a-limit\] can be used to show that $G(\rho)$ itself has a limit when $\rho$ becomes real, provided that $\lambda=\rho^2+\ep_\alpha<\evth$.
\[thm:G-rho-real\] Suppose that $|\rho_\perp|^2+\ep_\alpha\in(\ep_\alpha,\evth)\setminus\Lambda'_a$, $p>1/2$, $r<-1/2$, $\mu>\max(p,1)$. There exists $\delta>0$ with the following property. Suppose that for all $b\neq a$, $\sup |\langle
w^b\rangle^\mu V_b|<\delta$. Then the operator $G(\rho):\calH_p\to \calH_r$ extends continuously to $$\label{eq:limit-region}
\{z:\ \im z>0\}\cup\{z\geq 0:
\ z^2+\rho_\perp^2+\ep_\alpha\in(\ep_\alpha,\evth)\setminus\Lambda'\},$$ and it satisfies $P(\rho)G(\rho)=\Id$, $G(\rho)P(\rho)=\Id$, on $\calH_p$.
We only need to show that $(\Id+I_a G_a(\rho))^{-1}$ extends to real $\rho$ as stated, as a bounded operator on $\calH_p$, $p>1/2$. But this follows as in the remarks preceeding Theorem \[thm:G(rho)-exist)\].
\[cor:u\_rho-limit\] Suppose that $|\rho_\perp|^2+\ep_\alpha\in(\ep_\alpha,\evth)
\setminus\Lambda'_a$, $\mu>(\dim X_a+1)/2$, $V_b$ as in Theorem \[thm:G-rho-real\]. Then $u_\rho$ extends continuously to , with $u_\rho-u^0_\rho\in \calH_r$ for all $r<0$, and $u_\rho$ is analytic in $z$ in $\im z>0$.
The connection between the S-matrix and the exponential solutions
=================================================================
We introduce the analogue of the pairing describing the S-matrix via $$\label{eq:pair-16}
G_{\alpha\alpha'}(\rho,\overline{\rho}+\zeta)
=\int_{\Rn} I_a u_{\rho}\overline{u^0_{\alpha',\overline{\rho}+\zeta}}
=\int_{\Rn} I_a u_\rho \overline{\psi_{\alpha'}(w^a)}
e^{-i(\rho+\zeta)\cdot w_a}.$$ By Corollary \[cor:u\_rho-limit\], if $\langle w^b\rangle^\mu V_b\in L^\infty(X^b)$ for all $b$ and for some $\mu>\dim X_a$, then the integral in converges for all $\rho$ for which $u_\rho$ exists, and for $\zeta\in\Rn$, since then the real parts of the exponentials cancel, and $I_a \psi_\alpha\overline{\psi_{\alpha'}}\in L^1(X_0)$, and the same holds for $I_a \overline{\psi_{\alpha'}} G(\rho)(I_a\psi_\alpha)$. Other properties of follow immediately from Corollary \[cor:u\_rho-limit\].
Suppose that $|\rho_\perp|^2+\ep_\alpha\in(\ep_\alpha,\evth)
\setminus\Lambda'_a$, $\mu>\dim X_a$, and $V_b$ as in Theorem \[thm:G-rho-real\]. Then $G_{\alpha\alpha'}$ is an analytic function of $z$ in $\Cx\setminus\Real$, and extends to be continuous on . In addition, $$\label{eq:G-z-infty}
\lim_{|z|\to\infty} G_{\alpha\alpha'}(\rho,\overline{\rho}+\zeta)
=\int_{\Rn} I_a \psi_\alpha \overline{\psi_{\alpha'}} e^{-i\zeta\cdot w_a},$$ provided that $|z|\to\infty$ in $|\im z|>C|\re z|$, $C>0$.
The first two statements are direct consequences of Corollary \[cor:u\_rho-limit\]. By Corollary \[cor:u\_rho-exists\], $G(\rho)(I_a\psi_\alpha)\to 0$ as $|z|\to\infty$ in $\calH_r$ for $r<\mu-1-\frac{\dim X_a}{2}<0$. On the other hand, $$\overline{\psi_{\alpha'}}I_a e^{-i\zeta\cdot w_a}\in L^2_{s}(X_0)\subset
\calH_s,\ s>0,\ s<\mu-\frac{\dim X_a}{2},$$ hence in $\calH_{-r}$ provided that $r>\frac{\dim X_a}{2}-\mu$. We can take $r=\mu-1-\frac{\dim X_a}{2}-\ep$, $\ep>0$ sufficiently small. Thus we conclude that $$\lim_{|z|\to\infty} \int_{\Rn} (G(\rho)(I_a\psi_\alpha))
(I_a\overline{\psi_{\alpha'}}e^{-i\zeta\cdot w_a}) =0,$$ hence follows.
For fixed $\rho$ real and $\zeta$ satisfying $$\lambda=\rho^2+\ep_\alpha=(\rho+\zeta)^2+\ep_{\alpha''},$$ i.e. the equality of incoming and outgoing energies, we can relate $G_{\alpha\alpha''}(\rho,\rho+\zeta)$, $\rho$ real, to the S-matrices as follows. Under our assumptions, $$\label{eq:R-G-8}
e^{i\rho\cdot w_a}(\Id+G_a(\rho)I_a)e^{-i\rho\cdot w_a}u_\rho
=u^0_\rho=(\Id+R_a(\rho^2+i0)I_a) U_\rho.$$ Applying $(\Id+R_a(\rho^2+i0)I_a)^{-1}$ to both sides of , we deduce that $$\begin{split}\label{eq:R-G-16}
U_\rho&=u_\rho-\sum_{\alpha'}\frac{i}{2\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_{\alpha'}}}
(\Id+R_a(\rho^2+i0)I_a)^{-1}\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\calPt_{\alpha'-}(\lambda)H(\nu\cdot (.-\re\rho))
\calPt_{\alpha'-}(\lambda)^*I_a u_\rho\\
&=u_\rho-\sum_{\alpha'}\frac{i}{2\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_{\alpha'}}}
\calP_{\alpha'-}(\lambda)H(\nu\cdot (.-\re\rho))
\calPt_{\alpha'-}(\lambda)^*I_a u_\rho.
\end{split}$$ Integrating against $I_a e^{-i(\rho+\zeta)\cdot w_a}\overline{\psi_{\alpha''}(w^a)}$ yields $$\begin{split}
\calS^\sharp_{\alpha\alpha''+}(\lambda,\rho,\rho+\zeta)
=&G_{\alpha\alpha''}(\rho,\rho+\zeta)\\
&-\sum_{\alpha'}
\frac{i}{2\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_{\alpha'}}}
\int_{\sphere_a(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_{\alpha'}})}
\calS^\sharp_{\alpha'\alpha''+}(\lambda,\rho',\rho+\zeta)\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad H(\nu\cdot (\rho'-\re\rho))
G_{\alpha\alpha'}(\rho,\rho')\,d\rho'.
\end{split}$$ This is an integral equation for $G_{\alpha\alpha''}$ in terms of $\calS^\sharp_{\alpha\alpha''+}(\lambda)$, $\calS^\sharp_{\alpha'\alpha''+}(\lambda)$, $\lambda=\rho^2+\ep_\alpha$.
\[prop:G-S\] Suppose that $\rho^2+\ep_\alpha=\lambda
=(\rho+\zeta)^2+\ep_{\alpha''}\in(-\infty,0)\setminus\Lambda'$, $|\rho_\perp|^2+\ep_\alpha\in(\ep_\alpha,\evth)
\setminus\Lambda'_a$, $\mu>\dim X_a$. There exists $\delta>0$ with the following property.
Suppose that for all $b\neq a$, $\sup |\langle w^b\rangle^\mu V_b|<\delta$. Then the pairings $G_{\alpha\alpha''}(\rho,\rho+\zeta)$ are determined by the operators $\calS^\sharp_{\alpha'\alpha''+}(\lambda)$ given for all $\alpha'$ and $\alpha''$.
We first discuss the case when the only bound state of $H^a$ is $\alpha$, or more generally if $\ep_\alpha'>\lambda$ for $\alpha'\neq\alpha$, i.e. the total energy $\lambda$ is just above the ground state energy. Then we get $$\begin{split}\label{eq:S-G-aa}
\calS^\sharp_{\alpha\alpha+}(\lambda,\rho,\rho+\zeta)
=&G_{\alpha\alpha}(\rho,\rho+\zeta)\\
&-\frac{i}{2\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_{\alpha}}}
\int_{\sphere(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_{\alpha}})}\calS^\sharp_{\alpha\alpha+}(\lambda,
\rho',\rho+\zeta)H(\nu\cdot (\rho'-\rho))\\
&\hspace*{7cm} G_{\alpha\alpha}(\rho,\rho')\,d\rho'.
\end{split}$$ Now fix $\rho$, i.e. more precisely fix $\nu$, $z$, $\rho_\perp$, and consider this as an integral equation for the function $G_{\alpha\alpha}(\rho,.)$. Then this has the form $$(\Id-T)G_{\alpha\alpha}(\rho,.)=f,$$ with $f\in\Cinf(\sphere_a(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_\alpha}))$, $T:L^2\to C^0$ with bounded kernel and small norm as a map $L^2\to L^2$ since $\sup_{\omega,\omega'}
|\calS^\sharp_{\alpha\alpha+}(\lambda,\omega,\omega'))|$ is small by (as $I_a$ is small). Hence, $\Id-T$ is invertible, proving the proposition in this case.
In complete generality, we consider the vector $\Phi$ whose $\alpha'$ entry is $\Phi_{\alpha'}(.)=G_{\alpha\alpha'}(\rho,.)$. Then we obtain a system of equations of the form $$(\Id-T)\Phi=f,$$ as above. Again, $T$ has small norm, so $\Id-T$ is invertible, proving the proposition.
Novikov [@Novikov:Determination] noticed that in two-body scattering, the near-forward values of $G(\rho,\rho+\zeta)$, i.e. the values when the angles between $\rho$ and $\nu$, resp. between $\rho+\zeta$ and $\nu$ are small, is determined by $\calS^\sharp_{\alpha'\alpha''+}(\rho,\rho')$ where the angle between $\rho$ and $\nu$, resp. and $\rho'$ and $\nu$ is small. His observation also applies in the present setting.
This can be understood via linear algebra. Thus, we decompose $$\begin{split}\label{eq:forward-split}
&V=L^2(\sphere_a(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep}))=V_1\oplus V_2,\\
&V_1=L^2(\{\rho'\in \sphere_a(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep}):\ \rho'\cdot\nu\geq\rho\cdot\nu\}),\\
&V_2=L^2(\{\rho'\in \sphere_a(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep}):\ \rho'\cdot\nu\leq\rho\cdot\nu\}),
\end{split}$$ writing the two orthogonal projections as $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$. Now $T:V\to V$ vanishes on $V_2$, so $T=T\pi_1$, while its restriction to $V_1$, via $\pi_1$, is exactly $T_1$: $T_1=\pi_1 T$. Now linear algebra shows that we only need to know $T_1$ and $f_1=\pi_1 f$ to find $\pi_1(\Id-T)^{-1}f$, namely $$\pi_1(\Id-T)^{-1}f=(\Id_{V_1}-T_1)^{-1}\pi_1 f.$$ This proves the following proposition.
\[prop:G-S-2\] Let $\rho$, $\zeta$, $\lambda$, $\mu$, $\delta$ be as in Proposition \[prop:G-S\], and suppose that for all $b\neq a$, $\sup |\langle w^b\rangle^\mu V_b|<\delta$. Then the pairings $G_{\alpha\alpha''}(\rho,\rho+\zeta)$ for $(\rho+\zeta)\cdot
\nu\geq\rho\cdot\nu$ are determined by the S-matrices $\calS^\sharp_{\alpha'\alpha''+}(\lambda,\omega,\omega')$ given for all $\alpha'$ and $\alpha''$, evaluated in $\omega\cdot\nu\geq z=\rho\cdot\nu$, $\omega'\cdot\nu\geq z=\rho\cdot\nu$.
Note that if $\ep_\alpha$ is the bottom of the spectrum of $H^a$, $\rho_\perp$ is sufficiently small, namely $|\rho_\perp|^2<\ep'-\ep_\alpha$, $\ep'$ as in Theorem \[thm:main2\], $\omega'\in\sphere_a(\sqrt{\lambda-\ep_{\alpha'}})$ then $\omega'\cdot\nu\leq \sqrt{\lambda-\ep_{\alpha'}}$ while $z^2=\lambda
-\rho_\perp^2-\ep_\alpha>\lambda-\ep'$ shows that $\rho\cdot\nu=z
>\sqrt{\lambda-\ep'}$, hence $\omega'\cdot\nu\geq z$ never holds. Thus, under the conditions of Theorem \[thm:main2\], only $\calS^\sharp_{\alpha\alpha+}$ is needed to determine $G_{\alpha\alpha}(\rho,
\rho+\zeta)$ for $|\rho_\perp|<\sqrt{\ep'-\ep_\alpha}$, $\zeta\cdot\nu\geq 0$.
Inverse results: proof of Theorems \[thm:main\] and \[thm:main2\]
=================================================================
In this section we prove Theorems \[thm:main\] and \[thm:main2\].
Fix a non-empty interval open $I\subset(\ep_\alpha,0)$, and let $R=2\sqrt{\sup I-\ep_\alpha}$. Let $\zeta\in X_a$ satisfy $|\zeta|<R$, and $\frac{1}{4}|\zeta|^2+\ep_\alpha\nin\Lambda_a'$. The last condition excludes a discrete set of values of $|\zeta|^2$ in $[0,R)$. Note that $\frac{1}{4}|\zeta|^2+\ep_\alpha<0$.
We now choose $\evpr<0$ in so that $\frac{1}{4}|\zeta|^2+\ep_\alpha<\evpr$, and $$\label{eq:I-energy}
I\cap(\frac{1}{4}|\zeta|^2+\ep_\alpha,\evpr)\neq\emptyset.$$ Let $\rho_\perp=-\zeta/2$, so $\rho_\perp^2+\ep_\alpha\in(\ep_\alpha,0)
\setminus\Lambda'_a$. Let $\nu\in X_a$ be such that $|\nu|^2=1$, $\nu\cdot \zeta=0$. Then for $\rho=z\nu+\rho_\perp$, $z\in\Cx$, $(\rho+\zeta)^2-\rho^2=2\rho\cdot\zeta+\zeta^2=0$. Having fixed $\zeta$, $\rho_\perp$, $\nu$, consider the energy $\rho^2+\ep_\alpha$ when $z$ becomes real. Since $\rho^2=z^2+|\rho_\perp|^2$, as $z$ varies over $[0,\sqrt{\evth-\rho_\perp^2-\ep_\alpha})$, the energy varies over $[|\rho_\perp|^2+\ep_\alpha,\evth)$. This intersects the given interval $I$ by as $\evpr<\evth$.
Let $z_0>0$ satisfy $\lambda=\rho_\perp^2+z_0^2+\ep_\alpha
\in(\ep_\alpha,\evth)\setminus\Lambda'$. By Proposition \[prop:G-S\] the limit of the pairing $G_{\alpha\alpha}(\rho,\rho+\zeta)$ as $z\to z_0$ (in $\im z>0$) is determined by the scattering matrices $\calS^\sharp_{\alpha'\alpha''}(\rho_\perp^2+z_0^2+\ep_\alpha)$. Thus, there exists a non-empty open interval of these values $z_0$ at which $G_{\alpha\alpha}(\rho,\rho+\zeta)$ is determined by $\calS^\sharp_{\alpha'\alpha''}(\lambda)$, $\lambda\in I$.
Indeed, as explained in and after the statement of Proposition \[prop:G-S-2\], under the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:main2\], with $|\zeta|<2\sqrt{\min(\sup I,\ep')-\ep_\alpha}$, $\ep'$ denoting the next eigenvalue of $H^a$ or $0$, as in the statement of the theorem, one only needs to know $\calS^\sharp_{\alpha\alpha}(|\rho|^2+\ep_\alpha)$, and in either case the knowledge of the S-matrices in appropriate near-forward regions suffices due the remarks surrounding .
Since the limit on any open interval in the boundary of its domain determines an analytic function, we deduce that knowing the S-matrix $\calS^\sharp_{\alpha'\alpha''}$ in the interval $I$ determines $G_{\alpha\alpha}(\rho,\zeta)$ for all $\zeta$ with $|\zeta|<R$.
Now let $z\to\infty$ through imaginary $z$. By , $G_{\alpha\alpha}(\rho,\rho+\zeta)$ converges to $$\label{eq:pair-99}
\int_{\Rn} I_a |\psi_{\alpha}|^2 e^{-i\zeta\cdot w_a}
\,dw=\int_{X_a}e^{-i\zeta\cdot w_a} \left(\int_{X^a}
I_a|\psi_{\alpha}|^2\,dw^a\right)\,dw_a.$$ But this is the Fourier transform of $\int_{X^a}
I_a|\psi_{\alpha}|^2\,dw^a$ in $X_a$, evaluated at $\zeta$. Hence $S_{\alpha'\alpha''}(\lambda)$, $\lambda\in I$, determines the Fourier transform in $w_a$ of the ‘effective interaction’ $$\label{eq:pair-101}
\int_{X^a}
I_a|\psi_{\alpha}|^2\,dw^a$$ in a ball of radius $2\sqrt{\sup I-\ep_\alpha}$, except possibly on the spheres $\frac{1}{4}|\zeta|^2+\ep_\alpha\in\Lambda'_a$. However, $\int_{X^a}
I_a|\psi_{\alpha}|^2\,dw^a\in L^1(X_a)$, hence the Fourier transform is continuous, hence it is determined on the whole ball. This completes the proof of Theorems \[thm:main\] and \[thm:main2\].
[^1]: G. U. is partially supported by NSF grant \#DMS-00-70488 and a John Simon Guggenheim fellowship. A. V. is partially supported by NSF grant \#DMS-99-70607. Both authors are grateful for the hospitality of the Erwin Schrödinger Institute in Vienna and the Mathematical Sciences Research Institute in Berkeley, CA
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
---
[**** ]{}\
Steven Martin Turnbull^1,2,,\*^, Frédérique Vanholsbeeck ^3,4^, Kirsten Locke^1^ Dion R. J. O’Neale^2,3^,\
**1** Critical Studies in Education, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand\
**2** Te Pūnaha Matatini, Auckland, New Zealand\
**3** Department of Physics, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand\
**4** The Dodd-Walls Centre, Auckland, New Zealand
Current Address: The Department of Physics, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
\* [email protected]
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
========
Current trends suggest that significant gender disparities exist within Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education at university, with female students being underrepresented in physics, but more equally represented in life sciences (e.g., biology, medicine). To understand these trends, it is important to consider the context in which students make decisions about which university courses to enroll in. The current study seeks to investigate gender differences in STEM through a unique approach that combines network analysis of student enrollment data with an interpretive lens based on the sociological theory of Pierre Bourdieu. We generate a network of courses taken by around 9000 undergraduate physics students (from 2009 to 2014) to quantify Bourdieu’s concept of field. We explore the properties of this network to investigate gender differences in transverse movements (between different academic fields) and vertical movements (changes in students’ achievement rankings within a field). Our findings indicate that female students are more likely to make transverse movements into life science fields. We also find that university physics does a poor job in attracting high achieving students, and especially high achieving female students. Of the students who do choose to study physics, low achieving female students are less likely to continue than their male counterparts. The results and implications are discussed in the context of Bourdieu’s theory, and previous research. We argue that in order to remove constraints on female student’s study choices, the field of physics needs to provide a culture in which all students feel like they belong.
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Historically, women have been underrepresented in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines. This is a concerning issue today internationally, and at all stages of higher education [@Abraham_2014; @Stevanovic_2013; @Smith_2011]. More recent studies indicate specific gender disparities exist within the sub-fields that comprise STEM [@mullis2016timss]. Female students tend to be underrepresented in physics in higher education, and this is evidenced by research from the United States [@NSF; @Cunningham_2015; @Kost_Smith_2010; @Heilbronner_2012], Europe [@Huyer2007; @Stevanovic_2013; @InstituteofPhysics_2012; @InstituteofPhysics_2013; @Smith_2011], Asia-Pacific regions [@EducationCounts_2016a; @Kennedy_2014] and Africa [@Semela_2010]. In contrast, the same research shows that the life science subjects (biology and medicine) tend to have more of a gender balance. Why do we see gender differences in the physical and mathematical science subjects, but not the life science subjects? Much research has been dedicated to understanding the extent, causes, and possible solutions to this issue [@Brewe_2016; @Blickenstaff_2005].
The current study investigates the outcomes for male and female physics students at the University of Auckland (UoA) — the largest university in New Zealand. We adopt a unique approach, by combining quantitative network analysis with a research framework based on Pierre Bourdieu’s sociological theory. Whilst we argue that these two approaches can provide a detailed understanding of gender disparities in student enrolment patterns, there is a lack of research in this area (for examples of how network analysis and Bourdieu have been previously used together ,see the work of de Nooy [@de2003fields]), and Bottero and Crossley [@bottero2011worlds]). We combine these approaches by using network analysis to provide a representation of Bourdieu’s concept of field, with an emphasis on his ideas of transverse and vertical movements (students moving from one field to another, and moving upwards and downwards in achievement rankings in a field). In order to avoid misinterpretation of Bourdieu’s theory, which is easily done when “bits and pieces” of it are used [@Bourdieu1992 p.4], we combine our representation of field with Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and capital. We argue that network analysis can bring to light the complex patterns of students’ subject enrollment, whilst Bourdieu’s theory offers a rich theortical framework to explain these patterns. We place the findings of our network analysis in a broad socio-cultural context that brings to light the complex interactions between society, gender and subject discipline. To avoid confusion, the following sections will use ‘field’ as a technical term referring to the Bourdieu’s definition (which will be explained in more detail in the next section), and ‘discipline’ as a non-technical term that describes the different STEM domains.
We begin by introducing a simple model of Bourdieu’s theory, using the field of science education to illustrate its concepts. We then add to this outline of theory by building our method of network analysis into Bourdieu’s theory. More specifically, we describe how network analysis of student enrollment data can provide a representation of field. Exploring the properties of this network structure allows us to understand gender differences in the movements students make within and across fields. According to Bourdieu [@Bourdieu1984 p.131]:
> The social space, being structured in two dimensions (overall capital volume and dominant/dominated capital) allows two types of movement... vertical movements, upwards or downwards in the same vertical sector, that is in the same field... and transverse movements, from one field to another, which may occur either horizontally or between different levels.
In science education, individual’s may move from one field to another (i.e., from physics to life science), but also upwards and downwards in achievement rankings in the field. We use these concepts of movements to guide our investigation. We seek to understand whether there are gender differences in the number of students moving from physics to other fields, and also in the changes in achievement rankings of students in physics. We close this article with a discussion of our results in the broader context of previous research and Bourdieu’s concepts of capital and habitus.
Theoretical Framework
=====================
The metaphor of the leaky pipeline is often used to describe the attrition of women from physics [@Huyer2007; @Schiebinger_2001], in that women are more likely to drop out with each transition between key stages of education (particularly secondary school to university). This metaphor can be criticized for not only stigmatising individuals that drop out of the pipeline, but for also being too simplistic [@Cannady2014]. It is important to emphasize contextual factors, such as the presence of gender-stereotypes [@Nosek_2009] (e.g., men study science, women study humanities) that impact on the decisions that students make. It is also important to consider the complex nature of students’ enrollment patterns; in reality a student’s journey through university study follows a complex network of unique pipes, rather than a singular pipeline. The current study employs a research framework that builds on the limitations of the leaky pipeline. We seek to place our results in a wider socio-cultural context, by harnessing a research framework adapted from the work of Pierre Bourdieu [@Bourdieu1984] (see Fig \[fig:Fig1\]). We employ Bourdieu’s concepts of capital, habitus and field to interpret our findings, and place them in the context of previous studies that have investigated gender differences in STEM subject selection.
The following sections will outline Bourdieu’s concepts of field, capital and habitus. We apply these concepts to a host of previous research regarding gender disparities in science to outline the socio-cultural context in which students are placed. More specifically, we outline research that describes the state of the field of physics and the distribution of capital within the field of physics. We then discuss the interaction of capital with habitus — the system of dispositions that is formed in relation to the field. We describe how the “smog of bias” [@Kost_Smith_2010 p.1] that targets women in physics may impact on habitus, and thus practices within the field, such as choosing to discontinue physics study.
Field
-----
For Bourdieu, the world is separated into a collection of different fields[@Bourdieu1984]. A field can be considered as a system of social locations, where each individual is objectively ranked by the resources (capital) they have relative to others. For example, in the field of tertiary science education, a lecturer ranks higher than a student, whilst a high achieving student ranks higher than a low achieving student. To begin to the understand the hierarchical nature of a field, we must first understand the concept of *capital*. Originally conceived within economics, capital was defined by Adam Smith (in 1887) as “That part \[of a person’s wealth\] that he expects to provide \[them\] with income” [@Smith_1887 p.214]. Bourdieu interpreted capital as a legitimate, valuable and exchangeable resource that individuals can use to gain advantage in society [@Bourdieu_1986]. Therefore, the rankings are determined by how we define what is valuable and legitimate in the field. The practices of individuals within the field are judged by criteria internal to the domain of activity [@hilgers2014introduction]. Individuals with a high volume of valued capital will hold power within the field. For example, high achieving students have high volumes of capital in the field due to their course grades (a signal of success), whilst lecturers and researchers have a greater volume of capital in the form of qualifications and research experience. In the field of tertiary science education, lecturers and researchers sit at the top of the hierarchy, and decide what kinds of capital are valued or devalued (e.g., professors often decide the course content and manner of teaching for undergraduate students at university). We will discuss Bourdieu’s conceptualization of capital and the way it can inform gender equity research in the following section. Before then, we will outline a brief description of how the field of physics is structured from an objective point of view in relation to gender.
The numbers of male and female students holding qualification in the different science disciplines can provide an objective, surface level understanding of the structure of the field. In the United States, only around 20% of students studying physics at bachelors, masters or doctorate level in 2014 were female[@NSF]. This contrasts with biology, where around 50-60% of students studying at bachelors, masters or doctorate level were female[@NSF]. Similar gender disparities in physics enrollments have been found in the European [@InstituteofPhysics_2012; @InstituteofPhysics_2013; @Stevanovic_2013], and Asia-Pacific regions [@Abraham_2014; @Kennedy_2014]. Data from UNESCO shows that, in Europe in 2007, around 71% of tertiary health and welfare students were female, whilst this figure was 39% for natural and physical science (biology, physics, chemistry) [@Huyer2007].
Reports from New Zealand in 2017 show that, overall, secondary school science had a balanced gender-ratio of year 13 (i.e. final year of high-school) students [@EducationCounts_2016a]. However, male students dominated physics and mathematics from year 11 to year 13 at secondary school, with this trend being reflected at university level [@EducationCounts_2016a]. Across the same school years, biology and human anatomy tended to have more female students than male students. Looking at tertiary science education (i.e. university undergraduate and post-graduate levels) these gender disparities were maintained [@EducationCounts_2016a]. Other data from New Zealand in 2017 shows that female students were slightly less well represented among bachelor students studying physics and mathematics (43% and 46% respectively) [@EducationCounts_2016b]. At the same level, female students tended to be over-represented in biology and health (67% and 74% respectively) [@EducationCounts_2016b]. Approximately 25% of doctoral students in physics and astronomy and 44% of students in mathematics were female, while female students comprised 53% of students studying biology and 69% of those studying health. Beyond post-graduate level study, the representation of women in New Zealand professorial roles and leadership positions in physics is particularly poor [@Bray_2011].
The above outlines clear evidence of gender disparities in the field of science, internationally and in New Zealand specifically. Whilst useful, these figures only provide a static, surface-level understanding of what is happening in the field of science education. As shown in Model \[fig:Fig1\], the generation of the practices and behaviours represented in the field (such as enrollment patterns) are generated through the interaction of capital and habitus. We will now visit these two concepts, applying them to previous research, to understand why gender disparities in science education are common.
Capital
-------
The objective rankings within a field are defined by the distribution of capital, and this can be used to inform gender equity research in science [@Kelly_1985]. Different fields have different forms of logic as to what forms of capital are of value. Using a basic example, a science qualification is worth more in the field of science than in other academic fields. Capital is complex and may take many forms, each of which may be valued differently depending on the dominant logic of the field. According to Bourdieu [@Bourdieu_1986], capital has four forms: economic (e.g., financial resources), cultural (non-financial assets, such as physical appearance, spoken language, academic achievement), social (e.g., an individual’s social network), and symbolic (prestige and recognition, such as awards). Individuals who begin their life with more capital, be that through inheritance or immediate exposure to the dominant culture, will be more able to gain personal and social advantages. For example, a student who is born into a family that speaks the dominant language of an educational institution may find it easier to learn, and a student with greater economic wealth may be more able to afford the costs associated with tertiary study (e.g., tuition fees, relocation, travel). The value of capital is not solely determined by form, but also by factors such as the manner of acquisition, and the personal characteristics of the owner. Issues emerge when an individual’s capital is devalued unjustly by the ‘rules’ operating in the field. For example, international research has shown that female physicists tend to receive fewer opportunities and career enhancing resources compared to objectively equal male physicists [@Ivie_2013]. Previous research of tertiary students suggests that female students may be more likely to discontinue physics education, regardless of performance [@Ellis_2016; @Ost_2010]. Since disparities in enrollment still exist even after controlling for academic achievement, it is likely that capital is not the dominant factor in driving gender differences in physics education outcomes. Research does suggest, however, that the gender disparities in physics enrollments can be understood in terms of students’ identity [@Brown2010; @Hazari_2010; @Hazari2013; @Brewe_2016; @Hazari2017] and self-confidence [@Litzler2014; @Concannon2009; @Sharma_2011; @Beth_Kurtz_Costes_2008; @Sawtelle_2012] – factors that can be tied to Bourdieu’s concept of habitus.
Habitus
-------
Capital, in its various forms, interacts with habitus (Fig \[fig:Fig1\]); a construct defined by Bourdieu as a “system of dispositions”[@Bourdieu1984 p.170] formed in relation to a field. Whilst capital is what determines one’s position within the field, habitus is what determines one’s disposition towards it [@Bourdieu1992]. An individual’s habitus is the internalization of the socio-cultural and historical context of a field, and it operates “below the level of consciousness and language” [@Bourdieu1984 p.466]. Roy Nash understood habitus as “a system of schemes of perception and discrimination embodied as dispositions reflecting the entire history of the group and acquired through the formative experiences of childhood”[@Nash1999 p.177]. In simple terms, habitus is what we use to determine whether the field is something we are interested in, based on evidence present in the environment. Whilst habitus is generally formed during childhood within the family [@Dimaggio1982], it is continually reconstructed and transformed as an individual operates in society. For example, a student who grows up in a family that places high value on science may share the same disposition [@archer2013aspires]. However, an individual may not choose to pursue science when faced with evidence that the field is not for them (for example, receiving poor grades, being treated poorly, lack of role models). Based on this internal matrix of dispositions, an individual’s lifestyle practices are generated. According to Bourdieu, the collection of each individual lifestyle produced by habitus then constitutes the “represented social world”[@Bourdieu1984 p.170] — the way that things appear to be. As the representation of the social world also influences the formation of habitus, the world and habitus share a reciprocal relationship. This relationship facilitates the cultural reproduction of inequity over time.
Habitus can be used as a concept to explain the gender disparities in science enrollments. Based on what they see in their represented social world, students will “\[refuse\] what they are refused (‘that’s not for the likes of us’), \[adjust\] their expectations to their chances, \[and define\] themselves as the established order defines them.” [@Bourdieu1984 p.471]. Based on what students see in their environment, they will make decisions on what they feel is a realistic study choice. Archer and colleagues explain this idea further: “social axes of ‘race’/ethnicity, social class, and gender all contribute to shaping what an individual perceives to be possible and desirable.”[@Archer_2012 p.885] The manner by which students perceive the different scientific disciplines, as they are represented in society, likely plays an important role in influencing their desire to study those disciplines.
A wealth of research has outlined the various ways that women are subjugated in certain STEM disciplines (especially physics), with the culmination of these factors being referred to as “the smog of bias” [@Kost_Smith_2010 p.1] or the “gender filter” [@Blickenstaff_2005 p.370]. No single factor can sufficiently explain why women are less likely to pursue physics [@Kost_Smith_2010], but a host of factors are likely to interact and impact on the dispositions students hold (habitus). Due to the pervasiveness of these various factors across society, habitus can take on a collective quality where individuals tend to hold stereotypical views on what is expected for members of different groups. To provide a simple example, research across 34 countries has shown that science tends to be implicitly associated with men more than with women, and that this level of gender bias predicts gender differences in science performance [@Nosek_2009]. As outlined by Bourdieu, an objective class of individuals can be considered the “the set of agents who are placed in homogenous conditions of existence imposing homogenous conditionings and producing homogenous systems of dispositions capable of generating similar practices” [@Bourdieu1984 p.101]. In more basic terms, individuals who share similar backgrounds and characteristics will have a similar habitus, and this may predispose them to behave in similar ways [@Reay_2004 p.434].
Every student holds beliefs about their possible educational paths. However, these beliefs are informed, implicitly and explicitly, by evidence in the environment. When deciding on whether to pursue physics, a student may ask: how are people like me treated in physics? Do people see me as a physicist? How many people like me study physics? Whilst we acknowledge that this is not an exhaustive list of reasons why students study physics, the answers to these questions are likely skewed to favour male students over female students. A study by Ong [@ong2005body] highlighted the incongruence felt by minority female physics students as they studied physics, where their competence was unfairly questioned because their ‘bodies did not fit’ with the stereotypical depiction of the white male scientist. Similarly, studies have found that women are more likely to be viewed as incompetent, controlling for confounding variables other than gender, by scientists (including physicists) looking to hire a laboratory manager [@Moss_2012], or by students evaluating their physics teacher [@Potvin_2016]. Similarly, women rated as more feminine are less likely to be judged as a scientist [@Banchefsky2016]. The pervasive nature of the “smog of bias” [@Kost_Smith_2010 p.1] in physics offers the ‘homogenous conditions of existence’ that may result in a gendered habitus in physics: one that sees physics as unwelcoming for female students. This is likely to explain why studies tend to find that female students are more interested in life science subjects [@Buccheri_2011] and male students are more likely to be interested in physics, engineering and mathematics [@Su_2009; @B_E_2013; @Cunningham_2015]. It is important to note here that the opposite is not true — there is a lack of evidence to suggest that male students are unfairly judged as incompetent or feel unwelcome in the life sciences and therefore choose physical science subjects.
Evidence suggests that the gender differences in subject interest may not be present in early childhood, but emerge by the end of secondary school [@Baram_Tsabari_2010]. This lends credence to the idea that habitus is formulated over time; as individuals become increasingly aware of societal norms, their interests align with what (through their habitus) seems like a realistic study choice. These stereotypical gender preferences may persist when it comes to the types of science-related career that secondary school students aim for [@Kj_rnsli_2011], and students’ choice of STEM major at university [@Bottia_2015; @Sadler_2012]. At university level, gender disparities may even widen further; a study of physics students at a university in the United States found that female students are more likely to see their interest in physics diminish during introductory physics [@Kost_Smith_2010].
The Current Study
=================
The current study was motivated by the need to understand any potential gender differences in student outcomes in general, and at the University of Auckland (UoA) in particular. Our study seeks to not only understand the outcomes for physics students at the UoA, but to employ a unique approach that highlights the complexity of student enrollments and places them in a wider socio-cultural context. To do so, we employ network analysis on student enrollment records to provide a detailed representation of the field of physics at the UoA. The network analysis approach builds on the work of [@de2003fields] and [@bottero2011worlds] who described the utility of combining network analysis with Bourdieu. [@bottero2011worlds] provide an example of how networks of social relations can provide a representation of a field. The current study expands on this area of research by conceptualising academic fields as communities detected in networks of course selection. Furthermore, we draw attention to under-utilised concepts of Bourdieusian theory: the concepts of transverse movement between fields, and vertical movements within fields. We focus on providing a basic description of the movements that physics students make within and between academic fields at the UoA. Our study echoes previous studies that analyse the pathways that students take through education. However, by combining the network analysis approach with the sociological theory outlined by Bourdieu[@Bourdieu1984], w meove beyond simple models to a more nuanced description of the way habitus can be depicted/demonstrated through network analysis as both a cause and a symptom of gender stratification.
Transverse and Vertical Movements
---------------------------------
Bourdieu’s theory encourages us to view student movements across STEM domains in relation to the structures of the field, the volume of capital a student holds, and the manner by which habitus guides practices in the field. In addition to our objective representation of the field of physics, we also consider what may motivate these movements, based on evidence from previous research.
According to Bourdieu, society is structured in a manner that allows individuals to engage in two types of movement: vertical and transverse: “vertical movements, upwards or downwards in the same vertical sector, that is in the same field... and transverse movements, from one field to another, which may occur either horizontally or between different levels” [@Bourdieu1984 p.131]. Vertical movements upwards require an increase in the prized capital in the field. In tertiary science education, this may be represented by grades in science courses over time. Transverse movements entail a shift to a new field, and the conversion of accumulated capital into the capital accepted in the new field. For example, a student making a transverse movement from physics to life sciences will have to assimilate to a different skill set, and even a different culture. Transverse movements can be used as a strategy to protect a relative vertical position:
> “transverse movements entail a shift into another field and the reconversion of one type of capital into another or of one subtype into another subtype... and therefore a transformation of the asset structure which protects overall capital volume and maintains position in the vertical dimension”[@Bourdieu1984 p.132]
When an individual feels that they are slipping in the ranks of the field, they may choose to make a transverse movement to a new field, where their accumulated capital holds more translatable value.
In the current study, we conceptualize cultural capital in its institutionalized form as measured by course grades. The current study, therefore, seeks to understand:
- Whether there are gender differences in UoA physics students moving from one academic field to another.
- Whether there are gender differences in the persistence of UoA students in physics.
- Whether there are gender differences in UoA physics students moving upwards or downwards in academic achievement (as signalled by course grades).
Whilst our data do not allow us to conceptualize forms of capital other than institutionalised cultural capital (i.e, course grades), our methodology leaves the opportunity for future research to incorporate other measures of students’ capital. More specifically, future research should investigate how other forms of capital are distributed across fields and relate to the movements that students make.
Materials and methods {#materials-and-methods .unnumbered}
=====================
Data
----
The current study uses administrative student data from the UoA from 2009 to 2014 (N $=$ 8905), including demographic and academic information. For the purposes of this study, the only demographic variable considered in the analysis was gender. Academic variables include course codes that students were enrolled in, and the year and semester in which they were enrolled. We did not have information regarding students’ degree plans or majors. Records of non-physics courses were included as long as a student had enrolled in at least one physics course during the study period. At the UoA, students are required to take two courses outside of their major, with the options being titled as general education courses. We excluded all students who studied a general education course in physics from our analysis. We know that these students are not physics students, and they do not offer a representative sample of students from outside of physics.
A typical Bachelor of Science physics degree at the UoA takes place over the course of three years. In their first year, physics students are required to take Advancing Physics 1 (AP1) and then Advancing Physics 2 (AP2) before moving onto second year physics. Life science students (those majoring in biomedical sciences or medicine) are required to take Physics for Life Sciences (PLS) in their first year. PLS is taught by the physics department. This means that, despite our study population including only students who took a physics course, many of the students present in our data set were likely majoring in life sciences. Our population therefore allows us to compare the outcomes for students in the physics and life sciences disciplines. AP1 and PLS cover the same content, but are presented in a different manner. One significant difference between AP1 and PLS is that AP1 assumes a knowledge of calculus, while PLS does not. This is an important point to consider, as a mathematics background may be an important form of science related capital [@Black2016], and female students may be more likely to drop out of physics education after taking calculus [@Ellis_2016]. The current study was able to compare the AP1 and PLS subsets of the general physics population to account for a student’s first year disciplinary intentions. PLS is still considered an acceptable prerequisite for AP2 in lieu of AP1, although it is rare for students to take this route.
Measures
--------
The following variables were used in the analysis:
- [Grade Point Equivalence (GPE):]{} GPE is an entry level score that provides a standard measure of a student’s prior academic performance at the time of admission to university, regardless of the qualification they previously took. It is measured on a 0-9 scale, with 9 being the highest performing. It provides an aggregate measure of how well a student did in all of their high school courses [@UoA_2016].
- [Grade Point Unit (GPU):]{} GPU is a measure of a student’s university performance in a single course. It is measured on a 0-9 scale, with 0 being equivalent to a fail (D+ or lower), and 9 being equivalent to an A+ grade. GPU was used as a measure of performance for AP1, AP2 and PLS.
- [Gender:]{} Due to limitations in the administrative data that were used, gender was only recorded as male or female.
Procedure
---------
Although Bourdieu offers a rich theory to interpret movements within and between fields, we are left with the challenge of defining what constitutes a field. Whilst it could be argued that every student who takes a physics course at university is a physics student, we believe that this is not sufficient. Students may be enrolled in a subject discipline on paper, but actually be fully engaged in a separate field of study. A good example of this is PLS. PLS students may be considered physics students on paper, but their main field of study is likely biomedical sciences or medicine. Through network analysis, we are able to define academic fields in terms of the patterns of course selection. We represent course selection patterns as a network, where nodes represent university courses and edges represent the enrolments of students within courses. We then explore the structure of the network by investigated the communities of courses that tend to be taken together by students. Our approach, similar to blockmodelling approaches [@bottero2011worlds; @white1976social], allows us to take a complex network and reduce it to its core structure. It does this by identifying communities of nodes that tend to share more edges. We can then explore patterns at the level of communities instead of at the level of nodes. In the current study, we interpret these communities as academic fields. Following this, we are able to investigate gender differences in the transverse that students make across the fields represented in our network. We supplement our network with course achievement data to compare vertical movements within and across fields.
The following section outlines the series of steps that were used to generate the course network and use it to answer our research questions regarding gender differences in students transverse and vertical movements. Through the analysis of course relationships, we can take a non-biased approach to defining the fields in which students are located.
Forming the Network
-------------------
To begin our network analysis, we structured our data as an adjacency matrix, where both rows and columns represent the courses taken by students in our sample, and a cell value is the number of students who took both course $i$ and course $j$ within their undergraduate degree. Whilst we could define edges in relation to the frequency of students who took a pair of courses, this does not truly reveal the underlying community structures we are interested in. Pairs of courses including one very popular course will tend to have higher values regardless of whether the two courses belong to the same academic field. We take into account course populations by normalising the matrix using a Revealed Comparative Preference (RCP) score. RCP measures the fraction of students from a course $j$ who also took a second course $i$, relative to the overall fraction of students taking course $i$, across all other courses. More specifically: $$RCP(i,j) = \frac{x_{ij}/x_j}{x_i/x}$$ where $x_{ij}$ is the number of students taking both course $i$ and $j$, $x_j$ (or $x_i$) is the total number of students taking course $j$ (respectively, course $i$), and $x$ is the total number of unique students enrolled in any course. The RCP metric is based on the measure Revealed Comparative Advantage, used in economics [@Balassa1965], and was calculated using the EconGeog package in R [@balland2017economic]. The RCP approach to normalising gives the “revealed” course preferences, controlling for the enrollment numbers of each course (that is, the courses that tend to be taken together by students in the network more often than would be predicted by the course populations alone). RCP values greater than one indicate that a pair of courses had a ‘preference’ for being taken together, given the relative populations of both courses, whilst RCP values below one indicate no evidence of any preference. Thus, we exclude any network edge with an RCP weighting lower than one, leaving only the course pairs that had a preference for taking together.
We identify communities of courses that tended to be taken together by students. We employ the community detection algorithm Infomap [@Edler_2017]) on the network. In basic terms, this method of community detection reveals communities of nodes based on maximising a modularity score. In network analysis, modularity is the extent to which a network is partitioned so that the number of edges within communities is greater than the number of edges between communities. Using the igraph package in R [@csardi2006igraph], the infomap algorithm identified 23 communities of courses in our network (see Table \[Table 1\]). Each community can be interpretted as a unique academic field consisting of different combinations of courses and requiring different sets of knowledge. The resulting network is shown in Fig \[fig:Fig2\]. Nodes in the network represent courses taken by students, whilst edges show a preference for a pair of courses being taken together. Node colours represent the communities of courses, which we interpret as individual fields. Using Bourdieu’s concepts of transverse and vertical movements, we explore the relationships between and within the 23 communities (or fields) in the network.
Community Count students Proportion Female Total Enrollments
-------------------- ---------------- ------------------- -------------------
Ancient History 150 0.48 205
Biological Science 5630 0.52 18600
Chemical Materials 20 0.35 60
Chemistry 1660 0.49 4180
Chinese 60 0.27 85
Computer Science 4405 0.28 22195
Engineering 980 0.36 9315
Finance-Marketing 1430 0.29 6735
Food Science 640 0.53 1505
Geography-Geology 1470 0.38 6095
Japanese 85 0.38 180
Law 170 0.46 240
Liberal Arts 6410 0.38 12750
Medical Science 4715 0.53 26790
Nursing 70 0.81 300
Optometry 550 0.61 1310
Pharmacy 645 0.58 2100
Physics-Maths 3060 0.25 12125
Population Health 200 0.57 510
Psychology 1440 0.52 4410
Sports Science 245 0.47 575
Statistics 1470 0.36 3985
Surgery 350 0.43 2800
: \[Table 1\] **Compositions of the Communities Detected in the Course Network.**
*Counts have been rounded to the nearest 5 to preserve confidentiality. Proportions were formulated using original values.*
### Transverse Movements
To investigate whether there are gender differences in UoA physics students moving from one academic field to another during their undergraduate degree (transverse movements), we build on the network outlined in the previous section. We take the same set of nodes, with the same community structures, but weight edges by the number of students who took course $i$ **before** course $j$. From this new directed network, we are able to assess the movements that students make between communities. To answer our questions regarding the transverse movements that students make from one field to another, we aggregate the number of movements from courses within community $m$ to courses within community$n$ (see Fig \[fig:Fig3\]). For example, the courses in the *Physics-Maths* community in Fig \[fig:Fig2\] become a single Physics-Maths node in Fig \[fig:Fig3\]. Outgoing edges between communities are aggregated into a single outgoing edge, with a weighting equivalent to the sum of all outgoing edges weights from nodes in the community. Edges between courses within a community are similarly aggregated, and are represented as self-loops (a link from a node to itself) in Fig \[fig:Fig3\]. To investigate how transverse movements differ by gender, we calculate the odds (with 99% confidence intervals) of a female student moving from community$_i$ to community$_j$ over a male student. The new network is represented as a network in Fig \[fig:Fig3\] and as a heat map in Fig \[fig:Fig4\].
### Vertical Movements
We also seek to investigate how male and female students with differing levels of prior achievement choose to invest their capital. Are there gender differences in the vertical movements (moving upwards or downwards in the objective rankings in a field) that students make from one stage to the next? Do male and female students with different levels of prior achievement choose to invest their capital differently? To understand the nature of students’ vertical movements between within and between fields, we incorporate student achievement data into our previously established network. For each course, we have the student grade point unit score (i.e., their level of achievement). Our data set also includes an average high school achievement measure, called Grade Point Equivalence (GPE), for the majority of students in our network. This allows us to look at the transitions that male and female students make from high school to university study.
We are particularly interested in the movements that students make going from high school to three specific stage one courses: AP1, AP2, and PLS. We also investigate the gender differences in vertical movements that students make from these physics courses to our detected fields, and between our detected fields. For our detected fields we calculate a Grade Point Average (GPA) score for each student, in which we take the mean of the student’s grade point unit scores for each course they took within the community. For example, the Physics-Maths GPA score will be a student’s mean average grade point unit score for all of the courses they took within the Physics-Maths community.
As outlined by Bourdieu, an individual’s power in a field is determined by the composition and volume of capital they hold *relative* to other individuals. As our goal is to compare the relative vertical position of students within and between fields, we convert the achievement scores (GPE for high school, GPU for the key stage one courses, and GPA for the communities) into percentile ranks. Standardising achievement in this manner facilitates comparisons across fields. Top achievers in a field will have a percentile rank score of 100, whilst low achievers will have a percentile rank score closer to 0. We can then compare the change in percentile rank scores for male and female students across our network. To describe the gender differences in vertical movements, we use independent 2-group Mann-Whitney U Tests (a non-parametric t-test) to compare differences in percentile rank change between male and female students. We were then able to determine whether there were any significant differences between male and female students gaining in relative performance across fields. We also report the odds (with 99% confidence intervals) of top, middle, and low achieving female students enrolling in different fields (where achievement groups are based on percentile rank split into three equally sized bins). We explore the movements from high school to key stage one university courses specifically, and from key stage one physics courses to detected fields.
Results and Discussion
======================
Networks showing the revealed communities of courses that students take can be seen in Fig \[fig:Fig2\] and Fig \[fig:Fig3\]. Fig \[fig:Fig2\] shows the network of courses offered by the University of Auckland (UoA) between the years 2009 and 2014, with communities indicating courses that tend to be taken together within students’ undergraduate degrees (represented by the different colours). The communities include (in ascending order of aggregated course enrollments): Medical Science, Computer Science, Biological Science, Liberal Arts, Physics-Maths, Engineering, Finance-Marketing, Geography-Geology, Psychology, Chemistry, Statistics, Surgery, Pharmacy, Food Science, Optometry, Sports Science, Population Health, Nursing, Law, Ancient History, Japanese, Chinese, and Chemical Materials.
The use of Revealed Comparative Preference (RCP) in conjunction with the community detection reveals underlying academic fields in which physics student participate, as indicated by the combinations of courses that students enroll in. Physics courses (including AP1 and AP2, the first prerequisites for a physics major at the UoA) and mathematics courses are located the same field, which we label *Physics-Maths*. PLS, a physics course required for students wanting to study medicine, belongs to the field of *Medical Sciences*. We report the the counts of students per community, with the percentage of female students, in Table \[Table 1\]. Liberal Arts, Biological Science, and Medical Science were the three largest communities based on number of unique students enrolled in the field. Medical Science, Computer Science, and Biological Science were the largest communities in terms of total enrollments (an individual student may be enrolled in more than one course per field). In terms of the proportion of female students per community, Physics-Maths (0.25), Computer Science (0.28), and Chinese (0.27) were the most male dominated. Nursing (0.81), Optometry (0.61), and Pharmacy (0.58) were the most female dominated.
The network and RCP approach provides a non-biased method of classifying the fields in which students are participating in. The use of RCP shows that disciplinary labels (i.e., ‘Physics’) are imperfect in classifying the patterns of courses that students enrol in. Although PLS is a physics course, it has a higher affinity with the life sciences, and our community detection approach reflects this by locating PLS within the field of Medical Science. For example, the percentage of female students enrolled in *all* physics courses (including PLS) is 40%. Our community detection shows that female students only make up around 25% of the main Physics-Maths community. The difference between these percentages is substantial, and raises important implications for the way in which universities report the number of students studying in different disciplines.
Transverse Movements
--------------------
We first wanted to understand whether there are gender differences in UoA physics students moving from one academic field to another. Our results regarding these transverse movements (more detail is given in the supplementary material) show that female students were around 1.82 (CI: 1.63-2.02) times more likely to take a course in Biological Science after taking a course in Physics-Maths, and 1.44 (CI: 1.40-1.47) times more likely to take a further course in Biological Science after taking a previous Biological Science course. On the other hand, male students were around 1.97 (OR $=$ 0.51, CI: 0.48-0.56) times more likely to take a course in Physics-Maths after taking a course in Biological Science. There were no significant gender differences in students taking a course in Physics-Maths after taking a previous course in that community. Male students were consistently more likely to take a course in Computer Science after taking a previous course in another community, for example going from Biological Science (OR = 0.44,CI: 0.42-0.46), Physics-Maths (OR $=$ 0.52 , CI: 0.50-0.54), and Computer Science (OR $=$ 0.44, CI: 0.43-0.45).
The above results show differences in the transverse movements that students make between fields. Female students were nearly twice as likely to switch into Biological Sciences after Physics-Maths, with male students nearly twice as likely to go the opposite direction. Thus, the results of the current study show that gender disparities are evident, not only in the fields in which students choose to study (see Table \[Table 1\]), but also in the transverse movements make between fields. These findings are in line with previous research that shows that the life science disciplines (biology, medicine etc.) tend to be more popular for female students, while physics, maths, computer science and engineering tend to be more popular for male students [@NSF; @Cunningham_2015; @Kost_Smith_2010; @Heilbronner_2012; @Stevanovic_2013; @InstituteofPhysics_2012; @Smith_2011; @EducationCounts_2016a; @Kennedy_2014; @Semela_2010]. Male students were consistently more likely to switch into computer science regardless of prior field. This highlights the field of computer science as a key area of future investigation.
Whilst the above findings indicate gender disparities in student enrollments, it is important to consider the achievement levels of students who enter in to different fields, and whether achievement impacts on the movements that students make. We want to know whether there are gender differences in the persistence of UoA students in physics, accounting for student achievement. The question we now ask is where do male and female students with differing levels of prior achievement choose to invest their capital? We look specifically at students coming from high school, to the key stage one physics courses (AP1, AP2, and PLS) and to the disciplinary fields revealed in our network.
Vertical Movements
------------------
We investigate the impact of student achievement on student enrollment in two ways. We firstly report the number of top, middle, and low achievers who make movements from high school to the key stage one physics courses (AP1, AP2 and PLS), and to the fields revealed in our network. We then assess the vertical movements that students make by analysing gender differences in the change in objective rankings within and between fields. We begin by reporting the progression of students from high school to university physics.
For students ranking in the bottom third of high school students (“low achievers”), 17.94% of female students and 35.53% of male students went on to study AP1. Thus, low achieving male students were 2.52 (OR $=$ 0.40, CI :0.30-0.52) times more likely to enter the main physics pathway at the UoA compared to their female counterparts. For students ranking in the middle third of high school students (“middle achievers”), 10.69% of female students and 30.58% of male students went on to study AP1. Thus, middle achieving male students were 3.68 (OR $=$ 0.27, CI: 0.20-0.37) times more likely to enter physics at the UoA compared to their female counter parts.
Our findings show that of the students who were ranking in the top third of students coming from high school (“top achievers”), very few chose to invest their capital in physics. Only 8.72% of male students and 5.06% of female students who were top achievers from high school chose to enrol in AP1. These percentages also indicate that from this top achieving group, male students were 1.79 times more likely to go to AP1 (OR $=$ 0.56, CI: 0.36-0.87). Thus, not only does it appear that physics is an unattractive option of top achieving high school students, but this is particularly true for top achieving female students. In contrast, 72.66% of male students, and 88.35% of female students from this top achieving group enrolled in PLS. Top achieving female students were thus 2.84 (CI: 2.10-3.83) times more likely than their male counter parts to follow this pathway.
Top achieving students are most able to make choices on where they choose to invest their capital, and thus our results provide a good indication that the life science fields tend to be viewed as high in symbolic capital (prestige). The fact that we did find differences in the choices to study PLS over AP1 suggests that physics is viewed as a less rewarding study path than the life sciences. Questions need to be asked about the way in which physics is presented to students in secondary school. Claussen and colleagues argue that science education needs to highlight the utility value of science in culture, scientific literacy, and employment [@Claussen_2013]. Students will choose to invest their capital in a field where they feel that they can get the largest return (be it in educational qualification, future employment opportunities, or enjoyment). Our findings suggest that within science education, physics needs to make a stronger case for its utility in order to attract high achieving students, in general, and female students in particular. This could be achieved by boosting science capital[@Archer2015a], increasing the knowledge about the future value of physics courses in the employment market [@Archer2014], and providing information on the utility of physics in everyday life.
Increasing the value of physics and boosting the related capital of students within physics, although necessary, is likely an insufficient strategy to address gender disparities. In the context of previous research, we also argue that female students’ choice is constrained due to the unwelcoming climate presented in the field of physics [@Blickenstaff_2005; @Kost_Smith_2010]. Following Bourdieu’s theoretical framework (Fig \[fig:Fig1\], we must also consider students’ habitus. The affinities that students feel towards each scientific discipline is influenced from an early age by their experiences in, and perceptions of the field of science education. Using evidence from their life experiences, students enter into university with an idea of what discipline is ‘*for me*’. For fields such as physics and computer science (where we found the most consistent gender disparities in enrollments) students are likely influenced from an early age by the “smog of bias” [@Kost_Smith_2010 p.1] that targets women. Through the combination of a myriad of factors, from the negative gender stereotypes [@Nosek_2009], to the ways in which women’s competence is unfairly questioned [@Moss_2012; @Potvin_2016; @ong2005body], students will internalise (via habitus) the perception that physics is something men do, and where women are unwelcome [@Archer_2013]. Until the ‘smog of bias’ is addressed, female students will continue to have constrained choice in science.
Whilst we could interpret the lower likelihood of a male student studying in the life sciences as evidence of constrained choice also, we find this an unrealistic interpretation. The sizable representation of male students and researchers in the life sciences presently and historically, and the lack of negative factors that impact male students in this domain, mean that the life sciences are likely still a realistic study choice for male students. To put more simply, male students have more choice on where to invest their capital, whilst female students are more likely to face obstacles. The rules operating in the field of physics may require female students to make extra effort to appear competent and persevere in the field. As outlined by Ong [@ong2005body p.594] in a study of minority female physics students: “the ways in which women of color organize themselves to appear competent in the context of physics specify invisible rules about the strict boundaries around local scientific communities.” The idea that women in physics may have to “relegate social and cultural identities to the margins” [@ong2005body p.597] in order to succeed in physics corresponds to Bourdieu’s idea that individuals lacking in the ‘valued’ cultural capital in a field may need to make sacrifices to get ahead [@Bourdieu1984 p.333].
Of the students from AP1 who ranked in the bottom third of achievers (low achievers), we found that 40.38% of male students, and 28.29% of female students progressed to AP2. Thus, female students from this low achieving group were around 1.717 (OR $=$0.58, CI: 0.35-0.98) times less likely to progress from AP1 to AP2. There were no significant gender differences in the middle (OR $=$ 0.84, CI:0.56-1.24) and top achieving (OR $=$ 0.77, CI: 0.49-1.21) AP1 students who went to AP2.
The above findings point to previous research that suggests that female students may be less confident in physics [@B_E_2013; @Sharma_2011; @Hofer_2016] and maths [@Else_Quest_2013; @Sheldrake_2015], or, rather, low achieving male students may be *over-confident*. It may be that in our sample, gender differences in progression from AP1 to AP2 for middle and top achieving students were not present as the grades received offered evidence that they *belong* in physics. For the low achieving students, belonging is not evidenced by their grades. Low achieving male students may be buffered by a habitus that, after years of socialization, predisposes them to physics. Female students, on the other hand, may be less likely to have this protective disposition. Whilst further research is needed to substantiate this claim, past research does suggest that students are more likely to make internal attributions of failure for female students in science (i.e., they fail because they are not good at it), and external attributions of failure for male students (i.e., unfavourable circumstances) [@LaCosse_2016]. Furthermore research by Ellis, Fosdick and Rasmussan[@Ellis_2016] found that female students are more likely to discontinue physics after taking an introductory calculus course, with female students also being more likely to cite lack of understanding as a reason for dropping out. This may also apply to students in our sample, as AP1 includes content that requires knowledge of calculus.
We also investigated the rank change for students moving from high school to the key stage one physics courses, and from those physics courses on to the fields detected in our network. We found no statistically or practically significant gender differences in the vertical movements in these pathways, with the exception of students going from high school to AP1. As indicated by Fig \[fig:Fig5\] and \[fig:Fig6\], we found that low and middle achieving female high school students were more likely to decrease their rank in the field (i.e., make a vertical movement downwards) in AP1 with this being significant. On average, low achieving female students went down around 6 ranks compared to their male counterparts (Difference in Position=$-5.71$, CI: $-8.57$ - $-2.86$), while middle achieving female students went down around 9 ranks relative to their male counterparts (Difference in Position=$-8.57$, CI: $-12.86$ - $-2.86$). There was no significant gender difference in rank change for top achievers.
These results somewhat echo the findings of Kost-Smith [@Kost_Smith_2010]. They found that male students tended to outperform female students on post-test physics concept inventory scores, despite there being no gender differences in pre-test scores. Based on this, we would expect male students in our sample to also increase their relative position in the field of physics after first year study. With that being said, the gender differences we did find were relatively small, and non-existent for top achieving students. The top achieving female students in our sample who chose to progress in physics likely have a habitus that is just as congruent with physics as the male students (i.e., they feel that physics is ‘for them’). However, taken in the context with our other findings that female students were less likely to progress from high school to AP1, or from AP1 to AP2, questions must be asked about the distribution of physics-related capital and the development of physics habitus *before* university education, particularly for middle and low achieving students. Many studies point to the late childhood and early teenage years as a key formative stages [@archer2013aspires; @DeWitt2014; @Baram_Tsabari_2010] for identity within science. Future studies of tertiary education in New Zealand should investigate the role of science identity in subject selection decisions further.
Implications
------------
The current study offers a detailed account of the movements that students make through university physics. Our results show that female students were less likely to progress from high school to AP1, regardless of prior achievement, while low achieving female AP1 students were less likely to progress to AP2. The findings of the current study suggest that more needs to be done to ensure that physics is perceived as a viable option for female students and high achieving students (and particularly high achieving female students). This can be done by using interventions to boost the value that science capital holds in all areas of society. Echoing the arguments of Claussen and Osborne[@Claussen_2013] and Archer and colleagues [@Archer2012], science education in New Zealand, and internationally, needs to highlight the utility value of physics in culture, in boosting scientific literacy, and employment.
However, we argue that boosting the value and access to capital, despite being a necessary goal for boosting the numbers of students in physics, is insufficient to tackle gender disparities. Following our research framework, we should seek to transform the habitus of students to encourage them to invest their capital in physics. We need to continue to change the culture of physics so that it is more likely to be viewed as a viable study option. Whilst we do not want to force students to study in areas where they do not want to be, we echo the sentiments of Cheryan and colleagues, who state: ‘
> Just because women are excited to go into other fields does not mean that they would not have been equally excited to go into computer science, engineering, and physics if the cultures signaled to them that they belong there.
[@cheryan2017some] We need to transform the field of physics so that it signals to female students that they belong there.
Previous research suggests that interventions to boost the number of female students graduating in physics would be most useful at stages of education prior to university [@cheryan2017some], as intentions to study science can be formed by early secondary school [@archer2013aspires; @Baram_Tsabari_2010]. Female students’ self-concept in physics may be improved through exposure to supportive family members [@kelly2016social] and high school teachers [@Hazari2017; @kelly2016social].
The results of the current study do also indicate that more needs to be done to support the female students who have already chosen to study physics at university. This may take the form of increased academic support for low achieving students in particular. Universities can seek to provide group learning experiences in introductory physics [@Sawtelle_2012], and more welcoming environments for female students in physics and computer science [@master2016computing].
As outlined by Bourdieu, individuals fight to define the criteria of what is of value in the field. Individuals who hold power in the field have the means to change the culture of physics. As stated by [@hilgers2014introduction p.11]:
> The chances that established actors will succeed in preserving the order \[of the field\] are, however, greater than the probability of subversion. The more legitimate an agent, the more her peers consume her products, and the more they consume her products, the more legitimate she becomes.
Following this logic, culture change in the field may require forced institutional changes. Initiatives to help address the inequities faced by women already in the field [@Ivie_2013], and to increase the representation of women in research and higher education [@AthenaSwan; @Horizon2020] are important steps to fostering changes in culture. through these initiatives, we signal to future students from all backgrounds that physics is somewhere where women belong.
Beyond our research findings, the current study demonstrates the utility of using network analysis and Bourdieu together. Whilst network analysis serves as a good method for representing Bourdieu’s concept of field, Bourdieu’s theory provides a rich interpretive lens. Our approach carries many benefits over other, more simplistic frameworks, such as the leaky pipeline. Employing the concepts of field, capital and habitus allow us to understand the objective structure of physics, whilst respecting the subjective contexts in which students are placed. Doing so removes stigma that can be attached to students who ‘leak’ from the physics education pipeline. Emphasising the contexts that students are situated in allows us as researchers to place our findings in a broader context and formulate suitable interventions to boost the physics enrollments of underrepresented groups.
Limitations
-----------
There are limitations to the current work that future studies should address. Firstly, our data set is limited to UoA physics students, and included only course selection and performance information, and minimal demographic information. We did not have data regarding the course selection information of students prior to university, whilst our measure of high school achievement was a general measure and not subject specific. More detailed data would have provided more information regarding students’ educational trajectories. With that being said, our results show the utility of working with student record data. Our network analysis, whilst simple, also provides a strong framework for working with more complex data; for example, investigating the distribution of economic, cultural, social capital across the network.
Whilst we argue that our network analysis approach enables us to draw many conclusions from our data, our study would also have benefited from combining our quantitative analysis with qualitative measures. We have used a quantitative approach to defining the field, and used evidence from other research studies to draw conclusions from our data. Whilst this approach is informative, qualitative approaches can provide even more context specific details. Bourdieu highlighted the need to break the dichotomy between the aim of understanding the ‘objective reality’ (the overall distributions of groups and relationships between them) and the aim of understanding “not ‘reality’, but agents’ representations of it” [@Bourdieu_1986 p.482]. Surveys and interviews of students would provide contextual and fine-grained detail that would complement our quantitative network analysis. Qualitative analysis may also be a more appropriate way to investigate gender as a non-binary construct.
Despite having access to information regarding the ethnicity of students, we decided not to present this information in the current analysis. This is due to the fact that preliminary analysis showed low cell sizes for ethnic groups other than New Zealand European and Asian students in physics, in particular Māori and Pacific Island students (these findings are available on request). When possible, future studies should make use of an intersectional research design (one that explores the interaction between gender, ethnicity, social class etc.). This is especially important when using a Bourdieusian framework to interpret results. As suggested by Bourdieu: “The individuals grouped in a class that is constructed in a particular respect... always bring with them secondary properties” [@Bourdieu1984 p.102]. Understanding the intersection of student characteristics would allow us to control for the secondary properties that Bourdieu speaks of. The authors are currently conducting further to understand why there were low cell sizes for minority groups using data from earlier educational stages (i.e., secondary school).
Conclusion {#conclusion .unnumbered}
==========
The current study investigated gender differences for undergraduate physics students at the University of Auckland (UoA) through the use of network analysis on student data, with an interpretive lens based on the work of Pierre Bourdieu. Our network analysis revealed the different academic fields in which students are situated. We outline the utility of networks in visualising Bourdieu’s concepts of vertical and transverse movements within and across fields. Analysis showed gender differences in transverse movements (moving from one field to another) consistent with gender stereotypes: female students were more likely to enroll in life science fields (Biological Science, Medical Science), while male students were more likely to enroll in the Physics-Maths and Computer Science fields.Analysis of a UoA student-course network revealed that female high school students are more likely to study life sciences at university compared to physics, and this is particularly true for high achieving students in this group. Furthermore, of the female students who did enter physics in their first year, low achieving students in this group were less likely to progress to further physics compared to their male counterparts. We relate these findings to Bourdieu’s concepts of field, capital and habitus (Fig \[fig:Fig1\]). High achieving secondary school students (especially female students) may see more of a return for their capital in the life sciences compared to physics. Whilst it may be that physics does a poor job of highlighting its value, we argue that female students will continue to suffer constraints in their subject selection until the ‘smog of bias’[@Kost_Smith_2010] in physics is addressed. As outlined by Kost-Smith and colleagues[@Kost_Smith_2010], it is unlikely that a single factor can account for the gender disparities seen in physics enrollment. We suggest that the various factors that have been linked to the attrition of women from physics (e.g., negative gender stereotypes, lack of female role models etc.) culminates into a gendered habitus that increases the likelihood of students viewing physics as a field that men do and where women are unwelcome. We close by discussing potential avenues for addressing gender disparities, which focus on not only boosting access to, and the value of, physics related capital, but also transforming the culture of the field so that all students (regardless of gender) view physics as a feasible study option.
[10]{}
Abraham J, Barker K. . Research in Science Education. 2014;45(1):59–73. doi:[10.1007/s11165-014-9413-2]{}.
Stevanovic B. . British Journal of Sociology of Education. 2013;35(4):541–558. doi:[10.1080/01425692.2013.791229]{}.
Smith E. . British Educational Research Journal. 2011;37(6):993–1014. doi:[10.1080/01411926.2010.515019]{}.
Mullis I, Martin M, Foy P, Hooper M. TIMSS 2015 International Results in Mathematics. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center at Boston College; 2016.
. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: Field of degree: Women; 2017. [https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/digest/fod-women/
](https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/digest/fod-women/
).
Cunningham BC, Hoyer KM, Sparks D. National Center for Education Statistics. 2015;.
Kost-Smith LE, Pollock SJ, Finkelstein ND. . Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research. 2010;6(2):1–17. doi:[10.1103/physrevstper.6.020112]{}.
Heilbronner NN. Gifted Child Quarterly. 2012;57(1):39–55. doi:[10.1177/0016986212460085]{}.
Huyer G Sophia; Westholm. Gender indicators in science, engineering and technology: an information toolkit. UNESCO; 2007.
. . London, United Kingdom: Institute of Physics; 2012.
. . London, United Kingdom: Institute of Physics; 2013.
. Secondary subject roll by learning year level & subject name - 1 july 2015; 2016. [https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/schooling/student-numbers/subject-enrollment
](https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/schooling/student-numbers/subject-enrollment
).
Kennedy JP, Lyons T, Quinn F. . Teaching Science. 2014;60(2):34–46.
Semela T. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education. 2010;5(3):319–340.
Brewe E, Sawtelle V. . Physical Review Physics Educucation Research. 2016;12(2):1–4. doi:[10.1103/physrevphyseducres.12.020001]{}.
Blickenstaff JC. Gender and Education. 2005;17(4):369–386. doi:[10.1080/09540250500145072]{}.
De Nooy W. Fields and networks: correspondence analysis and social network analysis in the framework of field theory. Poetics. 2003;31(5):305–327.
Bottero W, Crossley N. Worlds, fields and networks: Becker, Bourdieu and the structures of social relations. Cultural sociology. 2011;5(1):99–119.
Bourdieu P, Waquant L. [The Practice of Reflexive Sociology]{}; 1992. Available from: <http://www.public.iastate.edu/~carlos/607/readings/bourdieu2.pdf>.
Bourdieu P. . Routledge; 1984.
Schiebinger L. . vol. 4 of 10. 1st ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2001.
Cannady MA, Greenwald E, Harris KN. Science Education. 2014;98(3):443–460. doi:[10.1002/sce.21108]{}.
Nosek BA, Smyth FL, Sriram N, Lindner NM, Devos T, Ayala A, et al. . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009;106(26):10593–10597. doi:[10.1073/pnas.0809921106]{}.
Smith A. . In: Soares SM, editor. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. MetaLibri Digital; 1887. p. 214–220. Available from: <https://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf>.
Bourdieu P. . In: Richardson J, editor. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Connecticut, US: Greenwood Publishing Group; 1986. p. 47–58.
Hilgers M, Mangez E. Introduction to Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of Social Fields. Bourdieu’s theory of social fields: Concepts and applications. 2014; p. 1.
. . Wellington, New Zealand: EducationCounts, Ministry of Education; 2016. Available from: <https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/schooling/student-numbers/subject-enrolment>.
Bray B, Timewell E. . Christchurch, New Zealand: Association for Women in the Sciences ([{]{}AWIS[}]{}); 2011. Available from: <http://www.awis.org.nz/news-and-events/publications/women-in-science-snapshot-statistics/>.
Kelly A. . British Journal of Sociology of Education. 1985;6(2):133–154. doi:[10.1080/0142569850060201]{}.
Ivie R, Tesfaye CL, Czujko R, Chu R. The Global Survey of Physicists: A Collaborative Effort Illuminates the Situation of Women in Physics. In: AIP Conference Proceedings. [{]{}American Institute of Physics[}]{} Publishing; 2013. p. 53–61.
Ellis J, Fosdick BK, Rasmussen C. . PLoS[}]{} [{]{}ONE[}]{}. 2016;11(7):1–14. doi:[10.1371/journal.pone.0157447]{}.
Ost B. . Economics of Education Review. 2010;29(6):923–934. doi:[10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.011]{}.
Brown CS, Leaper C. . Sex Roles. 2010;63(11):860–870. doi:[10.1007/s11199-010-9856-5]{}.
Hazari Z, Sonnert G, Sadler PM, Shanahan MC. . Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2010; p. 978––1003. doi:[10.1002/tea.20363]{}.
Hazari Z, Sadler PM, Sonnert G. . Journal of College Science Teaching. 2013;42(5):82–91.
Hazari Z, Brewe E, Goertzen RM, Hodapp T. . The Physics Teacher. 2017;55(2):96–99. doi:[10.1119/1.4974122]{}.
Litzler E, Samuelson CC, Lorah JA. . Research in Higher Education. 2014;55(8):810–832. doi:[10.1007/s11162-014-9333-z]{}.
Concannon JP, Barrow LH. . Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2009;18(2):163–172. doi:[10.1007/s10956-008-9141-3]{}.
Sharma MD, Bewes J. . Journal of Learning Design. 2011;4(3):1–13. doi:[10.5204/jld.v4i3.76]{}.
Kurtz-Costes B, Rowley SJ, Harris-Britt A, Woods TA. . Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 2008;54(3):386–409. doi:[10.1353/mpq.0.0001]{}.
Sawtelle V, Brewe E, Kramer LH. . Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2012;49(9):1096–1121. doi:[10.1002/tea.21050]{}.
Nash R. Bourdieu, ‘Habitus’, and Educational Research: Is It All Worth the Candle? British Journal of Sociology of Education. 1999;20(2):175–187.
Dimaggio P. . American Sociological Review. 1982;47(2):189–201. doi:[10.2307/2094962]{}.
Archer L, Osborne J, DeWitt J. ASPIRES: Young people’s science and career aspirations, age 10–14. London: King’s College. 2013;.
Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B. . American Educational Research Journal. 2012;49(5):881–908.
Reay D. . British journal of sociology of education. 2004;25(4):431–444.
Ong M. Body projects of young women of color in physics: Intersections of gender, race, and science. Social problems. 2005;52(4):593–617.
Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2012;109(41):16474–16479.
Potvin G, Hazari Z. . Physics Review Physics Education Research. 2016;12(2). doi:[10.1103/physrevphyseducres.12.020107]{}.
Banchefsky S, Westfall J, Park B, Judd CM. . Sex Roles. 2016;75(3-4):95–109. doi:[10.1007/s11199-016-0586-1]{}.
Buccheri G, G[ü]{}rber NA, Br[ü]{}hwiler C. . International Journal of Science Education. 2011;33(1):159–178. doi:[10.1080/09500693.2010.518643]{}.
Su R, Rounds J, Armstrong PI. Psychological Bulletin. 2009;135(6):859–884. doi:[10.1037/a0017364]{}.
B[ø]{}e MV, Henriksen EK. . Science Education. 2013;97(4):550–573. doi:[10.1002/sce.21068]{}.
Baram-Tsabari A, Yarden A. Quantifying the Gender Gap in Science Interests. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2010;9(3):523–550. doi:[10.1007/s10763-010-9194-7]{}.
Kj[æ]{}rnsli M, Lie S. Students’ Preference for Science Careers: International comparisons based on PISA 2006. International Journal of Science Education. 2011;33(1):121–144. doi:[10.1080/09500693.2010.518642]{}.
Bottia MC, Stearns E, Mickelson RA, Moller S, Parker AD. Teachers College Record. 2015;117(3):1–46.
Sadler PM, Sonnert G, Hazari Z, Tai R. . Science Education. 2012;96(3):411–427. doi:[10.1002/sce.21007]{}.
Black L, Hernandez-Martinez P. Re-thinking science capital: The role of ‘capital’ and ‘identity’ in mediating students’ engagement with mathematically demanding programmes at university. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications. 2016;35(3):131–143. doi:[10.1093/teamat/hrw016]{}.
. What is a GPE Grade Point Equivalent?; 2016. <https://uoa.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3867/>.
White HC, Boorman SA, Breiger RL. Social structure from multiple networks. I. Blockmodels of roles and positions. American journal of sociology. 1976;81(4):730–780.
Balassa B. . The Manchester School. 1965;33(2):99–123. doi:[10.1111/j.1467-9957.1965.tb00050.x]{}.
Balland PA. Economic Geography in R: Introduction to the EconGeo package; 2017. Available at SSRN: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=2962146> or <http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2962146>.
Edler D, Rosvall M. The MapEquation software package; 2017.
Csardi G, Nepusz T, et al. The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems. 2006;1695(5):1–9.
Claussen S, Osborne J. . Science Education. 2013;97(1):58–79. doi:[10.1002/sce.21040]{}.
Archer L, Dawson E, DeWitt J, Seakins A, Wong B. . Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2015;52(7):922–948. doi:[10.1002/tea.21227]{}.
Archer L, Dewitt J, Willis B. . Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2014;51(1):1–30. doi:[10.1002/tea.21122]{}.
Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B. . Pedagogy, Culture & Society. 2013;21(1):171–194. doi:[10.1080/14681366.2012.748676]{}.
Hofer SI, Stern E. . Learning and Individual Differences. 2016;51:119–131. doi:[10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.006]{}.
Else-Quest NM, Mineo CC, Higgins A. . Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2013;37(3):293–309. doi:[10.1177/0361684313480694]{}.
Sheldrake R, Mujtaba T, Reiss MJ. . British Educational Research Journal. 2015;41(3):462–488.
LaCosse J, Sekaquaptewa D, Bennett J. . Psychology of Women Quarterly. 2016;40(3):378–397. doi:[10.1177/0361684316630965]{}.
DeWitt J, Archer L, Osborne J. . International Journal of Science Education. 2014;36(0):1609–1629. doi:[10.1080/09500693.2013.871659]{}.
Archer L, DeWitt J, Osborne J, Dillon J, Willis B, Wong B. . American Educational Research Journal. 2012;49(5):881–908. doi:[10.3102/0002831211433290]{}.
Cheryan S, Ziegler SA, Montoya AK, Jiang L. Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin. 2017;143(1):1.
Kelly AM. Social cognitive perspective of gender disparities in undergraduate physics. Physical Review Physics Education Research. 2016;12(2):020116.
Master A, Cheryan S, Meltzoff AN. Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls’ interest and sense of belonging in computer science. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2016;108(3):424.
. Athena SWAN Charter; 2018. <http://www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan/>.
. [Horizon 2020 - Promoting Gender Equality in Research and Innovation]{}; 2018. <https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/promoting-gender-equality-research-and-innovation>.
Archer L, Dawson E, DeWitt J, Seakins A, Wong B. . Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2015;52(7):922–948. doi:[10.1002/tea.21227]{}.
Reay D. . British Journal of Sociology of Education. 2004;25(4):431–444. doi:[10.1080/0142569042000236934]{}.
at (1,-0.0) [**Capital**]{}; at (2.1,-0.0) [**$\times$**]{};
at (3.3, -0.0) [****Habitus****]{}; (4.5,-0.0) – (7.6,-0.0); at (6.0, 2.5) [****Field of Study****]{};
at (10,0.5) [**Practices/Dispositions**]{}; at (10,-0.0) [Grades]{}; at (10,-0.5) [Course enrollment]{};
(6,0) ellipse (7 and 3);
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Jihui Han[^1]'
- 'Wei Li[^2]'
- Zhu Su
- Longfeng Zhao
- Weibing Deng
bibliography:
- 'LPAf.bib'
title: Community detection by label propagation with compression of flow
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Real-life complex systems in many research fields such as biology, sociology, economy and computer science, can be studied as networks with nodes representing for individuals and links for interactions or relations between individuals. Many networks exhibit the so-called community structure: nodes tend to organize themselves in groups such that connections are denser within groups while sparser between groups. Community structure is a prominent feature of complex networks, as it often represents functional modules with nodes of common properties and accounts for the functionality of the system. Community detection enables us to probe the organization and functional behavior of real-world systems, therefore has been paid much attention and applied to many kinds of networks, including the collaboration networks [@Newman2001], social networks [@Scott2000], and biological networks [@Fell2000], etc.
Community detection has been studied as the graph partitioning in computer science for decades and remains quite challenging. Algorithms to detect reasonably good quality communities have been proposed and improved extensively [@Fortunato201075], especially in recent years, such as Girvan-Newman algorithm [@PhysRevE.69.026113], spectral clustering [@PhysRevE.74.036104; @White05], multi-state spin model [@PhysRevLett.93.218701; @Son2006; @Kumpula2007] (e.g., q-state Potts model), random walk [@Bubak2004; @Pons2005; @Ochab2013], modularity optimization [@1742-5468-2008-10-P10008; @Barber2013; @Waltman2013; @Xiang2012] and statistical inference [@Newman05062007; @1742-5468-2010-04-P04028; @PhysRevE.79.036111; @PhysRevLett.100.258701].
As one of the fastest algorithms for community detection, the label propagation algorithm (LPA) [@PhysRevE.76.036106] uses the network structure alone to guide its process and requires neither parameters nor optimization of any object function. It starts by assigning each node a unique label, indicating the community it belongs to. At every label propagation step, each node sequentially updates its label to a new one that most of its neighbors own. If more than one label is the most frequent, the new label is chosen randomly among them. The label propagation step is performed iteratively until each node has a label that is the most frequent among its neighbors’. Through this iterative process, the densely connected groups of nodes form consensus on one label to form communities. Finally, LPA converges when no node changes its label anymore. Therefore, nodes with the same label are classified into the same community. In addition to its nearly linear time complexity, LPA introduces no parameter and requires no priori information of communities, and thus is suitable to process large-scale networks with millions of nodes and edges.
Due to the frequent tie-breaks and the random order update strategy, LPA usually delivers multiple partitions starting from the same initial condition, with different random seeds. Raghavan et al. [@PhysRevE.76.036106] proposed to label each node with the set of all labels it has in different partitions to detect possible overlapping communities. However, in a recent paper, Tibely and Kertesz [@Tibély20084982] showed that this method was equivalent to finding the local minima in a simple zero-temperature kinetic Potts model. The number of such local minima was found to be much larger than the number of nodes in the underlying network. Aggregating partitions suggested by Raghavan et al. [@PhysRevE.76.036106] leads to a fragmentation of the resulting partition in small clusters when the number of aggregated partitions is large.
In order to eliminate undesired solutions, Barber and Clark [@PhysRevE.80.026129] proposed a modularity-specialized LPA (LPAm) to constrain the label propagation process, which is inclined to get stuck in poor local maximum of modularity. To solve this problem, Liu et al. [@Liu20101493] introduced an advanced modularity-specialized LPA (LPAm+), which is more stable than LPAm. Due to the usage of modularity, the capability of both algorithms will be affected by the resolution limit [@Fortunato02012007].
Leung et al. [@PhysRevE.79.066107] have found that LPA often yields partitions with one giant community together with much smaller ones when applied to online social networks. In order to avoid such a disturbing feature, they proposed a modified method by adding a decreasing score assignment for each label in label propagation process (LPA-$\delta$), which encourages the formation of a stronger local community and deters the occurrence of trivial solutions. Tests of LPA-$\delta$ on the LFR benchmark produced good results [@PhysRevE.78.046110]. To save the running time of LPA-$\delta$, Leung et al. proposed to avoid label update of those nodes with high neighbor purity [@PhysRevE.79.066107]. Since the neighbor purity ignores contribution of the small degree nodes to the community detection, the detection precision is not high enough.
In this paper, we propose the LPAf which introduces a new update rule to update the label of a node by taking into account the compression of flow (random walks on a network), and uses an incomplete update condition in label propagation process to speed up the convergence. Like LPAm+, LPAf employs a multi-step greedy agglomerative algorithm (MSG) [@Oades2008] to simultaneously merge multiple pairs of communities. Although LPAf is also applicable to weighted and directed networks, we currently focus on unweighted and undirected networks. The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[lpaf\], we present our new method in detail. Experimental results on synthetic and real-world networks are shown in Sec. \[results\]. Finally, the main findings are summarized in Sec. \[conclu\].
Algorithm {#lpaf}
=========
To reveal community structures in networks, Rosvall and Bergstrom [@Rosvall2009] introduced an information theoretic approach (known as Infomap algorithm). They use the probability flow of random walks on a network as a proxy for information flows in real systems and decompose the network into communities by compressing a description of the probability flow.
For a network partition $C$ of $n$ nodes containing $c$ communities, the average description length of random walks is defined as [@Rosvall2009], $$\label{mapequation}
L(C) = q_\curvearrowright H(\Omega) + \sum_{i=1}^c p_{i\circlearrowright} H(P^i) ,$$ where $$\label{submapequation1}
H(\Omega) = -\sum_{i=1}^c \frac{q_{i\curvearrowright}}{q_\curvearrowright}\log\left(\frac{q_{i\curvearrowright}}{q_\curvearrowright}\right),$$ and $$\label{submapequation2}
H(P^i) = -\frac{q_{i\curvearrowright}}{p_{i\circlearrowright}} \log \left(\frac{q_{i\curvearrowright}}{p_{i\circlearrowright}}\right) -\sum_{\alpha\in i}\frac{p_\alpha}{p_{i\circlearrowright}}\log\left(\frac{p_\alpha}{p_{i\circlearrowright}}\right),$$ in which $\alpha=1,2,\dots,n$ and $i=1,2,\dots,c$.
Here $q_{i\curvearrowright}$ is the probability of exiting community $i$, $q_\curvearrowright = \sum_{i=1}^c q_{i\curvearrowright}$ is the probability that the random walker switches to a different community at any given time step, $p_\alpha$ is the probability of visiting node $\alpha$ and $p_{i\circlearrowright} = \sum_{\alpha\in i}p_\alpha +q_{i\curvearrowright}$ is the fraction of time the random walker spends in community $i$ plus the probability of exiting that community.
By combining Eqs. (\[mapequation\]), (\[submapequation1\]) and (\[submapequation2\]), the expanded form of map equation can be written as, $$\begin{split}
L(C)=&q_\curvearrowright \log \left(q_\curvearrowright\right) - 2\sum_{i=1}^{c}q_{i\curvearrowright} \log\left(q_{i\curvearrowright}\right) \\ &-\sum_{\alpha=1}^{n}p_\alpha\log\left(p_\alpha\right) + \sum_{i=1}^{c}p_{i\circlearrowright} \log \left(p_{i\circlearrowright}\right).
\label{expandedmapequation}
\end{split}$$ Note that the term $\sum_1^n p_\alpha\log p_\alpha$ is independent of partitioning. Consequently, when we update the label of node $\alpha$ from $i$ to $j$, it is sufficient to only keep track of changes of $q_{i\curvearrowright}$ and $q_{j\curvearrowright}$. They can be easily derived for any update event, and updating them is fast and straightforward (see Appendix A for details).
We extend the LPA by modifying the label update rule so that the average description length $L(C)$ can be minimized. When update the label for $\alpha$, we pick the one with the smallest $\Delta L$ (as illustrated on *karate* network in Fig. \[karate1\]). Hence, our new update rule can be expressed as, $$\label{updaterule}
l_\alpha^{new} = \arg\min_{l\in N_l(\alpha)}\Delta L\left(\alpha, l_\alpha, l\right),$$
where $l_\alpha$ is the current label for node $\alpha$, $l_\alpha^{new}$ is the new label for node $\alpha$, $N_l(\alpha)$ includes the labels of the neighboring nodes of $\alpha$, $\Delta L(\alpha, i, j)$ is the change of $L$ when update the label of node $\alpha$ from community $i$ to $j$ (see Appendix A for details), and $\arg\min_l$ returns the label $l$ that minimizes $\Delta L$. If more than one label shares the same minimum of $\Delta L$, the new label is chosen randomly among them. The label propagation step is performed iteratively until $L$ no longer decreases.
In our tests, this update rule helps form local subgroups. However, it alone does not provide satisfying performance in dealing with large-scale networks, as it usually gets stuck in poor local minima in $L$ space.
In order to escape the local minimum, we adopted a greedy rule for merging communities that minimizes $L$, i.e., when the LPA with our new update rule gets stuck in a local minimum (no decrease in $L$ can be achieved via further label propagation), we calculate the changes of $L$ for merging pairs of communities, and merge those pairs that decrease $L$ the most. In actual operation, we employ the MSG technique to simultaneously merge multiple pairs of communities (as illustrated in Fig. \[karate37\]). After merging communities, we escape the local minimum. Then we should perform another round of label propagation using the new update rule. This is analogous to downhill into another local minimum. However, it is not guaranteed that the new local minimum reached is good enough. Hence the above process should be repeated indefinitely until $L$ no longer decreases.
To avoid unnecessary updates in each iteration of LPAf, the incomplete update condition proposed in Ref. [@6004645] was adopted. Consequently, we only update the labels of the active nodes which would change their labels if they attempt to update. A list containing all currently active nodes is maintained to allow the algorithm to finish execution when the list is empty (i.e., we only track the nodes that potentially change their labels). The pseudo-code of our algorithm is presented in Algorithm \[code:LPAf\].
merge those community pairs using the MSG; ;
\[code:LPAf\]
Results
=======
Many metrics have been proposed to quantify the quality of a network partition. When the ground truth is unknown, a common measure for the significance of the identified community structure is *modularity* $Q$ [@PhysRevE.69.026113], which is defined as, $$Q = \frac{1}{2m}\sum_{u,v=1}^n\left(A_{uv}-P_{uv}\right)\delta\left(l_u, l_v\right),
\label{modularity}$$ where $m$ is the total number of edges in the network. $A_{uv}=1$ if nodes $u$ and $v$ are connected and 0 otherwise, $P_{uv}=k_uk_v/2m$ is the probability in the null model that an edge exists between nodes $u$ and $v$, and $\delta\left(i,j\right)$ is the Kronecker function: two vertices $u$ and $v$ provide a non-zero contribution to the value of $Q$ if and only if they belong to the same community. The concept of *modularity* is based on the idea that a random graph is not expected to exhibit the community structure.
For a more sufficient assessment of the significance of detected communities, we also adopt the *modularity density* $Q_{ds}$ [@modularitydensity] and the *conductance* $\Phi$ [@bollobas1998modern] metrics.
Given an undirected network, the modularity density is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{ds} = \sum_{c_i\in C}\left[\frac{|E_{c_i}^{in}|}{m}d_{c_i}-\left(\frac{2|E_{c_i}^{in}|+|E_{c_i}^{out|}}{2m}\right)^2 \right.\\
\left. -\sum_{c_j\in C,c_j\ne c_i}\frac{|E_{c_i,c_j}|}{2m}d_{c_i,c_j}\right],
\end{aligned}
\label{modularity_density}$$ where $C$ is the set of all the communities, $c_i$ is any given community in $C$, $d_{c_i}=\frac{2|E_{c_i}^{in}|}{|c_i|\left(|c_i|-1\right)}$ is the internal density of community $c_i$, $d_{c_i,c_j}=\frac{|E_{c_i,c_j}|}{|c_i||c_j|}$ is the pair-wise density between communities $c_i$ and $c_j$, $|E_{c_i}^{in}|$ is the number of edges between nodes within community $c_i$, $|E_{c_i}^{out}|$ is the number of edges from the nodes in community $c_i$ to the nodes of other communities, and $|E_{c_i,c_j}|$ is the number of edges between communities $c_i$ and $c_j$. Compared to modularity, the *modularity density* is an improved measurement for assessing the quality of communities, since it does not suffer from the well-known resolution limit of modularity.
For a community $c_i$, the conductance is defined as $$\Phi(c_i) = \frac{\sum_{u\in c_i,v\not\in c_i}A_{uv}}{\sum_{u\in c_i}k_u},
\label{conductance}$$ where $k_u$ is the degree of node $u$. Informally, *conductance* is the fraction of total edge volume that points outside the community $c_i$. Lower values of *conductance* imply that the communities have more internal connections than external ones, and thus represent more significant communities. Due to the fact that conductance cannot be easily extended to an entire community structure of a network, results are commonly assessed at different scales separately in the form of *network community profile (NCP)* [@leskovec2009community] plots.
For networks with known community structures, two metrics from the field of information theory [@MacKay03a] are adopted to compare identified communities with the true ones. The first one, *normalized mutual information (NMI)* [@1742-5468-2005-09-P09008], estimates the amount of information correctly extracted by the detection algorithms and has become a de facto standard to quantify the quality of a detected partition with respect to the ground truth. It is defined as, $$NMI(X,Y) = \frac{2I\left(X,Y\right)}{H\left(X\right)+H\left(Y\right)},
\label{NMI}$$ where $X$ and $Y$ denote two partitions of the network, $I\left(X,Y\right)=H\left(X\right)-H\left(X|Y\right)$, $H\left(X\right)$ is the Shannon entropy of $X$ and $H\left(X|Y\right)$ is the conditional entropy of $X$ given $Y$. *NMI* equals 1 if the detected partition is identical to the real one, whereas it has an expected value of 0 if the detected partition is totally independent of the real one.
The second metric is the *variation of information(VOI)* [@MEILA2007873], which has several desirable properties with respect to *NMI*. Specifically, it can be regarded as a kind of distance in the space of partitions. *VOI* of $X$ and $Y$ is defined as $$VOI(X,Y)=H(X|Y)+H(Y|X).
\label{VOI}$$ Thus, lower values represent higher similarities between partitions. The value of *VOI* ranges from 0 to $\log N$, where $N$ is the network size. Therefore, we divide the obtained values by $\log N$ for meaningful comparisons.
We have tested our algorithm on both synthetic and real-world networks. For comparisons, five algorithms, the original LPA [@PhysRevE.76.036106], the neighbor strength driven LPA (nsdLPA) [@6004645], the Louvain method [@1742-5468-2008-10-P10008], the Infomap algorithm [@Rosvall2009], and the fine-tuned modularity density algorithm (FineTune) [@FineTune], are included in the experiments as references. The nsdLPA enhances the basic LPA by taking into account the positive neighborhood strength, and is generally efficient in practice [@6004645]. The Louvain method is a greedy optimization algorithm that attempts to optimize the modularity of a partition, which usually produces high modularity values and is by far one of the most widely used method for detecting communities in large networks [@1742-5468-2008-10-P10008]. The Infomap algorithm decomposes a network into communities by compressing a description of information flow on the network as mentioned above [@Rosvall2009]. The FineTune algorithm iteratively attempts to improve the modularity density measurement by splitting and merging the given network community structure [@FineTune].
Tests on synthetic networks {#synthetic_results}
---------------------------
We first tested our method on the well-known GN benchmark [@Girvan11062002], and compared the results to the counterparts of other methods. The GN benchmark network consists of 128 nodes, each with expected degree 16, which are divided into four groups with 32 nodes each. The mixing parameter $\mu$ measures the ratio of the external degree of a node with respect to its community to the total degree of the node.
The results of different methods on the GN benchmark networks are shown in Fig. \[GNbench\]. As can be seen, Louvain method performs fairly well on the GN benchmark network. This indicates that the community size of the GN benchmark network is not below the resolution limit, and the optimization of modularity indeed reveals the true partitions. LPAf performs next to Louvain method, and significantly better than the rest four methods. All the methods except Louvian and FineTune arrive at the same stable value of $L$ at high $\mu$, which corresponds to the trivial partition. LPAf cannot detect the real communities in this range by minimizing $L$, because the trivial partition has a lower $L$ than the real partition.
We also adopted the LFR benchmark [@PhysRevE.78.046110], which is a special case of the planted $l-$partition model [@RSA:RSA1001]. LFR networks are similar to real-world networks, since all of them are characterized by heterogeneous distributions of node degrees and community sizes. In our experiments, the parameters are fixed as follows: node degrees and community sizes are governed by the power law, with exponents being -2 and -1 respectively; the maximum degree is 50; the ranges of community sizes are \[10,50\] and \[20,100\] for smaller and bigger communities respectively; the network size $N$ is either 1000 or 5000. The significance of community structure is controlled by a mixing parameter $\mu\in [0,1]$ where smaller values correspond to more obvious community structure. $\mu$ is the expected fraction of links of a node connecting to other communities.
Results are assessed in terms of average NMI, shown in Fig. \[nmi\], which shows that, the LPAf outperforms other methods consistently for a wide range of $\mu$. In contrast to the GN benchmark, Louvain method fails to detect the real communities even when $\mu$ is small for larger networks with smaller communities. This is due to the well-known resolution limit of modularity, i.e., there exists a size cutoff below which modularity cannot identify communities [@Fortunato02012007]. In order to optimize modularity, Louvain method tends to merge natural communities into much larger ones, which leads to rather poor performance. FineTune does not have remarkable performance either, as it also starts to fail for low values of $\mu$. The nsdLPA performs better than LPA due to the consideration of the positive neighbor strength. Infomap performs comparably with LPAf in larger networks but is outperformed by LPAf when networks are small. Moreover, LPAf is more stable than LPA, because of the lower standard deviation of its NMI scores. The results thus confirm that LPAf performs better than or at least as well as the rest five methods in all the LFR networks.
To further address the validity of LPAf, we also computed the average ratio of the number of detected communities to the number of actual ones and showed them in Fig. \[nc\]. As can be seen, the number of communities detected by the LPAf is very close to the actual one up to a high $\mu$ in all cases. The number of communities detected by nsdLPA is larger than the actual one at high values of $\mu$, which implies that nsdLPA tends to form local subgroups and favors smaller communities due to the consideration of neighborhood strength. Louvain method tends to find less communities than planted ones due to the resolution limit of modularity, whereas FineTune normally detects more communities than actual ones in most cases. This indicates that FineTune resolves, to a certain degree, the resolution problem of Louvain method. In most cases, Infomap tends to find sightly less communities than actual ones.
To compare the computational loads of different methods, we plot the average elapsed times in Fig. \[time\]. Generally, the running times of all methods increase when $\mu$ gets larger. This is due to that when $\mu$ is small, the communities are well separated and all the methods can easily detect them in a short period of time. When $\mu$ increases to a specific value where the community structure still persists but is much more difficult to be revealed, the convergence speed slows down and thus results in peaks of the curves. When $\mu$ continues increasing, most of the methods cannot detect non-trivial communities and converge sightly faster than at the transition stage. Specifically, LPA and nsdLPA are faster than the rest four algorithms. LPAf, Louvain and Infomap exhibit similar time consuming patterns.
To test how well LPAf performs in finding the local minimum in $L$ space, we computed the values of $L$ for the partitions detected by LPAf and plotted them in Fig. \[L\_LPAf\_GT\]. Due to the global minimum of $L$ is not available, $L$-values of the planted partitions are adopted as references. As can be seen, when $\mu$ is small, i.e., the community structure is clear enough, the detected partitions and the true partitions almost have the same values of $L$, which indicates that LPAf correctly finds the real communities in the corresponding range of $\mu$. When $\mu$ increases to a specific value, $L$ decreases rapidly to a stable value on smaller networks, which corresponds to the trivial partition that the whole network is regarded as a single community. As the trivial partition has a lower value of $L$ than the planted one above a certain value of $\mu$, LPAf cannot detect any non-trivial communities within this range. However in larger networks, LPAf yields larger $L$ than that of the planted partition above a certain value of $\mu$, which implies that LPAf is trapped in a suboptimal valley in $L$ space.
Tests on real-world networks {#real_world_results}
----------------------------
We also applied the algorithms to several real-world networks that are commonly used for tests. The details of such networks are listed in Table \[networks\].
We first compared directly the stability of different methods. All the methods are applied to each network 1000 times and the numbers of distinct detected partitions are reported. The pairwise VOI of the partitions are also computed to further evaluate the robustness of the methods. FineTune is not considered here since it is a deterministic algorithm. Due to the time complexity, two larger networks, *power* and *mat-cond*, are excluded from the analysis. Results are shown in Tables \[Distinct\] and \[PairwiseVOI\]. It is shown that LPAf is comparatively stable with less distinct partitions in most cases. LPA and Infomap are relatively unstable, even on smaller networks. Louvain method and nsdLPA have similar robustness, except on the *netsci* network where Louvain method yields the most stable results. Moreover, as shown in Table \[PairwiseVOI\], the values of pairwise VOI between the partitions revealed by LPAf are lower than those for other methods in most cases. This concludes that LPAf is significantly more robust than LPA, and performs fairly stable.
Next, we detailedly analyzed the three networks (*karate*, *dolphins*, and *football*) which have known community structures. Fig. \[karate\_dolphins\] shows the communities detected by LPAf on *karate* and *dolphin* networks with the lowest $L$. Zachary’s karate club is a social network of friendships between 34 members of a karate club at a US university in the 1970s. It splits into two smaller clubs after a dispute between club president John (node 34) and instructor Mr. Hi (node 1). As can be seen, three communities are discovered in this network by our algorithm. One of the two real communities is divided into two small ones (as shown in Fig. \[karate\_dolphins\] (left panel)). The dolphin social network describes the frequent associations between 62 dolphins living off Doubtful Sound, New Zealand. The links represent that dolphins are observed to stay together more often than expected by chance during the years from 1994 to 2001. Four communities identified by our algorithm in this network are shown in Fig. \[karate\_dolphins\] (right panel).
The *football* network describes football games among Division IA colleges during regular season Fall 2000. As shown in Fig. \[football\], the 115 nodes in the network represent teams, which are grouped into eleven different conferences, except for five independent teams. The regular season games between each pair of teams are shown as 613 edges of the network. Our algorithm identifies eleven communities within this network, as shown in Fig. \[football\]. Among them, eight conferences are correctly identified. The three remaining communities closely resemble the Conference USA, Sun Belt and Western Athletic conferences. Five independent teams that do not belong to any conference tend to be grouped with the conferences which they are most closely associated.
For comparison, we applied different methods to *karate*, *dolphins*, *books* and *football* networks, and measured the NMI between the real partitions and those detected by different methods. The average values of NMI over 1000 runs are shown in Table \[averageNMI\]. FineTune is deterministic and thus we only run it once. As one can see, LPAf performs fairly well on the *karate* and the *football* networks, although not the best. However it does not work well on the other two networks. The reason could be that the known partitions of these two networks do not have the lowest values of $L$, which prevents LPAf from detecting the real communities on these networks.
In Table \[averagemodularity\], we also reported average modularity $Q$ of the detected partitions for all networks so as to enable a complete comparison. It is not surprising that Louvain method yields the highest values on almost all networks, because it is based on the optimization of modularity. Therefore, for clarity, we show the results of Louvain method in the rightmost column of the table. We also mark the best results of the rest methods in bold type. As one can see, LPAf achieves the best performance among those methods which do not directly optimize modularity in most cases.
In Table \[Qdsbar\], we presented average modularity density $Q_{ds}$ of partitions detected by different methods. FineTune is based on the optimization of modularity density. Therefore, we show the results of FineTune in the last column of the table and highlight the best results of the rest methods in bold type. As one can see, LPAf performs quite well in terms of $Q_{ds}$ in most cases.
In Table \[averageL\], we compared different methods in terms of $L$. $L$-values of the true partitions are presented as references. As seen, LPAf achieves the best performance in most cases. It should be pointed out that the true partitions do not possess the global minimum of $L$. LPAf always obtains a lower $L$ than that of the true partition in some networks. This explains why LPAf cannot detect the real communities correctly on these networks.
Lastly, we further analyzed the two larger networks, *power* and *mat-cond*. For simplicity, we only compared LPA and LPAf. We ran each method 100 times and analyze the conductances of the detected communities at various scales. The results are given in the form of NCP plots, as shown in Fig. \[conductance\_power\_condmat\]. NCP plots evaluate the quality of the best community (in terms of conductance) as a function of its size. Previous studies show that many kinds of real-world networks exhibit a common characteristic structure of NCP plots, i.e., initial decreasing and subsequent increasing trend [@leskovec2009community].
In the case of *power* network, LPAf detects communities on a much boarder scale with significant lower conductances, including also larger communities with around 80 nodes. On the *mat-cond* network, both LPAf and LPA find the best communities at the same scale (i.e, at around 15 nodes), while the conductances of LPAf are sightly lower than that of LPA. Note that LPA reveals a number of larger communities with significant high conductances in both networks (i.e., blue circles in the top right part of the top two plots of Fig. \[conductance\_power\_condmat\]), which could be that many tie-breaks encountered in the label propagation process contributes to the formation of some large communities with high conductances.
Time complexity
---------------
Given a network with $n$ nodes and $m$ edges, let $k$ be the maximum degree of nodes in this network. The time complexity of each step of LPAf is roughly estimated as follows:
1. *Initialization* takes time of $O(n)$. Assigning a unique label to each node takes time of $O(n)$.
2. *Label propagation* takes time at most $O(nk)$. For each node, it iterates through at most $k$ neighbors, thus, the upper bound of cost time of this step is $O(nk)$.
3. *Merging communities* takes time at most $O(m\log n)$. Merging pairs of communities using MSG requires a time of $O(m\log n)$ in the worst case (see Ref. [@Oades2008] for detailed analysis).
Steps 2 and 3 are repeated, so the time per iteration is $O(kn+m\log n)$. Consequently, the time complexity of LPAf is roughly $O(kn+m\log n)$.
To evaluate the efficiency of LPAf, we have run LPA, nsdLPA, LPAf, Infomap and Louvain method on LFR networks with different sizes. Due to the high time complexity, FineTune is not considered in the benchmark situation. We repeated each experiment 30 times and reported the average running times. As shown in Fig. \[speedbench\], the time complexity of LPA and nsdLPA is quite lower compared to the rest three methods. Still, all methods exhibit near linear time complexity and can be easily scaled to larger networks.
Conclusion {#conclu}
==========
In this paper, we propose a modified label propagation algorithm (LPAf) to detect community structures in networks. In this algorithm, we introduce a new update rule which updates the label of a node by compressing a description of probability flow. Besides, by employing a multi-step greedy agglomerative algorithm, we merge pairs of communities so as to escape local minima in $L$-space. Furthermore, an incomplete update condition is adopted to accelerate the convergence.
We test the proposed algorithm on both synthetic and real-world networks, and compare its performance with that of the other five widely used methods in terms of *modularity*, *modularity density*, NMI, VOI and *conductance*. Firstly, we find that LPAf performs very well on synthetic networks. In contrast to the Louvain method, LPAf is able to detect small communities in large networks. Secondly, we find that, LPAf detects communities which have lower conductances than that of LPA; by minimizing $L$, LPAf may fail to detect the real community structure which does not have the lowest $L$; LPAf is generally more stable than LPA. Finally, we analyze the time complexity of LPAf and find that it depends linearly on the network size in sparse networks.
In the future work, we intend to test our algorithm on weighted and directed networks. We also plan to extend our approach to overlapping community detection by allowing each node possess multi-labels.
Acknowledgements {#ack .unnumbered}
================
This work was in part supported by the Program of Introducing Talents of Discipline to Universities under grant no. B08033, and National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11505071).
Author contribution statement {#author-contribution-statement .unnumbered}
=============================
J.H. designed the algorithm, implemented the experiments, and prepared all the figures. J.H., L.Z. and Z.S. analyzed the results. All authors wrote, reviewed and approved the manuscript.
Appendix A: The change of average description length when a node moves from one community to another {#appendixa .unnumbered}
====================================================================================================
From Eq. (\[expandedmapequation\]), for undirected and unweighted networks, the change of average description length when a node $\alpha$ updates its label from $i$ to $j$ is given by, $$\small
\begin{split}
\Delta L(\alpha, i, j) =& \left(q_\curvearrowright+\delta q_\curvearrowright\right)\log\left(q_\curvearrowright+\delta q_\curvearrowright\right) - q_\curvearrowright\log\left(q_\curvearrowright\right) \nonumber \\
&-2\left[\left(q_{i\curvearrowright}+\delta q_{i\curvearrowright}\right)\log\left(q_{i\curvearrowright}+\delta q_{i\curvearrowright}\right) - q_{i\curvearrowright}\log\left(q_{i\curvearrowright}\right)\right] \nonumber \\
&-2\left[\left(q_{j\curvearrowright}+\delta q_{j\curvearrowright}\right)\log\left(q_{j\curvearrowright}+\delta q_{j\curvearrowright}\right) - q_{j\curvearrowright}\log\left(q_{j\curvearrowright}\right)\right] \nonumber \\
&+ \left(p_{i\circlearrowright}+\delta p_{i\circlearrowright}\right)\log\left(p_{i\circlearrowright}+\delta p_{i\circlearrowright}\right) - p_{i\circlearrowright}\log\left(p_{i\circlearrowright}\right) \nonumber \\
&+ \left(p_{j\circlearrowright}+\delta p_{j\circlearrowright}\right)\log\left(p_{j\circlearrowright}+\delta p_{j\circlearrowright}\right) - p_{j\circlearrowright}\log\left(p_{j\circlearrowright}\right)
\end{split}$$ with $$\delta q_\curvearrowright = \delta q_{i\curvearrowright} + \delta q_{j\curvearrowright},$$ $$\delta p_{i\circlearrowright} = \delta q_{i\curvearrowright} - p_\alpha,$$ $$\delta p_{j\circlearrowright} = \delta q_{j\curvearrowright} + p_\alpha,$$ $$\delta q_{i\curvearrowright} = \sum_{\beta\in\partial \alpha \cap V_i}\frac{1}{2m} - \sum_{\beta\in\partial \alpha \setminus V_i}\frac{1}{2m},$$ $$\delta q_{j\curvearrowright} = \sum_{\beta\in\partial \alpha \setminus V_j}\frac{1}{2m} - \sum_{\beta\in\partial \alpha \cap V_j}\frac{1}{2m},$$ where $m$ is the total number of edges of the network, $V_i$ and $V_j$ are the nodes in community $i$ and $j$ respectively, and $\partial\alpha$ is the neighbors of $\alpha$. Extension to directed and weighted networks is straightforward.
[^1]:
[^2]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'F. Martins'
- 'R. Genzel'
- 'D.J. Hillier'
- 'F. Eisenhauer'
- 'T. Paumard'
- 'S. Gillessen'
- 'T. Ott'
- 'S. Trippe'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
date: 'Received 3 November 2006 / Accepted 1 March 2007'
title: Stellar and wind properties of massive stars in the central parsec of the Galaxy
---
[How star formation proceeds in the Galactic Center is a debated question. Addressing this question will help us understand the origin of the cluster of massive stars near the supermassive black hole, and more generally starburst phenomena in galactic nuclei. In that context, it is crucial to know the properties of young massive stars in the central parsec of the Galaxy.]{} [The main goal of this study is to derive the stellar and wind properties of the massive stars orbiting the supermassive black hole SgrA$^{\star}$ in two counter-rotating disks.]{} [We use non-LTE atmosphere models including winds and line-blanketing to reproduce H and K band spectra of these stars obtained with SINFONI on the ESO/VLT.]{} [The GC massive stars appear to be relatively similar to other Galactic stars. The currently known population of massive stars emit a total $6.0 \times 10^{50}$ s$^{-1}$ (resp. $2.3 \times 10^{49}$ s$^{-1}$) H (resp. ) ionising photons. This is sufficient to produce the observed nebular emission and implies that, in contrast to previous claims, no peculiar stellar evolution is required in the Galactic Center. We find that most of the Ofpe/WN9 stars are less chemically evolved than initially thought. The properties of several WN8 stars are given, as well as two WN/C stars confirmed quantitatively to be stars in transition between the WN and WC phase. We propose the sequence (Ofpe/WN9 $\rightleftharpoons$ LBV) $\rightarrow$ WN8 $\rightarrow$ WN/C for most of the observed GC stars. Quantitative comparison with stellar evolutionary tracks including rotation favour high mass loss rates in the Wolf-Rayet phase in these models. In the OB phase, these tracks nicely reproduce the average properties of bright supergiants in the Galactic Center.]{}
Introduction {#intro}
============
The center of our Galaxy is a unique environment to study massive stars. It harbors three of the most massive clusters of the Galaxy – the Arches, Quintuplet and central clusters. Heavily extincted and only accessible at infrared (and longer) wavelengths or in X-rays, each of these clusters has a population of more than a hundred massive stars. Even more interesting is the difference in their ages: 2.5, 4 and 6 Myrs for the Arches, the Quintuplet and the central cluster respectively [@figer99; @figer02; @pgm06]. Such a spread implies the presence of different types of massive objects, naturally sampling stellar evolution in the upper HR diagram. The youth of these clusters, together with their total mass in excess of $10^{4}$ [M\_ M$_{\odot}$]{}, partly explains the large number of massive stars in the Galactic Center. But another reason may be the top-heavy mass function: @stolte02 for the Arches and @pgm06 for the central cluster have shown that the slope $\Gamma$ of the present-day mass function was shallower than the standard Salpeter value ($-0.8$ instead of $-2.35$). This may be due to mass segregation or to a true feature of the *initial* mass function. In that case the Galactic Center could be a peculiar environment for the formation of massive stars.
As a peculiar environment, the central cluster is especially interesting since it harbors the supermassive black hole SgrA$^{\star}$. The first stars ever observed in this region were the so-called “AF” and “IRS16” stars [@forrest87; @ahh90]. Their K-band spectrum showed strong emission lines – in particular the [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} feature – and they were immediately classified as Ofpe/WN9, a class of evolved massive stars. Further observations by @krabbe91 revealed a few additional emission line stars. They argued that this population most probably resulted from a burst of star formation a few Myrs ago [@krabbe95]. Detailed spectroscopic analysis with atmosphere models by @paco94 [@paco97] established that these objects were post-main sequence massive stars. Their UV flux was able to ionise the ISM and produce the nebular [Br$_{\gamma}$]{} emission, but was far too soft to explain the nebular emission. The presence of a population of hotter objects not accessible to observations was thus inferred.
This population was unraveled in the last years. @paumard01 found additional stars with broader lines than the initial “He [i]{}” stars and typical of Wolf-Rayet stars. @genzel03 deduced the presence of even more massive stars from the absence of CO absorption bands. The advent of adaptive-optics assisted integral field spectroscopy lead to a new breakthrough: @pgm06 spectroscopically identified nearly a hundred massive stars, including various types of Wolf-Rayet stars, O and B supergiants, and even dwarfs [see also @horrobin04; @paumard04]. Previously, @ghez03 and @frank05 had shown that the group of stars located in the central arcsecond of the Galaxy and orbiting very close to the black hole (the so-called ’S-stars’) was composed of early to late B dwarfs.
This latter group of stars is at the heart of an issue usually referred to as the “paradox of youth” of the Galactic center: how could star formation (traced by the presence of young massive stars) have happened so close to the black hole, where the tidal forces should prevent any molecular cloud from collapsing [@morris93]? Two scenarios are invoked to solve this problem. In the “in-situ formation” scenario, a disk forms around the supermassive black hole with a density large enough to be self-gravitating so that tidal forces do not perturb the collapse of molecular material [e.g. @lb03; @nc05]. In the alternate “in-spiraling cluster” scenario, young massive stars are born in a dense cluster several tens of parsec away from SgrA$^{\star}$ and its hostile environment, and are subsequently brought to the central region by spiral-in of the parent cluster due to dynamical friction [e.g. @gerhard01; @km03]. The former picture (star formation in a self-gravitating disk) appears more attractive since it accounts for a larger number of observational facts [@pgm06], but the question is not completely settled.
In that context, it is especially important to get a better knowledge of the physical properties of the massive stars in the central parsec of the Galaxy. In parallel to the development of powerful infrared observational techniques, reliable atmosphere models have become available in recent years. This is due to a huge effort from different groups to include thousands of metallic lines in such models (“line-blanketing”). The use of such models has quantitatively changed our knowledge of the stellar and wind properties of massive stars. To name a few, their effective temperatures are lower [@msh02; @paul02; @repolust04] and their winds are highly clumped [@hil03; @jc05; @fullerton06]. In addition to these significant developments, special attention was given to the infrared range. Several studies have been undertaken to compare the parameters derived from IR diagnostics with those obtained from classical optical features [@bc99; @repolust05]. It appears that the differences are usually small, and certainly within the uncertainties on the derived parameters. Then, both new observational data and better atmosphere models are now available. A quantitative investigation of the stellar and wind properties of massive stars in the central parsec of the Galaxy, in the context of the “paradox of youth”, is thus possible.
We present such a study in this paper. Sect. \[observ\] describes the observational data. In Sect. \[modeling\], we present our atmosphere models and explain our method to derive stellar and wind properties. This is followed by a detailed analysis of individual stars (Sect. \[results\]). We then discuss the results with special emphasis on ionising fluxes (Sect. \[dis\_ion\]), stellar evolution (Sect. \[dis\_evol\]), metallicity (Sect. \[dis\_z\]), stellar winds (Sect. \[dis\_wind\]) and chemical composition of OB stars (Sect. \[dis\_ob\]). We finally summarize our findings in Sect.\[conc\].
Observations {#observ}
============
The observations analysed here were conducted with the integral field spectrograph SPIFFI/SINFONI on the ESO/VLT Yepun 8 meter telescope [@sinfoni; @spiffi; @bonnet04] as part of the MPE-Garching GTO program “Galactic Center”. A first mosaic of data cubes was obtained on Apr. 8$^{\rm th}$ 2003 using the 250 mas scale in the K band mode, allowing a resolution of $\sim$ 4000. A second mosaic was observed in H+K band on the same scale on Apr. 9$^{\rm th}$ 2003. These observations were conducted in seeing limited mode since at that time the AO system MACAO was not yet coupled to SPIFFI. A new SINFONI mosaic was obtained on Aug. 18-19$^{\rm th}$ 2004 in K band with the 100 mas scale in adaptive optics mode. Finally, several fields of the region $\sim$ 15 ” north of SgrA$^{\star}$ were observed on Mar. 16-17$^{\rm th}$ 2005. Additional information on all these data cubes can be found in @pgm06. Two new fields were obtained in the configuration H+K/0.1 mas scale on Apr. 20$^{th}$ 2006 and Aug. 16$^{th}$ 2006.
To extract the spectra out of these cubes, we defined “source” pixels showing spectral signatures of the massive stars identified by @pgm06 from which we removed neighboring “continuum” sources to correct for the local background. In the definition of the “continuum” pixels in crowded regions, we paid special attention not to include pixels contaminated by neighboring stellar sources. We used several combinations of source-continuum pixels to check the reliability of the extracted spectrum. We found that as long as contaminating sources are not included, the spectra can safely be extracted. Fig. \[line\_id\] shows typical spectra of various types of stars analysed here together with line identification.
![SINFONI K-band spectra of four post main sequence massive stars observed in the GC. The main lines are marked. Note that all lines are not present simultaneously in one spectrum: depending on the stellar and wind parameters (in particular [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} and abundances), only a subset of the marked lines is observed in a given star. \[line\_id\]](line_id.eps){width="9cm"}
Modeling
========
Atmosphere models {#atm_models}
-----------------
In order to derive the stellar and wind properties of the massive stars in the central parsec of the Galaxy, we have used state of the art atmosphere models computed with the code CMFGEN [@hm98]. Such models include the main ingredients necessary to produce realistic atmospheric structures and emergent spectra, namely a non-LTE treatment, winds and line-blanketing. The latter has been included only recently since in combination with the two former ingredients it leads to complicated and numerically demanding simulations. But the effects of line-blanketing are qualitatively and quantitatively very important. Most stellar parameters have to be revised when determined with line-blanketed models due to the strong modification of the radiative transfer caused by additional opacities from metals.
CMFGEN computations proceed in two steps: first the atmospheric structure and radiative field are computed in an iterative process; second, a formal solution of the radiative transfer equation with opacities given by the first step is determined, leading to the detailed emergent spectrum. Details about the code CMFGEN are discussed by @hm98 and here we only recall the main characteristics:
- *non-LTE treatment:* populations of individual energy levels are computed through the resolution of statistical equilibrium equations including radiative and collisional processes. Non-LTE is especially important for infrared studies since in this range, stimulated radiative processes are greatly enhanced compared to shorter wavelengths [@annique04] and thus have a strong impact on level populations.
- *winds:* a spherical geometry is adopted to fully take into account the atmospheric extension due to winds. Velocity gradients in the accelerating wind are also included in the radiative transfer problem. An important point to be noted here is the fact that a velocity law (equivalent to a density law through the equation of mass conservation) has to be adopted since radiative acceleration is not used to compute the hydrostatic structure of the atmosphere. In practice, two approaches are used: for OB stars, a photospheric structure computed with another atmosphere code [usually TLUSTY, see @hl95] is smoothly connected to a so called “$\beta$ velocity law ($v = v_{\infty}(1-\frac{R_{\star}}{r})^{\beta}$) where [$v_{\infty}$]{} is the terminal velocity and $R_{\star}$ the stellar radius; for stars with denser winds, the atmosphere is usually optically thick so that the inner velocity structure is less crucial and a law of the form
$$v = v_{0} + \frac{(v_{\infty} - v_{0})(1-\frac{R_{\star}}{r})^{\beta}}{1+\frac{v_{0}}{v_{\rm core}}e^{\frac{R_{\star}-r}{h_{\rm eff}}}}$$
\[eq:vellaw\]
is adopted ($v_{\rm core}$ being the velocity at the bottom of the atmosphere, $v_{0}$ the velocity at the expected photospheric velocity and $h_{\rm eff}$ the density scale height of the photosphere). $\beta$ can in principle be derived from the shape of spectral lines [@puls96; @n81] but here, it is only possible in a few cases. Hence, for most of the analysis, we simply adopt the standard value 1.0 [@paco94; @paulwc9].
CMFGEN also allows the treatment of non homogeneous atmosphere through the adoption of a clumping law of the form
$$f = f_{\infty} + (1-f_{\infty})e^{-\frac{v}{v_{\rm init}}}$$
\[eq:clumping\]
where $f_{\infty}$ is the value of $f$ at the top of the atmosphere and $v_{\rm init}$ is the velocity at which clumping appears. We adopted a typical value of $f_{\infty} = 0.1$ for the remaining stars, unless explicitly indicated.
- *line-blanketing:* CMFGEN includes a direct treatment of metals. The main approximation[^1] (which can be easily dropped provided the computational resources are available) is the grouping of levels of similar energies in “super-levels” as initially proposed by @and91. Through the resolution of the statistical equilibrium equations, level population of metals are computed as for H and He. In the models presented here, C, N, O, Ne, Na, Mg, Al, Si, S, Ar, Ca, Fe, Ni are included for Wolf-Rayet stars and related objects, while C, N, O, Si, S and Fe are used for OB stars. This is due to the lower density winds of the latter which require a better spatial sampling. In that case, minor metals have to be dropped to keep the size of the models reasonable. Note that no super-levels were used for H, and so that lines from these elements do not suffer from this approximation. In WC stars, we also did not use super-levels for and . Finally, we tested the effect of super-levels on the [ 2.247, 2.251 $\mu m$]{} lines in WN stars and found it was negligible. In the following, we refer to @gs98 for the solar abundances.
- *temperature structure:* the temperature structure in the atmosphere is set under the condition of radiative equilibrium.
- *microturbulent velocity:* a microturbulent velocity ([v$_{\rm turb}$]{}) must be provided in the computation of both the atmospheric structure and the detailed emergent spectrum. In the former part of the simulation, [v$_{\rm turb}$]{} is independent of the position in the atmosphere and we usually choose typical values of 20 [km s$^{-1}$]{} for OB stars and 50 [km s$^{-1}$]{} for Wolf-Rayet stars. For the computation of the detailed emergent spectrum, we adopt [v$_{\rm turb}$]{} = 10 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. Note that we have run test models with larger values of [v$_{\rm turb}$]{} for the computation of the emergent spectrum, and found no difference since the lines are mainly shaped by the wind terminal velocity, much larger than [v$_{\rm turb}$]{}.
Method
------
The main diagnostics we used for the analysis were: 1) K band photometry and 2) normalized spectra. The number of diagnostics is relatively limited, which sometimes results in degeneracies in the derived parameters, especially when [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} cannot be accurately constrained. The procedure to derive the stellar and wind parameters is as follows:
- *Effective temperature:* we relied on the ratio of lines from successive ionisation states of a given element: He for OB and WN stars, He and C for WN/C and WC stars. In practice, the following lines were used: 2.112 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}, 2.184 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}, 2.037 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}, 2.189 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}, 2.346 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}, 2.070 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}, C [iv]{} 2.079 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}, 2.084 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}, 2.325 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}. The line at 2.058 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} has been shown to greatly depend on basically *any* parameter [@paco94] and, although it is frequently the strongest observed line, it is not used to derive [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}. Unfortunately, two successive ionisation ratios of the same element are not always present, especially for the latest OB and Wolf-Rayet stars. In that case, one usually sees only lines so that only an upper limit on [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} can be derived.
We also define here a temperature $T_{\star}$ such that
$$L = 4 \pi R_{\star}^{2} T_{\star}^{4} = 4 \pi R_{2/3}^{2} {\ifmmode T_{\rm eff} \else T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$\fi}^{4}$$
\[eq:Tstar\]
$R_{\star}$ is the radius at which the Rosseland optical depth $\tau_{\rm Rosseland}$ is equal to 20 ($R_{2/3}$ corresponding to the radius where the $\tau_{\rm Rosseland} = 2/3$). This definition is useful in the case of evolved massive stars since it is not directly affected by the stellar wind, and since it allows a better comparison of stellar parameters to evolutionary models (see Sect.\[dis\_z\_hei\]).\
- *Luminosity:* the main constraint on the luminosity comes from the absolute K magnitude (M$_{\rm K}$) which is derived from the observed m$_{\rm K}$, the distance to the Galactic Center [7.62 kpc according to @frank05], and the extinction taken from the recent work of @schoedel07 (see Table \[tab\_obs\]). Knowing the distance of the sources is a great advantage over many Galactic studies of massive stars. The main source of uncertainty in the luminosity is the extinction which is known to vary in the central parsec. A given value of M$_{\rm K}$ is obtained for a given flux in the K band which depends on 1) the luminosity and 2) on the wind density. Indeed, free-free emission in the atmosphere can produce an excess of emission mimicking a larger luminosity [@lc99]. Hence, luminosity is derived in combination with wind parameters ([$\dot{M}$]{} and [$v_{\infty}$]{}).\
- *Mass loss rate:* [$\dot{M}$]{} is derived from the strength of emission lines formed by recombination. Their intensity depends on the wind density but also on the ionisation of the atmosphere (which is also partly controlled by the density) and on the abundances. The mass loss rate is thus derived in combination with effective temperature and abundances.\
- *Terminal velocity:* In stars showing blueshifted absorption profiles and P-Cygni lines, [$v_{\infty}$]{} was estimated from the velocity shift of the bluest part of the absorption trough with respect to the rest-frame wavelength. For Wolf-Rayet stars with broad emission lines, half of the line width was chosen as typical of the terminal velocity. Values were then refined according to the quality of the fit.\
- *Abundances:* The relative H to He abundances can be derived from the intensity of various lines from these elements. As mentioned previously, such a determination cannot be separated from the estimate of [$\dot{M}$]{} and [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} so that a simultaneous determination of these parameters is done. In stars showing C and N lines (C [iv]{} 2.070 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}, 2.079 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}, 2.084 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}, 2.325 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}, 2.247 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}, 2.251 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}), constraints on carbon and nitrogen abundances can also be given. Note that we do not use the feature at 2.115 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} for the N abundance determination: it is unclear whether is the only contributor [@geballe06] and, in addition, the transition oscillator strength is uncertain.\
- *Mass:* The determination of masses for hot stars is a challenge. Here, we have used the $M - L$ relation of @hl96 to estimate the present mass of H free Wolf-Rayet stars. For other stars, we did not try to derive masses, the uncertainties being too large.\
The uncertainties in the derived parameters are the following: $\pm$ 3000 K for [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}($\pm$ 6000 K for the Ofpe/WN9 stars), $\pm$ 0.2 in [ $\log \frac{L}{L_{\odot}}$]{}, 0.2 dex for [$\dot{M}$]{}, 30 % for the abundances. They are *not* statistical errors (the estimate of such errors would imply the computation of a huge number of models to sample the parameter space around the best fit solution). Instead, they reflect the range of values leading to acceptable fits of the observed spectra. Our errors also do not include any systematic contribution due to uncertainties in atomic data such as collisional and dielectronic recombination cross-sections. This has to be kept in mind when considering the values we quote.
Star ST m$_{\rm K}$ A$_{\rm K}$ M$_{\rm K}$ alternative name
-------- ---------- -------------- ------------- -------------- ------------------
34W Ofpe/WN9 12.5$\pm$0.1 3.0$\pm$0.2 -6.0$\pm$0.3 GCIRS 34W
16NW Ofpe/WN9 10.0$\pm$0.1 2.3$\pm$0.1 -6.7$\pm$0.2 GCIRS 16NW
16C Ofpe/WN9 9.7$\pm$0.1 2.3$\pm$0.1 -7.0$\pm$0.2 GCIRS 16C
33E Ofpe/WN9 10.1$\pm$0.1 2.5$\pm$0.1 -6.8$\pm$0.2 GCIRS 33E
AF Ofpe/WN9 10.8$\pm$0.1 2.2$\pm$0.1 -5.8$\pm$0.2 NAME AF STAR
15NE WN8 11.8$\pm$0.1 2.0$\pm$0.2 -4.6$\pm$0.3 GCIRS15 NE
AFNW WN8 11.7$\pm$0.1 2.3$\pm$0.2 -5.0$\pm$0.3 NAME AF NW
9W WN8 12.1$\pm$0.1 2.7$\pm$0.2 -5.0$\pm$0.3 GCIRS 9W
7E2 WN8 12.9$\pm$0.1 2.6$\pm$0.2 -4.1$\pm$0.3 GCIRS 7E2
13E2 WN8 10.8$\pm$0.1 2.0$\pm$0.3 -6.4$\pm$0.4 GCIRS 13E2
7SW WN8/WC9 12.0$\pm$0.1 2.8$\pm$0.2 -5.2$\pm$0.3 $-$
15SW WN8/WC9 12.0$\pm$0.1 2.0$\pm$0.2 -4.4$\pm$0.3 GCIRS 15SW
AFNWNW WN7 12.6$\pm$0.1 2.6$\pm$0.2 -4.4$\pm$0.3 $-$
34NW WN7 12.8$\pm$0.1 3.0$\pm$0.2 -4.6$\pm$0.3 $-$
16SE2 WN5/6 12.0$\pm$0.1 2.6$\pm$0.2 -5.0$\pm$0.3 GCIRS 16SE2
7W WC9 13.1$\pm$0.1 2.5$\pm$0.2 -3.8$\pm$0.3 GCIRS 7W
7SE WC9 13.0$\pm$0.1 2.6$\pm$0.2 -4.0$\pm$0.3 GCIRS 7SE
13E4 WC9 11.7$\pm$0.1 2.8$\pm$0.3 -5.5$\pm$0.4 GCIRS 13E4
Analysis of individual stars {#results}
============================
In this section, we give the results of the detailed analysis of individual stars. We mainly focus on Wolf-Rayet and the so -called “” stars since their spectra have large enough S/N ratios to allow quantitative spectroscopy. OB supergiants are studied by means of the average spectrum of 10 of them [@pgm06]. The global methodology presented in Sect. \[method\] is not repeated for each star: we only give specific comments when necessary.
However, as a preamble, we would like to say a few words about the behavior of [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{}. It is well known that this line is extremely sensitive to any detail of the modeling, and in particular to the amount of UV radiation. Indeed, the upper level of [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} is directly coupled to the ground state by a transition at 584 Å. Dramatic improvement has been achieved in recent years in the prediction of this UV radiation, mainly due to the inclusion of line-blanketing in the models. However, as we will see in the following analysis, [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{}is still poorly reproduced in several stars. Recently, @paco06 have shown that the radiation at 584 Å was partly controlled by the strength of two Fe [iv]{} lines: artificially changing the strength of these lines improved the fit of optical singlet He[i]{} lines. We have tried the same kind of tests in the present study, but it turned out that the resulting [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} line profiles were little changed. The reason is partly that in the Wolf-Rayet stars studied here, [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} is an emission line and is controlled by recombination processes, while in the O stars analysed by @paco06, [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} is in absorption and depends much more on pure radiative transfer effects. Besides, the optical depth of the 584 Å line is large in Wolf-Rayet stars, partly controlling the population of the [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} upper level. This does not mean that [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} is not sensitive to the UV continuum: as we will discuss in Sect. \[dis\_z\], subtle blanketing effects can significantly change the appearance of [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{}. Having said that, we now turn to the detailed study of individual GC stars.
-------- ---------- --------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------- ------------------------------- -------------- --------------------- ------ ---------------- -------- ----------------- -------------- ------------------------ --
Star ST T$_{*}$ [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} [ $\log \frac{L}{L_{\odot}}$]{} R$_{*}$ R$_{2/3}$ M$_{K}$ log [$\dot{M}$]{} f$_{\infty}$ [$v_{\infty}$]{} H/He C/He X(N) M $\log Q_{H}$ $\log Q_{\ion{He}{i}}$
\[K\] \[K\] \[R$_{\odot}$\] \[R$_{\odot}$\] \[[M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$]{}\] \[[km s$^{-1}$]{}\] \# \# \[M$_{\odot}$\] \[s$^{-1}$\] \[s$^{-1}$\]
34W Ofpe/WN9 23000 19500 5.5 35.9 49.3 -6.11 -4.88 1.0 650 4.0 $-$ $-$ $-$ 48.32 47.64
16NW Ofpe/WN9 20000 17500 5.9 59.1 75.8 -6.80 -4.95 1.0 600 5.0 $-$ $-$ $-$ 48.04 47.35
16C Ofpe/WN9 21500 19500 5.9 63.9 79.5 -7.05 -4.65 1.0 650 2.5 $-$ $-$ $-$ 48.76 47.60
33E Ofpe/WN9 20000 18000 5.75 63.9 75.9 -6.85 -4.80 1.0 450 4.0 $-$ $-$ $-$ 48.26 47.60
AF Ofpe/WN9 23000 21000 5.3 28.1 34.5 -5.77 -4.75 0.1 700 2.0 $-$ $-$ $-$ 48.06 47.82
15NE WN8 34500 33000 5.25 11.9 13.0 -4.65 -4.70 0.1 800 0.0 $<$1 10$^{-4}$ 0.0137 12.6 48.56 47.47
AFNW WN8 37000 33000 5.5 13.9 17.5 -5.19 -4.50 0.1 800 0.1 $<$1 10$^{-4}$ 0.0326 18.6 49.14 47.60
9W WN8 40500 32000 5.4 10.2 16.4 -5.20 -4.35 0.1 1100 0.1 $<$5 10$^{-5}$ 0.0133 15.8 49.11 47.79
7E2 WN8 37500 34500 5.2 9.5 11.1 -4.25 -4.80 0.1 900 0.0 $<$8 10$^{-5}$ 0.0137 11.7 48.88 47.70
13E2 WN8 29000 29000 6.1 44.7 45.0 -6.55 -4.35 0.1 750 0.1 $<$3 10$^{-4}$ 0.0167 82.5 49.49 47.61
7SW WN8/WC9 34500 33000 5.55 16.8 18.0 -5.19 -4.70 0.1 900 0.0 0.005 0.0135 18.6 49.15 47.66
15SW WN8/WC9 39000 35000 5.1 7.9 9.7 -4.36 -4.80 0.1 900 0.0 0.013 0.0229 10.3 48.77 47.83
AFNWNW WN7 36500 28500 5.25 10.7 17.2 -4.59 -3.95 1.0 1800 0.1 $<$1 10$^{-4}$ $-$ 12.6 48.87 47.77
34NW WN7 34000 33000 5.6 18.2 19.3 -4.71 -5.30 0.1 750 1.0 1.5 10$^{-4}$ 0.0069 $-$ 49.25 48.13
16SE2 WN5/6 53000 41000 5.45 6.4 10.5 -5.03 -4.15 0.1 2500 0.0 $<$1 10$^{-4}$ $-$ 17.2 49.24 48.51
7W WC9 47500 39000 5.1 5.3 7.8 -3.79 -5.0 0.1 1000 0.0 0.06 $-$ 10.3 48.86 47.80
7SE WC9 44500 36500 5.15 6.4 9.5 -4.03 -4.90 0.1 1000 0.0 0.04 $-$ 11.0 48.88 47.82
13E4 WC9 42500 37500 5.8 14.7 18.7 -5.44 -4.30 1.0 2200 0.0 0.02 $-$ 45.0 49.56 48.47
-------- ---------- --------- ----------------------------------- --------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------- ------------------------------- -------------- --------------------- ------ ---------------- -------- ----------------- -------------- ------------------------ --
Ofpe/WN9 stars {#res_ofpe}
--------------
In this Section we present the analysis of five Ofpe/WN9 stars. We deliberately exclude the stars IRS16SW and IRS16NE since they are binaries [or candidates, see @martins06].
### IRS34W {#34w}
IRS34W is an Ofpe/WN9 star and the faintest of the LBV candidates identified in the Galactic Center [@paumard04]. @trippe06 also showed that it had recently experienced photometric variability attributed to the formation of dust in material possibly ejected in a LBV-like outburst.
Due to the absence of a strong [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} indicator, we could find several solutions to the fit of the K band spectrum by varying the He content, the luminosity, and the mass loss rate for [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} in the range $\sim$ 20000 - $\sim$ 33000 K. Fig. \[fit\_34w\_K\] shows one of the possible best fit models. For the acceptable effective temperatures, the He/H ratio is larger than solar, in the range 0.25 - 0.6, while the mass loss rate goes from $6 \times 10^{-6} - 2 \times 10^{-5}$ [M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$]{} and the luminosity is found in between $3$ and $6 \times\ 10^{5}
L_{\odot}$. It is important to note that these parameters are not independent and only certain combinations within these ranges are acceptable. For example, low [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} imply low luminosities, large [$\dot{M}$]{} and large He/H ratio.
The morphology of [Br$_{\gamma}$]{} is well sampled in our observed spectrum. In particular, the blue side of the [Br$_{\gamma}$]{} emission line shows a “shoulder” and, at even shorter wavelengths, a small absorption dip. This results from the combination of two effects: first, [Br$_{\gamma}$]{} is a P-Cygni profile for which the blue absorption dip is partially filled by emission; second, several He lines with both emission and absorption profiles add to this [Br$_{\gamma}$]{} shape. The contribution of each element is shown in the insert in Fig. \[fit\_34w\_K\]. The exact shape of this complex profile depends on the wind density in the line formation region, and consequently depends on both $\beta$ and the filling factor $f$ (in addition to the mass loss rate and the He/H ratio). In order to fit this profile, we had to choose $\beta$ in the range 2.0 – 4.0, i.e. larger than 1, the value commonly found in O supergiants. This is due to the fact that larger $\beta$ leads to narrower profiles with stronger absorption dips and emission peaks [see @n81]. Similarly, the best fits were obtained with *unclumped* models. This is at odds with the current knowledge that winds of massive stars are strongly inhomogeneous. However, since this complex line profile depends on several parameters, we refrain from concluding that the wind of IRS34W (and the other similar Ofpe/WN9 stars) are homogeneous. More detailed investigations with high resolution spectroscopy should help to better resolve this line and improve our determination.
The only feature not well reproduced by our models is the emission at 2.112-2.115 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}: it is wider in the observed spectrum than in our models. The main reason is that this emission is a blend of several lines, the identification of which is still under debate. The concensus is that both [ 2.112 $\mu m$]{} (blue part, through P-Cygni profiles) and [ 2.115 $\mu m$]{} (red part) contribute to the emission. Clearly, the emission is present in our models but we are not able to reproduce the emission. Actually, we are not convinced that this emission is really due to since we do not detect the lines 2.247 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} and 2.251 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}. @geballe06 recently claimed that could be responsible for that emission. Since the oscillator strength for this transition is very uncertain, we decided not to fit the red part of the emission complex at 2.112-2.115 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}.
![Best fit (red dot-dashed line) of the observed K band spectrum of IRS34W (Ofpe/WN9, black solid line). The insert is a zoom on the [Br$_{\gamma}$]{} line, showing the contribution of H (blue dashed line) and (green dotted line) to the total synthetic profile (red dot-dashed line). \[fit\_34w\_K\]](fit_34w_K.eps){width="9cm"}
### IRS16NW {#16nw}
The spectrum of IRS16NW is similar to IRS34W with the exception that the emission part of the 2.112 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} complex is weaker and the He lines on the blue wing of [Br$_{\gamma}$]{} are mainly in absorption. However, IRS16NW is 2.5 mag brighter, leading to a higher luminosity. The best fit model of its K band spectrum is shown in Fig. \[fit\_16nw\]. For this star too, the only problem is the emission at 2.112 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} which is absent in our model. As for IRS34W, large $\beta$ and unclumped models gave the best fits.
Compared to the analysis of @paco97, we find a larger [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}, although the range of values for which a fit can be achieved encompasses their value. The luminosity is lower by a factor 2.4, while [$\dot{M}$]{} is lower by a factor of 4.7. We also find a terminal velocity smaller by 150 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. The main difference with @paco97 is the He content that we find larger than solar but smaller than the H content. In our case, this indicates that IRS16NW has probably only recently left the main sequence and is in an early evolved status.
![Best fit (red dot-dashed line) of the observed K band spectrum of IRS16NW (Ofpe/WN9, black solid line).\[fit\_16nw\]](fit_16nw_K.eps){width="9cm"}
### IRS16C {#16c}
IRS16C is the brightest star of our sample. It is one of the Ofpe/WN9 stars first discovered in the GC. As for the other stars of the same spectral type, its [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} is poorly constrained. Fig. \[fit\_16c\_K\] shows one of the best fit models. A large value of $\beta$ as well as an unclumped wind are favoured as for IRS34W. The feature at 2.115 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} is not reproduced in our model, as well as the one at 2.100 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}. These lines could be from , but the absence of 2.247 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} and 2.251 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} emission weakens this possibility. We detect a emission at 2.138 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}. This emission is reproduced by our model for a twice solar Mg content. However, this value should be interpreted with care given the uncertainty in [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} and the weakness of the line.
As for IRS16NW, we find a lower He content and a lower mass loss rate compared to the results of @paco97.
![Best fit (red dot-dashed line) of the observed K band spectrum of IRS16C (Ofpe/WN9, black solid line).\[fit\_16c\_K\]](fit_16C_K.eps){width="9cm"}
### IRS33E {#33se}
The spectrum of IRS33E is similar to IRS34W, IRS16NW and IRS16C, and so are the derived properties. The best fit model is shown in Fig.\[fit\_33e\_K\]. As for IRS16C, the weak emission lines at 2.100 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}and 2.115 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} are not reproduced. Note that the structure of the [Br$_{\gamma}$]{} emission is real and is observed at different epochs.
![Best fit (red dot-dashed line) of the observed K band spectrum of IRS33E (Ofpe/WN9, black solid line).\[fit\_33e\_K\]](fit_33e_K.eps){width="9cm"}
### AF star {#af}
The AF star is one of the first GC stars discovered and analysed. Based on its SINFONI K band spectrum, @forrest87, @ahh90 and @paco94 classified it as a Ofpe/WN9 star. However, compared to the other stars of the same type presented above, AF has much broader lines. This indicates a stronger wind and possibly a more advanced evolutionary state (see also Sect. \[dis\_wn8\]). The best fit to the H+K band spectrum is shown in Fig.\[fit\_AF\_HK\]. The effective temperature is poorly constrained due to the absence of lines, as for the other Ofpe/WN9 stars. This implies a degeneracy between [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} and He/H: models with $18000 K \lesssim {\ifmmode T_{\rm eff} \else T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$\fi}\ \lesssim 30000 K$ and $0.5 \lesssim \rm{He/H}
\lesssim 5.0$ gave reasonable fits (lower He/H being required at larger [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}). Such behavior was already noted by @paco94. We also found that [$\dot{M}$]{} $\sim 10^{-4}$ [M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$]{} were necessary to fit emission at low [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}, while values of the order $1.5
\times 10^{-4}$ [M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$]{} were sufficient at high [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}. The luminosity is in the range $1-2 \times 10^{5} L_{\odot}$. The values derived by @paco94 are consistent with our cool/He-rich/large [$\dot{M}$]{}models. The analysis of this star illustrates perfectly the degeneracy one has to face when [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} is poorly constrained. In contrast to the other Ofpe/WN9 stars analysed before, the shape of the [Br$_{\gamma}$]{} complex is dominated by the wind, so that the contribution of the He lines blueward of [Br$_{\gamma}$]{} is not resolved. Hence, the He content is poorly constrained. In the comparison to the @paco94 results, it is also important to note that a different extinction was used. We adopted $A_{\rm K} = 2.2$ while Najarro et al. had $A_{\rm K} =
3.0$. This influences the results, in particular the luminosity and the mass loss rates (through their influence on M$_{\rm K}$, see Sect. \[method\]).
![Possible fit (red dot-dashed line) of the observed H+K band spectrum of the AF star (Ofpe/WN9, black solid line). Other combinations of [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}, He/H and [$\dot{M}$]{} lead to similar fits. The observed spectrum around 1.85 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} is noisy and should be disregarded. See text for discussion. \[fit\_AF\_HK\]](fit_AF_HK.eps){width="9cm"}
WN stars {#res_WN}
--------
In the following, we present the results of the detailed study of 5 WN8, 3 WN7, 1 WN5/6 and 2 WN8/WC9 stars.For all the WN8 stars, the H content is relatively low, but we cannot discriminate between H free stars and stars with X(H) of a few percent. We thus quote a H mass fraction $\lesssim$ 0.1.
### IRS15NE {#15ne}
Fig. \[fit\_15ne\] shows our best fit spectrum of the WN8 star IRS15NE. The lines at 2.037, 2.189 and 2.346 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} are well reproduced and allow a good estimate of the effective temperature. The fit of the [ 2.247, 2.251 $\mu m$]{} features is good, providing an accurate N abundance determination. The main discrepancy concerns the [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} line which is too weak. Reducing [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} improves the fit but weakens the lines. The feature at 2.427 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} is also slightly too weak if a solar abundance is used for Si. Fig. \[fit\_15ne\] shows the effect of increasing the Si content by a factor of 2.5 and 7. Interestingly, the fit of the SiIV line improves, as well as the fit of [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{}! However, several weak Si lines appear around 1.98 and 2.08 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}. We do not detect these lines. Hence, we cannot safely conclude that a super-solar Si abundance is required for IRS15NE. The problem of Si [iv]{} 2.427 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} in the initial model may be due to incorrect atomic data for this line. In terms of atmospheric structure, changing the Si content translates into a slight variation of the temperature structure ($T$ is reduced in the outer atmosphere) which is then responsible for the strengthening of [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} (see also Sect. \[dis\_z\_hei\]). This highlights once more the extreme sensitivity of [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} to the very details of the modeling.
IRS15NE was previously studied by @paco97 who found a lower [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}, a larger luminosity and a larger mass loss rate. The terminal velocity and He content were similar to the present value.
![Best fit (red dot-dashed line) of the observed K band spectrum of IRS15NE (WN8, black solid line). The different broken lines indicates models with similar parameters except the Si content. When it increases, the fits of Si [iv]{} 2.427 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} and [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} are improved. See text for discussion. \[fit\_15ne\]](fit_15ne_K.eps){width="9cm"}
### AFNW
AFNW is located North West of the AF star and was assigned a spectral type WN8 by @pgm06. The presence of both and He [ii]{} lines allows a rather robust [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} determination (see Fig. \[fit\_AFnw\]). Only [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} is too weak and 1.700 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} too strong in our model.
![Best fit (red dot-dashed line) of the observed H band (left) and K band (right) spectrum of AFNW (WN8). \[fit\_AFnw\]](fit_AFnw_HK.eps){width="9cm"}
### IRS9W {#9w}
IRS9W is the WN8 star of our sample with the cleanest spectrum and the strongest lines. Fig. \[fit\_9w\_K\] shows that our best model is able to perfectly reproduce most of the features, with the notable exception of [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{}. Given the quality of the observed spectrum and the presence of several He[i]{} and lines very well reproduced by our model, we think the effective temperature is well constrained (see in particular the ratio of [ 2.189 $\mu m$]{} to [ 2.184 $\mu m$]{}). Decreasing [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} to strengthen [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} leads to weaker 2.037, 2.189 and 2.346 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} lines. Modifying the luminosity and mass loss rate so that they still lead to a good match of the observed K band magnitude and of the strength of emission lines does not lead to any improvement as far as [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} is concerned. Interestingly, the situation got better when we tried to increase the global metallicity to a value of 2 times $Z_{\odot}$. In that case, we could get a strong [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} line without degrading the fit of the other diagnostics. This points once again to the extreme sensitivity of [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} to UV opacities, a larger metallicity corresponding to a softer UV radiation. A more detailed discussion of the behavior of [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} as regards metallicity changes is given in Sect. \[dis\_z\_hei\].
![Best fit of the observed K band spectrum of IRS9W (WN8, black solid line). The blue dotted line is a model with $Z = Z_{\odot}$ while the red dot-dashed line is for $Z = 2 \times\ Z_{\odot}$. Note the change of [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} with metallicity, tracing its extreme sensitivity to UV radiation. \[fit\_9w\_K\]](fit_9w_K.eps){width="9cm"}
### IRS7E2 {#7e2}
The best fit model to the K band spectrum of IRS7E2 is shown in Fig.\[fit\_7e2\_K\]. All lines are well reproduced, except [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{}. The excellent fit of the [ 2.247, 2.251 $\mu m$]{} line allows a good N abundance determination. [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} is also well constrained since [ 2.189 $\mu m$]{}, [ 2.037 $\mu m$]{}and [ 2.346 $\mu m$]{} are clearly detected. As for IRS9W, we have tried to increase the metallicity to improve the fit of [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{}, but this time, the line barely reacted and remained too weak.
![Best fit (red dot-dashed line) of the observed K band spectrum of IRS7E2 (WN8, black solid line).\[fit\_7e2\_K\]](fit_7e2.eps){width="9cm"}
### IRS13E2 {#13e2}
IRS13E2 is the brightest member of the IRS13E cluster and is classified as WN8. Our best fit model is shown in Fig.\[fit\_13e2\_K\]. An effective temperature of 29000 K was required to fit the He spectrum. It is the most luminous WN8 star of our sample However, the presence of dust in the IRS13E cluster may hamper our determination. We will argue in Sect. \[res\_WC\] and \[dis\_irs13\] that we probably derive only an upper limit on the luminosity.
@paco97 already mentioned the stars of IRS13E in their study, but at that time they could not resolve the components and analysed the global spectrum. Hence, a direct comparison with their results is meaningless.
![Best fit (red dot-dashed line) to the observed K band spectrum of IRS13E2 (WN8, black solid line).\[fit\_13e2\_K\]](fit_13E2_K.eps){width="9cm"}
### IRS7SW {#7sw}
@pgm06 classified IRS7SW as WN8, but in view of the present results (see below), we refine its identification to WN8/WC9. Our best fit model is presented in Fig. \[fit\_7sw\]. The preferred [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}allows a reasonable fit of the Carbon lines and of [ 2.189 $\mu m$]{}, but seems a little too low to account for [ 2.037 $\mu m$]{} and [ 2.346 $\mu m$]{}. However, increasing [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} leads to a too strong [ 2.189 $\mu m$]{} line. The presence of and as well as lines indicates that IRS7SW is likely a WN/WC star. This is confirmed by the abundance determination (see also Sect. \[dis\_wnc\] for a quantitative discussion). We note too unidentified lines: one feature at 2.140 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}, and another one at 2.224 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}. The former cannot be attributed to [ 2.138 $\mu m$]{} since [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} is too high. Besides, [ 2.138 $\mu m$]{} is a doublet while we clearly see only one component. The line at 2.224 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} cannot be due to since again [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} is too large. Interestingly, these lines are also found in most of the WC9 stars of our sample, as well as in the WN8/WC9 star IRS15SW (see next Section). We conclude that they are typical of C-rich stars. Note that these lines are also present and not identified in the WC9 stars of the @figer97 sample (see their Fig. 9).
![Best fit to the observed H+K band spectrum of IRS7SW (WN8/WC9).\[fit\_7sw\]](fit_7sw.eps){width="9cm"}
### IRS15SW {#15sw}
IRS15SW is a late WN star showing C lines in its K band spectrum so that it was classified as WN8/WC9 by @pgm06. Most of the lines are reproduced by our best model (Fig. \[fit\_15sw\]). A notable exception is the / complex around 2.185 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}. The emission is stronger than our model. Changing [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} does not help since we fit either the blue or red side of the emission but never the whole complex. Besides, [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} is relatively well constrained by the other lines. We also do not perfectly fit the blue absorption dip of [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{}. This may require a larger [$v_{\infty}$]{}, but in that case the other emission lines are too broad. The C lines are perfectly matched, allowing a reliable abundance (and [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}) determination. IRS15SW will be further discussed in Sect.\[dis\_wnc\].
IRS15SW was studied by @paco97. We find a much larger [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}, essentially because we can rely on several lines and on the / ratio (note the good fit of C lines in Fig. \[fit\_15sw\]). We also find a much lower luminosity and a lower clumping corrected mass loss rate. The terminal velocity and H content are however similar (see Fig. \[fit\_15sw\] for a complete view of the He and H spectrum).
![Best fit (red dot-dashed line) to the observed K band spectrum of IRS15SW (WN8/WC9, black solid line).\[fit\_15sw\]](fit_15sw_K.eps){width="9cm"}
### AFNWNW
AFNWNW is a WN7 star. Most of its lines are reasonably well reproduced by our best fit model (see Fig. \[fit\_afnwnw\]). The main problems are the too weak [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} line and the too narrow / complex at 2.18-2.19 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}. Note however that the S/N ratio is rather low, preventing an accurate determination of the physical parameters. The absence of emission indicates an upper limit of 10$^{-4}$ for C/He. Note that our best fit model is unclumped. We cannot derive the clumping factor from the observed spectrum due to the poor S/N ratio.
![Best fit (red dot-dashed line) to the observed H+K band spectrum of AFNWNW (WN7, black solid line). The region around P$_{\alpha}$ was cut since it is not reliable. The observed spectrum was also smoothed for clarity. \[fit\_afnwnw\]](fit_afnwnw_HK.eps){width="9cm"}
### IRS34NW {#34nw}
IRS34NW is a WN7 star. It has narrower and weaker lines than AFNWNW, reflecting its weaker wind. The lines indicate a slightly sub-solar C abundance (see best fit in Fig.\[fit\_34nw\]). Together with the N content derived from lines, this reveals an early stage of CNO processing (compared to AFNWNW which has no detectable lines). IRS34NW still has a significant amount of Hydrogen. We conclude that IRS34NW is less evolved than AFNWNW in spite of a similar spectral type. This likely reflects different initial masses.
![Best fit (red dot-dashed line) to the observed K band spectrum of IRS34NW (WN7, black solid line). \[fit\_34nw\]](fit_34nw.eps){width="9cm"}
### IRS16SE2 {#16se2}
IRS16SE2 is the earliest WN star of our sample [WN5/6, see @pgm06]. Consequently, it also has the highest effective temperature (41000 K) which is quite well constrained by the presence of both and lines in the K band spectrum. Helium is indeed doubly ionised in most of the atmosphere, except in the very outer part where it recombines, leading to the absorption trough near 2.044 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}. This feature being due to a blueshifted [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} absorption, we have a good estimate of the wind terminal velocity (2500 [km s$^{-1}$]{}). The absence of emission around 2.08 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} – expected for such a large [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} – sets an upper limit on the Carbon abundance ($C/He \lesssim 10^{-4}$ by number), indicating CNO processing.
@paul96 studied two WN6 stars with K band spectra very similar to IRS16SE2. Their results are in excellent agreement with the present ones: $T_{\star} \sim 55000 K$, ${\ifmmode \log \frac{L}{L_{\odot}} \else $\log \frac{L}{L_{\odot}}$\fi}\sim 5.4$ and $\log
\frac{\dot{M}}{\sqrt{f}} \sim -3.9$. Since @paul96 found no difference between their IR analysis and optical results, we are confident that the parameters we derive for IRS16SE2 for pure IR diagnostics are reliable.
![Best fit (red dot-dashed line) of the observed K band spectrum of IRS16SE2 (WN5/6, black line).\[fit\_16se2\_K\]](fit_16se2_K.eps){width="9cm"}
WC9 stars {#res_WC}
---------
Here, the stellar and wind parameters of three WC9 stars are derived. One important word of caution is necessary though. WC9 stars are often associated with dust [@williams87]. The origin of this dust is not completely understood, but wind-wind interaction in binary systems is the favoured mechanism. Observation of dust spirals (also named ’pinwheels’) around several WC9 stars strongly support this scenario [@tuthill99]. Recent observations of the ’Cocoon stars’ after which the Quintuplet cluster was named showed such pinwheels [@tuthill06].
The presence of dust in WC9 stars complicates the analysis of their IR spectra since it produces an additional emission which adds to the stellar+wind continuum. In practice, if WC9 stars are analysed under the assumption that they are dust-free, their continuum is over-estimated. Consequently, when normalizing their spectra, lines appear weaker. This implies under-estimates of the mass loss rates and abundances. In addition, the derived luminosity is over-estimated since the total continuum is composed of both the stellar+wind continuum and the dust emission. Note however that [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} estimates are less affected, since the ratio of lines is only weakly affected by the presence of dust.
In the following, we discuss for each star the observational evidence for dust and the reliability of the derived parameters.
### IRS7W {#7w}
L-band observations of IRS7W were recently performed by @jihane05 [^2]. Inspection of their Table 1 shows that the colors of IRS7W are consistent with the extinction law of the GC, at least in the HKL bands. A possible excess emission is only seen in the M band due to a red L-M color. Consequently, we think that our modelling, restricted to the H+K band spectrum, is not hampered by any dust emission. The derived parameters can be trusted within their error bars.
Our best fit is shown in Fig. \[fit\_7w\_HK\]. The effective temperature is relatively well constrained by the presence of several lines as well as and features. The main discrepancy is once again the too weak [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} in our model. In addition, we note the two unidentified lines at 2.140 and 2.224 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} as in WN/C stars.
![Best fit (red dot-dashed line) of the observed H and K band spectra of IRS7W (WC9, black solid line).\[fit\_7w\_HK\]](fit_7w_HK.eps){width="9cm"}
### IRS7SE {#7se}
IRS7SE is a WC9 star very similar to IRS7W. Unfortunately, we do not have any information on its photometry (except for the K-band). We are thus not able to check the possible contamination by dust. Adopting a conservative approach, we consider that our results are only limits (lower for [$\dot{M}$]{} and the C abundance, upper for [ $\log \frac{L}{L_{\odot}}$]{}). Fig.\[fit\_7se\_HK\] shows a fit of similar quality compared to IRS7W, with the same caveats ([ 2.058 $\mu m$]{}, unidentified lines).
![Best fit (red dot-dashed line) of the observed H+K band spectrum of IRS7SE (WC9, black solid line).\[fit\_7se\_HK\]](fit_7se_HK.eps){width="9cm"}
### IRS13E4 {#13e4}
@maillard04 presented a detailed investigation of the stellar content of IRS13E. Using HKL photometry, they report the discovery of several very red sources in addition to the bright components IRS13E2 and IRS13E4. They interpret these sources as dusty Wolf-Rayet stars. Unfortunately, IRS3E4 is not detected in their L band images, so that the presence of a dust component in the spectrum of the WC9 star can not be tested. It is however interesting to note that IRS13E2, the WN8 star analysed in Sect. \[13e2\], has a quite large $K-L$ color. The entire cluster IRS13E is also known to be at the top of a very prominent gas stream in L band [@clenet04]. Taken together, these arguments indicate that the stars of IRS13E may well all bathe in a continuum emission due to hot dust. We thus conclude that their derived parameters must be regarded as only indicative (see also Sect. \[dis\_irs13\]).
With this restriction in mind, we show a tentative fit of the spectrum of the WC9 star IRS13E4 in Fig. \[fit\_13e4\]. The main C lines are reasonably well reproduced by our model. However, the [ 2.184 $\mu m$]{} and [ 2.189 $\mu m$]{} lines, while having the right line ratio, are too strong. Reducing them would require a reduction of the mass loss rate. This is at the cost of a reduction of the C lines (which could be compensated by an increase in the C abundance), *and* of a modification of the shape of the lines. With lower [$\dot{M}$]{}, lines get narrower and more centrally peaked because the density decreases. In conclusion, and given the above discussion, we argue that the near-IR spectrum of IRS13E4 is certainly contaminated by dust emission. Such a component could explain that the and lines are too weak (being diluted). Carbon lines are also certainly diluted, so that our C abundance estimate is likely a lower limit. We also probably over-estimate the total luminosity.
![Tentative fit (red dot-dashed line)of the K band spectra of the IRS13E4 (WC9, black solid line). See text for discussion of the discrepancies. \[fit\_13e4\]](fit_13e4.eps){width="9cm"}
OB supergiants {#OBIa}
--------------
Due to the rather limited signal to noise ratio of most of the spectra of the OB stars known in the central cluster (S/N of the order of a few tens on average), we have restricted ourselves to a general study of the properties of these stars. For that, we have used the average spectra of 10 supergiants presented in @pgm06. Hence, we have derived average stellar and wind parameters for this population of OB stars.
Fig. \[fit\_OBIasum\] shows the best fit model. The main parameters used for this model are: [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} = 27500 K, [g $\log g$]{} = 3.25, [ $\log \frac{L}{L_{\odot}}$]{} = 5.33, [$\dot{M}$]{} = $3 \times\ 10^{-7}$ [M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$]{}, [$v_{\infty}$]{} = 1850 [km s$^{-1}$]{}, X(He) = 0.3 and [v$_{\rm turb}$]{} = 15 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. Additionally, a rotational velocity of $\sim$ 100 [km s$^{-1}$]{} could be estimated from the overall shape of all absorption lines [^3]. The effective temperature is very difficult to constrain, just as in the Ofpe/WN9 stars studied previously. We can only put a constraint on the upper limit of [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} from the absence of lines, especially [ 2.189 $\mu m$]{}. This upper limit is of around 32000 K. Giving a lower limit is more challenging. We tried several values between 25000 and 32500 K. This range is thought to be appropriate since all stars contributing to our average spectrum are late O / early B supergiants. For these types of stars, [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} is expected to be around 25000 – 30000 K [@msh05]. Reasonable fits could be obtained for these different [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}. As we have no diagnostic to better constrain [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}, we finally adopted 27500 K as a typical value. For the luminosity, we also adopted [ $\log \frac{L}{L_{\odot}}$]{} = 5.3 since this is typical of late O supergiants [e.g. @msh05].
The mass loss rate is not strongly constrained either since most lines are seen in absorption and do not appear to be filled by wind emission. Here too, an upper limit on [$\dot{M}$]{} of a few $10^{-6}$ [M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$]{}can be given, above which [Br$_{\gamma}$]{} cannot be reproduced any more.
Finally, the He abundance is tentatively constrained from the strength of [ 2.112 $\mu m$]{}, [ 2.150 $\mu m$]{}, [ 2.161 $\mu m$]{} and [ 2.184 $\mu m$]{}. The strength of these lines not only depends on the He content, but also on the microturbulent velocity. The slope of the velocity law (the $\beta$ parameter) plays a role too. As we have no independent way of determining all these parameters, we tried different combinations with reasonable values (10 $<$ [v$_{\rm turb}$]{} $<$ 20 [km s$^{-1}$]{}, 1.0 $< \beta\ <$ 2.0). In the end, we found that good fits could be achieved for He/H ratios in the range 0.2-0.35. This value will be discussed in Sect.\[dis\_ob\]. Finally, we stress that we do not reproduce the 2.115 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} emission. As discussed in Sect. \[34w\], this line is not clearly identified and we did not try to fit it.
![Best fit (red solid line) of the average spectrum of the 10 supergiants [see @pgm06].\[fit\_OBIasum\]](fit_OBIasum.eps){width="9cm"}
Ionising radiation in the Galactic Center {#dis_ion}
=========================================
One of the crucial issues revealed by early studies of the Galactic Center was the apparent incompatibility between the ionisation of the gas and the ionising flux provided by the population of massive stars. This was highlighted by @paco97 and more recently by @lutz99 in a detailed analysis of ISO observations [see also @thornley00]. In view of our new quantitative analysis, we argue that this issue is solved. Since this is an important result, we give a detailed explanation of the different aspects of the problem together with the proposed solutions.
H and ionising photons {#Q_h_he}
----------------------
The first part of the “ionisation problem” concerns the total number of H and ionising photons produced by the GC massive stars (i.e. ionising photons short-ward of 912 Å - [Q\_[H]{} $Q_{\rm H}$]{} - and 504 Å- [Q\_ $Q_{\ion{He}{i}}$]{}-). Nebular emission from the central H [ii]{} region was used to constrain the various ionising fluxes. Radio measurements of the free-free continuum by @ekers83 showed that ${\ifmmode Q_{\rm H} \else $Q_{\rm H}$\fi}\ =
10^{50.4 \pm 0.3} s^{-1}$ [see also @genzel94]. Later, @krabbe91 derived ${\ifmmode Q_{\ion{He}{i}} \else $Q_{\ion{He}{i}}$\fi}\ \sim 10^{48.4} s^{-1}$ from a study of the nebular [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} emission. These measurements could then be compared to the results of the quantitative modeling of the stellar properties of the “” stars by @paco97. Their conclusion was that the “” stars provided enough H ionising photons, but failed by several orders of magnitude to produce the extreme UV flux required to account for the nebular He ionisation. An underlying population of stars hotter than the “” stars but not detected was suspected to be responsible for this harder flux.
Such a population has recently reported by @pgm06. Hence, a re-estimate of the ionising power of the central cluster is required. Table \[tab\_res\] gives [Q\_[H]{} $Q_{\rm H}$]{} and [Q\_ $Q_{\ion{He}{i}}$]{} for the stars analysed in the present paper. In addition to these, @pgm06 identified 15 other evolved massive stars and 59 OB stars. To estimate the total ionisation flux delivered by this population we used the following approach: for the WC9 stars not analysed here, we adopted the ionising fluxes of @smith02 using their model WC number 3; for the 2 Ofpe/WN9 stars IRS16NE and IRS16SW, we adopted the parameters of IRS16C; for the WN7 stars not studied, we adopted the values of AFNWNW, another WN7 star included in our sample; finally, for the O stars, we adopted the calibration of @msh05 (see their Table 4). Since all supergiants have a spectral type between O8.5 and B2 but some of them suffer from a classification uncertainty of up to 2 spectral sub-types, we adopted the ionising flux of a O9.5I star as typical of the GC supergiants. As for O dwarfs, the values of [Q\_[H]{} $Q_{\rm H}$]{} and [Q\_ $Q_{\ion{He}{i}}$]{} of @msh05 for a O9.5V star were chosen. For the B dwarfs, we simply adopted a value ten times smaller than for OV stars. This is a rough approximation which however has very small impact on the final result, B stars providing a negligible ionising flux. This leaves us with the following numbers: ${\ifmmode Q_{\rm H} \else $Q_{\rm H}$\fi}\ = 6.0 \times
10^{50} s^{-1}$ and ${\ifmmode Q_{\ion{He}{i}} \else $Q_{\ion{He}{i}}$\fi}\ = 2.3 \times 10^{49} s^{-1}$ (or $\log {\ifmmode Q_{\rm H} \else $Q_{\rm H}$\fi}= 50.8$ and $\log {\ifmmode Q_{\ion{He}{i}} \else $Q_{\ion{He}{i}}$\fi}= 49.4$). The contribution of the different classes of stars are gathered in Table \[tab\_qi\]. We thus conclude that not only the H ionising flux but also the ionising flux required to reproduce the nebular emission can be provided by the population of massive stars. In fact, they may even produce slightly more ionising photons, indicating that the H [ii]{} region might be density bounded. A final comment on the total ionising flux is needed. @krabbe91 state that $\log {\ifmmode Q_{\ion{He}{i}} \else $Q_{\ion{He}{i}}$\fi}= 48.4$ s$^{-1}$, but also that [Q\_ $Q_{\ion{He}{i}}$]{}/[Q\_[H]{} $Q_{\rm H}$]{}= 0.06. We find [Q\_ $Q_{\ion{He}{i}}$]{}/[Q\_[H]{} $Q_{\rm H}$]{}= 0.04, in very good agreement. The difference in the absolute [Q\_ $Q_{\ion{He}{i}}$]{} values between our study and @krabbe91 is their lower reference [Q\_[H]{} $Q_{\rm H}$]{}($\log {\ifmmode Q_{\rm H} \else $Q_{\rm H}$\fi}= 49.6$).
At this point, a comment on the contribution of the “” stars is necessary. @paco97 showed that the 8 stars they analysed could account for most of the ionising radiation of the region. We see that with the current estimate, this conclusion would not be valid. Why is that? The answer is rooted in 1) our lower bolometric luminosities and 2) the inclusion of line-blanketing in the atmosphere models. This ingredient was not available at the time of the @paco97 study. Test models reveal that in such stars, line-blanketing effects lead to a large redistribution of the blocked UV flux to longer wavelengths, mainly above 912 Å. Consequently, [Q\_[H]{} $Q_{\rm H}$]{} is reduced significantly.
-------------- ----------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------------- -- ---------------------------- -----------------------------------
Type of star number of stars [Q\_[H]{} $Q_{\rm H}$]{} % [Q\_[H]{} $Q_{\rm H}$]{} total [Q\_ $Q_{\ion{He}{i}}$]{} % [Q\_ $Q_{\ion{He}{i}}$]{} total
\[$s^{-1}$\] \[$s^{-1}$\]
OB V 23 $3.1\times\ 10^{48}$ 0.5 $2.6\times 10^{46}$ 0.1
OB I 30 $3.0\times\ 10^{50}$ 50.0 $6.7\times 10^{48}$ 29.1
Ofpe/WN9 8 $2.5\times\ 10^{49}$ 4.2 $3.4\times 10^{48}$ 14.8
WN 9 $1.1\times\ 10^{50}$ 18.3 $7.0\times 10^{48}$ 30.4
WN/C 2 $2.0\times\ 10^{49}$ 3.3 $1.1\times 10^{48}$ 4.8
WC 13 $1.5\times\ 10^{50}$ 25.0 $4.7\times 10^{48}$ 20.4
Total $6.0\times\ 10^{50}$ $2.3\times 10^{49}$
-------------- ----------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------------- -- ---------------------------- -----------------------------------
Ionising radiation and stellar population {#Qi_evol}
-----------------------------------------
The second important issue concerning the ionising radiation in the Galactic Center was highlighted by @lutz99. In his study of nebular fine structure mid-IR lines of metals observed with ISO, Lutz pointed out that stellar evolution appears to fail to explain the GC massive stellar population. This claim was based on computations of population synthesis models for a single burst of star formation and a standard Salpeter IMF. After 7 Myrs, the age of the population thought to be appropriate at that time, the fraction of the total ionising luminosity provided by the part of the HR diagram where the “” stars are lying ($log T_{\rm star} < 4.5$ and $\L >
5.75$) was of the order of 1 %. This was at odds with the results of @paco97 who argued that these stars could account for more than half the total ionising luminosity. This discrepancy lead @lutz99 to the conclusion that stellar evolution - indirectly tested here through synthesis population models - was not producing enough cool stars or equivalently that the time spent by a massive star in the cool part of its track was much too short.
This statement is no longer valid. Only six stars analysed here have $log T_{\rm star} < 4.5$ and ${\ifmmode \log \frac{L}{L_{\odot}} \else $\log \frac{L}{L_{\odot}}$\fi}> 5.75$. And this is in the case we include IRS13E2 for which we only have an upper limit on [ $\log \frac{L}{L_{\odot}}$]{}. To these four stars, we need to add the binary IRS16SW and the binary candidate IRS16NE. Both stars likely have properties similar to IRS16C. In total, the H ionising flux of these stars represents about 9 % of the total [Q\_[H]{} $Q_{\rm H}$]{}. This is an upper limit due to the possible overestimate of IRS13E2’s luminosity. If we exclude IRS13E2, the remaining 7 stars contribute only 4 % of $Q_{\rm H}^{\rm
total}$. This is in excellent agreement with what is expected from a burst of star formation after 7 Myrs [which is within the age range now stated for the population, see @pgm06]. Once again, this is mainly due to the recent discovery of a hot population of OB and Wolf-Rayet stars responsible for the majority of the ionising luminosity. Table \[tab\_qi\] shows that the OB supergiants and Wolf-Rayet stars contribute more than 90 % of the ionising flux. The main conclusion is that standard stellar evolution – used in population synthesis models – is able to account for the GC massive stars.
Mid-IR nebular Ne lines {#mir_lines}
-----------------------
The third problem with the ionisation of the Galactic Center region was also pointed out by @lutz99 [see also @thornley00]. It concerned the low ionisation of the local gas as derived from the ratio of fine structure mid-IR lines of different ionisation states of Ne, namely 15.5 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} and 12.8 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}. ISO observations revealed that \[\]/\[\] was 0.05. Using the SED predicted by the synthesis population model described in the previous section as an input of a photoionisation model performed with the code CLOUDY [@cloudy], Lutz revealed that after 7 Myrs, \[\]/\[\] was still as large as 1 to 2, or a factor 50 to 100 more than the observed value.
To investigate this issue, we have performed photoionisation models with CLOUDY (version C06.02). As an input SED, we have simply added all individual SEDs computed for the stars presently studied. For those stars which were not explicitly treated here, we have adopted the SEDs of @msh05 or those of similar stars present in the current sample. Adopting the same density as @lutz99 (3000 cm$^{-3}$) and our total ionising flux implies an ionisation parameter $\log U = -0.6$ [^4]. With these values, we obtain a ratio \[\]/\[\] of 0.9-1.7 depending on the geometry. This is still larger than the observed value (0.05). Note however that if we use the ionisation parameter as @lutz99 ($\log U = -1$), we get \[\]/\[\] $\sim$ 0.5 – 0.7. This is a factor 2 – 3 lower than the values of Lutz.
How can we explain the still large values of \[\]/\[\]? One possibility is that we underestimate the density. There is evidence that values as large as $10^{4-5}$ cm$^{-3}$ are required to produce \[\], \[\] and \[\] lines [@genzel84; @genzel85]. Using such large values (and the corresponding ionisation parameter, $\log U = -1.2$ and $-1.6$), CLOUDY models with our total stellar SED give \[\]/\[\] $\sim$ 0.5 (for $10^{4}$ cm$^{-3}$) and $\sim$ 0.1 (for $10^{5}$ cm$^{-3}$). This is in better agreement with the observed ratio, although still a factor 2 – 10 too large. @sf94 argued that the nebular spectrum of the Galactic Center could be reproduced only if several gas components with different densities were involved. In view of the present result, it may well be that the Ne ionisation requires a large density material (we can reproduce the observed \[\]/\[\] ratio for a density of $3 \times\ 10^{5}$ cm$^{-3}$).
Another explanation to the large theoretical \[\]/\[\] ratio could be that we still overestimate the flux at 41eV, i.e. the ionisation energy probed by the \[\]/\[\] ratio. This part of the spectrum is quite sensitive to blanketing effects. A slight increase in metallicity could lead to a reduced flux and consequently a lower \[\]/\[\] ratio [e.g. @morisset04].
One may also wonder which type of star contributes significant flux at 41eV. Actually, it turns out that the total SED is completely dominated by a single star at this energy: the hot WN5/6 star IRS16SE2. To test the influence of this star on the ionisation of the GC gas, we removed its contribution to the total SED and ran test CLOUDY models. Amazingly, for a density of 3000 cm$^{-3}$ (and $\log U
= -0.6$), the \[\]/\[\] ratio drops to 0.008, less than the observed value! This shows that this ratio is extremely sensitive to the local radiation field. One can imagine that most of the ionised gas is not illuminated by the IRS16SE2 radiation due to shielding by local structures in molecular clouds. In that case, the remaining radiation field is soft enough to maintain a low \[\]/\[\] ratio.
In conclusion, one could say that a revised nebular modelling taking into account both the spatial distribution of the gas and of the ionising sources is required to solve the Ne ionisation problem. This is well beyond the scope of the present paper.
Stellar evolution in the Galactic Center {#dis_evol}
========================================
In this Section we discuss, in view of the results of our quantitative analysis, the evolution of massive stars beyond the main sequence. It is generally accepted that stars in the mass range 25-60 [M\_ M$_{\odot}$]{} evolve from O stars to WN H-poor stars through a LBV and/or red supergiant phase before becoming WC stars (for $M > 40$ [M\_ M$_{\odot}$]{}). In the following, we refine this scenario in the particular case of the GC, establishing a plausible evolutionary sequence between Ofpe/WN9, WN8 and WN/C stars (Sect. \[dis\_ofpe\], \[dis\_wn8\], \[dis\_wnc\]). We also quantitatively compare the position of the GC Wolf-Rayet stars in the HR diagram to evolutionary tracks including rotation (Sect.\[dis\_tracks\]). Finally we discuss the properties of the IRS13E cluster stars (\[dis\_irs13\]).
Ofpe/WN9 stars {#dis_ofpe}
--------------
In the present study, we have analysed five stars classified Ofpe/WN9 by @pgm06. Among these five stars, three have been studied by @paco97: IRS16C, IRS16NW and AF. Compared to the Najarro et al. analysis, we find a similar range of luminosities (although for IRS16C our luminosity is lower) and the same terminal velocities (within the uncertainty). The effective temperatures are higher in our study, partly due to the inclusion of line-blanketing in our models as already discussed. Nevertheless, [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} remains poorly constrained so that the range of acceptable values overlap with the temperatures of @paco97. As a consequence of the hotter [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}, our radii are smaller. But the main differences concern 1) the mass loss rates and 2) the He content. Both parameters are linked to some extent: when fitting [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{}, [ 2.112 $\mu m$]{} and [Br$_{\gamma}$]{}, adopting a larger He/H content will require a larger [$\dot{M}$]{} in order to reproduce the level of [Br$_{\gamma}$]{} emission. Of course, in that case [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} and [ 2.112 $\mu m$]{} get stronger too. But their absolute strength is also controlled by the He ionisation which in turn depends on the effective temperature and the line-blanketing effect. Since we used more realistic atmosphere models as well as better spectra (higher S/N ratio and spectral resolution, good correction from nebular emission), we argue that our derived parameters represent an improvement over the result of @paco97. In practice, we find values of [$\dot{M}$]{} 3 to 10 times lower than Najarro et al., and much lower He contents (He/H $\sim$ 0.2-0.5 compared to 1.3-3.0).
These revised parameters are important for assessing the evolutionary status of the Ofpe/WN9 stars (see next Section). They are also very interesting since they bring the GC Ofpe/WN9 stars closer to other Galactic and LMC stars of this type. @paul97 analysed a sample of LMC Ofpe/WN9 stars and found that their He content was much smaller than in the GC stars, which was tentatively attributed to possible metallicity effects. Our new values are in better agreement with the Crowther et al. measurement, showing that the LMC and GC Ofpe/WN9 stars are chemically similar. In contrast, @pasquali97 found He/H $\sim$ 0.5 (by number) for a sample of LMC Ofpe/WN9 stars partly overlapping with the Crowther et al. sample. These He contents are only marginally larger than ours, and are certainly lower than the values of @paco97. Concerning the mass loss rates, we find that on average [$\dot{M}$]{} is systematically smaller than in the @paul97 and @pasquali97 studies. This difference is surprising since the lower metallicity of the LMC should lead to *lower* mass loss rates. Combined with the slightly larger He content, this may be an indication of a more advanced evolution. Another indicator points to the same conclusion: the terminal velocities of the GC Ofpe/WN9 stars are usually larger than for stars of the same spectral type [see @pasquali97; @bresolin02]. Interestingly enough, the only Galactic star of this type studied by @paul97 had a much larger [$v_{\infty}$]{} than the LMC stars. @danielstsci explained such a trend by a more advanced evolution in the Ofpe/WN9 phase for stars in the LMC, with the consequence of greater proximity to the Eddington limit and implying a lower terminal velocity.
In conclusion, in view of our study, the class of Ofpe/WN9 seems to be more homogeneous than previously believed. The difference between GC and LMC Ofpe/WN9 stars is likely due to a different state of chemical evolution: massive stars become Ofpe/WN9 stars later in a low Z environment such as the LMC, mainly due to lower mass loss rates.
An evolutionary link between Ofpe/WN9 and WN8 stars {#dis_wn8}
---------------------------------------------------
On the basis of their K band morphology, all of the initial “” stars have been classified as either Ofpe/WN9 or WN8 stars by @pgm06. These two spectral types are indeed characteristic of relatively cool evolved massive stars. In the K band, they are defined by strong and [Br$_{\gamma}$]{} emission lines. The relative intensity of these different lines is similar in both spectral types: [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} is usually stronger than [Br$_{\gamma}$]{}, while [ 2.112 $\mu m$]{}is weaker or of equal strength. The main differences are 1) the shape of the lines (Ofpe/WN9 stars show P-Cygni profiles in the lines, while WN8 stars have strong pure emission lines), 2) their width (WN8 stars have broader lines), 3) their absolute strength (stronger lines in WN8 stars) and 4) the presence of weak He[ii]{} lines in WN8 stars. Inspection of Table \[tab\_res\] reveals that quantitatively, these morphological differences are due to larger mass loss rates (and to a lesser extent wind terminal velocities) as well as higher effective temperatures for WN8 stars. Indeed, [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} ranges from 30000 to 41000 K for WN8 stars, while they are lower than 30000 K for Ofpe/WN9 stars. Mass loss rates are $\sim$ 2-4 times smaller in Ofpe/WN9 stars. Luminosities are also slightly lower in WN8 stars. This comparison indicates that Ofpe/WN9 stars and WN8 stars may be physically related and may well represent consecutive phases of a single evolutionary sequence.
Fig. \[XH\_L\] displays the H content as a function of luminosity in evolutionary models (solid lines) and shows the position of the Ofpe/WN9 and WN8 stars. It is clear that both types of stars gather in different parts of the diagram: Ofpe/WN9 stars still show a significant amount of hydrogen in their atmospheres whereas WN8 stars are mainly H free. This can be interpreted as an evolutionary sequence where Ofpe/WN9 stars evolve into WN8 stars. Such a scenario would be consistent with the properties reported above. Ofpe/WN9 stars could well be on the cool part of an evolutionary track. This track will then loop back to the hot part of the HR diagram. As a star follows this track, it evolves chemically, gets hotter and strengthen its wind on its way to the WR phase. The hotter [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} and larger [$\dot{M}$]{}explains the appearance of He[ii]{} lines and the stronger emission lines, and the lower H content reveals the chemical evolution of the star. In this scenario, the AF star could be in an intermediate state. Its spectral morphology is similar to WN8 stars except that it does not show He[ii]{} lines, indicating a relatively cool [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}(confirmed by the quantitative analysis, see Table \[tab\_res\]). Its mass loss rate is also more typical of WN8 stars. In Fig. \[XH\_L\], the AF star lies in between the groups of Ofpe/WN9 and WN8 stars, with a H mass fraction $\lesssim$ 0.3. Hence, it is also more evolved than Ofpe/WN9 stars, but less than WN8 stars, and nicely fits in the evolutionary scenario we suggest.
Another argument in favour of this scenario is the variability of both types of objects. On the one hand, the Ofpe/WN9 stars in the Galactic Center have been claimed to be LBV candidates, or even LBVs in a quiescent phase [@paumard04; @trippe06]. This is based on spectral similarities between these stars and objects elsewhere in the Galaxy and LMC known to be related to LBV stars. Besides, one of them – IRS34W – was shown to be photometrically variable on timescales of months-years. @trippe06 interpreted that as a sign of obscuration by dust produced in material ejected in an LBV-type outburst of the star. On the other hand, WN8 stars are known to be the class of Wolf-Rayet stars experiencing the strongest variability [@ant95; @march98]. This high degree of variability may be related to the LBV phenomenon. A link between WN8 stars and LBVs is also favoured by the presence of LBV-like nebulosities around most of them [@paul95_wnl].
We thus argue that the GC Ofpe/WN9 stars are precursors of WN8 stars, and are in a state closely related to the LBV phase. This picture is fully consistent with the scenario of @paul95_wnl, further extended by @paul97: a 25-60 [M\_ M$_{\odot}$]{} star evolves into a WN9-11 star [similar to Ofpe/WN9, see @paul95_ofpe] before experiencing a LBV phase and becoming a WN8 Wolf-Rayet star. The properties of the WN8 stars analysed by @paul95_wnl and @herald01 are very similar to those of our sample WN8 stars. The only difference is a larger spread in H content: while we find all WN8 to be almost H free, @paul95_wnl have both H free stars and stars still showing a significant amount of hydrogen. @herald01 also found X(H) $\sim$ 20% by mass. However, this H content remains much lower than in the GC Ofpe/WN9 stars. Hence, the suggested evolutionary scenario remains valid.
![Hydrogen mass fraction as a function of luminosity. Solid lines are the Geneva evolutionary tracks with rotation and $Z = Z_{\odot}$ [@mm05]. The ZAMS masses for each track are indicated. Stars show the position of the Ofpe/WN9 stars (IRS16C, IRS16NW, IRS33SE, IRS34W, AF) analysed here, while the triangles are the WN8 stars of our sample. The AF star lies at [ $\log \frac{L}{L_{\odot}}$]{} = 5.3 and X(H)=0.3. See Sect. \[dis\_tracks\] for discussion. \[XH\_L\]](XH_L.eps){width="9cm"}
WN/C stars {#dis_wnc}
----------
WN/C stars are Wolf-Rayet stars showing both strong C and N lines [@mg89; @willis90]. Carbon is produced by the triple $\alpha$ reaction, while Nitrogen results mainly from CNO processing. It is widely accepted that WN/C stars are core He burning stars with a CNO-enriched envelope in which mixing processes have created a layer with both H and He burning products. When mass loss reveals this layer, the star turns into a WN/C star [@langer91; @mm03; @mm05]. Quantitatively, such WN/C stars have C/N ratios of the order 1.
For a long time, the fraction of WR stars in the WN/C state observed in the Galaxy has been difficult to explain with evolutionary models. Abundance profiles in such models were usually very steep in the transition region between H and He burning products, so that the region where both type of products were present was extremely thin. Consequently, it was quickly removed by the stellar wind, resulting in a very short lifetime of the WN/C phase. Consequently, the number of WN/C stars predicted by such models was much lower than the observed value. Significant improvements have been made in the last years mainly due to the inclusion of mixing processes triggered by rotation. @mm03 have shown that rotation created shallower abundance gradients in stellar interiors, increasing the size of the mixed H and He burning products. As a consequence, the lifetime of the WN/C phase is lengthened, resulting in a total number of WN/C stars in better agreement with observations.
What about the GC Wolf-Rayet population? Our analysis of IRS15SW and IRS7SW has revealed that they were significantly enriched in Carbon compared to other WN stars, leading to a classification as WN8/WC9 stars. Fig. \[CN\_CHe\] shows the position of our sample stars in a $\log \rm{C/N} - \log \rm{C/He}$ diagram. It turns out that IRS15SW and IRS7SW lie in between WN stars (stars with low C content) and the C-rich WC9 stars. Their position is also in excellent agreement with WR8 and WR145, two WN/C stars studied by @paul95_wnc, and with the prediction of evolutionary models. Hence we have a quantitative confirmation that IRS15SW and IRS7SW are core He burning objects on their way to a WC phase. @mm03 argue that only stars with initial masses in the range 30-60 [M\_ M$_{\odot}$]{} go through the WN/C phase: more massive stars have very strong winds that quickly remove the CNO enriched envelope; lower mass stars have a too H-rich envelope and He burning products are too diluted. Estimates of the present-day masses of IRS15SW and IRS7SW from the mass luminosity relation of @hl96 for H free WR stars gives 10.3 and 20.0 [M\_ M$_{\odot}$]{} respectively, implying that these stars have lost 30 to 80 $\%$ of their mass through stellar winds.
If we compare the properties of IRS15SW and IRS7SW to WR8 and WR145 [see @paul95_wnc], the luminosities are all similar, in the range $10^{5.1-5.5}$ [L\_ L$_{\odot}$]{}, which in turn implies that the present-day mass of these four objects are also very close (10 - 20 [M\_ M$_{\odot}$]{}). The clumping corrected mass loss rates are also similar, with $\log
\dot{M}/\sqrt{f} \sim\ -4.3$. However, the terminal velocities of the GC stars are smaller than for WR8 and WR145 (700-800 [km s$^{-1}$]{} as opposed to 1390-1590 [km s$^{-1}$]{}) as well as the stellar temperatures (32-37 kK vs 41-48 kK). These differences reflect the different spectral types of the two samples: while the GC WN/C stars are late type WR stars (WN8/WC9), WR8 and WR145 are earlier [WN6/WC4, see @paul95_wnc]. Earlier WN and WC type stars have higher effective temperatures and larger terminal velocities (see Fig.\[vinf\_wr\]). This can explain the observed trend: both types of stars (early and late WN/C stars) have the same luminosity but early WN/C stars are hotter, which implies that their radius is smaller. Consequently, their escape velocity, scaling as $(M/R)^{0.5}$, is larger (the present mass being approximately the same). Since the terminal velocity is directly proportional to the escape velocity, one naturally finds larger [$v_{\infty}$]{} in early WN/C stars.
We argue that the GC WN/C stars are most likely the descendents of WN8 stars. Their spectral morphology is extremely similar, except for the presence of and lines in the WN/C stars. The quantitative analysis confirms their “twin” character: the ranges of values for [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} luminosities, mass loss rates, terminal velocities, He and N content are the same for both WN8 and WN/C stars (see Table \[tab\_res\]). The only possible exceptions are IRS13E2 (but see discussion in Sect. \[dis\_irs13\]) and IRS9W. Fig. \[CN\_CHe\] shows that the WN/C stars are more chemically evolved than WN stars. Hence, we conclude that most of the GC WN8 stars will go through a WN/C phase as two of them are currently doing.\
Summarizing the last three Sections, we argue that in the Galactic Center, stars with initial masses in the range 30 – 60 [M\_ M$_{\odot}$]{} follow the evolutionary sequence
(Ofpe/WN9 $\rightleftharpoons$ LBV) $\rightarrow$ WN8 $\rightarrow$ WN/C
on their way to the supernova explosion. On the main sequence, they probably appear as mid/early O stars. After the WN/C phase, they most likely become late WC stars. Indeed the effective temperatures of WN/C stars are slightly lower than the WC9 stars of our sample. Hence, we can expect them to enter the WC sequence from the low ionisation (or equivalently the low [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}) side and appear as WC9 stars. The (Ofpe/WN9 $\rightleftharpoons$ LBV) sequence in the suggested scenario indicates that Ofpe/WN9 and LBV stars are closely inter-related and most likely represent different states of a single evolutionary phase [see discussion in @trippe06].
![$\log \rm{C/N}$ as a function of $\log \rm{C/He}$ (by number) from evolutionary tracks with rotation (dot-dashed line) from @mm05. Filled symbols are the WR stars analysed in the present paper (triangles: WN stars; diamonds: WN/C stars; circles: WC9 stars). Open diamonds are the WN/C stars WR8 and WR145 from @paul95_wnc. IRS7SW and IRS15SW, the two WN/C stars of our sample, have C/N and C/He ratios very similar to WR8 and WR145. The GC WN stars all lie at $\log \rm{C/He} \lesssim\ -3$. For these stars, we have only upper limits on the C abundance, and consequently on $\log \rm{C/N}$ and $\log \rm{C/He}$. The WC9 stars analysed here have large C/He ratios and only lower limits on C/N since no N lines are present in the spectra and only an upper limit on the N abundances can be estimated. \[CN\_CHe\]](CN_CHe.eps){width="9cm"}
Are stellar evolutionary tracks too luminous? {#dis_tracks}
---------------------------------------------
The direct comparison between derived parameters and evolutionary tracks by means of a classical HR diagram ($\log L - log {\ifmmode T_{\rm eff} \else T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$\fi}$) is not straightforward for Wolf-Rayet stars. In evolutionary models, the “effective” temperature (noted T$_{\rm evol}$ in the present discussion) is defined at the outer boundary by Eq.\[eq:Tstar\]. However, there is no atmosphere in such models and strictly speaking, the radius in this case (noted R$_{\rm evol}$) is not the one for which the optical depth is equal to 2/3 (exact definition of [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}). It corresponds more to a hydrostatic radius. In Wolf-Rayet stars, such a radius – for which the atmosphere is quasi-static – is at an optical depth much larger than 2/3. Said differently, R$_{2/3}$ for which [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} can be defined is much larger than R$_{\rm evol}$. Consequently, [T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} is lower than T$_{\rm
evol}$. To overcome this problem, one usually defines a radius R$_{\star}$ (and the corresponding temperature T$_{\star}$, see Eq.\[eq:Tstar\]) at an optical depth equal to 20. Such a radius is more comparable to R$_{\rm evol}$ so that T$_{\star}$ and T$_{\rm evol}$ can be directly compared.
In Fig. \[hr\_diag\], we show the HR diagram built using T$_{\star}$ for our program stars (See Table \[tab\_res\]). They are shown by the filled symbols (see next Section for a discussion of the two stars represented by open symbols). The evolutionary tracks including rotation of @mm05 for solar metallicity (left) and twice solar metallicity (right) are overplotted. In the diagram at $Z =
Z_{\odot}$, we clearly see that the Ofpe/WN9 stars populate the coolest region, while the more evolved Wolf-Rayet stars are hotter and, on average, less luminous. Qualitatively, this trend is similar to the 40 [M\_ M$_{\odot}$]{} track: coming back from its redward extension, this track goes to lower temperatures. However, this track, as well as the ones for other masses, always remains at $\log L/L_{\odot} > 5.4$, in contrast to most of the Wolf-Rayet stars of our sample which have $
5.1 < \log L/L_{\odot} < 5.5$. Hence, we see that quantitatively the solar metallicity evolutionary tracks do not seem to explain the evolution of the GC Wolf-Rayet stars. Note that this is independent of any definition of the temperature, since the problem is due to luminosities.
If we now focus on the HR diagram where the $Z = 2 \times\ Z_{\odot}$ metallicity tracks are plotted, we see that lower luminosities are reached. This is due to the stronger mass loss rates in these tracks which “peel off” the star more quickly, reducing its radius and consequently its luminosity. Does that mean that the GC stars have a supersolar metallicity? We will see in Sect. \[dis\_z\] that the question is still largely debated. The position of the GC Wolf-Rayet stars in the HR diagram may be an indication of a super-solar environment. But this can also be due to inadequate mass loss rates in evolutionary calculation at solar metallicity. If the amount of mass lost during the Wolf-Rayet phase is underestimated in such calculations, the tracks will be too luminous. Large [$\dot{M}$]{} can be produced by a fast rotation [see @mm00], but the analysis of OB stars average spectrum do not point to any particularly high [$V$ sin$i$]{} (see Sect. \[dis\_ob\]). As long as the GC metallicity remains poorly constrained, a quantitative test of evolutionary tracks and their input parameters, such as mass loss rates, is thus not feasible. We will see in Sect. \[dis\_z\] that more work is needed to narrow the range of acceptable values for Z in the Galactic Center.
{width="9cm"}
{width="9cm"}
The stars of IRS13E {#dis_irs13}
-------------------
In the previous Section, we have deliberately excluded two stars from the discussion: the ones represented by open symbols in Fig.\[hr\_diag\]. These stars are the two Wolf-Rayet components of the cluster IRS13E, namely IRS13E2 and IRS13E4. The reason is that they show peculiar properties compared to the bulk of the GC Wolf-Rayet stars. Take first IRS13E2. It is a WN8 star (see its spectrum in Fig. \[fit\_13e2\_K\]) with parameters in marginal agreement with the other WN8 stars of our sample, with the notable exception of its luminosity ($\log L/L_{\odot} = 6.1$) which is much larger than the range of values for WN8 stars [5.1-5.5, see Table \[tab\_res\] and @paul95_wnl]. The same statement is true for IRS13E4. It is a WC9 star but exceptionally bright: while most stars of this type have $\log L/L_{\odot} = 5.0$ [see an example in @paulwc9], IRS13E4 is nearly 10 times more luminous. In addition, it shows a large, although not unprecedented, terminal velocity (see Fig. \[vinf\_wr\]).
How can we interpret these results? First, the most obvious explanation is binarity. IRS13E was initially thought to be a single star [@krabbe91] before being resolved into several components [@maillard04]. The cluster is extremely compact and it is quite possible that the bright components might actually be multiple stars. But even with better spatially reduced images, it may not be sufficient to distinguish between the components of a massive binary. Spectrophotometric monitoring should then be used to test the binary hypothesis. So far, IRS13E2 and IRS13E4 (Fig. \[fit\_13e2\_K\] and \[fit\_13e4\]) do not show any sign of double line spectrum. In addition, photometric observations over the recent years (but with a very coarse sampling) show a flat light-curve for both stars (Trippe et al., in prep.). Better monitoring is required, but so far no clear evidence for binarity exists for IRS13E2 and IRS13En.
But the most important factor was mentioned in Sect. \[res\_WC\]: dust contamination. There is evidence of a large dust content in IRS13E which may affect the infrared spectra of its stellar components. As a consequence, the luminosities are most likely upper limits. However, the luminosity difference between IRS13E4 and IRS7W is 0.7 dex, or a factor of 5. Assuming that both stars have the same luminosity and same spectral energy distribution, this means that the total K band flux is 5 times larger than the stellar+wind flux. This is exactly what is found by @paulwc9 in their analysis of the WC9 star HD164270: dust contributes 80% of the continuum. Note that their estimate is at 3 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{} and not in the K-band, where dust contamination is smaller. But @paulwc9 also claim that HD164270 has a weak dust shell compared to other dusty WC stars. Hence, for a typical WC star a 80 % dust contribution to the K band continuum is not unrealistic.
Although further high spatial resolution photometric data in the near/mid IR range are needed to establish the true SED of each component, it is likely that dust explains most of the peculiar properties of the IRS13E Wolf-Rayet stars.
Metallicity in the central parsec {#dis_z}
=================================
We first present a determination of the global metallicity in the GC by means of WN stars, and we then discuss its effect on [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{}.
Metallicity from N content of WN stars {#dis_z_N}
--------------------------------------
@paco04 presented a new method for deriving metallicity in evolved massive stars. Their idea relies on the fact that the surface Nitrogen content of massive stars reaches a maximum during evolution due to production of N through the CNO cycle. Observationally, this maximum is obtained in WN stars. Its exact value is independent of the initial mass and of the wind properties. It changes with the initial metal content since the amount of Nitrogen synthesized is directly linked to the initial CNO content. Hence, the comparison of derived N abundances in WN stars to evolutionary tracks is an indirect tracer of the initial metallicity.
In Table \[tab\_res\] we list our derived Nitrogen mass fraction. Only for WN stars such an estimate could be performed due to the presence of lines in the K band spectrum, especially [ 2.247, 2.251 $\mu m$]{}. For most stars, we have $X(N) \approx 0.0135$, with the exception of IRS15SW and AFNW which show a larger N content (up to 0.0326). However, for the latter star the uncertainty on the N abundance determination is quite large due to the low resolution and low S/N ratio of our spectrum. A direct comparison of this range of values to predictions of surface enrichment in evolutionary models [see e.g. Fig. 4 of @paco04] indicates an initial metallicity between solar and twice solar. If IRS15SW and AFNW are not taken into account, then a solar metallicity is favoured. Strictly speaking, we derive a lower limit since one cannot be sure that all WN stars have reached the phase in which their surface N abundance is maximum. Indeed, although this phase is long for initially very massive stars, it is quite short for stars with M $\sim$ 20-50 [M\_ M$_{\odot}$]{}which is more appropriate for our WN8 stars. In conclusion, we estimate the stellar GC metallicity to be *at least* solar. Stronger constraints cannot be derived from the present set of data/models.
Stellar studies usually indicate a solar metallicity for the GC. @paco04 found $Z=Z_{\sun}$ for WN stars in the Arches cluster. This is also comparable to the determinations of @carr00 and @ramirez00 who also derived a solar \[Fe/H\] from the study of Iron lines in red supergiants in the central 2.5 pc.
Abundances have also been derived from interstellar gas studies. @sf94 derived solar Ne content and twice solar Ar and N based on photoionisation models aimed at reproducing nebular fine structure lines in the mid infrared. However, improvements in the knowledge of the Ar collisional strengths led to a revision of the Ar abundance down to a nearly solar value [see discussion in @carr00]. This is to be contrasted by the recent analysis of ISO data by @giveon02 who found Ne $\sim$ 1.4 Ne$_{\odot}$ and Ar $\sim$ 2.5 Ar$_{\odot}$. Similarly, @leticia03 revised the Galactic metallicity gradients. Extrapolating their results to the Galactic Center, one should expect $n(\rm{Ne/H}) \sim n(\rm{Ar/H})
\sim 1.5-2.5 Z_{\odot}$ and $n(\rm{N/H}) \sim 5 Z_{\odot}$.
Finally, observations of K shell Fe lines by Chandra have been used by @maeda02 to derive an Iron constant as large as 4 times solar for the H [ii]{} region SgrA East. Such a large metallicity was recently confirmed on a larger scale by X-ray observations with Suzaku [@koyama06].
Clearly, the measurement of the metallicity in the Galactic Center needs more investigation. We have seen in Sect. \[16c\] and \[15ne\] that individual elemental abundances could be super-solar (Mg, Si). But the uncertainties associated to these estimates did not allow a reliable statement. The use of high signal to noise, high spectral resolution data is mandatory in order to resolve weak metallic lines of Ofpe/WN9 stars, red supergiants as well as AGB stars. The distinction between $\alpha$ element and Iron abundances is also crucial. $\alpha$ elements are essentially produced in massive stars while Iron is mainly synthesized in low mass stars during the type Ia supernova phase. The ratio of $\alpha$ elements to Iron abundances is thus an indirect tracer of the slope of the IMF.
Metallicity effect on [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} {#dis_z_hei}
----------------------------------------
We have seen in Sect. \[9w\] that [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} is extremely sensitive to the metal content. Indeed, the higher the metallicity, the stronger the line emission so that $Z = 2 \times\ Z_{\odot}$ was actually preferred for IRS9W. Such a behavior was previously noted by @cbp98 and @bc99 and was attributed to the sensitivity of [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} to the EUV radiation field, which in turn depends critically on the heavy-metal content. Fig. \[line\_form\_9w\] shows the He ionisation and temperature structure of the models for IRS9W with $Z =
Z_{\odot}$ and $Z = 2 \times\ Z_{\odot}$. This figure helps us understand in detail what happens when the metal content is increased. Due to the larger blocking of radiation by metal opacities, the EUV flux is reduced which reduces the ionisation in the outer part of the atmosphere (see lower panel of Fig.\[line\_form\_9w\]). In addition, the escape of radiation through metallic lines is favored so that the efficiency of line cooling is enhanced, leading to a reduction of the temperature for $\log
\tau_{\rm Rosseland} \leq\ -1.0$ (upper panel of Fig.\[line\_form\_9w\]). Both effects (line cooling and line blocking) increase the content in the outer atmosphere. In Fig.\[line\_form\_9w\], we also indicate the line formation region of [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} and [ 2.189 $\mu m$]{}. We see that [ 2.189 $\mu m$]{} emerges from a zone where the atmospheric structure is barely modified, so that its strength is similar in both models (see Fig. \[fit\_9w\_K\]). On the other hand, [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} is produced in the outer atmosphere where the amount of He [i]{} is larger in the $Z = 2 \times\ Z_{\odot}$ model. Consequently, [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} is stronger in the high metallicity model. Note that this explanation is fully consistent with the approach of @paco94: when metallicity is increased, the content increases which leads to a decrease of the escape probability of the 584 Å line controlling the upper level of [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} – being the dominant ionisation state. This implies a stronger emission at 2.058 [[m]{} $\mu \rm{m}$]{}[see Eq. 2 of @paco94].
Does that mean that a twice solar metallicity should be adopted for IRS9W? This would be an over-interpretation of the results. Indeed, what the previous exercise reveals is that [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} is extremely sensitive to the EUV radiation. We cannot be absolutely sure that we correctly predict this part of the spectrum. Indeed, our models are limited in the sense that we cannot include *all* lines from *all* elements. [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} may also suffer from inaccuracies in metal atomic data. Hence, it may well be that increasing the metal content artificially compensates for the lack of metallic lines / elements. Besides, we have discussed only one example for which a larger metal content improves the fit of [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{}. But there are other stars (e.g. IRS7E2) for which having a higher Z does not help, [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{}remaining too weak. Hence, we conclude that the metallicity cannot be accurately derived from its effect on [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{}.
![Temperature (upper panel) and He ionisation (lower panel) structure of the best fit model for IRS9W. The solid line is the model with solar metallicity, while the dashed line is for $Z = 2 \times\ Z_{\odot}$. In the upper panel, the line formation regions of [ 2.058 $\mu m$]{} and [ 2.189 $\mu m$]{} are indicated by horizontal lines. \[line\_form\_9w\]](line_form_9w.eps){width="9cm"}
Wind properties of Wolf-Rayet stars {#dis_wind}
===================================
We have derived the wind properties of a homogeneous and reasonably large sample of Wolf-Rayet stars, mainly composed of WN and Ofpe/WN9 stars. In order to see if the GC stellar winds are similar to other Galactic WR stars, we inspect the behavior of the terminal velocities and mass loss rates (corrected for clumping).
Terminal velocities for other Galactic stars are taken from the catalog of @vdh and are compared to our sample in Fig.\[vinf\_wr\]. We see that there is a remarkable agreement. We have seen in Sect. \[dis\_ofpe\] that [$v_{\infty}$]{} is usually larger in the GC than in the LMC for Ofpe/WN9 stars, but this was at least qualitatively explained by a different metallicity/evolutionary state. We then conclude that the terminal velocities of the GC Wolf-Rayet stars are identical to other Galactic stars.
The mass loss rates of WN and Ofpe/WN9 stars are shown in Fig.\[mdot\_L\] as a function of luminosity [^5]. We also plot the results of @paul95_wne, @paul95_wnl, @morris00, (all in blue open symbols) and @hamann06 (black filled symbols). The GC mass loss rates are in good agreement with the Crowther et al./Morris et al.results for late WN stars (triangles). For early WN stars, the samples are too small to draw any conclusion. On the contrary, there is a large discrepancy between our results and those of @hamann06, at least for late WN stars. This difference is not so much due to the mass loss rates themselves as it is to luminosities. Indeed, both samples have similar values of $M_{\odot}/\sqrt{f}$, but the luminosities in the GC are lower. Since most of the stars of the Hamann et al. sample have poorly constrained distances (only a few are in clusters), while the distance to the GC is accurately known, we argue that the main reason for the observed difference is an overestimate of the luminosities in the Hamann et al. sample. An additional explanation to the GC/Hamann et al. WNL luminosity difference could be that their sample contains several H-rich WN stars. These stars are thought to be very massive stars with a Wolf-Rayet appearance but possibly still core H burning objects on/close to the main sequence [e.g. @moffat06]. Such stars are expected to be very luminous. However, they usually have spectral subtypes earlier than WN7 [e.g. @cd98]. A significant fraction of the very luminous stars in the Hamann et al. sample (represented by filled triangles around [ $\log \frac{L}{L_{\odot}}$]{} $\sim$ 6.0-6.2 in Fig.\[mdot\_L\]) do not fall into this category (they are later WN stars). Their luminosity is thus most likely overestimated due to poorly known distance.
In Fig. \[mdot\_L\], we also plot the mass loss rates of the GC Ofpe/WN9 stars together with Galactic O supergiants. We see that in terms of [$\dot{M}$]{}, the Ofpe/WN9 stars are closer to O stars than to WN stars. This is another indication that Ofpe/WN9 stars are precursors of WN8 stars as we have argued in Sect. \[dis\_wn8\].
![Terminal velocity of GC WR stars (filled symbols) and other Galactic stars (open symbols) as a function of spectral type. The data for galactic stars are taken from the compilation of @vdh. Upper panel: WN stars; Lower panel: WC stars.\[vinf\_wr\]](vinf_wr.eps){width="9cm"}
![Mass loss rate corrected for clumping ($\dot{M}/\sqrt{f}$) as a function of luminosity for GC WN stars (red filled symbols) compared to other Galactic Wolf-Rayet stars (blue and black symbols) and O supergiants (magenta star symbols). Comparison data from @paul95_wnl, @paul95_wne, @morris00 for WN stars and @repolust04, @jc05 for O supergiants are shown by open symbols. The results of @hamann06 (WN stars) are displayed by the black filled symbols. Early WN stars ($\leq$WN7) are shown by triangles, while late WN stars ($\geq$WN8) are circles. Ofpe/WN9 stars are star symbols and O supergiants are open asterisks. \[mdot\_L\]](Mdot_f_L_WN.eps){width="9cm"}
He abundance in OB stars {#dis_ob}
========================
We have seen in Sect. \[OBIa\] that the stellar and wind parameters of the average OB stars in the central parsec were not strongly constrained. Most of them have only upper limits ([T\_[eff]{} T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}, [$\dot{M}$]{}). For the helium content, we could estimate $X(He) \simeq 0.2-0.35$. This value is larger than the standard solar abundance (0.1).
Since OB supergiants are massive stars evolving away from the main sequence, chemical enrichment is the most likely explanation. The question is whether or not the amount of He observed is consistent with such a mechanism. In that respect, the inclusion of rotation in evolutionary models is a key ingredient since it triggers additional mixing which modifies the He surface abundance X(He). In the recent models of @mm05, X(He) evolves slowly from the initial value during all the “O” phase, and then dramatically increases when the star enters the Wolf-Rayet phase. At the end of the O phase, a He content as large as 0.3-0.4 can be obtained. This is compatible with our derived value. We have also seen in Sect. \[OBIa\] that the average projected rotational velocity of the brightest OB supergiants was of the order 100 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. Inspection of Fig. 1 of @mm03 reveals that after 4-8 Myrs (age of the GC population of early type stars), stars with initial masses in the range 25-60 [M\_ M$_{\odot}$]{}(appropriate for the OB supergiants) have indeed [$V$ sin$i$]{} between 40 and 200 [km s$^{-1}$]{} (depending on the exact age / mass). This is another indication that 1) the evolutionary tracks with rotation are adequate for the present discussion, and 2) that the GC massive stars do not have exceptionally large rotational velocities, as could be suspected for such a dense environment where interactions should be frequent.
How does our He determination compare to other analyses of massive stars? The answer is given in Fig. \[HeH\_liter\]. Blue circles show the He content of Galactic O supergiants. It is important to note that the uncertainty usually quoted in such determinations is $\pm0.05-0.1$. The circle with the error bars in Fig. \[HeH\_liter\] represents the average OB supergiants in the GC. We see that although large, the He content of these stars is still compatible with the range of values found for O supergiants. In conclusion, the GC OB supergiants are *on average* similar to other Galactic stars in terms of He enrichment. This abundance is in addition compatible with present evolutionary tracks.
@pgm06 noted that a few OB supergiants had a strong He absorption on the blue side of [Br$_{\gamma}$]{} and suggested that these stars are significantly He-rich. Unfortunately, given the low S/N ratio spectra of these stars, we could not derive quantitative constraints on the He abundance.
![Comparison between derived ratio of He to H abundance (symbol with error bars) of OB supergiants in the Galactic Center to values from other studies [@her01; @jc03; @evans04; @markova04; @repolust04]. Red triangles (green squares; blue circles) are dwarfs (giants; supergiants).\[HeH\_liter\]](HeH_liter.eps){width="9cm"}
Conclusion {#conc}
==========
We have carried out a detailed analysis of 18 evolved massive stars (Ofpe/WN9 and Wolf-Rayet) located in the central parsec of the Galaxy from H and K band spectroscopy obtained with SINFONI on the ESO/VLT. The average spectrum of 10 bright OB supergiants was also examined. For quantitative analysis, we have used state of the art non-LTE atmosphere models including winds and line-blanketing computed with the code CMFGEN. The main results are:
- The population of massive stars in the central parsec is able to supply the amount of H and He[i]{} ionising photons required to reproduce the nebular emission. The contribution of the bright, cool post-main sequence massive stars, first discovered by @forrest87 and @ahh90 and analysed by @paco97, accounts for only $\sim$4% of the total H ionising flux reconciling stellar evolution with observations in the Galactic Center. State of the art evolutionary and atmosphere models also reconcile the observed stellar content with a population synthesis model of a starburst of age $\sim$ 6 Myrs.
- Ofpe/WN9 stars are evolved massive stars close to a LBV phase. Compared to @paco97, we find they are less He rich, slightly hotter (although the temperature is poorly constrained) and have lower mass loss rates. WN8 stars are found to have properties similar to other Galactic Wolf-Rayet stars of the same spectral type. From morphological as well as quantitative arguments, they are likely the descendents of Ofpe/WN9 stars. Two stars are classified as WN8/WC9 stars. Their quantitative analysis reveals that, as suggested by their spectral type, they show both H and He burning products at their surface. A direct evolutionary link between the GC Ofpe/WN9, WN8 and WN/C stars of the form
(Ofpe/WN9 $\rightleftharpoons$ LBV) $\rightarrow$ WN8 $\rightarrow$ WN/C
is proposed, similar to @paul95_wnl.
- Quantitatively, stellar evolutionary tracks with rotation and $Z = Z_{\odot}$ overpredict the luminosity of the GC Wolf-Rayet stars. Tracks with $Z = 2 \times\ Z_{\odot}$ are more appropriate. This may indicate that the mass loss rates adopted in the current evolutionary tracks during the Wolf-Rayet phase are too low. However, accurate metallicity determinations are needed to solve this issue.
- On average, GC OB supergiants are He rich, but not significantly richer than other galactic supergiants. Their present projected rotational velocities is $\sim$ 100 [km s$^{-1}$]{}. These properties are quantitatively compatible with stellar evolution with rotation on and close to the main sequence.
- The wind properties of WN stars in the Galactic center are very similar to other Galactic stars of the same spectral type. The luminosities of late WN stars are lower in the GC than in the sample of @hamann06 but in good agreement with the results of @paul95_wnl. We argue that the difference with the results of Hamann et al. is due to uncertain distances for their sample stars, while in our case the distance to the GC is well constrained.
Our study has shown that the GC massive stars are, on average, similar to other Galactic stars. This strongly suggests that they follow a common evolution, regardless of their possible different formation process. A key question which remains to be addressed in future studies is the metallicity in the GC. A better knowledge of this parameter is crucial to quantitatively test evolutionary models. It is also crucial in the context of the chemical evolution of the Galaxy. Also important is the study of nebular emission in the GC by means of recently developed 3D photo-ionization models. Our total stellar SED will be a crucial input for such models which will likely constrain the geometry and density of the ionised gas.
We thank F. Najarro for interesting discussions. FM acknowledges support from the Alexander von Humboldt foundation.
[^1]: Other approximations concern the treatment of line profiles, redistribution functions and microturbulence.
[^2]: IRS7W is their WR2 star, and not WR1 as they claim. Their WR1 star is IRS7SW.
[^3]: For that, the model spectra were convolved to take into account both the instrumental resolution and a rotational broadening represented by a simple Gaussian function.
[^4]: the ionisation parameter is defined by $U =
\frac{Q_{\rm H}}{4 \pi r^{2} n c}$ where $r$ is the distance to the ionising source (chosen to be 0.5 pc in our case) and $n$ is the density.
[^5]: our sample of WC stars is too small for a comparison to other Galactic stars to be relevant
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have statistically analyzed the spatially integrated far-infrared (FIR) emissions of the complete volume- and luminosity-limited sample of late-type (later than S0) Virgo cluster galaxies measured using the Infrared Space Observatory (ISO) by Tuffs et al. (2002) in bands centered on 60, 100 & 170${\mu}$m. 30 out of 38 galaxies detected at all three wavelengths contain a cold dust emission component, present within all morphological types of late-type systems ranging from early giant spirals to Blue Compact Dwarfs (BCDs), and which could not have been recognized by IRAS. We fitted the data with a superposition of two modified grey-body functions, physically identified with a localized warm dust emission component associated with HII regions (whose temperature was constrained to be 47K), and a diffuse emission component of cold dust. The cold dust temperatures were found to be broadly distributed, with a median of 18K, some $8-10$K lower than would have been predicted from IRAS. The derived total dust masses are correspondingly increased by factors of typically $6 - 13$. A good linear correlation is found between the “warm FIR” luminosities and the H${\alpha}$ equivalent widths (EW), supporting the assumptions of our constrained spectral energy distribution (SED) fit procedure. We also found a good non-linear correlation between the “cold FIR” luminosities and the H${\alpha}$ EWs, consistent with the prediction of Popescu et al. (2000) that the FIR-submm emission should mainly be due to diffuse non-ionizing UV photons. Both the “warm” and the “cold” FIR luminosity components are non-linearly correlated with the (predominantly non-thermal) radio luminosities. There is a tendency for the temperatures of the cold dust component to become colder, and for the cold dust surface densities (normalized to optical area) to increase for later morphological types. A particularly significant result concerns the low dust temperatures (ranging down to less than $10$K) and large dust masses associated with the Im and BCD galaxies in our sample. We propose two scenarios to account for the FIR characteristics of these systems.'
author:
- 'Cristina C. Popescu'
- 'Richard J. Tuffs, Heinrich J. Völk'
- Daniele Pierini
- 'Barry F. Madore'
title: 'Cold dust in late-type Virgo Cluster galaxies'
---
Introduction
============
IRAS observations led to the belief that dust emission in normal galaxies comes from $\sim30$K dust grains with a total gas-to-dust mass ratio of $\sim10^3$ (e.g. Devereux & Young 1990). This is about one order of magnitude greater than the gas-to-dust mass ratio our Galaxy, a discrepancy which suggested that most of the dust in late-type galaxies had in fact been “overlooked” by IRAS. Indeed, one obvious bias of IRAS studies in general is the lack of spectral coverage longwards of the 100${\mu}$m filter and the three times brighter sensitivity limit in this band compared to the IRAS 60${\mu}$m band. This might translate into a bias against the detection of cold dust with temperatures colder than 30K.
The first observations suggesting the existence of a cold dust component in galaxies were made at sub-millimeter (sub-mm) wavelengths by Chini et al. (1986) using the 3m IRTF (Infrared Telescope Facility) and the UH 88$^{\prime\prime}$ telescope (University of Hawaii). The strong sub-mm emission found in all the observed galaxies could not be accounted for by dust emitting at a uniform temperature and the FIR spectra were interpreted in terms of two dust components of about 16 and 53K. This interpretation suggested that the peak of the FIR emission should be at wavelengths between 100 and 200${\mu}$m. Subsequent sub-mm observations done with the 30m IRAM (Pico Veleta) telescope also suggested the presence of a cold dust component in individual nearby galaxies: NGC 891 (Guélin et al. 1993), NGC 3627 (Sievers et al. 1994), NGC 4631 (Braine et al. 1995), M 51 (Guélin et al. 1995), NGC 4565 (Neininger et al. 1996), NGC 3079 (Braine et al. 1997), NGC 5907 (Dumke et al. 1997). The enhanced sensitivity and overall efficiency improvement of the SCUBA sub-mm array at the JCMT (James Clerk Maxwell Telescope) extended our knowledge of the quantity of cold dust by probing both more “quiescent” galaxies and also by mapping its distribution with higher resolution (Alton et al. 1998a, Israel et al. 1999, Bianchi et al. 2000b, Alton et al. 2001). However, none of these observations directly observed the spectral peak of the FIR emission and thus did not unambiguously distinguish between the two dust components. Observations at 160 and 200${\mu}$m were until recently available only for a few bright objects and were performed with the KAO (NASA-Kuiper Airborne Observatory)(e.g. Engargiola 1991).
The ISOPHOT instrument (Lemke et al. 1996) on board the ISO satellite (Kessler et al. 1996) extended for the first time the wavelength coverage beyond that of IRAS, to 240${\mu}$m, with superior intrinsic sensitivity, and the availability of longer integration times than were possible with IRAS. ISO was thus capable to cover the peak in energy distribution ${\nu}$S$_{\nu}$ for normal galaxies, detecting discrete sources at least 10 times fainter than IRAS at 60 and 100${\mu}$m. First results from ISOPHOT have indeed confirmed the existence of a cold dust component in several nearby normal galaxies: NGC 6946 (Tuffs et al. 1996), M 31 (Haas et al. 1998), or on small samples: Krügel et al. (1998), Siebenmorgen, Krügel & Chini (1999),Contursi et al. (2001). First results from the ISO LWS (Long Wavelength Spectrograph) (Trewhella et al. 2000) are also consistent with the existence of cold dust in normal galaxies. The sample of compact sources with galaxy associations from the ISOPHOT 170${\mu}$m serendipity survey (Stickel et al. 2000) presents statistical evidence for a cold dust component, but the sample was obviously biased towards FIR luminous systems, with uncertain transient corrections in the observations.
In this paper we present statistically significant evidence for the existence of a cold dust component in all galaxies later than S0, i.e. spirals, irregulars and Blue Compact Dwarfs (BCDs). This result comes from our analysis of a complete volume- and luminosity-limited sample of late-type Virgo Cluster galaxies observed by Tuffs et al. (2002) with the ISOPHOT instrument. Our sample is intended to give a more representative statistical analysis of the cold dust component, for a full range in morphological type, and to reach fainter detection limits than previously available. In addition, we present our analysis on data which are for the first time corrected from the transient effects of the detectors, allowing a quantitative and comprehensive evaluation of the cold dust on a relatively deep and unbiased sample.
A main goal for our study is the detailed knowledge of the shape of the FIR SED in galaxies, as well as the distribution and morphology of the cold dust. This is required for understanding the energy budget in galaxies and for modeling the SED over the whole wavelength range. Dust grains can be considered as test particles for the intrinsic radiation fields in galaxies. Therefore observations of their emission in the FIR, combined with optical and ultraviolet (UV) data of the light from stars, attenuated by the grains, should, in principle, strongly constrain the intrinsic distribution of stellar luminosity and dust in galaxies. This would address the fundamental question of the optical thickness of galactic disks and would allow evaluation of intrinsic quantities of interest - the star formation rate (SFR) and the star formation history. This is possible only by combining the new FIR observational results with modeling techniques for the SED from the UV to the FIR/sub-mm range. Different tools have been proposed for analyzing the energy budget of normal galaxies, starting with the pioneering works of Xu & Buat (1995) and Xu & Helou (1996) and continuing with more recent models, like those of Silva et al. (1998), Devriendt et al. (1999), Bianchi et al. (2000a). However, most of these models have made severe simplifications, which ultimately led to contradictory conclusions on the disk opacities and on the origin of the FIR emission.
Recently a new tool for the analysis of the SED in galaxies has been proposed by Popescu et al. (2000). This tool includes solving the radiative-transfer problem for a realistic distribution of absorbers and emitters, considering realistic models for dust (taking into account the grain size distribution and the stochastic heating of small grains) and the contribution of HII regions within star forming complexes. This tool was applied to the edge-on spiral galaxy NGC 891 with the result that most of the cold dust that emits in the sub-mm was embedded in a second disk of dust, associated with the young stellar population and having a very small scale height ($\sim 90$pc). Subsequent application of this tool to a sample of 5 edge-on spiral galaxies (Misiriotis et al. 2001) has shown that the model seems to be generally valid and that the interpretation of the cold dust component should be ultimately analyzed in terms of SED-modeling techniques.
Another astrophysical problem related to cold dust in galaxies is the source of heating of this dust component. Here again, modeling techniques are needed for a detailed and better understanding of this component. Xu & Buat (1995) claimed that the non-ionizing UV photons constitute the main heating source of dust. However, their results were applied only to the IRAS bands, which did not reveal the bulk of the dust mass in normal galaxies, which, as we show in this paper, is in most cases too cold to have been seen by IRAS. With the advantage of the longer wavelengths observations, Popescu et al. (2000) have shown that, for the case of NGC 891, the dust emitting in the $170-850$${\mu}$m regime is also predominantly heated by the UV radiation from the young stellar population. More fundamental is the accompanying result showing that the FIR colors have to be interpreted also in geometrical terms, rather than simply as separate temperature components. The morphology of the cold dust component and its geometrical distribution is a primary goal of the ISOPHOT Virgo project. Especially of interest is the question of whether the cold dust component extends beyond the optical disk of the galaxies, as predicted by the radiative transfer modeling analysis of the optical data of Xilouris et al. (1997, 1998, 1999) or as suggested by Alton et al. (1998a) from the analysis of the sub-mm data. Similar suggestions (Davies et al. 1999, Alton et al. 1998b) have been made on the basis of ISOPHOT maps of several nearby galaxies. However, these maps were not corrected for transient effects of the detector, and therefore both the calibration and the derived scale lengths are uncertain, and they are subject to instrumental effects.
The paper is organized as follows. Sect. 2 presents the main characteristics of our sample used for the statistical analysis of the cold dust component. The observed colors are presented in Sect. 3. In Sect. 4 dust temperatures, masses and luminosities are derived from fitting the SED of our sample galaxies. The distributions in the main derived quantities are presented in Sect. 5, and their dependence on Hubble type is investigated in Sect. 6. Sect. 7 presents the correlation of the FIR luminosity with indicators of the SFR. The implications of our analysis of the cold dust content of Virgo galaxies for our understanding of normal galaxies is discussed in Sect. 8. The summary and conclusions are given in Sect. 9.
Sample definition and photometric accuracy
==========================================
Our sample comprises the late-type Virgo Cluster galaxies observed with the ISOPHOT instrument on board the ISO satellite. Fuller details of the selection criteria, observations, data reductions, and the catalog itself with the resulting photometry is presented in an accompanying paper (Tuffs et al. 2002). Here we give only a short description of the main aspects of the sample definition and FIR photometry relevant for the statistical investigation of cold dust in galaxies.
The observed sample consists of 63 member galaxies selected from the Virgo Cluster catalogue (VCC) (Binggeli, Sandage & Tammann 1985), with Hubble type later than S0. The galaxies were chosen to maximize the likelyhood of their belonging to the main cluster, thus minimizing the spread in distance due to the complex 3D structure (Binggeli, Popescu & Tammann 1993 and references therein). The sample is divided into cluster-core and cluster-periphery subsamples, complete to $B_{\rm T} = 14.5$ and $16.5$, respectively. The 35 observed periphery galaxies are probably freshly falling in from the field (see Tully & Shaya 1984). They are principally comprised of spirals later than Sbc, irregulars and BCDs. The 28 observed core galaxies are essentially seen towards the extended X-ray halo of M 87 and are dominated by spirals of type Sc and earlier.
The observations were done using the C100 and C200 detectors, in ISOPHOT’s “P32” observing mode (Tuffs & Gabriel 2001), which uses the focal plane chopper in conjunction with a spacecraft raster to rapidly sample large areas of sky. The observing wavelengths were 60, 100 and 170${\mu}$m. The “P32” mode allowed the entire optical extent of each target down to the 25.5magarcsec$^{-2}$ B-band isophote and adjacent background to be scanned, while still maintaining a spatial oversampling. This allowed both spatially integrated far-IR photometry as well as information on the morphology of the galaxies in the far-IR to be extracted from the data. This paper is primarily concerned with the integrated photometry, which will include any emission from cold dust in the outer disks, where the radiation fields are weak. The most important aspect of the data reduction described by Tuffs et al. (2002) was the correction of the complex transient response behavior of the Ge:Ga photoconductor detectors of ISOPHOT. Failure to correct for this effect in data taken in the “P32” mode can give rise to serious signal losses and distortions in the derived brightness profiles through the galaxies, which in turn can lead to spurious results on the amount and distribution of cold dust in these systems. Our data are the first from the “P32” mode to have been corrected for these effects. As demonstrated by Tuffs et al. (2002) the transient-corrected photometry correlates well with IRAS observations of the brighter galaxies in our sample in the ISO 60 and 100${\mu}$m pass bands over about two orders of magnitude in integrated flux density.
From the 63 galaxies observed (61 galaxies at all three FIR wavelengths and 2 galaxies only at 100 and 170${\mu}$m) we detected 54 galaxies at least at one wavelength and 40 galaxies at all three wavelengths. From the 40 galaxies detected at all FIR wavelengths, 2 galaxies form an interacting pair (VCC 1673/1676), and their properties will be discussed in a separate paper. In this paper we largely restrict our analysis to the remaining 38 galaxies with detections at 60, 100 and 170${\mu}$m. One galaxy, VCC 1110, was observed at two additional wavelengths, 70 and 120${\mu}$m, in order to have a more detailed knowledge of the shape of the SED. This sample forms the basis for our statistical investigation. In Sect. 6, where we discuss the variation of the FIR properties with Hubble type, we add to our sample of 38 galaxies the 3 galaxies having detections only at 100 and 170${\mu}$m. The latter are introduced to increase the statistics of the BCDs (since all 3 extra galaxies are BCDs). The flux densities and their associated errors are taken from Table 7 of Tuffs et al. (2002), while the morphological types and other optical properties of the sample galaxies can be found in Table 1 of the same paper.
Flux density ratios
===================
Fig. 1a shows the color-color diagram log(F170/F100) vs log(F100/F60), with the 60 and 100${\mu}$m ISO flux densities converted to the IRAS scale.[^1] There is no obvious correlation, but rather a scatter diagram with the logarithm of F100/F60 ranging between $\sim$0 and 0.9 and with the logarithm of F170/F100 ranging between $\sim$0 and 0.6. Three galaxies have unusual warmer F170/F100 colors, with negative logarithmic ratios, below 0. The large scatter in the F100/F60 color can be interpreted as evidence for of a large range in star formation activity. The large scatter in the F170/F100 color indicates that cold dust is present with a large variation in dust temperatures. There is no obvious segregation with morphological type, though the galaxy with the coldest F170/F100 color is a BCD and the galaxies with the warmest F170/F100 colors are early type spirals. Fig. 1b shows for comparison the color-color diagram of a sample of compact sources with galaxy associations detected in the ISOPHOT 170${\mu}$m serendipity survey (Stickel et al. 2000). This is the only statistical sample of galaxies observed at 170${\mu}$m existing in the literature which is also comprised of a large variety of morphological types. We will refer to this sample as to the “serendipity sample”. Nevertheless the selection criteria of our sample is quite different from that of the “serendipity sample”. First of all our sample is a cluster sample, while the “serendipity sample” is mainly representative of the field population. Our sample is a volume- and luminosity-limited sample, selected from an optical catalogue, while the “serendipity sample” is a blind survey at 170${\mu}$m, which will predominantly be biased towards luminous FIR sources. The redshift distribution of the latter sample (see their Fig. 4) shows that, although the majority of sources have low redshifts of $z<0.02$, there is a long tail of redshifts up to $z\approx0.05$. Despite the differences in the selection criteria used for the two samples, it is still useful to compare the samples and investigate their FIR properties.
The color-color diagram of the “serendipity sample’ shows a slight tendency for warmer F100/F60 colors than the Virgo sample and a somewhat smaller (though still substantial) scatter in both colors. The larger scatter in our sample cannot be explained as being due to systematic calibration uncertainties, nor due to random errors (see Fig. 1a). This appears to be a real effect and one could speculate that, if there is a FIR color - FIR luminosity relation, or a relation between spread in FIR color over a population and FIR luminosity, then a sample biased towards higher FIR luminosities (as we expect the “serendipity sample” to be) will not reflect the full intrinsic spread in colors that a deeper sample embracing a larger proportion of low luminosity objects would. This would be consistent with more active star-forming galaxies to have narrower, warmer FIR SEDs.
The spectral energy distribution
================================
The flux densities at 60, 100 and 170${\mu}$m (for a representative selection see Fig. 2[^2]) indicate that for most of the galaxies of our sample the SED in the FIR peaks at wavelengths $>100\,{\mu}$m and cannot be represented by a single modified black-body (Planck) function. The turn-up in the SED beyond 100${\mu}$m is a clear indication of a cold dust component which could not have been detected by IRAS. Perhaps the simplest way of quantifying this cold component would be to fit the FIR SED with 2 modified blackbody functions, one representing the so-called “warm dust” component and the other representing the so-called “cold dust” component. However, such a fit requires 4 free parameters (the amplitudes and temperatures of the “warm” and “cold” components, respectively) while there are only 3 data points available. Obviously there is an infinity of solutions which would fit the data, since the problem is mathematically under-constrained. Sub-mm data would alleviate this problem. However, long wavelength observations are not yet available for our Virgo sample. For one galaxy, VCC 1110, observations with the ISOPHOT C70 and C120 filters were made to obtain a more detailed knowledge on the shape of the SED. For this particular galaxy the fit to the data can provide a unique solution; for all the other galaxies the model fit is not unique. One way to deal with this problem is to fit a modified black-body curve only to the 100 and 170${\mu}$m data, and obtain a lower limit for the amount of cold dust and an upper limit for its temperature. Another possibility is to try to constrain the problem using some physical considerations. We use both procedures and show that they lead to the same statistical results, the differences being in the zero point of the estimated dust masses. We first fitted the 100 and 170${\mu}$m data with one modified black-body function: $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\nu} \sim {\nu}^{\beta} B_{\nu} (T_{\rm D})\end{aligned}$$ with a fixed emissivity index ${\beta}=2$. Since the ISOPHOT flux densities refer to a spectrum with ${\nu}F_{\nu}=$constant, color corrections were first applied to the data. From the amplitude of the fitted modified black-body function dust masses were derived using the formula: $$\begin{aligned}
M_{\rm d} = \frac{4}{3}\,\frac{F_{\nu}\,\rho\,d^2}{Q_{\rm i}}
\lambda^{2}\,B_{\nu}^{-1}(T_{\rm D})\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho$ is the density of the grain material ($3.2\,{\rm g}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ for silicates and $2.3\,{\rm g}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ for graphites), $d$ is the distance to the galaxy, and $Q_{\rm i}$ is the emissivity constant (130${\mu}$m for silicates and 230${\mu}$m for graphites, derived for the FIR/submm regime from Draine 1985 and consistent with the adopted emissivity index $\beta=2$). Dust masses were calculated under the assumption of an interstellar mixture of silicates and graphites. The graphite and silicate abundances were taken from Draine & Lee (1984), namely 53$\%$ silicates ($N_{\rm Si}$) and 47$\%$ graphites ($N_{\rm Graphite}$) which were chosen to fit the extinction curve in our Galaxy and which we also adopted here. Dust masses and temperatures were derived for all our sample galaxies with detected 100 and 170${\mu}$m flux densities which show evidence for two dust temperature components. In deriving dust masses and luminosities we assume that all the galaxies have the same distance, namely $11.5\times {\rm h}^{-1}$Mpc (see Binggeli, Popescu & Tammann 1993), where ${\rm h}={\rm H_0}/100$ and H$_0$ is the Hubble constant.
VCC $T_{\rm D}^{\rm warm}=46.0$K $T_{\rm D}^{\rm warm}=47.0$K $T_{\rm D}^{\rm warm}=48.0$K
----- ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------
152 $T_{\rm D}^{\rm cold}=18.5$K $T_{\rm D}^{\rm cold}=18.5$K $T_{\rm D}^{\rm cold}=18.4$K
$\sigma=0.5$K $\sigma=0.5\,$K $\sigma=0.5$K
318 $T_{\rm D}^{\rm cold}=14.9$K $T_{\rm D}^{\rm cold}=14.9$K $T_{\rm D}^{\rm cold}=14.9$K
$\sigma=0.5$K $\sigma=0.5$K $\sigma=0.5$K
: Examples of the dependence of $T_{\rm D}^{\rm cold}$ on $T_{\rm D}^{\rm warm}$
Secondly we fitted the FIR SED with two modified black-body functions by constraining one parameter of the fit. The most likely constraint is to fix the temperature of the “warm dust” component. As shown by Popescu et al. (2000) for the nearby spiral NGC 891, most of the emission at 60${\mu}$m is due to localized FIR sources within HII regions and star forming complexes ($62\%$). Since these results seem to be valid also for other disk galaxies (Misiriotis et al. 2001) we fixed the temperature of the “warm dust” component by making the assumption that this will represent the temperature of the average HII regions within each galaxy. Obviously this assumption neglects the fact that part of the FIR emission at 60${\mu}$m is also due to dust heated by the diffuse optical radiation in the center of the disk (20% for NGC 891, see Popescu et al. (2000)) and by the diffuse UV radiation field in the outer parts of the disk, where small grains are stochastically heated ($19\%$ for NGC 891, see Popescu et al. (2000)). The temperature of the warm component was fixed to 47K, as it provides the best fits and minimal uncertainty in the fitted parameters for all galaxies. In practice, even relatively large deviations from the 47K temperature of the warm component will not introduce large deviations in the fitted temperature of the cold component; that is, the cold dust component is quite stable against the particular shape of the warm dust component. To demonstrate this we changed the temperature of the warm component to 46 and 48K, respectively. Table 1 shows the results for two galaxies, VCC 152 and VCC 318. The resulting fitted temperatures of the cold component and associated uncertainties are similar. Finally, the quantities derived from this procedure are compared with the fitted parameters from the one modified black-body fit.
The flux densities were again color-corrected and dust masses and temperatures were derived for all sample galaxies with detections at all three wavelengths using the same procedure outlined for one modified black-body fit. The results of the fits are listed in Table 2 and some representative examples of fitted FIR SEDs are plotted in Fig. 2. For the case of VCC 1110, where observations in more than 3 filters were available, we have used the same constrained fit and compared the predictions of the model fit with the available data at 70 and 120${\mu}$m, not used in the fit. Fig. 2 shows a very good agreement between the model predictions and the observations for this galaxy. This test is reassuring for the use of our procedure.
In order to establish whether different fitting procedures introduce internal scatter in the derived parameters of the fit we cross-correlated the dust masses obtained from fitting a single modified black-body function to the 100 and 170${\mu}$m flux densities with the dust masses of the cold component obtained from the two modified black-body fit. The correlation was tested for the galaxies with detections at all three wavelengths and which presented evidence for two dust temperature components. Fig. 3 shows a very tight correlation between the two dust masses, with only a small scatter for low dust masses (correlation coefficient 0.987). Obviously the correlation shows that using a constrained fit will give the same statistical results as the lower limits estimates, with the exception of an uncertainty in the zero point of the dust masses. Therefore for the rest of the paper we will use only the results from the constrained fit.
For 8 galaxies in our sample there was no evidence for two dust components with different temperatures, and their SED was fitted with a single modified black-body function. The parameters of these fits are listed in Table 3. These peculiar galaxies have either a very warm SED which peaks around 100${\mu}$m (VCC 836/1003/1326) or have very cold F100/F60 colors (VCC 1253/1419/1450/1725/1757) such that the 60${\mu}$m data would lie on the same modified black-body curve which is defined by the 100 and 170${\mu}$m flux densities. Most of these one temperature dust component galaxies are early-type spirals in the cluster core, some of them with Sy 2 activity (VCC836/1253) or with peculiar morphologies (VCC 1419/1757). Throughout this paper we will refer to these galaxies as to the “one component” galaxies.
The distributions of dust temperatures, masses and luminosities
===============================================================
Dust temperatures
-----------------
The distribution of the cold dust temperatures ($T^{\rm cold}_{\rm D}$) is shown in Fig. 4a. The “one component” galaxies have a distinct locus in the histogram, since they form the highest temperature tail of the distribution, with values between 20 and 28K. The most extreme example is VCC 1326 (a SBa galaxy in the cluster core) with $T_{\rm D}=34.7$K. For the “two component” galaxies the temperature distribution shows a wide spread in values, ranging from 12K to 21K. The coolest object from the distribution is VCC 655 with $T_{\rm D}^{\rm cold}=12.6$K. This galaxy is classified as a S pec/BCD in the cluster periphery.
The dust temperatures derived for our sample are much lower than those IRAS would have predicted on the basis of the 60 and 100${\mu}$m flux densities only. If we consider our ISO flux densities at 60 and 100${\mu}$m and only one component dust temperature we would derive a temperature distribution with a median of 26K. This should be compared with the median value calculated for our cold dust temperature distribution, of 18.2K - if the “one component” galaxies are included, or 16.7K - if these galaxies are excluded. Thus the cold dust component has a median value $8-10$K colder than IRAS would have predicted for our Virgo sample.
Dust masses
-----------
Most of the dust content in our sample galaxies is in form of cold dust. This can be seen from Table 2, where the tabulated cold dust masses $M_{\rm D}^{\rm cold}$ are $3-4$ orders of magnitude larger than the tabulated warm dust masses $M_{\rm D}^{\rm warm}$. The distribution of cold dust masses is shown in Fig. 4b. As in the temperature distribution, the “one component” galaxies have a distinct locus in the histogram, occupying the lowest mass tail of the distribution, between $4.8 < \log M_{\rm D}^{\rm cold} < 6.3\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\times{\rm h}^{-2}$. For the remaining galaxies the distribution is again very broad, extending 3 orders of magnitude in range, with a peak around $5.8\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\times{\rm h}^{-2}$. The galaxy with the largest amount of cold dust ($1.14\times 10^8\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\times{\rm h}^{-2}$) is VCC 92, an Sb galaxy in the cluster periphery which is also one of the biggest galaxies in our sample, perhaps indicative of a general scaling relation between total dust mass and galaxy size.
The dust masses derived for our sample are larger than those IRAS would have predicted on the basis of the 60 and 100${\mu}$m flux densities alone. Following the same procedure as for the dust temperatures we derive an “IRAS” median value of $2.3\times 10^5\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\times {\rm h}^{-2}$ and an ISO median value of $1.3\times 10^6\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\times {\rm h}^{-2}$ - if the “one component” galaxies are included, or $3.0\times 10^6\,{\rm M}_{\odot}\times {\rm h}^{-2}$ - if these galaxies are excluded. Thus our galaxy sample contains a factor $6 - 13$ more dust (for the median value) than IRAS data alone would suggest. For individual galaxies this factor could be larger.
To compensate for the effect of scaling on the dust mass distribution we have normalized dust masses in the form of dust mass surface densities, $M^{\rm cold}_{\rm D}/D^2$, where D is the major diameter[^3] (in arcmin) of the galaxies measured to the faintest detectable optical surface brightness level of approximately $25.5\,{\rm B}\,{\rm mag}\,{\rm arcsec}^{-2}$. The histogram of the dust mass surface densities (Fig. 4c) still shows a broad distribution, but not as broad as that in Fig. 4b. Except for the last histogram bin (one galaxy), the distribution of “two component” galaxies ranges over 2 orders of magnitudes, indicating an intrinsic variation in the amount of cold dust within galaxies. Again, the “one component” galaxies exhibit the lowest dust mass surface densities. The galaxy with the largest content of cold dust with respect to its optical size is VCC 655.
Another way of normalizing the dust masses is to take the ratio to the HI gas mass.[^4] As for the case of dust mass surface densities, the distribution of dust-to-HI mass ratio $M_{\rm D}/M_{\rm HI}$ (Fig. 4d) for “two component” galaxies shows a broad distribution, ranging over two orders of magnitude. Unlike the dust mass surface densities, the distribution of dust-to-HI mass ratio for “one component” galaxies is more widely spread. The galaxy with the largest dust-to-HI mass ratio is VCC 655.
Dust luminosities
-----------------
For most of our sample galaxies the FIR luminosity of the “cold component” is higher than the FIR luminosity of the “warm component” by factors of between 1.3 and 4.1 (see Table 2). For two galaxies - VCC 655 and VCC 857 - the ratio between the cold and warm FIR luminosities is as high as 6.0 and 6.1, respectively. VCC 655 is the galaxy with the coldest temperature of the cold dust component and the largest amount of dust with respect to its optical size. VCC 857 is a SBb galaxy in the cluster periphery with LINER activity. Despite its activity the galaxy has the highest cold/warm FIR luminosity ratio. By contrast, there are two galaxies that radiate more FIR luminosity in the warm component, namely VCC 1699 (a factor 1.2) and VCC 664 (a factor 2.1). VCC 1699 is a SBm galaxy in the cluster periphery and VCC 664 is a Sc galaxy in the cluster core. One galaxy contributes equal FIR luminosity to the cold and warm component. This is the case for VCC 1554, an Sm galaxy in the cluster periphery.
The distribution of the integrated FIR luminosities for our sample galaxies (Fig. 5a) ranges over $34.0 < \log L_{\rm FIR} < 36.4\,{\rm W}\,{\rm h}^{-2}$. The FIR luminosities of the “cold component” (Fig. 5b) seem to be more widely distributed than the FIR luminosities of the “warm component” (Fig. 5c). This could be partly a consequence of the constraint in the fitting procedure, namely the adopted fixed temperature of the warm component. After normalization to the K$^\prime$ band magnitudes[^5] the distribution of the FIR luminosities (Fig. 5d) becomes slightly narrower for the “two component” galaxies. There is also a hint that the distribution of cold dust normalized luminosity (Fig. 5e) is narrower than that of the warm dust normalized luminosity (Fig. 5f). Apart from a scaling effect this might be due to a contribution of the old stellar population to the heating of cold grains.
FIR properties with respect to Hubble type
==========================================
To study the FIR properties with respect to Hubble type we divide our sample into 4 subsamples corresponding to S0a-Sa, Sab-Sc, Scd-Sm and Im-BCDs bins in Hubble type. Ideally one would like to have very good statistics within each bin in Hubble type. Our sample has obviously the best statistics within the Sab-Sc bin and poor statistics for the Im-BCD bin. The poor statistics in the latter bin is mainly a consequence of the fact that some BCDs are only detected at two wavelengths, or only at one wavelength, and were thus not included in the overall statistics. To improve the statistics of the BCDs and to highlight their unusual properties we have added to our sample the galaxies detected only at two wavelengths (100 and 170${\mu}$m), namely VCC 130/848/1750, all of BCD class. Dust temperatures derived for these galaxies are upper limits and dust masses are lower limits (see Table 3).
The temperatures of the cold dust component (Fig. 6a) have a tendency to become colder for the later types. The early-type spirals have a temperature distribution shifted towards higher dust temperatures, with the coldest temperature only 17.7K and the warmest 33.4K. The broadest temperature distribution is exhibited by the Sab-Sc spirals, with $14 < T_{\rm D}^{\rm cold} < 28$K. The later spirals and irregulars have a distribution shifted towards colder dust temperatures, with the BCDs having the coldest dust temperatures. The BCD VCC 655 has the coldest dust temperature (12.6K) among the galaxies with 3 wavelengths detection. Of the BCDs detected only at two wavelengths, VCC 848 has the coldest dust temperature, 9.9K as an upper limit. The median values of the dust temperatures (Table 4) are in agreement with the early-type spirals having the warmest median temperature and the BCDs having the coldest median temperature.
-------- ------------------ -------------------------------------------------------
type $T_{\rm median}$ $(M/D^2)_{\rm median}$
K M$_{\odot}\times {\rm h}^{-2}\times{\rm arcmin}^{-2}$
S0a-Sa 20.5 $3.4\times10^4$
Sab-Sc 16.1 $3.2\times10^5$
Sd-Sm 18.5 $2.1\times10^5$
Im-BCD 15.9 $1.2\times10^6$
-------- ------------------ -------------------------------------------------------
: Median values for the temperatures and mass surface densities within each bin of Hubble type
The distribution of cold dust masses (Fig. 6b) shows a pronounced effect of the scaling relations, with the Sab-Sc spirals having the largest amount of dust, as expected for more massive galaxies. However, in the dust mass surface density distributions (Fig. 6c) there is a trend for the early spirals to have small dust masses per unit area and for the BCDs to have the larger amounts of dust compared to their optical sizes. The BCDs VCC 655 and VCC 848 are the most extreme examples. The median of the dust mass surface density (Table 4) has the lowest value for the early-type spirals and the largest value for the BCDs. There is no obvious trend in the distributions of the dust-to-HI mass ratio (Fig. 6d) with respect to Hubble type.
The distributions of FIR luminosities (Fig. 7a) are mainly dominated by the scaling effects, with the more massive galaxies (Sbc-Sc) having the larger FIR luminosities. Only after normalization to the K$^{\prime}$-band magnitudes (Fig. 7d) does it become obvious that there is a trend for the early-type spirals to have intrinsically low total FIR luminosities; this is mainly attributable to the “one component” galaxies.
Within the available statistics there was no evidence for a strong segregation between cluster periphery and cluster core galaxies within morphological classes. The only exception might be the tendency for cluster core early type spirals (which are known to have the most extreme HI deficiencies) to be lacking cold dust components.
Correlations with indicators of SFR
===================================
The FIR-H${\alpha}$ correlation
-------------------------------
The H$\alpha$ equivalent widths (EW) measure the strength of the mass-normalized recent ($< 10^8$yr) SFR. To study the correlation between the H$\alpha$ EW and the FIR emission for our sample galaxies we made use of the data available in the literature, namely $\rm H \alpha +$\[NII\] EW obtained from long-slit (from 3 to 7 arcmin) spectroscopy (Kennicutt & Kent 1983) or from CCD imaging (Gavazzi, private communication). Their typical uncertainty is 2${\AA}$. Fig. 8a and 8b show the normalized FIR luminosities of the warm and cold dust components, respectively, versus the H$\alpha$ (+\[NII\]) equivalent widths (EW). The linear correlation found for the warm component is consistent with, and a necessary condition for our original premise for the constrained fit, namely the identification of the warm component with localized HII regions.
To better understand the trends in the correlations we consider below the bolometric energy budget as a function of the recent SFR, in the case of a 3 component model consisting of: locally heated dust in star-forming complexes, diffuse dust heated by the non-ionizing UV photons, and diffuse dust heated by the optical photons. Such a model does not take into account the existence of cold dust associated with clumps (quiescent or associated with molecular clouds), which may need a separate treatment. However, if the cold dust is only in a diffuse component, the relation between SFR and the total FIR energy output can be derived from the following equation: $$\begin{aligned}
L_{\rm FIR}^{\rm tot}=L_{\rm FIR}^{\rm HII}+
L_{\rm FIR}^{\rm UV}+L_{\rm FIR}^{\rm opt}\end{aligned}$$ where $L_{\rm FIR}^{\rm tot}$ is the total FIR luminosity emitted by the galaxy, $L_{\rm FIR}^{\rm HII}$ is the FIR luminosity emitted by the HII regions and star forming complexes, $L_{\rm FIR}^{\rm UV}$ is the FIR luminosity of the diffuse dust component heated by the non-ionizing UV photons and $L_{\rm FIR}^{\rm opt}$ is the FIR luminosity of the diffuse dust component heated by the optical photons. The equation can be further expressed in terms of SFR: $$\begin{aligned}
L_{\rm FIR}^{\rm tot}= SFR \times (L_0 \times F + L_x \times X) +
SFR \times L_0 \times (1-F) \times G_{uv}+L_{\rm FIR}^{\rm opt}\end{aligned}$$ where SFR is the present-day star formation rate in ${\rm M}_{\sun}/{\rm yr}$, $L_0$ and $L_x$ are the non-ionizing and the ionizing UV bolometric luminosities of a young stellar population corresponding to $SFR = 1\,{\rm M}_{\sun}$/yr (which can be derived from population synthesis models), F and X are the fractions of non-ionizing and ionizing UV emission that is absorbed by dust locally within star forming complexes, and the factor $G_{uv}$ is the probability that a non-ionizing UV photon escaping from the star formation complexes will be absorbed by dust in the diffuse interstellar medium. The ionizing UV is thought by most authors to be mainly locally absorbed by gas in the HII regions. Its contribution to $L_{\rm FIR}^{\rm HII}$ is in any case small, and its effect on the heating of dust in the diffuse ISM can be totally neglected.
The warm dust component from our fitting procedure was identified with the dust locally heated within the HII regions, such that $L_{\rm FIR}^{\rm warm}\simeq L_{\rm FIR}^{\rm HII}$. In this case we indeed expect a linear correlation with the SFR and thus with the EW, $$\begin{aligned}
L_{\rm FIR}^{\rm warm}\simeq SFR\times (L_0\times F + L_x\times X)\end{aligned}$$ The scatter in the correlation of Fig. 8a is only to be expected due to the possible contribution of the diffuse component to the 60${\mu}$m band via stochastic emission, heating by the old stellar population (see Popescu et al. 2000), and the likely variation in HII region dust temperatures within and between galaxies (e.g. due to the effect of metallicity on the hardness of the stellar photons and/or due to effects of star-burst age). To this we should add the uncertainty of $\sim0.3$ dex in the value of the H${\alpha}$ EW (due to measurement errors in determining the continuum emission as well as to the \[NII\] contamination), which can also contribute to the scatter.
If the cold dust component is identified with diffuse dust heated by the interstellar radiation field, then: $$\begin{aligned}
L_{\rm FIR}^{\rm cold}\simeq
SFR \times L_0 \times (1-F) \times G_{uv}+L_{\rm FIR}^{\rm opt}\end{aligned}$$
Fig. 8b suggests that there is also a correlation, though non-linear, and with a larger scatter, for the cold component. The correlation coefficient is 0.75 if we consider all the data points or 0.83 if we exclude the extreme point above the correlation (at log EW(H${\alpha}$)=0.7). The excluded galaxy is a BCD, and we have already mentioned the unusual properties of these galaxies. The correlation itself suggests that the cold dust component is predominantly heated by the non-ionizing UV radiation produced by the young stellar population, consistent with the model predictions of Popescu et al. (2000) and Misiriotis et al. (2001). To explain the non-linearity in the correlation based on the model described above we can invoke either a variation of the $G_{uv}$ factor with H${\alpha}$ EW or a strong influence of $L_{\rm FIR}^{\rm opt}$ for small H${\alpha}$ EW. The F factor is taken to be invariant within our sample, an assumption validated by the linear correlation obtained in Fig. 8a. The first possibility would imply that more active galaxies have lower $G_{uv}$ factors (less optically thick disks). This seems unlikely, as starburst galaxies are known to be more optically thick systems compared to normal galaxies. The second possibility simply states that more quiescent galaxies should have a higher contribution from the optical photons in heating the dust. Scatter in the correlation is again to be expected due to the varying contribution of the old stellar population in heating the dust and to some varying degree of clumpiness of the interstellar medium within galaxies.
The FIR-radio correlation
-------------------------
Another important correlation with indicators of SFR is the well known FIR-radio correlation. Discovered during the IRAS mission, the FIR-radio correlation was probed not only in terms of absolute fluxes (e.g. Helou, Soifer & Rowan-Robinson 1985, de Jong et al. 1985, Wunderlich, Wielebinski & Klein 1987) but also in flux per unit galactic mass (Xu et al. 1994). Basically the correlation holds for the integrated emission. The link is qualitatively given by the grain heating associated with the appearance of massive stars and the acceleration of relativistic particles in their eventual SN explosions. However, the tightness of the correlation appears to constrain the characteristics of late-type galaxies to rather more specific properties: an optical thickness of the disk that is of order unity for non-ionizing stellar UV radiation (Xu 1990), a magnetic field energy density that is about equal to that of the radiation field over more than an order of magnitude in dynamic range, and radiative energy losses of the synchrotron electrons that exceed escape losses, so that the galaxies act for both energy inputs as calorimeters (Völk 1989, Lisenfeld, Völk & Xu 1996).
Previous studies of the FIR-radio correlation were confined to the IRAS fluxes, and to FIR luminosites obtained by extrapolating the IRAS fluxes. Our new ISOPHOT data, and in particular our finding of a cold dust component present within all morphological classes naturally raises the question of whether the FIR luminosity associated with the cold component is also correlated with the radio emission. Popescu et al. (2000) have shown that in NGC 891 there is a relative increase of the contribution of the UV photons to the heating of the diffuse interstellar dust with increasing FIR wavelengths, such that in the sub-mm regime the dust emission is mainly powered by the UV photons ($\sim 60\%$). If this is the case one would also predict a tight correlation for the FIR emission of the cold dust component with the radio emission, since the stars mainly responsible for the heating of the cold dust also give rise to most of the radio emission. Fig. 9a, b show a good correlation between the FIR luminosities of both the warm and cold dust components, and the NVSS (NRAO VLA Sky Survey) radio luminosities at 1.4GHz taken from Gavazzi & Boselli (1999). The interpretation of the correlations is limited by the poor statistics, since only 14 galaxies from our sample have NVSS detections. Nevertheless, some interesting features are apparent. First of all, the prediction regarding the validity of the FIR-radio correlation for the cold dust component is confirmed. Secondly, there is a clear non-linearity in both correlations.
The non-linear warm FIR-radio correlation plotted in Fig. 9a ($\rm FIR/radio<1$ and with a correlation coefficient 0.85), is similar (within the poor statistics) to that obtained by Xu, Lisenfeld & Völk (1994). However, the “warm” and “cold” FIR components from Xu et al., as derived from the IRAS observations, are not to be identified with our “warm” and “cold” dust components, despite a common physical justification. The non-linearity of the correlation is an interesting effect, which at present is difficult to explain. Because of the weak dependence of the radio synchrotron intensity on the B field predicted by the original calorimeter theory, consistent with observed radio spectral indices (Lisenfeld & Völk 2000), the non-linearity in the warm FIR-radio correlation should be small. The scatter in the warm FIR-radio correlation has probably several components: the intrinsic scatter of the FIR-radio correlation (see Xu, Lisenfeld & Völk 1994), and, as for the case of the warm-FIR H$\alpha$ correlation, components due to effects of stochastic heating of dust in low density radiation fields and to optical heating of dust in high density radiation fields, in optically thick regions in the very central part of galaxies.
The non-linear cold FIR-radio correlation plotted in Fig. 9b ($\rm FIR/radio<1$ but closer to slope unity and with a correlation coefficient 0.85) is again similar to that obtained by Xu, Lisenfeld & Völk (1994). Unlike the case of the warm FIR-radio correlation, the non-linearity of the cold FIR-radio correlation can be explained by invoking a higher relative contribution to the heating of diffuse dust by the old stellar population in galaxies with lower present day SFR (Xu et al. 1994). The scatter of the correlation has again to be viewed in terms of several components, where one component is attributable to the contribution of varying proportions of optical photons in heating the dust.
Discussion
==========
The statistical analysis of the integrated FIR properties of our Virgo sample unambiguously shows the existence of a cold dust component present in all morphological classes of late-type galaxies, from early spirals to irregulars and BCDs. Here we consider the implications of this analysis for the nature of the cold dust component.
A basic question arising from our analysis concerns the location and morphology of the cold dust component. One argument in favor of a diffuse origin for this component is the lack of a cold component in some Virgo cluster core early type galaxies with HI deficiencies. Though statistics are poor, this may point towards a diffuse dust component which is absent because of stripping. Another hint for a diffuse origin of the cold component is the non-linear correlation between the normalized luminosity of the cold dust component and the H${\alpha}$ EW seen in Fig. 8b, which was interpreted in terms of a diffuse dust component heated by both UV and optical photons, with the main contribution coming from the UV radiation (as predicted by Popescu et al. 2000, Misiriotis et al. 2001). Finally, the cold FIR-radio correlation is again consistent with the predictions of the Popescu et al. (2000) model, where the bulk of the cold FIR emission arises from diffuse dust heated by UV photons.
A fundamental issue is the amount of dust in galaxies. We find large amounts of dust in galaxies, significantly higher than derived from IRAS data alone. The missing dust, not seen by IRAS, is present within all morphological types of galaxies, from early spirals to irregulars and BCDs. However, what we can really measure is dust opacity to starlight, and what we derive as dust mass depends on several assumptions. It is not only the fact that SED fits are ambiguous with respect to a zero point (see Sect. 4), but also the possibility that some dust might be located in compact optically thick sources. In such cases dust may have different optical properties, and in particular ices may be present. These have stronger mass-normalized absorption coefficients in the FIR-submm regime (e.g. Preibisch et. al. 1993), which would reduce the implied dust-to-gas ratios for these regions.
Perhaps the most intriguing result of this investigation are the masses and temperatures of the cold dust derived for the BCD galaxies in our sample. These systems are clearly differentiated from the spirals, having the highest dust mass surface densities (normalized to optical size), and the lowest dust temperatures (ranging down to less than 10K ). This is not the expected behavior for galaxies whose FIR emission is dominated by dust heated locally in HII regions, where one would anticipate temperatures of 30K or more. This was the a priori expectation in particular for the BCDs, and was the standard interpretation for the IRAS results obtained for these systems (see for example Hoffman et al. 1989, Helou et al. 1988, Melisse & Israel 1994, who found that the 60/100${\mu}$m colors of BCDs - including examples from the Virgo cluster - were clearly warmer than for spirals). Our findings indicate a cold dust component supplementary to the warm dust component detected by IRAS. This in itself is not surprising, as it is to be expected that cold dust associated with the star formation regions (SFRs) should be present at some level in association with the molecular component detected in CO. The particularly unexpected aspect of this is rather that the luminosity of the cold dust component should dominate over that of the warm dust, as shown by the failure to detect systems (which are clearly seen at 170 micron), in one or both of the ISOPHOT 60 and 100${\mu}$m bands.[^6] An equally strong observational constraint is given by the ratio of observed luminosity of the cold dust component compared with the observed (i.e. not corrected for intrinsic absorption) luminosity in B-band.[^7] This ranges from 6 to 60 percent over the sample of BCDs.
Here we qualitatively discuss the nature of the cold dust emission detected by ISO in Virgo Im and BCD galaxies, considering in general terms the origin and location of the grains, and their heating. For photon-heated dust, low grain temperatures might be reached in dense clouds opaque to the ambient radiation fields in the galaxies, provided the clouds were quiescent ( i.e. not harboring star forming regions which would give rise to a warm FIR emission component dominating the bolometric output of the clouds.) However, clouds with filling factors of perhaps a few percent would only be expected to intercept and reradiate a corresponding few percent of the UV-optical output of the galaxy. By contrast, perhaps a few tens of percent of the UV-optical output of these systems appears in the cold dust component.
Alternatively, the grains could be distributed in a diffuse component sufficiently extended that the interstellar radiation field (ISRF) would be weak enough to lead to grain temperatures of order 10K or less. Such grains would have to be distributed over dimensions of order 10kpc around the central star-forming area in the BCDs (of extent typically of order a kpc). The grains would be embedded in the surrounding intergalactic medium (IGM), most probably in the putative protogalactic cloud from which the galaxy formed. Such an explanation might explain the extreme cold dust surface densities for Im and BCD galaxies, which would be reduced to values more compatible with spirals if the surface area normalization were to be with respect to a radius compatible with the cold dust temperature rather than with respect to the B-band extent of the galaxies. Furthermore, there is evidence that the 170${\mu}$m emission is resolved in two BCDs, VCC 1 and VCC 848 (see Fig. 5 of Tuffs et al. 2002). However, if such grains are photon-heated, significant optical depths in the diffuse component would be required to convert substantial fractions of the UV-optical output into FIR photons, as observed in some objects. In their sample of 13 field BCDs, Hunter & Hoffman (1999) found E(B-V) to be distributed in the range $0.00 - 0.53$, with evidence for optical colors being affected by a diffuse dust component.
Another possibility to account for FIR emission of the observed luminosity, color and extent would be to invoke collisional, rather than radiative heating for the extended cold dust emission component. In particular, BCD galaxies are thought to undergo sporadic episodes of star formation activity (Mas-Hesse & Kunth 1999), giving rise to a galactic wind which interacts with the protogalactic cloud. This creates a wind bubble containing shocked coronal swept-up gas, in which any embedded grains will be collisionally heated. If collisional grain heating were to constitute the dominant cooling mechanism for the shocked swept up IGM, the observed FIR luminosity and color of the cold dust emission from the Virgo BCD galaxies could be explained.
A detailed description of the circumstances under which such an efficient conversion of mechanical wind luminosity into FIR radiation occurs, is beyond the scope of this paper. The general analytical solutions of Weaver et al. (1977) can be applied to the gas density and temperature profiles of a spherical wind bubble, to explore the conditions under which we may expect the internal energy of the coronal gas in the shocked swept up IGM region to be converted predominantly into FIR radiation, as required by the observations. In essence, this can only occur if sufficient dust is present in the shocked IGM that the timescale for gas cooling through inelastic collisions with grains is both shorter than the timescale for cooling through line emission, as well as being less than or comparable to the dynamical timescale. This scenario would have interesting implications for the interpretation of the integrated FIR emission of dwarf star-forming galaxies in the distant universe, implying that some fraction of the FIR luminosity had a mechanical, rather than photon-powered origin. One immediate observational consequence would be a larger color ratio $L_{\rm FIR}/L_{\rm UV-opt}$ for the ensemble of cosmologically distant dwarf star-forming systems than would be expected on the basis on photon heating alone, as we have directly observed for our sample of Virgo BCD systems.
A rather different scenario explaining the high dust mass and dust surface densities would come back to a spatially extended grain population that is asymmetrically distributed around the optical-UV emitting central star-forming region. This could be a (flaring) disk of accreting material that feeds the star forming center. BCDs would then be those members of such asymmetric systems seen under favorable aspect angle for observation of the central optical-UV emission. Systems seen edge-on would be FIR-dominated by photon heating and possibly not yet detected as a group in the visual range. They would only show up in the FIR and sub-mm range, where the only major blind search up to now is the ISOPHOT 170${\mu}$m serendipity survey. It will be interesting to search for such objects in the serendipity sample. In the extreme case BCDs - or a significant sub-class of them - would be dwarf galaxies that undergo a massive gas/dust accreting phase that makes them (at least sporadically) bright optical-UV sources. Collisional dust heating might occur in addition as a consequence of dynamical effects like wind interactions in the broader environment, as described above.
Summary
=======
Based on observations taken in the P32 mode of the ISOPHOT instrument on board ISO we have statistically analyzed the integrated FIR properties of a complete volume- and luminosity-limited sample of late-type Virgo Cluster galaxies. For the first time, data taken in this observing mode could be corrected for the complex non-linear response of the detectors, allowing robust integrated photometry to be extracted, and over the entire optical extent of the galaxies, including the outer regions of the galactic disks. We demonstrate the existence of a cold dust component present within all the morphological classes observed, which range from S0a to Im and BCD. This cold component, which was not previously seen by IRAS, was analyzed by fitting the data with a superposition of two modified black-body functions of form ${\nu}^2\,{\rm B}_{\nu}$, physically identified with a localized warm dust emission component associated with HII regions (whose temperature was constrained to be 47K), and a diffuse emission component of cold dust. The fits imply a revision of the masses and temperatures of dust in galaxies.
The main results are summarized as follows:
- The dust masses should be raised by factors of $6-13$ from the previous IRAS determinations, with even larger factors for certain individual galaxies. The temperature of the cold dust is found to be generally $8-10$K lower than the IRAS temperatures, again with individual galaxies having even lower temperatures.
- The temperatures of the cold dust component have a tendency to become colder for the later types. The early-type spirals have a distribution in cold dust temperatures shifted towards higher values, with the coldest and warmest temperatures of 17.7K and 33.4K. The later spirals and irregulars have a distribution shifted towards lower dust temperatures, with the BCDs having the coldest dust temperatures (ranging down to less than 10K).
- There is a trend for the early spirals to have small dust masses per unit area and for the BCDs to have the largest amounts of dust normalized to their optical sizes.
- The BCD galaxies were found to have the highest dust mass surface densities (normalized to optical area) and the coldest dust temperatures of the galaxies in the sample. This is a particularly unexpected result, since the IRAS observations of BCDs could be accounted for in terms of dust heated locally in HII regions, with temperatures of 30K or more. Two scenarios invoking collisionally or photon-heated emission from grains originating in the surrounding intergalactic medium are proposed to qualitatively account for the FIR and optical extinction characteristics of BCDs. In the one scenario, grains are swept up from a surrounding protogalactic cloud and heated collisionally in an optically thin wind bubble blown from the BCD. In the other, the grains are taken to be photon-heated in an optically thick disk surrounding the optical galaxy. The disk is indicative of a massive gas/dust accreting phase which makes dwarf galaxies sporadically bright optical-UV sources when viewed out of the equatorial plane of the disk. Elements of both scenarios may apply to real-life BCDs.
- A good linear correlation is found between the “warm FIR” luminosities and the H${\alpha}$ EW. This is in agreement with the assumptions of our constraint SED fit, that the “warm” component is mainly associated with dust locally heated within star forming complexes. We also found a good but non-linear correlation between the “cold FIR” luminosities and the H${\alpha}$ EW. The correlation itself confirms the predictions of the Popescu et al. (2000) model, where the emission at FIR-sub-mm wavelengths is mainly due to the diffuse UV photons.
- A non-linear correlation is found between the “warm” FIR luminosities and the NVSS radio luminosities at 1.4GHz. A good FIR-radio correlation was also found for the cold dust component, suggesting that the stars mainly responsible for heating the cold dust are the massive progenitors of supernovae whose remnants may be the dominant sources of cosmic ray electrons. Our findings are the first ones to test the FIR-radio correlation using the FIR luminosities associated with the cold dust component.
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.
Alton, P. B., Bianchi, S., Rand, R. J., Xilouris, E. M., Davies, J. I., & Trewhella, M. 1998a, ApJ, 507, L125 Alton, P. B., Trewhella, M., Davies, J. I., Evans, R., Bianchi, S., Gear, W., Thronson, H., Valentijn, E., & Witt, A. 1998b, A&A, 335, 807 Alton, P. B., Lequeux, J., Bianchi, S., Churches, D., Davies, J., & Combes, F. 2001, A&A, 366, 451 Bianchi, S., Davies, J I., & Alton, P.B. 2000a, A&A, 359, 65 Bianchi, S., Davies, J. I., Alton, P. B., Gerin, M., & Casoli, F. 2000b, A&A, 353, L13 Binggeli, B., Popescu, C. C. & Tammann, G. A. 1993, A&AS, 98, 275 Binggeli, B., Sandage, A. & Tammann, G. A. 1985, AJ, 90, 1681 Boselli, A., Tuffs, R. J., Gavazzi, G., Hippelein, H., & Pierini, D., 1997, A&AS, 121, 507 Bottinelli, L., Gouguenheim, L., Fouquè, P., & Paturel, G. 1990, A&AS, 82, 391 Braine, J., Krügel, E., Sievers, A., & Wielebinski, R. 1995, A&A, 295, L55 Braine, J., Guélin, M., Dumke, M., Brouillet, N., Herpin, F., & Wielebinski, R. 1997, A&A, 326, 963 Chini, R., Kreysa, E., Krügel, E., & Mezger, P. G. 1986, A&A, 166, L8 Contursi, A., Boselli, A., Gavazzi, G., Bertagna, E., Tuffs, R., & Lequeux, J. 2001, A&A, 365, 11 de Jong, T., Klein, U., Wielebinski, R., & Wunderlich, E. 1985, A&A, 147, L6 Davies, J. I., Alton, P., Trewhella, M., Evans, R., & Bianchi, S. 1999, MNRAS, 304, 495 Devereux, N. A., & Young, J. 1993, AJ, 106, 948 Devriendt J. E. G., Guiderdoni B., & Sadat R. 1999, A&A, 350, 381 Draine, B. T. 1985, ApJS, 57, 587 Draine, B. T., & Lee, H. M. 1984, ApJ, 285, 89 Dumke, M., Braine, J., Krause, M., Zylka, R., Wielebinski, R., & Guélin, M. 1997, A&A, 325, 124 Engargiola, G. 1991, ApJS, 76, 875 Gavazzi, G., & Boselli, A., 1996, in: A UBVJHK photometric catalogue of 1022 galaxies in 8 nearby clusters, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York Gavazzi, G., & Boselli, A. 1999, A&A, 343, 86 Guélin, M., Zylka, R., Mezger, P. G., Haslam, C. G. T., & Kreysa, E. 1995, A&A, 298, L29 Guélin, M., Zylka, R., Mezger, P. G., Haslam, C. G. T., Kreysa, E., Lemke, R., & Sievers, A. W. 1993, A&A, 279, L37 Lisenfeld, U. & Völk, H. J., 2000, A&A, 354, 423 Guiderdoni, B, & Rocca-Volmerange, B. 1985, A&A, 151, 108 Haas, M., Lemke, D., Stickel, M., Hippelein, H., Kunkel, M., Herbstmeier, U., & Mattila, K. 1998, A&A, 338, L33 Helou, G., Soifer, B. T., & Rowan-Robinson, M. 1985, ApJ, 298, L7 Helou, G., Khan, I. R., Malek, L., & Boehmer, L. 1988, ApJS, 68, 151 Hoffman, G. L., Helou, G., Salpeter, E. E., Glosson, J., & Sandage, A. 1987, ApJS, 63, 247 Hoffman, G. L., Helou, G., Salpeter, E. E., & Lewis, B. M. 1989, ApJ, 339, 812 Huchtmeier, W. K., & Richter, O. G. 1986, A&AS, 64, 111 Hunter, D. A. & Hoffman, L. 1999, AJ, 117, 2789 Israel, F. P., Van Der Werf, P. P., & Tilanus, R. P. J. 1999, A&A, 344, L83 Kennicutt, R. C., & Kent, S. M. 1983, AJ, 88, 1094 Kessler, M. F., Steinz, J. A., Anderegg, M. E., Clavel, J., Drechsel, G., Estaria, P., Fälker, J., Riedinger, J. R., Robson, A., Taylor, B. G., & Ximenéz de Ferrán, S. 1996, A&A, 315, 27 Krügel, E., Siebenmorgen, R., Zota, V., & Chini, R. 1998, A&A, 331, L9 Lemke, D., Klaas, U., Abolins, J., Ábráham, P., Acosta-Pulido, J., Bogun, S., Castañeda, H., Cornwall, L., Drury, L., Gabriel, C., Garzón, F., Gemünd, H. P., Grözinger, U., Grün, E., Haas, M., Hajduk, C., Hall, G., Heinrichsen, I., Herbstmeier, U., Hirth, G., Joseph, R., Kinkel, U., Kirches, S., Kömpe, C., Krätschmer, W., Kreysa, E., Krüger, H., Kunkel, M., Laureijs, R., Lützow-Wentzky, P., Mattila, K., Müller, T., Pacher, T., Pelz, G., Popow, E., Rasmussen, I., Rodríguez Espinosa, J., Richards, P., Russell, S., Schnopper, H., Schubert, J., Schulz, B., Telesco, C., Tilgner, C., Tuffs, R. J., Völk, H. J., Walker, H., Wells, M., & Wolf, J. 1996, A&A, 315, L64 Lisenfeld, U., Völk, H. J., & Xu, C. 1996, A&A, 306, 677 Mas-Hesse, J. M. & Kunth, D. 1999, A&A, 349, 765 Matthews, T. A. & Sandage, A. R. ApJ, 138, 30 Melisse, J. P. M., & Israel, F. P. 1994, A&A, 285, 51 Misiriotis A., Popescu, C. C., Tuffs, R. J., & Kylafis, N. D. 2000, A&A, 372, 775 Neininger, N., Guélin, M., García-Burillo, S., Zylka, R., & Wielebinski, R. 1996, A&A, 310, 725 Popescu, C. C., Misiriotis A., Kylafis, N. D., Tuffs, R. J., & Fischera, J., 2000, A&A, 362, 138 Preibisch, Th., Ossenkopf, V., Yorke, H. W. & Henning, Th. 1993, A&A, 279, 577 Siebenmorgen, R., Krügel, E., & Chini, R. 1999, A&A, 351, 495 Sievers, A. W., Reuter, H. -P., Haslam, C. G. T., Kreysa, E., & Lemke, R. 1994, A&A, 281, 691 Silva L., Granato G.L., Bressan A., & Danese L. 1998, ApJ, 509, 103 Stickel, M., Lemke, D., Klaas, U., Beichman, C. A., Rowan-Robinson, M., Efstathiou, A., Bogun, S., Kessler, M. F., & Richter, G. 2000, A&A, 359, 865 Trewhella, M., Davies, J. I., Alton, P. B., Bianchi, S., & Madore, B. F. 2000, ApJ, 543, 153 Tuffs, R. J. & Gabriel, C. 2002, A&A, in preparation Tuffs, R. J., Popescu, C. C., Pierini, D., Völk, H. J., Hippelein, H., Leech, K., Metcalfe, L., Heinrichsen, I., & Xu, C. 2002, ApJS in press Tuffs, R. J., Lemke, D., Xu, C., Davies, J. I., Gabriel, C., Heinrichsen, I., Helou, G., Hippelein, H., Lu, N. Y., & Skaley, D. 1996, A&A, 315, L149 Tully, R. B. & Shaya, E. J. 1984, ApJ, 281, 31 Völk, H. J. 1989, A&A, 218, 67 Warmels, R. H. 1988, A&AS, 72, 427. Weaver, R., McCray, R., Castor, J., Shapiro, P., & Moore, R. 1977, ApJ, 218, 377 Wunderlich, E., Wielebinski, R., & Klein, U. 1987, A&AS, 69, 487 Xilouris E. M., Kylafis N. D., Papamastorakis J., Paleologou E. V., & Haerendel G. 1997, A&A, 325, 135 Xilouris E. M., Alton P. B., Davies J. I., Kylafis, N., Papamastorakis, J., & Trewhella, M. 1998, A&A, 331, 894 Xilouris E. M., Byun Y. I., Kylafis N. D., Paleologou E. V., & Papamastorakis J. 1999, A&A, 344, 868 Xu, C. 1990, ApJ, 365, L47 Xu C., & Buat V. 1995, A&A, 293, L65 Xu C., & Helou G. 1996, ApJ, 456, 163 Xu C., Lisenfeld U., & Völk H. J. 1994, A&A, 285, 19 Xu, C., Lisenfeld, U., Völk, H. J., & Wunderlich, E. 1994, A&A, 282, 19
[^1]: As shown by Tuffs et al. (2002), the flux scale of the ISOPHOT Virgo survey has a relative gain ISO/IRAS of 0.95 and 0.82 at 60 and 100${\mu}$m, respectively. These corrections have been applied to the flux densities plotted in this figure only to facilitate comparison with IRAS colors.
[^2]: The SEDs of all galaxies from our sample can be found at $http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept01/Popescu/Popescu\_contents.html$
[^3]: The diameters were taken from the VCC catalogue (Binggeli, Sandage & Tammann 1985).
[^4]: Most of the HI data used for normalization were taken from Bottinelli et al. (1990) and Hoffman et al. (1987). For 3 galaxies (VCC 1043/1686/1690) the average of the measurements (beam corrected) existing in the literature was considered: Bottinelli et al. (1990), Guiderdoni & Rocca-Volmerange (1985), Huchtmeier & Richter (1986) for VCC 1043; Bottinelli et al. (1990), Hoffman et al. (1987), Guiderdoni & Rocca-Volmerange (1985), Huchtmeier & Richter (1986) for VCC 1686; Bottinelli et al. (1990), Guiderdoni & Rocca-Volmerange (1985), Huchtmeier & Richter (1986), Warmels 1988 for VCC 1690. For VCC 1003, VCC 1253 and VCC 1326 the H I fluxes (beam corrected) are upper limits and come from Huchtmeier & Richter (1986).
[^5]: The total K$^\prime$ band magnitudes used for normalization were derived from the observations of Boselli et al. (1997) and corrected for Galactic extinction and inclination, according to the K-band corrections, as described in Gavazzi & Boselli (1996). Their median uncertainty is 0.15 mag.
[^6]: The integrated Blue magnitudes of the BCDs in our sample are fainter than the BCDs detected by IRAS by typically two magnitudes.
[^7]: This was estimated by taking the $B_T$ magnitudes from Binggeli, Sandage and Tammann (1985) and converting to fluxes using conversion factors tabulated in Matthews & Sandage (1963).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
plus 1pt minus 1pt plus 1pt
[EUROPEAN LABORATORY FOR PARTICLE PHYSICS ]{}
CERN-EP/98-120\
July 20, 1998
[ **First Measurement of ${{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$ Production in Compton Scattering of Quasi-real Photons** ]{}
[The OPAL Collaboration ]{}
[Abstract]{}
We report the first observation of ${{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$ production in Compton scattering of quasi-real photons. This is a subprocess of the reaction ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to{{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}{{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$, where one of the final state electrons is undetected. Approximately ${55~{\rm pb}^{-1}}$ of data collected in the year 1997 at an ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}$ centre-of-mass energy of 183 GeV with the OPAL detector at LEP have been analysed. The ${{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$ from Compton scattering has been detected in the hadronic decay channel. Within well defined kinematic bounds, we measure the product of cross-section and ${{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$ branching ratio to hadrons to be [(0.9$\pm$0.3$\pm$0.1) pb]{} for events with a hadronic mass larger than 60 GeV, dominated by (e)eZ production. In the hadronic mass region between 5 GeV and 60 GeV, dominated by (e)e$\gamma^*$ production, this product is found to be [(4.1$\pm$1.6$\pm$0.6) pb]{}. Our results agree with the predictions of two Monte Carlo event generators, grc4f and PYTHIA.
[(Submitted to Physics Letters B) ]{}
[The OPAL Collaboration ]{}
[ G.Abbiendi$^{ 2}$, K.Ackerstaff$^{ 8}$, G.Alexander$^{ 23}$, J.Allison$^{ 16}$, N.Altekamp$^{ 5}$, K.J.Anderson$^{ 9}$, S.Anderson$^{ 12}$, S.Arcelli$^{ 17}$, S.Asai$^{ 24}$, S.F.Ashby$^{ 1}$, D.Axen$^{ 29}$, G.Azuelos$^{ 18, a}$, A.H.Ball$^{ 17}$, E.Barberio$^{ 8}$, R.J.Barlow$^{ 16}$, R.Bartoldus$^{ 3}$, J.R.Batley$^{ 5}$, S.Baumann$^{ 3}$, J.Bechtluft$^{ 14}$, T.Behnke$^{ 27}$, K.W.Bell$^{ 20}$, G.Bella$^{ 23}$, A.Bellerive$^{ 9}$, S.Bentvelsen$^{ 8}$, S.Bethke$^{ 14}$, S.Betts$^{ 15}$, O.Biebel$^{ 14}$, A.Biguzzi$^{ 5}$, S.D.Bird$^{ 16}$, V.Blobel$^{ 27}$, I.J.Bloodworth$^{ 1}$, M.Bobinski$^{ 10}$, P.Bock$^{ 11}$, J.Böhme$^{ 14}$, D.Bonacorsi$^{ 2}$, M.Boutemeur$^{ 34}$, S.Braibant$^{ 8}$, P.Bright-Thomas$^{ 1}$, L.Brigliadori$^{ 2}$, R.M.Brown$^{ 20}$, H.J.Burckhart$^{ 8}$, C.Burgard$^{ 8}$, R.Bürgin$^{ 10}$, P.Capiluppi$^{ 2}$, R.K.Carnegie$^{ 6}$, A.A.Carter$^{ 13}$, J.R.Carter$^{ 5}$, C.Y.Chang$^{ 17}$, D.G.Charlton$^{ 1, b}$, D.Chrisman$^{ 4}$, C.Ciocca$^{ 2}$, P.E.L.Clarke$^{ 15}$, E.Clay$^{ 15}$, I.Cohen$^{ 23}$, J.E.Conboy$^{ 15}$, O.C.Cooke$^{ 8}$, C.Couyoumtzelis$^{ 13}$, R.L.Coxe$^{ 9}$, M.Cuffiani$^{ 2}$, S.Dado$^{ 22}$, G.M.Dallavalle$^{ 2}$, R.Davis$^{ 30}$, S.De Jong$^{ 12}$, L.A.del Pozo$^{ 4}$, A.de Roeck$^{ 8}$, K.Desch$^{ 8}$, B.Dienes$^{ 33, d}$, M.S.Dixit$^{ 7}$, J.Dubbert$^{ 34}$, E.Duchovni$^{ 26}$, G.Duckeck$^{ 34}$, I.P.Duerdoth$^{ 16}$, D.Eatough$^{ 16}$, P.G.Estabrooks$^{ 6}$, E.Etzion$^{ 23}$, H.G.Evans$^{ 9}$, F.Fabbri$^{ 2}$, M.Fanti$^{ 2}$, A.A.Faust$^{ 30}$, F.Fiedler$^{ 27}$, M.Fierro$^{ 2}$, I.Fleck$^{ 8}$, R.Folman$^{ 26}$, A.Fürtjes$^{ 8}$, D.I.Futyan$^{ 16}$, P.Gagnon$^{ 7}$, J.W.Gary$^{ 4}$, J.Gascon$^{ 18}$, S.M.Gascon-Shotkin$^{ 17}$, G.Gaycken$^{ 27}$, C.Geich-Gimbel$^{ 3}$, G.Giacomelli$^{ 2}$, P.Giacomelli$^{ 2}$, V.Gibson$^{ 5}$, W.R.Gibson$^{ 13}$, D.M.Gingrich$^{ 30, a}$, D.Glenzinski$^{ 9}$, J.Goldberg$^{ 22}$, W.Gorn$^{ 4}$, C.Grandi$^{ 2}$, E.Gross$^{ 26}$, J.Grunhaus$^{ 23}$, M.Gruwé$^{ 27}$, G.G.Hanson$^{ 12}$, M.Hansroul$^{ 8}$, M.Hapke$^{ 13}$, K.Harder$^{ 27}$, C.K.Hargrove$^{ 7}$, C.Hartmann$^{ 3}$, M.Hauschild$^{ 8}$, C.M.Hawkes$^{ 5}$, R.Hawkings$^{ 27}$, R.J.Hemingway$^{ 6}$, M.Herndon$^{ 17}$, G.Herten$^{ 10}$, R.D.Heuer$^{ 8}$, M.D.Hildreth$^{ 8}$, J.C.Hill$^{ 5}$, S.J.Hillier$^{ 1}$, P.R.Hobson$^{ 25}$, A.Hocker$^{ 9}$, R.J.Homer$^{ 1}$, A.K.Honma$^{ 28, a}$, D.Horváth$^{ 32, c}$, K.R.Hossain$^{ 30}$, R.Howard$^{ 29}$, P.Hüntemeyer$^{ 27}$, P.Igo-Kemenes$^{ 11}$, D.C.Imrie$^{ 25}$, K.Ishii$^{ 24}$, F.R.Jacob$^{ 20}$, A.Jawahery$^{ 17}$, H.Jeremie$^{ 18}$, M.Jimack$^{ 1}$, C.R.Jones$^{ 5}$, P.Jovanovic$^{ 1}$, T.R.Junk$^{ 6}$, D.Karlen$^{ 6}$, V.Kartvelishvili$^{ 16}$, K.Kawagoe$^{ 24}$, T.Kawamoto$^{ 24}$, P.I.Kayal$^{ 30}$, R.K.Keeler$^{ 28}$, R.G.Kellogg$^{ 17}$, B.W.Kennedy$^{ 20}$, A.Klier$^{ 26}$, S.Kluth$^{ 8}$, T.Kobayashi$^{ 24}$, M.Kobel$^{ 3, e}$, D.S.Koetke$^{ 6}$, T.P.Kokott$^{ 3}$, M.Kolrep$^{ 10}$, S.Komamiya$^{ 24}$, R.V.Kowalewski$^{ 28}$, T.Kress$^{ 11}$, P.Krieger$^{ 6}$, J.von Krogh$^{ 11}$, T.Kuhl$^{ 3}$, P.Kyberd$^{ 13}$, G.D.Lafferty$^{ 16}$, D.Lanske$^{ 14}$, J.Lauber$^{ 15}$, S.R.Lautenschlager$^{ 31}$, I.Lawson$^{ 28}$, J.G.Layter$^{ 4}$, D.Lazic$^{ 22}$, A.M.Lee$^{ 31}$, D.Lellouch$^{ 26}$, J.Letts$^{ 12}$, L.Levinson$^{ 26}$, R.Liebisch$^{ 11}$, B.List$^{ 8}$, C.Littlewood$^{ 5}$, A.W.Lloyd$^{ 1}$, S.L.Lloyd$^{ 13}$, F.K.Loebinger$^{ 16}$, G.D.Long$^{ 28}$, M.J.Losty$^{ 7}$, J.Ludwig$^{ 10}$, D.Liu$^{ 12}$, A.Macchiolo$^{ 2}$, A.Macpherson$^{ 30}$, W.Mader$^{ 3}$, M.Mannelli$^{ 8}$, S.Marcellini$^{ 2}$, C.Markopoulos$^{ 13}$, A.J.Martin$^{ 13}$, J.P.Martin$^{ 18}$, G.Martinez$^{ 17}$, T.Mashimo$^{ 24}$, P.Mättig$^{ 26}$, W.J.McDonald$^{ 30}$, J.McKenna$^{ 29}$, E.A.Mckigney$^{ 15}$, T.J.McMahon$^{ 1}$, R.A.McPherson$^{ 28}$, F.Meijers$^{ 8}$, S.Menke$^{ 3}$, F.S.Merritt$^{ 9}$, H.Mes$^{ 7}$, J.Meyer$^{ 27}$, A.Michelini$^{ 2}$, S.Mihara$^{ 24}$, G.Mikenberg$^{ 26}$, D.J.Miller$^{ 15}$, R.Mir$^{ 26}$, W.Mohr$^{ 10}$, A.Montanari$^{ 2}$, T.Mori$^{ 24}$, K.Nagai$^{ 8}$, I.Nakamura$^{ 24}$, H.A.Neal$^{ 12}$, B.Nellen$^{ 3}$, R.Nisius$^{ 8}$, S.W.O’Neale$^{ 1}$, F.G.Oakham$^{ 7}$, F.Odorici$^{ 2}$, H.O.Ogren$^{ 12}$, M.J.Oreglia$^{ 9}$, S.Orito$^{ 24}$, J.Pálinkás$^{ 33, d}$, G.Pásztor$^{ 32}$, J.R.Pater$^{ 16}$, G.N.Patrick$^{ 20}$, J.Patt$^{ 10}$, R.Perez-Ochoa$^{ 8}$, S.Petzold$^{ 27}$, P.Pfeifenschneider$^{ 14}$, J.E.Pilcher$^{ 9}$, J.Pinfold$^{ 30}$, D.E.Plane$^{ 8}$, P.Poffenberger$^{ 28}$, J.Polok$^{ 8}$, M.Przybycień$^{ 8}$, C.Rembser$^{ 8}$, H.Rick$^{ 8}$, S.Robertson$^{ 28}$, S.A.Robins$^{ 22}$, N.Rodning$^{ 30}$, J.M.Roney$^{ 28}$, K.Roscoe$^{ 16}$, A.M.Rossi$^{ 2}$, Y.Rozen$^{ 22}$, K.Runge$^{ 10}$, O.Runolfsson$^{ 8}$, D.R.Rust$^{ 12}$, K.Sachs$^{ 10}$, T.Saeki$^{ 24}$, O.Sahr$^{ 34}$, W.M.Sang$^{ 25}$, E.K.G.Sarkisyan$^{ 23}$, C.Sbarra$^{ 29}$, A.D.Schaile$^{ 34}$, O.Schaile$^{ 34}$, F.Scharf$^{ 3}$, P.Scharff-Hansen$^{ 8}$, J.Schieck$^{ 11}$, B.Schmitt$^{ 8}$, S.Schmitt$^{ 11}$, A.Schöning$^{ 8}$, M.Schröder$^{ 8}$, M.Schumacher$^{ 3}$, C.Schwick$^{ 8}$, W.G.Scott$^{ 20}$, T.Seiler$^{ 10}$, R.Seuster$^{ 14}$, T.G.Shears$^{ 8}$, B.C.Shen$^{ 4}$, C.H.Shepherd-Themistocleous$^{ 8}$, P.Sherwood$^{ 15}$, G.P.Siroli$^{ 2}$, A.Sittler$^{ 27}$, A.Skuja$^{ 17}$, A.M.Smith$^{ 8}$, G.A.Snow$^{ 17}$, R.Sobie$^{ 28}$, S.Söldner-Rembold$^{ 10}$, M.Sproston$^{ 20}$, A.Stahl$^{ 3}$, K.Stephens$^{ 16}$, J.Steuerer$^{ 27}$, K.Stoll$^{ 10}$, D.Strom$^{ 19}$, R.Ströhmer$^{ 34}$, B.Surrow$^{ 8}$, S.D.Talbot$^{ 1}$, S.Tanaka$^{ 24}$, P.Taras$^{ 18}$, S.Tarem$^{ 22}$, R.Teuscher$^{ 8}$, M.Thiergen$^{ 10}$, M.A.Thomson$^{ 8}$, E.von Törne$^{ 3}$, E.Torrence$^{ 8}$, S.Towers$^{ 6}$, I.Trigger$^{ 18}$, Z.Trócsányi$^{ 33}$, E.Tsur$^{ 23}$, A.S.Turcot$^{ 9}$, M.F.Turner-Watson$^{ 8}$, R.Van Kooten$^{ 12}$, P.Vannerem$^{ 10}$, M.Verzocchi$^{ 10}$, H.Voss$^{ 3}$, F.Wäckerle$^{ 10}$, A.Wagner$^{ 27}$, C.P.Ward$^{ 5}$, D.R.Ward$^{ 5}$, P.M.Watkins$^{ 1}$, A.T.Watson$^{ 1}$, N.K.Watson$^{ 1}$, P.S.Wells$^{ 8}$, N.Wermes$^{ 3}$, J.S.White$^{ 6}$, G.W.Wilson$^{ 16}$, J.A.Wilson$^{ 1}$, T.R.Wyatt$^{ 16}$, S.Yamashita$^{ 24}$, G.Yekutieli$^{ 26}$, V.Zacek$^{ 18}$, D.Zer-Zion$^{ 8}$ ]{}
$^{ 1}$School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK $^{ 2}$Dipartimento di Fisica dell’ Università di Bologna and INFN, I-40126 Bologna, Italy $^{ 3}$Physikalisches Institut, Universität Bonn, D-53115 Bonn, Germany $^{ 4}$Department of Physics, University of California, Riverside CA 92521, USA $^{ 5}$Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK $^{ 6}$Ottawa-Carleton Institute for Physics, Department of Physics, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada $^{ 7}$Centre for Research in Particle Physics, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada $^{ 8}$CERN, European Organisation for Particle Physics, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland $^{ 9}$Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics, University of Chicago, Chicago IL 60637, USA $^{ 10}$Fakultät für Physik, Albert Ludwigs Universität, D-79104 Freiburg, Germany $^{ 11}$Physikalisches Institut, Universität Heidelberg, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany $^{ 12}$Indiana University, Department of Physics, Swain Hall West 117, Bloomington IN 47405, USA $^{ 13}$Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London, London E1 4NS, UK $^{ 14}$Technische Hochschule Aachen, III Physikalisches Institut, Sommerfeldstrasse 26-28, D-52056 Aachen, Germany $^{ 15}$University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK $^{ 16}$Department of Physics, Schuster Laboratory, The University, Manchester M13 9PL, UK $^{ 17}$Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA $^{ 18}$Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec H3C 3J7, Canada $^{ 19}$University of Oregon, Department of Physics, Eugene OR 97403, USA $^{ 20}$CLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0QX, UK $^{ 22}$Department of Physics, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel $^{ 23}$Department of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel $^{ 24}$International Centre for Elementary Particle Physics and Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113, and Kobe University, Kobe 657, Japan $^{ 25}$Institute of Physical and Environmental Sciences, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, UK $^{ 26}$Particle Physics Department, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel $^{ 27}$Universität Hamburg/DESY, II Institut für Experimental Physik, Notkestrasse 85, D-22607 Hamburg, Germany $^{ 28}$University of Victoria, Department of Physics, P O Box 3055, Victoria BC V8W 3P6, Canada $^{ 29}$University of British Columbia, Department of Physics, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z1, Canada $^{ 30}$University of Alberta, Department of Physics, Edmonton AB T6G 2J1, Canada $^{ 31}$Duke University, Dept of Physics, Durham, NC 27708-0305, USA $^{ 32}$Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, H-1525 Budapest, P O Box 49, Hungary $^{ 33}$Institute of Nuclear Research, H-4001 Debrecen, P O Box 51, Hungary $^{ 34}$Ludwigs-Maximilians-Universität München, Sektion Physik, Am Coulombwall 1, D-85748 Garching, Germany $^{ a}$ and at TRIUMF, Vancouver, Canada V6T 2A3 $^{ b}$ and Royal Society University Research Fellow $^{ c}$ and Institute of Nuclear Research, Debrecen, Hungary $^{ d}$ and Department of Experimental Physics, Lajos Kossuth University, Debrecen, Hungary $^{ e}$ on leave of absence from the University of Freiburg
Introduction
============
Single Z boson production in ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}$ collisions [@SINGLEZ], , will be the dominant source of Z bosons at linear ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}$ colliders with centre-of-mass energies above 500 GeV [@HAGIWARA91]. At LEP2, however, the cross-section is nearly two orders of magnitude below the “radiative return” process ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to\gamma$Z. The elementary subprocess of single Z boson production is[^1] where a quasi-real photon radiated from one of the beam electrons scatters off the other electron producing a Z as shown in Fig. \[fig:zee\]. This process is ordinary Compton scattering with the outgoing real photon replaced by a Z. Its cross-section has first been calculated for ep collisions [@EPSINGLEZ], where the incoming photon is radiated from the proton. Another variant of Compton scattering is where this time the outgoing real photon is replaced by a virtual one. The observable final state (e)e${{\mathrm f}{\bar{\mathrm f}}}$ will in both cases be the scattered electron e and a fermion pair ${{\mathrm f}{\bar{\mathrm f}}}$ from the ${{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$ decay, while the other electron (e) usually remains unobserved in the beam pipe.
The final state (e)e${{\mathrm f}{\bar{\mathrm f}}}$ may contribute an important background to many searches for new physics, for example final states involving large missing masses (${{\mathrm f}{\bar{\mathrm f}}}=\nu\bar{\nu}$), leptoquark production in deep inelastic electron-photon scattering (${{\mathrm f}{\bar{\mathrm f}}}={{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}$), new particles decaying to Z bosons, and excited electrons in the decay channel e${{\mathrm f}{\bar{\mathrm f}}}$. Excited electrons can for example directly contribute in the $\hat{s}$ and $\hat{u}$ channel diagrams of the signal in Fig. \[fig:zee\].
For Z boson production in Compton scattering e$(k)\gamma(p) \to$ e$(k^\prime)$Z$(p^\prime)$ of real photons ($p^2~=~0$), the cross-section dependence on the Mandelstam variables $\hat{s}=(k^\prime+p^\prime)^2$, $\hat{t}=(k^\prime-k)^2$, $\hat{u}=(p^\prime-k)^2$ is [@EPSINGLEZ] $$\frac{{\rm d}\sigma}{{\rm d}\hat{t}} \propto
\frac{1}{\hat{s}^2}\left(
\frac{\hat{u}}{\hat{s}} +
\frac{2M_{\rm Z}^2\hat{t}}{\hat{u}\hat{s}} +
\frac{\hat{s}}{\hat{u}} \right).
\label{eq:compton}$$ For $M_{\rm Z}= 0$ the well-known terms for ordinary Compton scattering remain. The typical transverse momentum scale of the scattered ${{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$ bosons is small, leading to a singularity at $\hat{u}=0$ of the virtual electron propagator in Fig. \[fig:zee\]b. For incoming quasi-real photons ($p^2\approx~0$) in ep or ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}$ collisions, the dominant regulating effect for this divergence is not the electron mass, but small, non-zero, incoming photon masses squared $p^2$, which introduce via the replacement [@EPSINGLEZ] $$\hat{u} \to \hat{u} + p^2\frac{M_{\rm Z}^2}{\hat{s}}
\label{eq:regulate}$$ a lower cutoff in the denominator of Eq. (\[eq:compton\]). A simple equivalent photon approximation (EPA), as used in Ref. [@FORMEREP], where the integration over the range of small photon virtualities leads to an effective on-shell incoming photon flux, overestimates the cross-section by about a factor of two [@HAGIWARA91]. In order to properly describe the process, the $p^2$ spectrum of the incoming photons has to be retained fully, or a modified EPA [@HAGIWARA91] has to be introduced. In any case the results will be sensitive to the modelling of the $p^2$ spectrum. In this paper the theoretical expectations are represented by Monte Carlo event generators which use different approaches for obtaining the $p^2$ spectrum of the incoming photons. These are compared with experimental data for the first time.
We have analysed the process using data collected with the OPAL detector at an ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}$ centre-of-mass energy of about 183 GeV, corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of approximately ${55~{\rm pb}^{-1}}$. The Z or the $\gamma^*$ is observed via its decay to hadrons.
The OPAL detector {#opaldet}
=================
A detailed description of the OPAL detector can be found elsewhere [@opaldetector]. Subdetectors which are particularly relevant for the present analysis are described here briefly. The central detector consists of a system of tracking chambers providing charged particle tracking over 96% of the full solid angle inside a 0.435 T uniform magnetic field parallel to the beam axis[^2]. Starting with the innermost components, it consists of a high precision silicon microvertex detector, a precision vertex drift chamber, a large volume jet chamber with 159 layers of axial anode wires and a set of $z$ chambers measuring the track coordinates along the beam direction. With the jet chamber, the momenta of tracks can be measured with an accuracy of $\sigma_p/p^2 = 2 \times 10^{-3}~{\mathrm GeV}^{-1}$. The jet chamber also provides energy loss measurements which are used for particle identification.
A lead-glass electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL) located outside the magnet coil covers the full azimuthal range with excellent hermeticity in the polar angle range of $|\cos \theta |<0.82$ for the barrel region and $0.81<|\cos \theta |<0.984$ for the endcap region. The forward detectors and silicon tungsten calorimeters [@opalsw] located at both sides of the interaction point measure the integrated luminosity and complete the geometrical acceptance down to 33 mrad in polar angle. The magnet return yoke is instrumented with streamer tubes for hadron calorimetry and is surrounded by several layers of muon chambers.
Event simulation {#evsimulation}
================
The signal events are generated using the grc4f Monte Carlo program [@grc4f]. Hadronization is performed by JETSET [@jetset]. A sample of approximately 170 times the integrated luminosity of the data was used. In grc4f, an automatic computation system for Feynman diagrams, GRACE [@GRACE] is invoked, yielding the differential cross-sections of tree-level diagrams by performing a calculation of the matrix elements and a Monte Carlo integration over the phase space. Initial state radiation corrections are also implemented. The delicate $p^2$ distribution of the incoming photons for the e$\gamma$ Compton scattering is thus obtained by a numerical integration of the matrix element.
As a second Monte Carlo event generator for the process we used the PYTHIA [@pythia] program. To include the full phase space for this low-${p_{\mathrm{t}}}$ process, we lowered the $\widehat{{p_{\mathrm{t}}}}$ cutoff in the e$\gamma$ rest frame from the default of 1 GeV to 10 MeV in the generation of the events, as suggested in the PYTHIA manual. Without this change PYTHIA would underestimate largely the cross-section. In PYTHIA, the signal process is simulated according to Eqs. (\[eq:compton\]) and (\[eq:regulate\]). An equivalent flow of incoming photons is modelled with a $p^2$ distribution obtained from a first order QED expression [@pythia]. This approximation implemented in PYTHIA is used as a cross-check, with a sample size of about 1/10 of that generated with grc4f.
Backgrounds from other four-fermion final states have been studied using several samples also generated with grc4f and JETSET. Background contributions from two-photon processes, ${{{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to{{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}+{\mathrm hadrons}}$, were evaluated using PHOJET [@phojet] for events with low $Q^2$ and HERWIG [@herwig] for high-$Q^2$ processes. Double counting of the [eeq$\bar{\mathrm q}$]{} final state between signal, two-photon and other four-fermion samples is avoided by separating the contributions from different classes of diagrams, or by performing kinematic cuts. Two-photon production of ${\tau^+\tau^-}$ was modelled with the VERMASEREN [@vermaseren] generator. Other background processes involving two fermions in the final state were simulated using PYTHIA for the channel ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}$ and KORALZ [@koralz] for the channel ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to{\tau^+\tau^-}$. Background contributions from other processes have been checked and found to be negligible.
All Monte Carlo events were passed through the full simulation of the OPAL detector [@gopal] and then subjected to the same reconstruction and analysis procedures as the real data.
Signal definition {#sigdef}
=================
In most of the events the first incoming electron, which radiates the photon taking part in the Compton process, remains undetected in the beam pipe due to the low momentum transfer $p^2$. In contrast, the second electron is often emitted at large angles. Therefore the predominant signature of the process is a single scattered electron isolated from a hadronic system containing one or two hadron jets from the ${{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$ decay. The differential distribution is peaked at low $p^{\prime 2}$ (low mass ${{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}$ systems) and at low $|{\hat{u}}|$ where the outgoing ${{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$ is emitted almost in the direction of the second incoming electron. Since for low $p^{\prime
2}$ and low $|\hat{u}|$ a huge part of the cross-section remains unobserved in the beam pipe, it is not practical to measure the signal process in the whole phase space corresponding to the diagrams in Fig. \[fig:zee\]. Furthermore, considerable uncertainties due to hadronic resonances for low mass $\gamma^*$ provide a supplementary reason for limiting the phase space. The ${\mbox{${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to {\mathrm (e)e}{{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$}}$ signal process is therefore defined by the diagrams in Fig. \[fig:zee\] and by applying the following additional kinematic cuts on the [eeq$\bar{\mathrm q}$]{} final state.
- One of the primary electrons is required to remain in the beam pipe: $|\cos\theta_{\rm e_1}|>0.9995$. This angular cut is chosen close to the edge of the silicon tungsten calorimeter.
- The second beam electron has to form a large angle with respect to the beam: $|\cos\theta_{\rm e_2}|<0.985$, corresponding to the edge of the electromagnetic endcap calorimeter.
- In order to detect the hadronic final state from the ${{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$ decay, we demand at least one primary quark with $|\cos\theta_{\rm q}|<0.985$.
- We require the invariant mass of the primary quark pair to be greater than 5 GeV.
The cross-section times branching ratio predicted for ${\mbox{${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to {\mathrm (e)e}{{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$}}$ events with an [eeq$\bar{\mathrm q}$]{} final state satisfying the signal definition has been evaluated using the grc4f and PYTHIA programs at an ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}$centre-of-mass energy of 183 GeV. We obtain values of (4.80$\pm$0.02) pb for grc4f and (4.76$\pm$0.04) pb for PYTHIA.
In addition to the e$\gamma$ Compton scattering in the process ${\mbox{${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to {\mathrm (e)e}{{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$}}$, there are two other classes of processes which lead to an [eeq$\bar{\mathrm q}$]{} final state, namely ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}$ annihilation, dominated by ${{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}-
{{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$ intermediate states, and two-photon interactions. Of the former process, only a negligible cross-section of 0.002 pb fulfils the kinematic cuts of our signal definition, since the topology with exactly one electron very close to the beam direction and the other electron visible at large angles is not preferred. Among the two-photon interactions, on the other hand, exactly this “single-tagged” topology is typical for deep inelastic e$\gamma$ scattering with large momentum transfer squared[^3], $q^2 \equiv -Q^2$. According to PHOJET and HERWIG, two-photon events which satisfy the above kinematic cuts are produced with a cross-section of approximately 5.6 pb.
Using grc4f we checked that possible interferences between the different classes of Feynman diagrams contributing to the [eeq$\bar{\mathrm q}$]{} final state, e$\gamma$ Compton scattering, ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}$ annihilation, and two-photon interaction, are negligible. It is therefore justified to treat each process separately and to add the predictions of the respective Monte Carlo generators. Only ${\mbox{${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to {\mathrm (e)e}{{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$}}$ events which fulfil the signal definition are treated as “signal”. All other processes leading to an [eeq$\bar{\mathrm q}$]{} final state are treated as “background” even if the kinematic signal definition is fulfilled. Likewise, ${\mbox{${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to {\mathrm (e)e}{{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$}}$events that do not fulfil the signal definition are treated as “background”.
Event preselection {#preselection}
==================
We perform a preselection of events with a hadronic final state and an isolated electron candidate. Only tracks and clusters which satisfy standard quality criteria are considered in the analysis. The following preselection cuts are applied.
- We reject low multiplicity events by requiring the sum $N_{\rm mult}$ of the number of tracks and electromagnetic clusters not associated with any track to be greater than 8.
- We search for electron candidates among all tracks using the following criteria. We require the probability of the measured ionization energy loss ${{\mathrm d}E/{\mathrm d}x}$ of the track being consistent with an electron hypothesis to be greater than 5%. Furthermore we require ${{E_{\rm e}}/{p_{\rm e}}}> 0.6$ where ${E_{\rm e}}$ is the total energy in the electromagnetic calorimeter associated with the track and ${p_{\rm e}}$ is the track momentum. For all electron candidate tracks we define a cone energy $E_{\rm cone}$ as the sum of all track momenta and electromagnetic cluster energies in a cone with a half angle of 0.2 rad around the track, excluding the momentum and the cluster energy associated to the electron candidate track. If more than one candidate is found in an event, the one which has the smallest $E_{\rm cone}$ is chosen as the signal electron. To suppress events with fake electron candidates, we require the angle between the signal electron and the closest track to be greater than 0.25 rad and ${E_{\rm e}}$ to be larger than $2~{\mathrm GeV}$.
- In order to be consistent with the signal definition, we require the invariant mass of the ${{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}$ system ${m_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}$ to be larger than 5 GeV. This mass is calculated from the momentum of all tracks and the energy deposited in the electromagnetic and hadronic calorimeters, the forward detectors and silicon tungsten calorimeters, excluding those associated with the signal electron, using an algorithm [@gce] which corrects for double counting of energy between tracks and calorimeter clusters.
In Fig. \[fig:plotpres\] we compare the measured distributions of ${m_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}$ and ${E_{\rm e}}$ after preselection with the corresponding Monte Carlo expectations. The gross features of the data are in satisfactory agreement with the prediction at this early stage of the analysis. Discrepancies, especially at low values of ${m_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}$ and $E_{\rm e}$, can be attributed to systematic uncertainties in the two-photon process ${{{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to{{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}+{\mathrm hadrons}}$ which is difficult to model in this kinematic region. The apparent excess of Monte Carlo events in the range 105 GeV $< {m_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}< 160$ GeV has no influence on the analysis, since it is populated nearly exclusively by background events, which will be rejected later on. A total of 1558$\pm$25 events is expected, where the main contributions are from two-photon interactions, ${{{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to{{\rm W}^+{\rm W}^-}}$and multihadronic events. In the data 1882 events are found after the preselection (see Table \[tab:evnum\]). As seen from Fig. \[fig:plotpres\], the data excess is located in kinematic regions where the two-photon background dominates.
The expected signal contribution is 38.0$\pm$0.5 events, corresponding to an average signal efficiency of (14.5$\pm$0.2)% obtained with the grc4f Monte Carlo program. The corresponding value obtained from PYTHIA is (16.7$\pm$0.6)%. A large part of the preselection inefficiency for all ${{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$ masses is due to the typical small transverse momenta of the electron and the ${{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$ in the final state. Signal electrons which form large angles with respect to the beam therefore often have momenta below 2 GeV. In addition, for low $\gamma^*$ masses, the $\gamma^*$ decay products tend to be in a rather narrow cone preferring forward directions, where particles may escape undetected along the beam pipe. As a result many of these events fail the multiplicity cut. This reflects in a significantly lower preselection efficiency for smaller hadronic masses. Considering only signal events with $ {m_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}<$ 60 GeV, grc4f predicts the preselection efficiency to be (9.5$\pm$0.2)%, while for $ {m_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}>$ 60 GeV the efficiency is (50.3$\pm$0.7)%. The PYTHIA prediction is consistent with these numbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ --------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------ --------------------- ----------
OPAL
[\[-1.5ex\]]{}[Cut]{}
Preselection [38.0$\pm$0.5]{} [1251.9$\pm$23.9]{} [113.8$\pm$3.6]{} [143.1$\pm$0.9]{} [11.6$\pm$0.6]{} [1558.4$\pm$24.7]{} [1882]{}
${-{{\mathrm Q}_{\mathrm e}}\cdot\cos\theta_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}> 0.75$ [33.0$\pm$0.4]{} [575.0$\pm$16.5]{} [42.6$\pm$2.2]{} [11.6$\pm$0.3]{} [3.5$\pm$0.4]{} [665.7$\pm$16.7]{} [766]{}
${-{{\mathrm Q}_{\mathrm e}}\cdot\cos\theta_{\mathrm e}}< 0.75$ [26.5$\pm$0.4]{} [209.5$\pm$10.1]{} [30.8$\pm$1.9]{} [9.3$\pm$0.2]{} [2.0$\pm$0.3]{} [278.1$\pm$10.3]{} [294]{}
$|{\cos\theta_{\mathrm miss}}| > 0.95$ [24.3$\pm$0.4]{} [128.9$\pm$7.8]{} [20.2$\pm$1.5]{} [2.9$\pm$0.1]{} [1.1$\pm$0.2]{} [177.5$\pm$7.9]{} [193]{}
${p_{\mathrm{miss}}}> 30$ GeV [21.6$\pm$0.3]{} [21.0$\pm$2.0]{} [15.9$\pm$1.4]{} [2.0$\pm$0.1]{} [0.7$\pm$0.1]{} [61.2$\pm$2.5]{} [74]{}
electron isolation [17.5$\pm$0.3]{} [8.2$\pm$1.2]{} [1.9$\pm$0.5]{} [1.4$\pm$0.1]{} [0.6$\pm$0.1]{} [29.6$\pm$1.3]{} [36]{}
${E_{\mathrm{fwd}}}< 35$ GeV [16.7$\pm$0.3]{} [3.1$\pm$0.8]{} [1.8$\pm$0.5]{} [1.4$\pm$0.1]{} [0.3$\pm$0.1]{} [23.2$\pm$0.9]{} [27]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ --------------------- ------------------- ------------------- ------------------ --------------------- ----------
: *Numbers of expected and observed events for a luminosity of ${55~{\rm pb}^{-1}}$ after application of each cut. Only the most important sources of background are shown separately. The number of expected signal events is obtained using the grc4f generator. The numbers of background events are evaluated using the Monte Carlo samples (MC) described in the text. The errors are statistical only.*[]{data-label="tab:evnum"}
Selection of events {#selection}
===================
In order to reduce the remaining background six further cuts have been applied which can be divided into three groups. The first group consists the following angular cuts.
- In the ${\mbox{${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to {\mathrm (e)e}{{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$}}$ signal process, the ${{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$ is usually scattered very close to the beam direction of the detected signal electron, given by $-{{\mathrm Q}_{\mathrm e}}\cdot \cos\theta=1$, where ${{\mathrm Q}_{\mathrm e}}$ is the charge (in units of $e$) of the signal electron. We therefore require ${-{{\mathrm Q}_{\mathrm e}}\cdot\cos\theta_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}>0.75$, where $\cos\theta_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}$ is the cosine of the polar angle of the ${{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}$ system (see Fig. \[fig:plotcuts\]a).
- To suppress the otherwise irreducible background of single-tagged two-photon events, which fulfil the kinematic signal definition, we take advantage of the fact that the distribution of the polar angle $\cos\theta_e$ of the tagged electrons peaks around their beam direction. We thus only retain events where ${-{{\mathrm Q}_{\mathrm e}}\cdot\cos\theta_{\mathrm e}}$ is less than 0.75. This cut is shown in Fig. \[fig:plotcuts\]b. Note that two-photon events with fake electrons, distributed symmetrically in ${-{{\mathrm Q}_{\mathrm e}}\cdot\cos\theta_{\mathrm e}}$, largely dominate this spectrum. Correctly identified tagged electrons of high $Q^2$ two-photon events are visible as an asymmetry in the region near +1.
Signal events are further characterised by an undetected electron along the beam direction, so that cuts on the direction and amount of the missing momentum in the event can be applied.
- We require the absolute value of the cosine of the polar angle of the missing momentum $|{\cos\theta_{\mathrm miss}}|$ to be larger than 0.95 (see Fig. \[fig:plotcuts\]c). The largest relative suppression of this cut occurs for ${{{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to{{\rm W}^+{\rm W}^-}}$ events, where one W boson decays to hadrons and the other to an electron and a neutrino, since the neutrino is not preferentially emitted close to the beam direction.
- The distribution of the missing momentum after the cut on $|{\cos\theta_{\mathrm miss}}|$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:plotcuts\]d. Requiring a missing momentum of at least $30~{\mathrm GeV}$ largely suppresses remaining background with fake or conversion electrons from untagged two-photon events where both beam electrons stay under small angles with respect to the beam axis and tend to balance the momentum.
The third group of cuts is applied to suppress events with fake electron candidates.
- The minimum angle between the electron and the nearest charged track was required to be 0.65 rad. This cut removes most of the remaining multihadronic background as shown in Fig. \[fig:plotcuts\]e.
- The sample still includes a small amount of two-photon background tagged by an electron in the forward calorimeters where the signal electron is fake or due to a double-tagged event topology. It is suppressed significantly by requiring the total energy deposit in the forward detectors and silicon tungsten calorimeters, ${E_{\mathrm{fwd}}}$, not to exceed 35 GeV (see Fig. \[fig:plotcuts\]f).
The cuts, together with the expected and observed numbers of events, are shown in Table \[tab:evnum\]. Already after the second cut there remains no significant excess in the data compared with the expectation. The six selection cuts improve the signal to background ratio by about a factor of 100 compared with the preselection, while retaining about half of the signal events.
The efficiencies after all cuts are given in Table \[tab:vglneu\]. Considering only signal events with ${m_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}<$ 60 GeV, dominated by (e)e$\gamma^*$, grc4f predicts an overall selection efficiency of (4.1$\pm$0.1)%. For ${m_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}>60$ GeV, dominated by (e)eZ, the overall efficiency is (22.3$\pm$0.6)%. The corresponding numbers from PYTHIA, (4.3$\pm$0.3)% and (22.3$\pm$1.7)%, are consistent with grc4f within their statistical errors. From the two lowest lines in Table \[tab:vglneu\], however, it is evident that PYTHIA predicts a slightly different mix of high mass “eeZ”-type and low mass “ee$\gamma^*$”-type events than grc4f. This causes about a 15% relative difference between the two Monte Carlo generators for efficiencies averaged over the total ${m_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}$ range and explains the differences in the total preselection efficiencies given at the end of Section \[preselection\]. Since the predicted efficiency of each single cut is consistent between the two simulations, this difference remains essentially unchanged after the final selection cuts.
For calculating cross-sections we avoid assumptions on the mix of “eeZ”-type, and “ee$\gamma^*$”-type events. We instead calculate the cross-sections separately, for masses above and below 60 GeV, the point where the differential ${m_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}$ distribution has its minimum, using the efficiencies obtained from grc4f. After correcting for feed-through from the low to the high mass region, and vice versa, we obtain the results listed in Table \[tab:vglneu\]. The measured cross-sections agree with the predictions of the two Monte Carlo generators.
------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
$5~{\mathrm GeV}< {m_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}< 60~{\mathrm GeV}$ ${m_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}\geq 60~{\mathrm GeV}$
“ee$\gamma^*$” “eeZ”
efficiency (%) 4.1$\pm$0.1 22.3$\pm$0.6
signal expected 9.5$\pm$0.2 7.2$\pm$0.2
background 4.4$\pm$0.8 2.1$\pm$0.4
feed-through from
neighbouring mass region [\[-1.5ex\]]{}[0.2]{} [\[-1.5ex\]]{}[0.1]{}
OPAL data 14 13
cross-section (measured) (pb) 4.1$\pm$1.6 0.9$\pm$0.3
cross-section (grc4f) (pb) 4.21$\pm$0.02 0.59$\pm$0.01
cross-section (PYTHIA) (pb) 4.04$\pm$0.03 0.72$\pm$0.02
------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
: *Comparison of the OPAL data with the cross-sections predicted by the grc4f and the PYTHIA Monte Carlo generators for $5~{\mathrm GeV}< {m_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}< 60~{\mathrm GeV}$ (“ee$\gamma^*$” region) and for ${m_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}\geq
60~{\mathrm GeV}$ (“eeZ” region). The efficiencies have been obtained with grc4f. Only statistical errors are given. The errors on the feed-through are negligible.*[]{data-label="tab:vglneu"}
In Fig. \[fig:plotallcuts\] we have plotted after all cuts the same distributions as in Fig. \[fig:plotpres\]. The respective contributions of the $\gamma^*$ and of the Z to the measured process are clearly visible in the ${m_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}$ distribution. The ${E_{\rm e}}$distribution shows the preference for small electron momenta due to the low transverse momenta involved in the e$\gamma$ scattering.
Systematic studies {#syserrors}
==================
Several sources of systematic errors have been considered. Uncertainties in the description of the signal process may cause a systematic error on the efficiencies. These come mainly from imperfect modelling of the detector and have been analysed by comparing the Monte Carlo simulation to real data for the process ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to{{\rm W}^+{\rm W}^-}$ where one W decays hadronically and the other one to an electron and a neutrino. This process has the same observable final state as and can therefore be used to check for any discrepancies in the description of the cut variables which would lead to an error in the selection efficiency. After selecting the ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to{{\rm W}^+{\rm W}^-}\to{\rm q{\bar
q}e^-}{\bar\nu}_{\rm e}$ events using the procedure described in Ref. [@wwselection], each cut was applied separately to this sample. The difference in selection efficiency between data and the Monte Carlo simulation was taken as the systematic error after subtracting quadratically the statistical error of the WW sample. In those cases where the statistical error was larger than the efficiency differences, we have conservatively taken the statistical error as systematic uncertainty. The results of the check are shown in Table \[tab:syseffi\]. In our error estimate we have considered the fact that some distributions of the process ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to{{\rm W}^+{\rm W}^-}\to{\rm q{\bar
q}e^-}{\bar\nu}_{\rm e}$ are significantly different from those of the signal (e.g. ${-{{\mathrm Q}_{\mathrm e}}\cdot\cos\theta_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}$ or $|{\cos\theta_{\mathrm miss}}|$). These systematic uncertainties have been used for both the “ee$\gamma^*$”-like and the “eeZ”’-like hadronic mass region, since the efficiencies of each selection cut are similar in the two regions. As mentioned above, the relatively smaller overall efficiency for “ee$\gamma^*$”-like events is due to the multiplicity cut in the preselection. To assess the systematic uncertainty of this cut, we have calculated the change in efficiency when the simulated $N_{\rm mult}$ distribution is shifted by $\pm 1$. Half of the resulting change is quoted as uncertainty for this cut in the first row of Table \[tab:syseffi\]. The total relative systematic uncertainty on the signal efficiencies due to event simulation is then found to be 0.086 for high mass and 0.107 for low mass hadronic systems, respectively.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
$5~{\mathrm GeV}< {m_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}< 60~{\mathrm GeV}$ ${m_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}\geq 60~{\mathrm GeV}$
“ee$\gamma^*$” “eeZ”
$N_{\rm mult}>8$ 0.063 0.000
${-{{\mathrm Q}_{\mathrm e}}\cdot\cos\theta_{{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}}> 0.75$ 0.018 0.018
${-{{\mathrm Q}_{\mathrm e}}\cdot\cos\theta_{\mathrm e}}< 0.75$ 0.037 0.037
$|{\cos\theta_{\mathrm miss}}| > 0.95$ 0.047 0.047
${p_{\mathrm{miss}}}> 30$ GeV 0.036 0.036
electron isolation 0.046 0.046
${E_{\mathrm{fwd}}}< 35$ GeV 0.009 0.009
event simulation 0.107 0.086
generator distributions 0.063 0.063
background 0.070 0.018
Total 0.142 0.108
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
: *Relative systematic uncertainties of the cross-section measurements. The entry “event simulation” is the quadratic sum of the signal efficiency uncertainties for the single cuts listed in the rows above it.*[]{data-label="tab:syseffi"}
A smaller contribution is the uncertainty of the efficiency due to systematic errors in the Monte Carlo generator distributions. This has been estimated from the relative difference between the measured “ee$\gamma^*$” and “eeZ” cross-sections obtained using the efficiencies from grc4f and those from PYTHIA. The relative cross-section differences are very similar in both hadronic mass regions, and statistically compatible with zero. Adding the cross-sections of both regions, a relative difference of 0.033$\pm$0.063 between grc4f and PYTHIA is found. In Table \[tab:syseffi\] we conservatively take the statistical error on this difference as systematic uncertainty for both the “ee$\gamma^*$” and the “eeZ” region.
Uncertainties in the description of the background processes cause systematic errors on the background subtraction. The contributions to these errors coming from ${{{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}$, two-photon processes and other four-fermion backgrounds have been tested separately for each background. By inverting or removing one or two selection cuts while the others were left unchanged, we produced samples where the analysed background process is significantly dominant. We obtained the systematic uncertainty for the various background processes by taking the relative difference of the total event numbers in data and Monte Carlo after the statistical error on the data has been subtracted quadratically. The relative systematic uncertainties we obtain are 0.17 for the ${{{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}$ background, 0.14 for the four-fermion backgrounds and 0.24 for the two-photon process ${{{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to{{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}+{\mathrm hadrons}}$. The numbers of background events after all cuts are 1.8$\pm$0.5$\pm$0.3, 1.4$\pm$0.1$\pm$0.2 and 3.1$\pm$0.8$\pm$0.7 for ${{{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to{{\mathrm q}\bar{\mathrm q}}}$, ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to$ 4f and ${{{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to{{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}+{\mathrm hadrons}}$, respectively. Since other background sources are much smaller, their systematic uncertainties have been neglected. The total error on the background events corresponds to a relative systematic uncertainty for the obtained cross-sections of 0.070 for “ee$\gamma^*$” and 0.018 for “eeZ” (see Table \[tab:syseffi\]).
Results and conclusion {#results}
======================
Using a data set with an integrated luminosity of (54.7$\pm$0.1$\pm$0.2) ${{\mathrm pb}^{-1}}$ collected with the OPAL detector at $\sqrt{s}=183$ GeV, 27 candidate events for the process have been selected, with an expected background of 6.5$\pm$0.9$\pm$0.8 events, where the first errors are statistical and the second are systematic. The expected number of signal events is 16.7$\pm$0.3$\pm$1.9.
From the observed number of events, the cross-section for this process has been calculated separately for a high mass, “eeZ”-like, and a low mass, “ee$\gamma^*$”-like region, with a cut at a hadronic mass of 60 GeV. Within the phase space of our kinematic signal definition described in Section \[sigdef\], we measure a cross-section of [(4.1$\pm$1.6$\pm$0.6) pb]{} for “ee$\gamma^*$”-like events, and a cross-section of [(0.9$\pm$0.3$\pm$0.1) pb]{} for “eeZ”-like events, including the systematic errors obtained in Section \[syserrors\].
To investigate in more detail the kinematic properties of the Compton scattering process, we show in Fig. \[fig:plotstut\] the differential distributions of the Mandelstam variables from Equation \[eq:compton\], and of the cosine of the scattering angle $\theta^*$ of the ${{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$ in the e$\gamma$ rest system with respect to the incoming $\gamma$ direction. All quantities have been obtained from the measured momenta and energies of the electron and the hadronic system, and are compared with the grc4f signal prediction. The structure observed in the $\sqrt{\hat{s}}$ distribution is consistent with expectation for the $\gamma^*$ (low $\sqrt{\hat{s}}$) and Z (high $\sqrt{\hat{s}}$) contributions. An excited electron, contributing in the $\hat{s}$-channel of the signal diagram, would show up as a peak at the e$^*$ mass. For illustration, we have added in Fig. \[fig:plotstut\]a as a dashed histogram the expected contribution of events with an excited electron of mass $m_{\rm e}^* =
120~$GeV, normalized to a product of cross-section times branching ratio of 5 pb. It has been obtained by applying our analysis to fully simulated events of the process ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to$ ee$^*\to$ eeZ from the Monte Carlo generator EXOTIC [@PR219].
In the ${\hat{t}}$ and ${\hat{u}}$ distributions, peaks near zero are predicted, with a long tail to large negative values in the case of ${\hat{t}}$. The measured ${\hat{t}}$ distribution agrees well with this prediction and also shows the drop near zero, due to angular acceptance cuts. The observed ${\hat{u}}$ distribution seems somewhat broader than predicted, though it is still consistent within errors. The entries at positive values are due to detector resolution. The distribution of $\cos\theta^*$ peaks at $-1$, corresponding to small $\hat{u}$ which is typical for Compton processes.
In summary, we have reported the first observation of ${{\mathrm Z}/\gamma^{*}}$production in Compton scattering of quasi-real photons which is a subprocess of the reaction . The predictions of the grc4f and PYTHIA Monte Carlo programs, as listed in Table \[tab:vglneu\], are both in good agreement with our results. The data statistics are not yet sufficient to be sensitive to the difference between the predictions of the Monte Carlo generators.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank T. Sj[ö]{}strand for the useful discussions.\
We particularly wish to thank the SL Division for the efficient operation of the LEP accelerator at all energies and for their continuing close cooperation with our experimental group. We thank our colleagues from CEA, DAPNIA/SPP, CE-Saclay for their efforts over the years on the time-of-flight and trigger systems which we continue to use. In addition to the support staff at our own institutions we are pleased to acknowledge the\
Department of Energy, USA,\
National Science Foundation, USA,\
Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, UK,\
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canada,\
Israel Science Foundation, administered by the Israel Academy of Science and Humanities,\
Minerva Gesellschaft,\
Benoziyo Center for High Energy Physics,\
Japanese Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (the Monbusho) and a grant under the Monbusho International Science Research Program,\
German Israeli Bi-national Science Foundation (GIF),\
Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie, Germany,\
National Research Council of Canada,\
Research Corporation, USA,\
Hungarian Foundation for Scientific Research, OTKA T-016660, T023793 and OTKA F-023259.\
[99]{}
E. Gabrielli, “Single Weak Boson Production at CLIC”, CERN Yellow Report 87-07, Vol II (1987) 1. K. Hagiwara [et al.]{}, [Nucl. Phys.]{} B365 (1991) 544.
G. Altarelli, G. Martinelli, B. Mele, and R. R[ü]{}ckl, [Nucl. Phys.]{} B 262 (1985) 204;\
E. Gabrielli, [Mod. Phys. Lett.]{} A1 (1986) 465.
P. Salati and J.C. Wallet, [Z. Phys.]{} C16 (1982) 155.
[OPAL Collaboration]{}, K. Ahmet [et al.]{}, [Nucl. Instr. Meth.]{} A305 (1991) 275.
B.E. Anderson [et al.]{}, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 41 (1994) 845.
J. Fujimoto [et al.]{}, [Comp. Phys. Comm.]{} 100 [1997]{} 128.
JETSET version 7.408; T. Sj[ö]{}strand, [Comp. Phys. Comm.]{} 82 (1994) 74.
T. Ishikawa [et al.]{}, “The GRACE manual”, KEK Report 92-19, 1993.
PYTHIA version 5.722; T. Sj[ö]{}strand, [Comp. Phys. Comm.]{} 82 (1994) 74.\
A bug in this PYTHIA version concerning the decay branching ratios of the final state $\gamma^*$ in the process ${{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\to{{\mathrm e}^+{\mathrm e}^-}\gamma^*$ was fixed with the help of the author.
R. Engel and J. Ranft, [Phys. Rev.]{} D54 (1996) 4244;\
R. Engel, [Z. Phys.]{} C66 (1995) 203.
G. Marchesini [et al.]{}, [Comp. Phys. Comm.]{} 67 (1992) 465.
R. Bhattacharya, J. Smith and G. Grammer, [Phys. Rev.]{} D15 (1977) 3267;\
J. Smith, J.A.M. Vermaseren and G. Grammer, [Phys. Rev.]{} D15 (1977) 3280;\
J.A.M. Vermaseren, [Nucl. Phys.]{} B229 (1983) 347.
S. Jadach, B.F.L. Ward and Z. Was, [Comp. Phys. Comm.]{} 79 (1994) 503.
J. Allison [et al.]{}, [Nucl. Instr. Meth.]{} A317 (1992) 47.
[OPAL Collaboration]{}, M. Z. Akrawy [et al.]{}, [Phys. Lett.]{} B253 (1991) 511.
[OPAL Collaboration]{}, K. Ackerstaff [et al.]{}, [Eur. Phys. J.]{} C1 (1998) 395.
[OPAL Collaboration]{}, K. Ackerstaff [et al.]{}, [Eur. Phys. J.]{} C1 (1998) 45.
[^1]: Charge conjugation is implied throughout the paper except when otherwise stated.
[^2]: The OPAL coordinate system is a right-handed system which is defined such that the $z$-axis is in the direction of the electron beam and the $x$-axis is horizontal and points towards the centre of the LEP ring; $\theta$ is the polar angle with respect to $z$ and $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle about the $z$ axis.
[^3]: Note, that $q^2$ in two-photon processes is by definition identical to ${\hat{t}}$in our signal process.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Quantum walks are known to have nontrivial interactions with absorbing boundaries. In particular it has been shown that an absorbing boundary in the one dimensional quantum walk partially reflects information, as observed by absorption probability computations. In this paper, we shift our sights from the local phenomena of absorption probabilities to the global behavior of finite absorbing quantum walks in one dimension. We conduct our analysis by approximating the eigenbasis of the associated absorbing quantum walk operator matrix $Q_n$ where $n$ is the lattice size. The conditional probability distributions of these finite absorbing quantum walks exhibit distinct behavior at various timescales, namely wavelike reflections for $t=O(n)$, periodic modal mixing for $t=O(n^2)$, and stability for $t=O(n^3)$. At the end of this paper, we demonstrate the existence of periodic modal mixing in other sufficiently regular quantum systems.'
author:
- Parker Kuklinski
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Conditional Probability Distributions of Finite Absorbing Quantum Walks
---
Introduction
============
The quantum walk is a unitary analogue of the classical random walk. Where classical random walks have been used in algorithms for classical computers [@motwani95] [@dyer91] [@schoning02] [@coffman93], quantum walks can be used in algorithms for quantum computers, providing various degrees of speedup over their classical counterparts [@grover96] [@childs09] [@childs03] [@ambainis03] [@ambainis07]. As opposed to the standard deviation of the random walk which grows at $O(\sqrt{t})$, the standard deviation of the quantum walk spreads at $O(t)$ and the wave function has highly oscillatory behavior close to the wave fronts. The quantum walk has been studied in a variety of purely mathematical contexts [@kempe03] [@venegas-andraca12] and has also been physically implemented in a number of settings [@travaglione02] [@zahringer10]. In this paper, we will explore the asymptotic behavior of finite quantum walks with absorbing boundaries.
Quantum walks with absorbing boundaries were first studied in relation to absorption probabilities. Let $p_\infty$ be the probability that a Hadamard walk particle initialized in $|1\rangle |R\rangle$ is eventually absorbed at $|0\rangle$, and let $p_n$ be the probability that this particle is absorbed at $|0\rangle$ before being absorbed by an additional absorbing boundary at $|n\rangle$. Ambainis et. al. [@ambainis01] found that $p_\infty =\frac{2}{\pi}$ and $\lim _{n\rightarrow\infty}p_n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$. This paradoxical result (i.e. $\lim _{n\rightarrow\infty}p_n>p_\infty$) indicates that absorbing boundaries in the quantum walk partially reflect information. A sharper result conjectured by these authors and later proved by Bach and Borisov [@bach09] states that $p_{n+1}=\frac{1+2p_n}{2+2p_n}$. These results were extended to the three-state Grover walk [@wang13], two-state quantum walks [@kuklinski18], and general discrete quantum mechanical systems [@krovi06] [@kuklinski18_2]. Absorption probabilities are concerned with local behavior at an absorbing boundary as opposed to global behavior we wish to study.
The quantum walk can be defined as a linear combination of translations, so it is natural to view the quantum walk operator on a finite domain as a matrix. In the case of the quantum walk with absorbing boundaries, the quantum walk operator matrix is a composition of a unitary operator with a Hermitian projection operator which projects off of the absorbing boundary locations. The asymptotic behavior of a finite quantum walk is best understood by computing the eigenbasis of the operator matrix. To compute the eigenvalues of a quantum walk matrix, we first calculate its characteristic polynomial $p_n(\lambda )$ where $n$ is the size of the domain. These characteristic polynomials satisfy a second order recursion which we exploit to compute the eigenvalues up to polynomial order. Similar techniques are used in the computation of the eigenvectors.
The eigenvalues of $Q_n$ uniformly approach two sectors of the unit circle at $O(n^{-1})$ as $n$ increases. At $t=O(n^3)$, the top eigenvalue of $Q^t_n$ begins to dominate the system. More interestingly, the minimum phase difference between the $k^\text{th}$ top eigenvalue of $Q_n$ and one of the points $\pm |a|\pm i|b|$ is roughly $\frac{k^2}{n^2}\alpha$ for small $k$ and some constant $\alpha$. Thus, there exist times $t$ for which the top eigenvalues of $Q_n^t$ approximately align in the complex plane in various patterns. More specifically, there exists a time $\tau =O(n^2)$ such that $Q_n^\tau$ becomes a crude approximation of the identity matrix. For sufficiently simple rational multiples $z\in\Q$ of $\tau$ (i.e. $z=p/q$ such that $p,q$ are small), the matrix $Q_n^{z\tau}$ becomes a weighted sum of approximations of vector reversals and transpositions. As $z$ increases, the granularity of these approximations decreases. For an initial state $\Psi _0$ describing a delta potential directly between the absorbing boundaries, the situation becomes more visually striking. For $m\in\N$ sufficiently small, $Q_n^{m\tau /8}\Psi _0$ reproduces an approximation of $\Psi_0$. Furthermore for $p,q\in\N$ sufficiently small, $Q_n^{p\tau /8q}\Psi _0$ produces an approximation of $q$ evenly spaced delta potentials in the domain. We term this behavior “periodic modal mixing" and attempt to make these claims precise in the following sections.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: section 2 is dedicated to defining the finite absorbing quantum walk and its matrix representation. In section 3 we approximate the eigensystem of the one-dimensional quantum walk operator. In section 4 we use these approximations to describe the periodic modal mixing behavior at $t=O(n^2)$. In section 5 we demonstrate the existence of periodic modal mixing in a two dimensional absorbing quantum walk.
Definitions and Methods
=======================
To begin, we define the quantum walk on groups as first defined by Acevedo et. al. [@acevedo05]. The following definitions have appeared in previous works by Kuklinski [@kuklinski17] [@kuklinski18] [@kuklinski18_2].
Let $(G,\cdot )$ be a group, let $\Sigma\subset G$ where $|\Sigma |=n$, and let $U\in U(n)$ where $U(n)$ is the set of $n\times n$ unitary matrices. The *quantum walk operator* $Q:\ell ^2(G\times\Sigma )\rightarrow\ell ^2(G\times\Sigma )$ corresponding to the triple $(G,\Sigma ,U)$ may be written as $Q=T(I\otimes U)$ where for $g\in G$ and $\sigma\in\Sigma$, $T:|g\rangle |\sigma\rangle\mapsto |g+\sigma\rangle |\sigma\rangle$. We denote this correspondence as $Q\leftrightarrow (G,\Sigma ,U)$.
The pair $(G,\Sigma )$ can be thought of as an undirected Cayley graph which admits loops [@diestel05].
We must also define an absorption unit for quantum walks. To this end, we formally define the measurement operator. Let $b\in G\times\Sigma$ be the location of an absorption unit. The measurement operator $\Pi ^b_\text{yes}:\ell ^2(G\times\Sigma )\rightarrow\ell ^2(G\times\Sigma )$ is a projection onto $|b\rangle$ while $\Pi _\text{no}^b$ is a projection onto the the subspace spanned by elements in $(G\times\Sigma )\backslash b$. The probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics dictates that if we measure a state $\psi\in\ell ^2(G\times\Sigma )$ at $b$, the resulting state becomes $\Pi _\text{yes}^b\psi /\lVert\Pi _\text{yes}^b\psi\rVert$ with probability $\lVert\Pi _\text{yes}^b\psi\rVert ^2$ and $\Pi _\text{no}^b\psi /\lVert\Pi _\text{no}^b\psi\rVert$ with probability $\lVert\Pi _\text{no}^b\psi\rVert ^2$. If $B\subset G\times\Sigma$, let $\Pi _\text{no}^B$ be the composition of *no* measurement projections for all $b\in B$. In this way, we can define an operator for th absorbing quantum walk.
Let $Q\leftrightarrow (G,\Sigma ,U)$ be a quantum walk operator and let $B\subset G\times\Sigma$ be a collection of absorption units. Then we say that $\Pi _\text{no}^BQ$ is the *absorbing quantum walk operator* corresponding to the ordered quadruple $(G,\Sigma ,U,B)$ and we denote this correspondence as $\Pi _\text{no}^BQ\leftrightarrow (G,\Sigma ,U,B)$.
We use the *no* operator in our definition because if we observe the particle somewhere in $B$, then the experiment is terminated, while if the particle is not observed in $B$ (i.e. we are in the range of $\Pi _\text{no}^B$) the experiment continues. Note that we speak of the absorption units as being elements of the classical space and not as members of the corresponding orthonormal basis.
In this paper, we are interested in the computing the probability distribution of an absorbing quantum walk $\Pi _\text{no}^BQ\leftrightarrow (G,\Sigma ,U,B)$ on $G\times\Sigma$ conditioned on the particle not being absorbed by $B$. If $\psi\in\ell ^2(G\times\Sigma )$ is an initial condition, then we are interested in calculating the following function $P_t:G\times\Sigma\rightarrow [0,1]$: $$\begin{aligned}
P_t(x)=\frac{|\langle x|(\Pi _\text{no}^BQ)^t|\psi\rangle |^2}{\lVert (\Pi ^B_\text{no}Q)^t\psi\rVert ^2} .\\end{aligned}$$ However, for the absorbing quantum walk it is more natural to perform analysis on the probability amplitude space before converting to the probability space, bypassing the need for renormalization at every time $t$. If $G$ is finite, we can represent the operator $\Pi _\text{no}^BQ\leftrightarrow (G,\Sigma ,U,B)$ as a $|G|\cdot |\Sigma |\times |G|\cdot |\Sigma |$ matrix.
It will often occur that we need to take large powers of $2\times 2$ matrices. Using an eigenvalue expansion, we derive:
Let $M=\begin{bmatrix} a & b \\ c & d\end{bmatrix}$, $\lambda _\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left[ a+d\pm\sqrt{(a+d)^2-4(ad-bc)}\right]$, and $F_n=\lambda _+^n-\lambda _-^n$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
M^n=\frac{1}{F_1}\begin{bmatrix} F_{n+1}-dF_n & bF_n \\ cF_n & F_{n+1}-aF_n\end{bmatrix}\end{aligned}$$ and $F_{n+2}-(a+d)F_{n+1}+(ad-bc)F_n=0$.
Eigensystem of the One-Dimensional Finite Absorbing Quantum Walk
================================================================
We now compute the eigensystem of the one-dimensional two-state absorbing quantum walk. The corresponding quantum walk operator can be written as $Q_n=\Pi _\text{no}^1\Pi _\text{no}^nQ\leftrightarrow (\Z ,C_1,U,\{ 1,n\} )$, which we represent as a $2n\times 2n$ unitary matrix acting as $$\begin{aligned}
Q_n\Psi =\begin{bmatrix} 0 & U_- & 0 & \hdots & 0 \\ U_+ & 0 & U_- & ~ & ~ \\ 0 & U_+ & 0 & \ddots & ~ \\ \vdots & ~ & \ddots & \ddots & U_- \\ 0 & ~ & ~ & U_+ & 0\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} \psi _1 \\ \vdots \\ \vdots \\ \vdots \\ \psi _n\end{bmatrix} \\end{aligned}$$ where $U_+=\begin{bmatrix} a & b \\ 0 & 0\end{bmatrix}$, $U_-=\begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ -\bar{b} & \bar{a}\end{bmatrix}$, and $\psi _k=[\psi _R(k),\psi _L(k)]'$. To compute the eigenvalues of $Q_n$ we first calculate the characteristic polynomial.
Let $p_n(\lambda )=\det\left(\lambda I-Q_n\right)$. These characteristic polynomials satisfy the following recursion: $$\begin{aligned}
p_{n+1}(\lambda )=(\lambda ^2+1)p_n(\lambda )-|a|^2\lambda ^2p_{n-1}(\lambda )\\end{aligned}$$ Here, $p_0(\lambda )=1$ and $p_1(\lambda )=\lambda ^2$.
[**Proof:**]{} We conduct a recursive cofactor expansion on the matrix $A_n=\lambda I-Q_n$. Let $[M]_{ij}$ be the $ij$-*minor* of $M$, or the matrix resulting from the deletion of the $i^\text{th}$ row and $j^\text{th}$ column. Let $B_n=[A_n]_{11}$, $C_n=[B_{n+1}]_{21}$, and $D_n=[C_n]_{12}$. Letting $A_n'=\det{A_n}$ and likewise for the other matrices, we find the following recursions: $$A_n'=\lambda B_n',\hspace{1cm}B_n'=\lambda A_{n-1}'+bC_{n-1}',\hspace{1cm}C_n'=\bar{b}B_n'+\bar{a}D_n'\hspace{1cm}D_n'=aA_{n-1}'$$ We arrive at the result by rewriting these recursions strictly in terms of $A'$. $\hfill\Box$
While in the case of a Chebyshev recursion we are able to use a trigonometric substitution to easily facilitate locating the roots of the polynomial, this procedure will not work here due to the initial conditions [@gilewicz85] [@tran15] [@beraha78]. We instead must reference a set with no elementary analytic representation to describe the eigenvalues.
Let $\Theta _n^{\pm}=\{\theta\in\C :\sin ^2{n\theta}=-y^2\sin ^2{\theta},0<\text{Re }\theta <\pi ,\pm\text{Im }\theta >0\}$ with $y=\frac{|a|}{|b|}$. Then the set $\Lambda _n$ of eigenvalues of $Q_n$ may be written as $\Lambda _n =\{ 0\}\cup\Lambda _n^+\cup\Lambda _n^-$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda _n^\pm=\{ |a|\cos{\theta}\pm i\sqrt{1-|a|^2\cos^2{\theta}}:\theta\in\Theta _n^\pm\} .\\end{aligned}$$ The eigenvalue $\lambda =0$ has multiplicity 2.
[**Proof:**]{} Using Lemma 2.1, we can derive a closed form for the characteristic polynomial: $$\begin{aligned}
p_n(\lambda )=\frac{\lambda ^2}{F_1(\lambda )}\left[ F_n(\lambda )-|a|^2F_{n-1}(\lambda )\right] .\\end{aligned}$$ Here, $F_n(\lambda )=\omega _+(\lambda )^n-\omega _-(\lambda )^n$ and $\omega _\pm (\lambda )=\frac{1}{2}\left[\lambda ^2+1\pm\sqrt{(\lambda ^2+1)^2-4|a|^2\lambda ^2}\right]$. The factor of $\lambda ^2$ accounts for the eigenvalue at $\lambda =0$ of multiplicity 2. Using the substitution $\lambda _\pm (\theta )=|a|\cos{\theta}\pm i\sqrt{1-|a|^2\cos^2\theta}$, we have $F_n(\lambda _\pm (\theta ))=\pm 2i(|a|\lambda _\pm (\theta ))^n\sin n\theta$. Substituting this into the nontrivial factor and squaring gives us the equation: $$\sin ^2n\theta =-y^2\sin^2\theta$$ Since we have squared the equation, we have doubled the number of solutions, half of which do not satisfy the original equation. We can check that only values of $\theta\in\Theta _n^\pm$ satisfy $F_n(\lambda _\pm (\theta ))-|a|^2F_{n-1}(\lambda _\pm (\theta ))=0$. $\hfill\Box$
We provide additional results to better visualize the location of the eigenvalues, the first of which gives a uniform bound on $\Lambda _n$.
Let $S_n$ be the set defined as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
S_n^\pm = \{ 0\}\cup\{\lambda\in\C :r(n)<\lambda <1,-\phi <\text{arg }(\pm\lambda )<\phi\}\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
r(n)^2 &= \frac{1}{2(c(n)-1)}\left[ (4|a|^2-3)-(4|a|^2-1)c\right. \\
& \left. +\sqrt{[(2|a|+1)^2c-(4|a|^2+4|a|-1)][(2|a|-1)^2c-(4|a|^2-4|a|-1)]}\right] ,\end{aligned}$$ $c(n)=\left(\frac{1+|a|}{1-|a|}\right)^{\frac{1}{n-1}}$, and $e^{i\phi}=|a|+i|b|$. Then $\Lambda _n\subset (S_n^+\cup S_n^-)$.
[**Proof:**]{} Following the argument of Proposition 2.2 in Kuklinski [@kuklinski18_2], suppose $v$ is an eigenvector of $PU$ with eigenvalue $|\lambda |=1$ where $U$ is unitary and $P$ is a projection. Then $v$ must also be an eigenvalue of $U$. From Kuklinski [@kuklinski17], the eigenvectors of the corresponding quantum walk operator with periodic boundary conditions satisfy $\lVert Pv\rVert <\lVert v\rVert$ where $P$ is the projection associated with the absorbing boundaries at $|1\rangle$ and $|n\rangle$ and $\lVert\cdot\rVert$ is the $\ell ^2$ norm. Therefore, all eigenvalues of the absorbing quantum walk operator must satisfy $|\lambda |<1$.
Suppose $p_n(\lambda _0)=0$ and $\lambda _0\ne 0$. By expanding $F_n$ in terms of $\omega _\pm$ in equation (5), we have: $$0=\left|\frac{\omega _-(\lambda _0)-|a|^2}{\omega _+(\lambda _0)-|a|^2}\right| -\left|\frac{\omega _+(\lambda _0)}{\omega _-(\lambda _0)}\right| ^{n-1} =|f(\lambda _0)|-|g(\lambda _0)|^{n-1}.$$ If we can find a set $S\subset\D$ such that $\max _{\lambda\in S}|f(\lambda )|\le\min _{\lambda\in S}|g(\lambda )|^{n-1}$, then $\lambda _0\notin S$. Since $f(\lambda )$ is analytic on the unit disk, it obtains its maximum absolute value on the unit circle [@ahlfors53], and this value is obtained at $\lambda =\pm i$ such that $|f(\lambda )|\le\frac{1+|a|}{1-|a|}$. We also find that for fixed $|\lambda |$, the function $g(\lambda )=\frac{\omega _+(\lambda )}{\omega _-(\lambda )}$ achieves its minimum absolute value at $\pm i|\lambda |$ such that $\min _{|\lambda |\le R}|g(\lambda )|= -g(iR)$. The formula for $r(n)$ follows by solving $(-g(iR))^{n-1}=\left(\frac{1+|a|}{1-|a|}\right)$ for $R$.
Through direct computation, we can prove that $|f(\lambda )|<1$ and $|g(\lambda )|>1$ on the sets $A_\pm =\{\lambda\in\C :-\phi <\text{arg }(\pm\lambda )<\phi\}$, thus completing the proof. $\hfill\Box$
By the proposition, the eigenvalues of the absorbing quantum walk operator uniformly limit to the unit circle as $n$ increases. Using the identity $\lim _{n\rightarrow\infty}n(x^{1/n}-1)=\log{x}$, we can show that the following approximation on our bound holds: $$r(n)=1-\frac{|a|^2}{n}\log\frac{1+|a|}{1-|a|}+O(n^{-2})$$ Furthermore, the eigenvalues are restricted to two sectors of the unit disk symmetric about the real axis; as $|a|$ increases these sectors become larger. These features of the eigenvalues can be observed in Figure 1.
We now make asymptotic approximations on the eigenvalues of $Q_n$. First we write an asymptotic description of elements of $\Theta _n$, which may be verified via direct computation.
Consider the set $\Theta _n^\pm$ from Theorem 4.1 with elements $\theta _{k,n}^\pm\in\Theta _n^\pm$ for $k\in\{ 1,...,n-1\}$. For fixed $k$, let $x=\pi k$ and $y=\frac{|a|}{|b|}$ such that: $$\begin{aligned}
\theta ^\pm _{k,n}=\frac{x}{n}\pm\frac{ixy}{n^2}-\frac{xy^2}{n^3}\mp\frac{ixy}{n^4}\left( iy^2+\frac{x^2}{6}+\frac{x^2y^2}{6}\right) +O(n^{-5}).\end{aligned}$$ For $\alpha =\frac{k}{n}$ fixed, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\theta _{\alpha n,n}^\pm=\pi\alpha\pm\frac{i}{n}\sinh ^{-1}\left(y\sin\pi\alpha\right)+O(n^{-2}).\end{aligned}$$
[**Proof:**]{} Recall that we are solving the equation $\sin^2 n\theta =-y^2\sin ^2\theta$, where the roots of positive imaginary real part belong to $\Theta _n^+$ and the roots of negative imaginary real part belong to $\Theta _N^-$. Otherwise, we are solving two equations $\sin{n\theta}=\pm iy\sin\theta$ (here, $\pm$ is independent of $\Theta _n^\pm$) and separating solutions into the sets $\Theta _n^\pm$ afterwards. By using the representation $\theta =\frac{\theta _1}{n}+O(n^{-1})$, we find that $\sin\theta _1+O(n^{-1})=O(n^{-1})$, and therefore $\theta _1=\pi k$ for some $k\in\Z$. By further considering an $N^\text{th}$ order approximation of $\theta =\sum _{j=1}^N\theta _jn^{-j}+O(n^{-(N+1)})$ and using an angle sum identity, we have $$(-1)^k\sin\left(\sum _{j=1}^{N-1}\frac{\theta _{j+1}}{n^{j}}\right) +O(n^{-N})=\pm iy\sin\left(\sum _{j=1}^{N-1}\frac{\theta _j}{n^j}\right) +O(n^{-N})$$ Each choice of $k$ corresponds to two root approximations dictated by the $\pm$ sign on the right hand side. If we eliminate the factor of $(-1)^k$ on the left side, then the two root approximations indexed by the $\pm$ sign correspond to roots with positive and negative imaginary part respectively, and thus are in direct correspondence with the sets $\Theta _n^\pm$. By choosing $N=4$ and using a Taylor expansion of $\sin\theta$, we can write: $$\frac{\theta _2}{n}+\frac{\theta _3}{n^2}+\frac{\theta _4}{n^3}-\frac{1}{6}\left(\frac{\theta _2}{n}\right) ^3+O(n^{-4})=\pm iy\left(\frac{\theta _1}{n}+\frac{\theta _2}{n^2}+\frac{\theta _3}{n^3}-\frac{1}{6}\left(\frac{\theta _1}{n}\right) ^3\right) +O(n^{-4})$$ By equating like factors of $n^{-j}$, we have the following system of three equations: $$\theta _2=\pm iy\theta _1,\hspace{1cm}\theta _3=\pm iy\theta _2,\hspace{1cm}\theta _4-\frac{\theta _2^3}{6}=\pm iy\left(\theta _3-\frac{\theta _1^3}{6}\right)$$ Solving this system gives the first result. If at the outset we instead fix $\alpha =\frac{k}{n}$, we instead have the expansion $\theta =\pi\alpha +\frac{\theta _1}{n}+O(n^{-2})$, thus giving the equation $$\sin\left(\frac{\theta _1}{n}\right)=\pm iy\sin\pi\alpha$$ Solving this for $\theta _1$ gives us the second result. $\hfill\Box$
For the remainder of the paper we let $y=|a|/|b|$. This lemma allows us to index our approximations of the nonzero eigenvalues of $Q_n$ as $\lambda _{k,n}^\pm =\lambda _\pm (\theta ^\pm _{k,n})$. It should be noted that $\theta =\pi +\theta _{k,n}^\pm$ is also a solution to $\sin n\theta =\pm iy\sin\theta$. These solutions, when pased through the function $\lambda _\pm (\theta )$, represent eigenvalues which converge to $-e^{\pm i\phi}$. Since the characteristic polynomial $p_n(\lambda )$ in equation (3) is an even function, we will omit mention of these solutions without loss of generality. When presenting asymptotic characterizations of these eigenvalues, we distinguish between the convergence of the $k^\text{th}$ eigenvalue to $\pm e^{\pm i\phi}$ (as given by $\lambda _{k,n}$) and the uniform convergence of the collection of eigenvalues to arcs of the unit circle as described by Proposition 3.2 (these eigenvalues represented as $\lambda _{\alpha n,n}$). We summarize this in the following proposition:
For fixed $k$, we write $\lambda _{k,n}^\pm\in\Lambda _n$ from Theorem 4.1 as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda _{k,n}^\pm =e^{\pm i\phi}\left( 1\mp\frac{ix^2y}{2n^2} -\frac{x^2y^2}{n^3}-\frac{x^2y}{n^4}\left[\pm\frac{3}{2}y^2+\frac{x^2}{24}\left( 3y\pm i(3y^2+1)\right)\right]\right) +O(n^{-5}).\end{aligned}$$ For $|\alpha |<1$ with $\alpha n\in\Z$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda _{\alpha n,n}^\pm=e^{\pm if(\alpha )}\left( 1-\frac{1}{n}\frac{|a|\sin\pi\alpha}{\sqrt{1-|a|^2\cos^2\pi\alpha}}\sinh^{-1}\left(\frac{|a|}{|b|}\sin\pi\alpha\right)\right) +O(n^{-2})\end{aligned}$$ where $e^{\pm if(\alpha )}=|a|\cos\pi\alpha\pm i\sqrt{1-|a|^2\cos^2\pi\alpha}$.
[**Proof:**]{} We can formally write $\theta _{k,n}^\pm =\theta _\pm\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)$ where the coefficient of $n^{-m}$ in equation (8) is represented by $\theta ^{(m)}_\pm (0)/m!$. In this way, we can write $\lambda _{k,n}^\pm =\lambda _\pm\left(\theta _\pm\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)\right)$. If we abuse notation and define, for the moment, $\lambda =\lambda _\pm (0)$, $\theta =\theta _\pm (0)$, and likewise for higher derivatives, then by the chain rule we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda _{k,n}^\pm &= \lambda +\frac{\theta '\lambda '}{n}+\frac{\theta ''\lambda '+(\theta ')^2\lambda ''}{2n^2}+\frac{\theta '''\lambda '+3\theta '\theta ''\lambda ''+(\theta ')^3\lambda '''}{6n^3} \\ \nonumber
&+\frac{\theta ''''\lambda '+(4\theta '\theta '''+3(\theta '')^2)\lambda '' +6(\theta ')^2\theta ''\lambda '''+(\theta ')^4\lambda ''''}{24n^4}+O(n^{-5})\end{aligned}$$ Lemma 3.1 gives us the “derivatives" $\theta ^{(m)}$, while implicit differentiation of the equation $\lambda _\pm (\theta )^2-2|a|\lambda _\pm (\theta )\cos\theta +1=0$ with respect to $\theta$ gives us the derivatives $\lambda ^{(m)}$. Since $\lambda (\theta )$ is an even function, we need only consider the even derivatives: $$\lambda =e^{\pm i\phi},\hspace{1cm}\lambda ''=\pm iye^{\pm i\phi},\hspace{1cm}\lambda ^{(4)}=-ye^{\pm i\phi}\left[ 3y\pm i(3y^2+1)\right]$$ Making these substitutions gives us the first result. To arrive at the second, we use a Taylor approximation of $\lambda _\pm(\theta )$ at $\theta =\pi\alpha$ instead of at $\theta =0$ as in the previous case. Combining equation (12) with the approximations in Lemma 3.1 gives us the second result. $\hfill\Box$
With the results from Theorem 3.2, we can prove that the absorbing quantum walk reaches a steady state at time $t=O(n^3)$.
Let $\epsilon >0$ be fixed. There exists $T=\frac{\epsilon}{\pi ^2y^2(k^2-1)}n^3 +O(n^2)$ such that for all $t>T$, we have $$\left(\frac{|\lambda _{k,n}^\pm |}{|\lambda _{1,n}^\pm |}\right) ^t<\epsilon$$
This proposition shows that the magnitude of the ratio between the largest and $k^\text{th}$ largest eigenvalues of $Q_n^t$ becomes arbitrarily small at $O(n^3)$. This implies that the largest eigenmode becomes dominant at this timescale. Compare this behavior to the classical random walk which reaches a stable distribution at $t=O(n)$.
Using similar techniques we can compute entries of the corresponding eigenvectors.
Let $v^\pm _{k,n}=[r^\pm _{k,n,1},l^\pm _{k,n,1},...,r^\pm _{k,n,n},l^\pm _{k,n,n}]'$ be the eigenvector of $Q_n$ corresponding to eigenvalue $\lambda ^\pm _{k,n}$. By letting $j=n\beta$ for $|\beta |<1$ fixed, we can write these eigenvectors as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{bmatrix} r_{k,n,\beta n}^\pm \\ l_{k,n,\beta n}^\pm\end{bmatrix}=\left(\frac{a}{|a|}\right) ^{n\beta}\left(\begin{bmatrix}\bar{a}b \\ \pm i|a||b|\end{bmatrix}\sin\pi k\beta +\frac{\pi k}{n}\begin{bmatrix} \bar{a}b(\pm i\beta y-1) \\ |a|^2(\beta -1)\end{bmatrix}\cos\pi k\beta+O(n^{-2})\right)\end{aligned}$$
[**Proof:**]{} We find that the entries of $v^\pm _{k,n}$ satisfy a matrix multiplication recursion: $$\begin{bmatrix} r^\pm _{k,n,j+1} \\ l^\pm _{k,n,j+1}\end{bmatrix} =\frac{1}{\lambda ^\pm _{k,n}}\begin{bmatrix} a & b \\ \frac{a\bar{b}}{\bar{a}} & \frac{(\lambda ^\pm _{k,n})^2+|b|^2}{\bar{a}}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} r^\pm _{k,n,j} \\ l^\pm _{k,n,j}\end{bmatrix}$$ Using Lemma 2.1 gives us the expression: $$\begin{bmatrix} r_{k,n,j}^\pm \\ l_{k,n,j}^\pm\end{bmatrix}=\frac{1}{(\bar{a}\lambda )^jF_1}\begin{bmatrix} F_j-(\lambda ^2+|b|^2)F_{j-1} & \bar{a}bF_{j-1} \\ a\bar{b}F_{j-1} & F_j-|a|^2F_{j-1}\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix} r_{k,n,1}^\pm \\ l_{k,n,1}^\pm\end{bmatrix}$$ Since the nonzero eigenvalues must satisfy $r_{k,n,1}^\pm =0$, we have: $$\begin{bmatrix} r_{k,n,j}^\pm \\ l_{k,n,j}^\pm\end{bmatrix}=\frac{1}{(\bar{a}\lambda )^jF_1}\begin{bmatrix}\bar{a}bF_{j-1} \\ F_j-|a|^2F_{j-1}\end{bmatrix}$$ By making the substitutions $j=n\beta$ and $\lambda (\theta )$, and using equations (8) and (10) to make approximations for $\theta$ and $\lambda$ respectively, we arrive at the result. $\hfill\Box$
On the right side of Figure 1, we see that the top eigenvectors are are approximations of sine waves up to phase, as described by Theorem 3.3.
Periodic Modal Mixing
=====================
Previous studies have illustrated that the quantum walk has wave-like behavior for $t=O(n)$ [@ambainis01], and in particular quantum walks appear to partially reflect off absorbing boundaries [@oliveira06] [@kuklinski18]. In the previous section, we showed that the absorbing quantum walk reaches a stable state for $t=O(n^3)$. At the timescale $t=O(n^2)$, the absorbing quantum walk exhibits mathematically rich behavior that has not yet been addressed.
First, let us consider an approximation of $(\lambda ^\pm _{k,n}e^{\mp i\phi})^{\tau n^2}$:
For $\tau =4/(\pi y)$, the following result holds: $$\begin{aligned}
(\lambda ^\pm _{k,n}e^{\mp i\phi})^{\tau n^2}=1+O(n^{-1})\end{aligned}$$
[**Proof:**]{} Using Theorem 3.2, we can take a logarithm to find: $$\begin{aligned}
\log\left[ (\lambda ^\pm _{k,n}e^{\mp i\phi})^{\tau n^2}\right] &= (\tau n^2)\log (\lambda ^\pm _{k,n}e^{\mp i\phi}) \\
&= \tau n^2\left(\mp i\frac{(\pi k)^2y}{2n^2}+O(n^{-3})\right) \\
&= \mp i\tau y\frac{(\pi k)^2}{2}+O(n^{-1})\end{aligned}$$ Letting $\tau =4/(\pi y)$ results in the main component becoming $\pm 2\pi i k^2$ and the result immediately follows. $\hfill\Box$
For the remainder of the paper, we let $\tau =4/(\pi y)$. This result shows that the top eigenvalues of $Q _n^{\tau n^2}$ align in the complex plane. However, these approximations are only suitable for fixed $k$; for $t=O(n^2)$ numerics show us that for $\epsilon >0$ fixed there are $O(\sqrt{n})$ eigenvalues with $|(\lambda _{k,n}^\pm )^t|>\epsilon$. Thus we would like new approximation for the eigenvalues $\lambda _{\beta\sqrt{n},n}^\pm$ where $\beta$ is fixed. We write an extension of Lemma 3.1:
Consider the set $\Theta _n^{\pm}$ from Theorem 3.1 with elements $\theta _{k,n}\in\Theta ^\pm _n$ for $k\in\{ 1,...,n-1\}$. For $\beta =\frac{k}{\sqrt{n}}$ fixed, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\theta _{\beta\sqrt{n},n}^\pm =\frac{x}{\sqrt{n}}\pm\frac{ixy}{n^{3/2}}\pm\frac{ixy}{n^{5/2}}\left[ \pm iy-\frac{x^2}{6}(1+y^2)\right] +O(n^{-7/2})\end{aligned}$$ where $x=\pi\beta$.
[**Proof:**]{} We follow the argument of Lemma 3.1 and fix $\beta =\frac{k}{\sqrt{n}}$. This allows us to posit an asymptotic expansion $\theta =\sum _{j=1}^N\frac{\theta _j}{n^{j-1/2}}+O(n^{-(N+1/2)})$, giving us an equation: $$\sin\left(\frac{\theta _2}{\sqrt{n}}+\frac{\theta _3}{n^{3/2}}\right) +O(n^{-5/2})=\pm iy\sin\left(\frac{\theta _1}{\sqrt{n}}+\frac{\theta _2}{n^{3/2}}\right) +O(n^{-5/2})$$ The first term becomes $\theta _1=\pi\beta$. By using a Taylor series expansion of $\sin\theta$ and matching like powers of $n^{-j}$, we have: $$\theta _2=\pm iy\theta _1,\hspace{1cm}\theta _3-\frac{\theta _2^3}{6}=\pm iy\left(\theta _2-\frac{\theta _1^3}{6}\right)$$ Solving this system gives the result. $\hfill\Box$
Using L4.1, we can find the eigenvalues at this new timescale.
For fixed $\beta =\frac{k}{\sqrt{n}}$, we write $\lambda _{\beta\sqrt{n},n}^\pm\in\Lambda _n$ from Theorem 4.1 as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda _{k,n}^\pm =e^{\pm i\phi}\left( 1\pm\frac{ix^2y}{2n}-\frac{x^2y}{n^2}\left(y+\frac{x^2}{24}\left[ 3y\pm i(3y^2+1)\right]\right)\right) +O(n^{-3})\end{aligned}$$
[**Proof:**]{} We can formally write $\theta _{\beta\sqrt{n},n}^\pm =\varphi _\pm\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right)$ where the coefficient of $n^{-(m-1/2)}$ is represented by $\varphi ^{(2m-1)}(0)/(2m-1)!$. This allows us to write $\lambda _{\beta\sqrt{n},n}^\pm =\lambda _\pm\left(\varphi _\pm\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\right)\right)$. By using the same chain rule argument but noting that $\varphi ^{(2m+1)}=0$ and $\lambda ^{(2m)}=0$, we have: $$\lambda _{\beta\sqrt{n},n}^\pm =\lambda +\frac{(\varphi ')^2\lambda ''}{2n}+\frac{4\varphi '\varphi '''\lambda ''+(\varphi ')^4\lambda ''''}{24n^2}+O(n^{-3})$$ Making the proper substitutions gives us the result. $\hfill\Box$
With this new representation of the eigenvalues, we can consider a more detailed approximation of the relevant eigenvalues at the timescale $t=O(n^2)$.
For $\beta =k/\sqrt{n}$ fixed, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
(\lambda ^\pm _{\beta\sqrt{n},n}e^{\mp i\phi})^{\tau n^2+\rho n}=e^{-x^2y^2\tau}\exp\left[\pm\frac{ix^2y}{2}\left(\rho -\frac{x^2\tau}{12}(3y^2+1)\right)\right] +O(n^{-1})\end{aligned}$$
[**Proof:**]{} Taking a logarithm of the left hand side of equation (17) and using the approximation from proposition 4.2, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\log\left[ (\lambda ^\pm _{\beta\sqrt{n},n}e^{\mp i\phi})^{\tau n^2+\rho n}\right] &= (\tau n^2+\rho n)\log (\lambda ^\pm _{\beta\sqrt{n},n}e^{\mp i\phi}) \\
&= (\tau n^2+\rho n)\log\left( 1\pm\frac{ix^2y}{2n}-\frac{x^2y}{n^2}\left(y+\frac{x^2}{24}\left[ 3y\pm i(3y^2+1)\right]\right) +O(n^{-3})\right) \\
&= (\tau n^2+\rho n)\left[\left(\pm\frac{ix^2y}{2n}-\frac{x^2y}{n^2}\left(y+\frac{x^2}{24}\left[ 3y\pm i(3y^2+1)\right]\right)\right) -\frac{1}{2}\left(\pm\frac{ix^2y}{2n}\right) ^2\right] +O(n^{-1}) \\
&= \pm\frac{ix^2y}{2}\tau n-x^2y^2\tau\pm\frac{ix^2y}{2}\left[\rho -\frac{x^2\tau}{12}(3y^2+1)\right] +O(n^{-1})\end{aligned}$$ The result follows from noting that $\pm ix^2y\tau n/2$ is always an integer. $\hfill\Box$
This theorem gives us a better perspective on the eigenvalues of $Q_n^t$ for $t=O(n^2)$. The absolute value of equation (17) decreases at $O(e^{-\beta ^2})$ for large $\beta$, and the argument is a quartic function of $\beta$. More importantly, equation (17) shows that the top $O(\sqrt{n})$ eigenvalues of $Q_n$ are significant for $t=O(n^2)$, while the remaining eigenvalues become negligible.
One reason we introduce the linear term $\rho n$ to the exponent is to better “align" the eigenvalues in the complex plane. It is an interpretive task to define alignment, however one particularly compelling definition is to consider alignment as an entropy minimization task. Recall that if $p:\R\rightarrow\R$ is a probability distribution function, its *entropy* is defined as $H[p]=-\int _{-\infty}^\infty p(x)\log{p(x)}dx$. Loosely speaking, entropy is a measure of uncertainty in the outcome of a probabilistic process. For instance, if $p(x)=\delta _{x_0}(x)$, then $H[p]=0$, otherwise $p$ describes a deterministic quantity and there is no uncertainty in the corresponding outcome. Alternatively, if the domain of $p$ is an interval on the real line, $H[p]$ is maximized when $p$ is the uniform distribution, or all possible outcomes are equally likely. Suppose we begin our absorbing quantum walk with the initial state $\psi _0=|\frac{n}{2}\rangle |R\rangle$. Notice that $H[|\psi _0|^2]=0$. We claim that at time $t=\tau n^2+O(n)$, $Q_n^t$ in some sense approximates the identity matrix; the fitness of this approximation can be estimated by computing the entropy quantity $H[|Q_n^t\psi _0|^2]$. If $Q_n^t$ is a good approximation of the identity matrix, we expect this entropy quantity to be small, and subsequently for the eigenvalues of $Q_n^t$ to “align". We explore this concept visually and computationally in the remainder of the section.
![Plots of entropy over time for $H[|Q_n^t\psi _0|^2]$ with $n=200$, $y=1$, and $\psi _0=|100\rangle |R\rangle$.](entropy.png "fig:")![Plots of entropy over time for $H[|Q_n^t\psi _0|^2]$ with $n=200$, $y=1$, and $\psi _0=|100\rangle |R\rangle$.](entropy_zoom.png "fig:")
Figure 2 contains two plots of the entropy $H[|Q_n^t\psi _0|^2/\lVert Q_n^t\psi _0\rVert ^2]$ over time $t$. The left plot shows that the entropy of this system is a roughly periodic function with decaying amplitude. Notice that the most prominent minima occur at approximately $t=\frac{\tau n^2}{8}k$ where $k\in\N$. We deduce that these minima correspond to times at which $Q_n^t\psi _0$ approximates a delta function, as shown in the left side of Figure 4. As $k$ increases, these approximations in some sense lose “higher frequency" components as they eventually approach the steady-state top eigenvector. However, it is not true that $Q_n^{\tau n^2k/8}$ approximates the identity matrix for all $k$; in fact this approximation holds only for $k$ divisible by 8. Figure 5 shows this sequence of matrices. Notice that at $k=4$, $Q_n^{\tau n^2/2}$ is approximately an anti-diagonal matrix which flips the initial condition. For $k=2,6$, $Q_n^{\tau n^2k/8}$ becomes a weighted sum of the identity approximation and the vector flip approximation. The remaining values of $k$ result in $Q_n^{\tau n^2k/8}$ becoming a weighted sum of approximations of the identity matrix, the vector flip matrix, a matrix which swaps the top and bottom halves of the vector, and a matrix which flips the top and bottom half of the vector separately.
The right plot of Figure 2 shows significant detail at a smaller scale as well. We observe that entropy minima occur approximately at times $t=\frac{\tau n^2p}{8q}$ where $p,q\in\N$ are sufficiently small, in a manner similar to Thomae’s function [@beanland09]. Moreover, the right plot of Figure 4 suggests that for $\text{gcd}(p,q)=1$, the distribution $|Q_n^t\psi _0|^2$ has $q$ peaks. This observation can be resolved by noting that letting $\tau =4p/\pi y q$ leads to an extra factor of $\exp\left(2\pi ik^2 p/q\right)$ in equations (14) and (17). This causes the eigenvalues to align on a finite set of lines in the complex plane. By considering the eigenvectors of $Q_n$ from equation (13) as crude approximations of $\sin (\pi kx)$, the mechanism behind this periodic modal mixing becomes clear. We term this recurrent formation of peaks in the conditional distribution at $t=O(n^2)$ ‘periodic modal mixing’.
However, from the estimate of $(\lambda _{\beta\sqrt{n},n}^\pm e^{\mp i\phi})^{\tau n^2+\rho n}$ in equation (17), we see that the phases of the top $O(\sqrt{n})$ eigenvalues never actually align. While letting $\tau =\frac{4}{\pi y}\frac{p}{q}$ and $\rho =0$ gives a good estimate of the time locations of minimum entropy, we can see from Figure 5 that the actual locations of minimum entropy occur at slightly later times as indicated by the improved resolution from the middle to the bottom row of plots. Notice that the eigenvalues at the time of minimum entropy are contained in a narrower band about the real axis than are the eigenvalues at the approximation $t=\tau n^2/2$. In Figure 6, we see various estimates of $\rho$ which lead to entropy minimization. The left plot appears to confirm that $\rho$ converges to a finite value as $n\rightarrow\infty$, while the second plot illustrates how $\rho$ changes as a function of $|a|$. A true estimation of $\rho$ would require an estimate of entropy in the system, and this requires a better estimate of the eigenvectors than has been given. Further still, no easily deducible heuristic gives a usable approximation for $\rho$ as a function of $y$ and $\tau$.
Extension to Two-Dimensional Absorbing Grover Walk
==================================================
As seen in the previous section, this periodic modal mixing behavior arises because the top eigenvalues of $Q_n$ have regular spacing in phase, and the remaining eigenvalues decay to zero exponentially as $t=O(n^{2})$. It should not be surprising that other sufficiently symmetric absorbing quantum systems also share this property. For example, consider the two-dimensional absorbing Grover walk operator $Q_{x,y}=\Pi _\text{no}^{B_{x,y}}Q\leftrightarrow (\Z ^2,C_2,G_4,B_{x,y})$. Here, $C_2=\{ (0,1),(0,-1),(1,0),(-1,0)\}$ represents the cardinal directions in $\Z ^2$, $G_n=\frac{2}{n}{\bf 1}_n-I_n$ where ${\bf 1}_n$ is the $n\times n$ matrix filled with ones, and $B_{x,y}=\{ (a,b):a=1\text{ or }a=x,b\in\Z\}\cup\{ (a,b):a\in\Z ,b=1\text{ or }b=y\}$ forms an absorbing “box". The corresponding $4xy\times 4xy$ operator matrix requires tensor methods to decompose and we postpone this analysis to a later study. From [@inui04] [@kuklinski17], localized eigenvectors with eigenvalue $\lambda =1$ take nonzero values on $2\times 2$ areas in the interior of $B_{x,y}$. Since these eigenvectors are the only eigenvectors of $Q_{x,y}$ with eigenvalues $|\lambda |=1$, from Proposition 2.2 in Kuklinski [@kuklinski18_2] an initial condition $\phi _0$ which is orthogonal to each of these eigenvectors will eventually decay in norm to zero under $Q_{x,y}^t$. If we let $x=y$ and $\phi _0$ be one such orthogonal initial conditions localized to $(\frac{x}{2},\frac{x}{2})$, then one of the stable distributions in Figure 7 are eventually achieved. These stable distributions correspond to the non-localized top eigenvectors of $Q_{x,y}$.
We also document the existence of periodic modal mixing in the absorbing Grover walk, both for square absorbing boxes and also rectangular absorbing boxes. Figure 8 plots entropy of the systems over time; these graphs depict a similar periodic stratification of entropy minima as the plot in Figure 2, albeit with less regularity. We speculate that these entropy minima occur at times $t=\tau zn^2$ for sufficiently simple $z\in\Q$. Figure 9 displays three of these distributions of the $Q_{200,200}$ absorbing Grover walk at entropy minima; perhaps unsurprisingly the peaks arise in an evenly spaced square grid pattern. However, there also appear to be non-negligable diagonal patterns. However for the rectangular $Q_{300,150}$ absorbing Grover walk, the minimum entropy distributions displayed in Figure 10 do not lend themselves so easily to a simple geometric description.
![(*Left*) Plot of entropy over time for $H[|Q_{200,200}^t\psi _0|^2]$ with $\psi _0=|100\rangle |100\rangle |R\rangle$. (*Right*) Plot of entropy over time for $H[|Q_{200,200}^t\psi _0|^2]$ with $\psi _0=|150\rangle |75\rangle |R\rangle$.](entropy_2d.png "fig:")![(*Left*) Plot of entropy over time for $H[|Q_{200,200}^t\psi _0|^2]$ with $\psi _0=|100\rangle |100\rangle |R\rangle$. (*Right*) Plot of entropy over time for $H[|Q_{200,200}^t\psi _0|^2]$ with $\psi _0=|150\rangle |75\rangle |R\rangle$.](entropy_2D_1.png "fig:")
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we have computed eigensystems for one-dimensional finite absorbing quantum walks. The eigenvalues of the corresponding operator $Q_n$ uniformly approach two sectors of the unit circle at $O(n^{-1})$, while the eigenvectors are appoximations of sine waves up to phase. As we consider larger powers $Q_n^t$, we find that the eigenvalues rotate about the origin, and the top $O(\sqrt{n})$ eigenvalues approximately align in the complex plane at regular intervals. This gives rise to the periodic modal mixing behavior described in Section 4. This behavior is found in other sufficiently regular quantum mechanical systems with an organized spacing of eigenvalues.
Several areas of this paper should be expanded upon in future study. If a more robust approximation of the eigenvectors of $Q_n$ are found, one could then make a more informed approximation of entropy. It may also be possible to compute a characteristic polynomial recursion of $Q_{x,y}$, which would then facilitate computation of the stable distributions in Figure 7. Perhaps an ideal extension of this research would be a connection to a documented property of physical quantum systems.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.